Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[Sweet Pea]

Humans are to be held at a higher level of responsibility, but that does not mean that animals are free from sharing any blame.

You better look again if you are of the belief that lower animals and beasts cannot plan their actions according to what they think is moral. How do you think they catch prey?

Lower mammals do have frontal lobes, MOM. Just not as highly developed as ours. We cannot blame lower animals for our own failures. Take human children. You can't hold a two year old legally responsible for assault and battery if he throws a tantrum and hits someone because his frontal lobes have not matured to the point of being able to plan their actions according to moral and societal standards. A 22 year old person can be held to those standards. Lower animals don't ever achieve the frontal lobe functions we do, so they cannot ever be held to the same standards.

>>>Extreme measures called for when furry pals are loved like family members

>>> Americans spend $40 billion on furry 'family members'

>>>Helmsley's Dog Gets $12 Million in Will

>>>Pet-Friendly Hotels

>>> Katrina Animals Latest



But it doesn’t mean that you ignore gold and move to place more investments into silver.

Why does it have to mean you're ignoring the gold? I had a much-beloved kitty that I spent lots of money on vet bills for when she got old and sick. If it meant one of my children had to forego something they needed, I would have not spent it on the cat, but rather on the child. It's not an *either/or* proposition. Caring for animals does NOT mean *not* caring for humans. :sigh:

~SP

 

[lightbringer]

Sweet Pea, we are wasting our time and breath with MOM, the only purpose MOM has, is to argue and twist statements for entertainment.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Not necessarily, MOM. I think the zoo did what it had to with regard to the tiger because they *could not* allow it to remain in that zoo or any other and risk it mauling or killing another person, and having been in captivity, it could not be released to fend for itself in the wild.

I don't think the tiger made a "moral choice" to kill someone and needed to be punished for it, but I do think there really was little other choice.

Well then maybe you too should study the definition of moral. >>> MORAL

MORAL: adjective: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL *moral judgments* b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior *a moral poem* c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment *a moral obligation* e : capable of right and wrong action *a moral agent*
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL *a moral certainty*
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect *a moral victory* *moral support*

I consider it a tragedy all around, for the young man killed, for those injured, for their families, *and* for the tiger.

True, it was tragic for all involved. There tends to be a lot of tragedy in Life.

I am extremely hesitant to "lay blame" anywhere here. Non-human animals cannot be "held responsible" as humans can, and while the zoo should have made the enclosure such that the tiger could not get out, those guys shouldn't have been messing with it either.

~SP

You are partly correct : Non-human animals cannot be held to the same level of responsibility as humans. After all, humans were placed in the leadership position. But that fact alone does not completely excuse the lower animals and beasts. They too must be held responsible when their actions go against what has been established. Just as a human who decides to do the same, a dog which jumps in front of a moving car will suffer the consequences of its action. Being a lower animal or beast does not mean that you are automatically absolved when you commit an improper action.

 

[MindOverMatter]

How on EARTH do you hold an ANIMAL responsible for its behavior?

For one, you can start out by executing it when it murders a human.

If my dog pees on the floor because I don't get home in time to walk him, I don't blame the dog, I blame the human who got held up at work.

Even though the greater blame does fall on you, the dog who peed on the floor is still partly responsible.

Now, I'm not saying that the tiger should be "spared" because really, there is no practical solution except what was done.

Understood

BUT, applying human moral standards to animals borders on ridiculous.

~SP

Sweet Pea, we gotta problem: you are contradicting yourself. You can’t be in agreement with the actions which were carried out in regards to the tiger and still state that “applying human moral standards to animals borders on ridiculous.” This is because the application of human moral standards led to the death of the tiger.

So, either you want to apply human moral standards or you want to apply some other standards which you have found to be better. Which one do you want to apply? And if there are some other standards, then please US where did you find them and why they are better?

 

[Rusha]

Sweet Pea, we gotta problem: you are contradicting yourself. You can’t be in agreement with the actions which were carried out in regards to the tiger and still state that “applying human moral standards to animals borders on ridiculous.” This is because the application of human moral standards led to the death of the tiger.

So, either you want to apply human moral standards or you want to apply some other standards which you have found to be better. Which one do you want to apply?

Moral standards DO NOT apply to animals, nor should they. Think about this clearly: It is against the law (as it should be) for regular citizens to euthanize their next door neighbor or some dude you meet on the street based on the criteria that they are a danger to society, have an illness that can't be treated, etc...

However, not so in the case of animals. Animals are not protected and given the same rights as human beings because they are of less value and held to a different standard. I can LEGALLY have my animal euthanized by the vet without any trial or intervention of the law ...

The animal did NOT have bad morals ... it acted like an ANIMAL ... EOS. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have been put down btw.

