Dude, just last week I became intrigued with this LOL cats thing. Rocketboom.com did a segment on it. I almost posted a thread on here to the effect "I'm becoming such a chick, I think these are witty", but I didn't have the guts.
Bush tactics trickle down.ON the regular thread note, can you guys believe the victims are being demonized for taunting the lion. SUre it was ignorant, but a zoo should still be able to keep the tiger in the cage. How crazy is that the tone is changing to "the drunk guys taunted the Tiger" and away from "the wall was 4 feet shorter than reccomended..
FTW! Turn the victims into the culprits. That always works.Bush tactics trickle down.
They ARE the culprits. If they had not been taunting the tiger, it would not have used them as 4th meal. Their actions DIRECTLY caused the incident, so they are directly to blame for it.FTW! Turn the victims into the culprits. That always works.
Yo, Spinteck, there's a thread floating around RM somewhere with a bunch of the LOL cats. They are pretty damn hilarious.
Then make a wall tall enough that's impossible to jump... add another 10 feet of plexiglass or whatever.And don't tell me 4 feet of wall would have stopped that really pissed off cat from getting out. Those bastards can certainly jump and if they wanted to get out badly enough, they would have.
He's not saying that. What he is clearly saying is that the attention needs to be put back on the zoo and all zoos to make sure this doesn't happen again.What you're saying is the same as every other obnoxious PC loving liberal: people are never to blame for their actions, it's always the establishment.
There's plenty of attention on the zoos and they will take action to further protect patrons and to reduce liability....He's not saying that. What he is clearly saying is that the attention needs to be put back on the zoo and all zoos to make sure this doesn't happen again.
Tigers?A remaining question is how to better protect the world from the idiot brothers and their ilk.
Darwin has been doing that for a while now.A remaining question is how to better protect the world from the idiot brothers and their ilk.
Ah, so we're supposed to eliminate the idea of seeing something in a "natural" habitat because three asshats ignored the rules and got themselves eaten. Right, we have to protect everyone from themselves. Sounds good to me.Then make a wall tall enough that's impossible to jump... add another 10 feet of plexiglass or whatever.
He's not saying that. What he is clearly saying is that the attention needs to be put back on the zoo and all zoos to make sure this doesn't happen again.
He's been slacking lately.Darwin has been doing that for a while now.
I don't think that's the case. People are acknowledging the both, and both in the court of public opinion and legal ones, I believe the zoo is ultimately at fault.ON the regular thread note, can you guys believe the victims are being demonized for taunting the lion. SUre it was ignorant, but a zoo should still be able to keep the tiger in the cage. How crazy is that the tone is changing to "the drunk guys taunted the Tiger" and away from "the wall was 4 feet shorter than reccomended..
I wouldn't say they deserved it. In this instance they picked the wrong tiger to mess with. The animal already had a history of aggressive behavior. I doubt another 4ft of "recommended" wall would keep in a tiger that really wanted to bite someone on the ass. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the guys were standing on the animal side of the fence at top of the moat. The tiger then would view this as an invasion of it's territory.Is anyone saying the kids deserved to be killed for taunting the tigers?
I f'in love Moff.I wouldn't say they deserved it. In this instance they picked the wrong tiger to mess with. The animal already had a history of aggressive behavior. I doubt another 4ft of "recommended" wall would keep in a tiger that really wanted to bite someone on the ass. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the guys were standing on the animal side of the fence at top of the moat. The tiger then would view this as an invasion of it's territory.
Does this zoo bear some responsibility? Certainly. Do the kids that taunted the tiger bear some responsibility? Certainly. Do I feel sorry for them? Nope. I feel bad for the family that lost a son, but their kid was a dumbbutt.
Who doesn't love a giant pussy?Moff or big pussies in the zoo :huh:
Yes, they did.Is anyone saying the kids deserved to be killed for taunting the tigers?
Yeah, I'm sure they went to the zoo looking to be mauled to death by a tiger. I mean, who doesn't?the kids got exactly what they were looking for, so i really don't see how anyone can feel sorry for them.
No, what were saying is when you provide a public service you need to plan for certain behavior and mental limitations of the public paying for that service. Is it reasonable to believe teenagers and toddlers will yell, scream and throw things at animals in the open??They ARE the culprits. If they had not been taunting the tiger, it would not have used them as 4th meal. Their actions DIRECTLY caused the incident, so they are directly to blame for it.
And don't tell me 4 feet of wall would have stopped that really pissed off cat from getting out. Those bastards can certainly jump and if they wanted to get out badly enough, they would have.
What you're saying is the same as every other obnoxious PC loving liberal: people are never to blame for their actions, it's always the establishment.
the point of taunting is usually to get a response, they got a response.Yeah, I'm sure they went to the zoo looking to be mauled to death by a tiger. I mean, who doesn't?
Some of you guys are seriously ridiculous. You're saying it's OK for an animal to attack a person at a zoo if that person pisses off the animal. Who are we to judge what pisses off an animal? If I was an animal in a zoo, I would be pissed that I was in a cage and that you were not. If I could get out of my cage, I would attack you, just because. So, if all the cages were like this cage, everybody that came to the zoo would be attacked by me. Cool zoo, huh?the point of taunting is usually to get a response, they got a response.
comprende?
You're damn right it's ok for an animal that's cornered and taunted to attack to defend itself. By your logic, if the animal is pissed that it's in a zoo, then you shouldn't be trying to piss it off further.Some of you guys are seriously ridiculous. You're saying it's OK for an animal to attack a person at a zoo if that person pisses off the animal. Who are we to judge what pisses off an animal? If I was an animal in a zoo, I would be pissed that I was in a cage and that you were not. If I could get out of my cage, I would attack you, just because. So, if all the cages were like this cage, everybody that came to the zoo would be attacked by me. Cool zoo, huh?