 

[MindOverMatter]

This why generally when I am confronted with a tiger, I try appeal to morals and reasoning.

Does it work?

Unfortunately, I can't speak tiger. Which is why I don't know if it works. Also, because I've never been confronted by a tiger.

Maybe you can learn and become the Tiger Whisperer.

 

[MindOverMatter]

MOM, no one (except for some extremists like the PETA folks) is "placing lower animals on the same level as evolved humans".

You better look again. Most of America has placed lower animals on the same level as evolved humans. And in some cases, some people have placed them higher.

>>>Animal rights fight gains momentum
Groups report increase in membership as high-profile incidents make headlines

>>>Do You Like Pets Better Than People?
Based On What We Spend, Contributor Lloyd Garver Thinks The Answer For Many People Is Yes

>>>We really love — and spend on — our pets

>>>Homeless Vets 0 Homeless Pets 1

It is precisely BECAUSE we do not place them on the same level that we cannot expect them to conform to our standards of what is right, fair, or moral.

Actually that has more to do with your lower animal sympathies and bias.

It is BECAUSE I do not place them on the same level that I cannot "lay blame" on the tiger.

Again, this has to do with your lower animal sympathies and bias. That's probably why MOM is having such a hard time getting most of you to comprehend anything. Maybe if MOM brought a dog in here to speak. :dog:

The zoo should have had an enclosure that couldn't be escaped from, and the drunken morons shouldn't have messed with the animal.

True, but those things still do not excuse the tiger.

THOSE are things that could have been foreseen to be problems.

True, but it still does not completely excuse the tiger.

The tiger, unequipped with the foresight we humans have as a result of our big brains, would not have been able to discern that its behavior would be a problem.

True, but it still does not completely excuse the tiger.

To me, the lesser capabilities of less-evolved animals means we have to take some degree of responsibility FOR them, particularly if we're going to keep them as pets, zoo exhibits, and helpers.

Actually, humans have to take a greater degree of responsibility. With that being said, it still does not completely excuse the tiger or any other animal from its share.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Apply that same logic to the Tiger, now why destroy the animal for doing what it does naturally?

Because what it does naturally is not what highly evolved humans choose to do.

Secondly, because what it does naturally is a threat to what humans choose to do.

Thirdly, because what it does naturally is in violation of what humans consider to be acceptable behavior.

Secondly, why would the zoo improperly build a tiger cage?

How about, the unprofessional conduct of those supervising the construction.

Judging from this society that would be very probable.

Hey, that’s true. What if the industry standards are off?

If the standards are off there would be more incidents of this type. Since, boys will do as boys will do!

That is not necessarily true. Many of the other tigers may not have tried to escape.

 

[MindOverMatter]

:baby: Tigers, alligators and sharks are quite gentle in the proper environments, like fluffy, stuffy playthings for little children to hug;

:rotfl: Of course they are. Everything has a certain level of gentleness.

whereas mean, bad human beings may be the most violent of creatures within the animal kingdom with their malicious guns and bombs. :CRASH:

True.

It's those bad police officers who should be locked up in the zoo. Let the tigers run free.

Agoo to you.

:rotfl: That’s the problem: the lower beasts and animals have been running free for far too long.

 

[cattyfan]

Sweet Pea, we are wasting our time and breath with MOM, the only purpose MOM has, is to argue and twist statements for entertainment.

Yes...haven't you noticed? It doesn't matter what you say or which side of the discussion you take. MOM has a response.

If you all stop posting here, at least it will have to find another thread on which to display it's craziness.

Please. I beseech you. Leave it alone.

 

[Rusha]

If you all stop posting here, at least it will have to find another thread on which to display it's craziness.

Please. I beseech you. Leave it alone.

But but but, Catty, IF we do that, and it does as you said it would do, then it would ruin perfectly good threads!

:hammer:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Killing is not a characteristic of humans alone, but it is in the sense of the word or language used by humans.

Okay.

An animal will kill in order to defend itself from an act of aggression, to feed itself, and in some instances to insure that its offspring will be the survivors of the pride and at times for no specific reason discernible to man. All natural to some specific animals.

What do you mean “for no specific reason discernible to man.” The reason has been right in front of your face but you refuse to recognize it. How many times must you be made aware of the fact that lower animals and beasts will kill because the opportunity has been made available? How hard is it to understand that an animal that moves primarily by feelings and emotion, will engage in certain acts just because it can?

Escaping is viewed in the same way, an animal that is of the type to have an expanded territory, will if confined, depart that enclosure if given the opportunity or necessary stimuli to do so. A natural response.

So, you are of the belief that a lower animal that is confined, will escape when given an opportunity. But at the same time, you can’t comprehend that a lower animal will kill just because it has been given chance to do so. How does that work? How does an animal who escapes just because it has the opportunity to do so, not kill for the same reason?

Nature is chaotic and its creatures are driven by survival instincts, including man.

Highly developed humans do not move by low-level survival instincts. Or you can also say that highly developed humans are not governed by low-level survival instincts.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The evidence is already there, it's an animal :duh: morality is irrelevant.....

And so you are still of the belief that just because they are lower animals, morality is irrelevant. No wonder the world is in the condition that it is currently in. Those who claim that they are intelligent and rational can’t even comprehend simple concepts.

Again, Red go and study the definition of moral. If you have devolved to the level where you are unable to comprehend what you are reading, then please let someone know. >>> MORAL

MORAL: adjective: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL *moral judgments* b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior *a moral poem* c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment *a moral obligation* e : capable of right and wrong action *a moral agent*
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL *a moral certainty*
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect *a moral victory* *moral support*

The next thing you'll be telling us is that spiders philosophise over the moral implications of biting someone......

They don’t need to philosophize over the moral implications of biting you. In case you are not aware, they have already arrived at their conclusions.

 

[Sweet Pea]

Yes...haven't you noticed? It doesn't matter what you say or which side of the discussion you take. MOM has a response.

If you all stop posting here, at least it will have to find another thread on which to display it's craziness.

Please. I beseech you. Leave it alone.

I'm about ready to give up anywho....

~SP

 

[MindOverMatter]

:liberals:

Saying that a wild animal cannot be held morally accountable for it's instincts is not anthropomorphising it...

But saying that they are innocent is. Are you not aware of your own words?

Red anthropomorphizing the tiger in Post # 110

That being said the tiger is innocent no matter how the scenario played out, it's a wild animal and can't be held to some set of moral values regardless......

The funny thing is that just like many of the others, the next thing that you will shout is that MOM is twisting your words.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why did the big bad police kill the fluffy wuffy?

It was probably because the big bad policeman was trying to protect the humans from the murderous fluffy wuffy. It was probably because the biggy baddy policeman was trying to protect those whom he presumed to be his own. People tend to do that you know: kill other people or things who are threatening the lives of their own.

Is it because the fluffy wuffy bit the meany weany?

Yes, fluffy wuffy bit someone. And no fluffy wuffy did not bite into a mean hot dog.

The meany weany taunted the fluffy wuffy. That's why the fluffy wuffy bit the meany weany.

And that’s why we had to say nighty nighty to fluffy wuffy.

The fluffy wuffy had feelings.

And fluffy wuffy was led by those feelings and cravings and look where he is now. Maybe fluffy wuffy should have learned to control those feelings or cravings.

And rights too.

Who gave fluffy wuffy those rights?

But the meany weany was just a heartless meany weany who forfeited his rights.

After fluffy wuffy illegally took those rights away.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Or discuss the art of web making.

We can discuss that too if you like. Are you going to start a thread? :guitar:

 

[MindOverMatter]

They aren’t? Then why aren’t lower animals allowed to sleep with humans? Why are animals not allowed to marry humans?


Why was the tiger killed?

Why are animals put down when they attack humans?

Again Red, before you continue to place foot in mouth, MOM will kindly advise you to go and study the definition of moral. >>>MORAL

MORAL: adjective: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL *moral judgments* b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior *a moral poem* c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment *a moral obligation* e : capable of right and wrong action *a moral agent*
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL *a moral certainty*
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect *a moral victory* *moral support*

You are actually attempting to apply a human principal to an animal?:darwinsm:

And so did the person who killed the tiger. And so have you but you don’t see MOM laughing at you.

You must be smoking some wild stuff! :chuckle:

Or intelligent enough to comprehend the definition of MORAL.

 

[Caille]

Yes...haven't you noticed? It doesn't matter what you say or which side of the discussion you take. MOM has a response.

If you all stop posting here, at least it will have to find another thread on which to display it's craziness.

Please. I beseech you. Leave it alone.

Did you know that if you rearrange MindOverMatter, you get Me, Rat Vomit Nerd?

 

[MindOverMatter]

When dealing with wild animals, yes ... evil is not the word I would use.

So what word would you use?

Just because I don't believe the animal was necessarily evil doesn't make it any less dangerous. It acted like what it was ... a wild animal.

True

Rabid dogs aren't evil either, however, that doesn't mean they don't need to be put down.

That is quite interesting that you should come to that conclusion even though you do not consider rabid dogs as evil. This is because the average individual is unable to arrive at such a conclusion without first ascribing the quality or characteristic of good or evil to an object. So Jinkxy, if you are able to come to that conclusion without first ascribing the quality or characteristic of good or evil to the tiger, then MOM must say that you are somewhat more unusual than she thought you to be.