I just don't understand where this "they deserved it" train of thought is coming from. Maybe it stems from the ethics of having zoos in the first place. If so, that's a completely different story and completely different debate. But, as long as there are going to be zoos as they exist today, we have to take reasonable measures (like having the wall at least at the minimum recommended height) to protect people (no matter how dumb or young they may be) from the animals.
I'm really done with this now. It's been interesting to see how many cold hearted people are out there and cool to see a few with some sense.
Point 1: I'm not stupid enough to do something stupid like reproduce. And if I ever caught my kid throwing ANYTHING at a tiger or ANY animal for that matter, I'd paddle his ass until he cried and ground him for a week. It worked for my parents. I never threw crap at tigers when I was little and at the zoo.No, what were saying is when you provide a public service you need to plan for certain behavior and mental limitations of the public paying for that service. Is it reasonable to believe teenagers and toddlers will yell, scream and throw things at animals in the open??
Point 1: Do you have any kids?? ONe minute they feed the elephants peanuts and then they throw sh1t at the Tigers.
Point 2: the wall did not meet reccomended standards, period. I'm not saying it, the zoo association group/whatever says it.
Point 3: Drunk teenagers got what they deserved in the press, but not in the mauling.
Point 4: The zoo's irresponsibility also cost the life of one of natures magical creatures that was only being true to it's own nature.
You're whole logic is flawed because of this one statement. It is not a WILD animal. A wild animal is out in the wild. A zoo is not the wild. Seeing an animal in a cage in a zoo should be just as safe as seeing an animal on television.I'll say it again: don't piss off a WILD animal!
You still have not answered two questions:You're whole logic is flawed because of this one statement. It is not a WILD animal. A wild animal is out in the wild. A zoo is not the wild. Seeing an animal in a cage in a zoo should be just as safe as seeing an animal on television.
We're not saying that people should be completely protected from themselves when they do stupid things. We're saying zoos should be safe. End of story.
So the animal automatically has all their natural instincts dampened by being placed in captivity? Then why the hell do my two cats still try to "hunt" their catnip mice, even though they have 3 bowls of dry food in the kitchen?You're whole logic is flawed because of this one statement. It is not a WILD animal. A wild animal is out in the wild. A zoo is not the wild. Seeing an animal in a cage in a zoo should be just as safe as seeing an animal on television.
We're not saying that people should be completely protected from themselves when they do stupid things. We're saying zoos should be safe. End of story.
You're correct there. The kid who did die (at least from all accounts) didn't deserve it. The other two darwin award finalists deserved it more.I don't think they deserved to die - especially not the one who DID die, since from all accounts he did the least taunting and tried to save his friend instead of running away. But from what I can tell they had no reason being there.
spreadRep+No, what were saying is when you provide a public service you need to plan for certain behavior and mental limitations of the public paying for that service. Is it reasonable to believe teenagers and toddlers will yell, scream and throw things at animals in the open??
Point 1: Do you have any kids?? ONe minute they feed the elephants peanuts and then they throw sh1t at the Tigers.
Point 2: the wall did not meet reccomended standards, period. I'm not saying it, the zoo association group/whatever says it.
Point 3: Drunk teenagers got what they deserved in the press, but not in the mauling.
Point 4: The zoo's irresponsibility also cost the life of one of natures magical creatures that was only being true to it's own nature.
i think it's sad that one ended up dying, but i really can't say i feel too sorry for them. i have no sympathy for people who do not respect animals. it's already spent it's whole life in a cage, why the **** do you feel the need to taunt it? kids messed up big time and paid for it. and i have a feeling the zoo will be paying for this for a while too.Some of you guys are seriously ridiculous. You're saying it's OK for an animal to attack a person at a zoo if that person pisses off the animal. Who are we to judge what pisses off an animal? If I was an animal in a zoo, I would be pissed that I was in a cage and that you were not. If I could get out of my cage, I would attack you, just because. So, if all the cages were like this cage, everybody that came to the zoo would be attacked by me. Cool zoo, huh?
I just don't understand where this "they deserved it" train of thought is coming from. Maybe it stems from the ethics of having zoos in the first place. If so, that's a completely different story and completely different debate. But, as long as there are going to be zoos as they exist today, we have to take reasonable measures (like having the wall at least at the minimum recommended height) to protect people (no matter how dumb or young they may be) from the animals.
I'm really done with this now. It's been interesting to see how many cold hearted people are out there and cool to see a few with some sense.
Agreed 100%. Unless it was born in captivity by parents born in captivity who were born in captivity, then it is still wild. Instincts will still exist even in those cases. Its a wild animal! I don't care how hammered I am I am not going to taunt a huge tiger. People need to step up and take responsibility for the stupid crap they pull. He will have to live with the fact that he is the only one of his friends to suvive and he is part of the reason they are dead.So the animal automatically has all their natural instincts dampened by being placed in captivity? Then why the hell do my two cats still try to "hunt" their catnip mice, even though they have 3 bowls of dry food in the kitchen?
A wild animal will ALWAYS be wild, whether you see it on the savanna or in a zoo. If you think otherwise, you need to watch national geographic a little more.
As for this...You still have not answered two questions:
1) why did no tigers jump the wall for 60 years?
2) why do the humans in a zoo have more right to safety than the animals?