Assassination of Animals for Acting Naturally

wretcheddomain

I'm referring to cases, which we've all heard at some stage, where an animal acts according to its own nature by attacking a human, be it a dog or tiger, and then becomes a disgraceful scapegoat that needs to be 'blamed'. The punishment is, of course, death.

Am I the only one who finds this morally reprehensible?

**Vai**

Nope.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Adyx

No, but when you start a thread with such a loaded title it's hard to agree with you.

wretcheddomain

Adyx wrote: »

No, but when you start a thread with such a loaded title it's hard to agree with you.

So you dislike the fact I have a view on it? Isn't that the point of a forum?

Rented Mule

I have no problem with any of this, so long as the animal in question is DELICIOUS !!

Aspiring

Its humans making the judgements so obviously if one attacks a human they are gonna most likely be put down. Just the way it is.

SEPT 23 1989

What would you do with rogue killler beasts?

cuddle them?

The Backwards Man

Animals naturally kill other animals that act naturally.

wretcheddomain

Rented Mule wrote: »

I have no problem with any of this, so long as the animal in question is DELICIOUS !!

Well, the delicious part reminds me of the Grindadrap, the 'tradition' they go through in the Faroe Islands that murders so many Pilot Whales. This is a serious argument in many circles, it just lies outside my orbit thankfully.

humanji

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm referring to cases, which we've all heard at some stage, where an animal acts according to its own nature by attacking a human, be it a dog or tiger, and then becomes a disgraceful scapegoat that needs to be 'blamed'. The punishment is, of course, death.

Am I the only one who finds this morally reprehensible?

What exactly do you think should happen to the animal then?

Cool_CM

How important were these animals that you deem it to be an assassination?

MarkR

So if a tiger kills someone, we should put him into tiger rehab? Tiger jail? Orange jumpsuits, with stripes? Never going to work.

Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons.

Is this some kind of politically minded tiger?

humanji

MarkR wrote: »

So if a tiger kills someone, we should put him into tiger rehab? Tiger jail? Orange jumpsuits, with stripes? Never going to work.

Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons.

Is this some kind of politically minded tiger?

Tony had political aspirations. That's why he stopped marketing Frosties.

wretcheddomain

humanji wrote: »

What exactly do you think should happen to the animal then?

Cool_CM wrote: »

How important were these animals that you seem it to be an assassination?

Alright - there have been several cases of tigers being killed in zoos around the world who happened to have killed a member of staff from a purely accidental point of view. The staff member was acting according to protocol but for several reasons the tiger was allowed to gain entry to where the staff member was and maul and kill them. Thus, in situations such as this, I firmly believe that animal should remain in the zoos. Many other situations exist such as this - whereby bad management or pure accident resulted in the death of someone, maybe even a child. This isn't necessarily the fault of the animal, just the conditions in which it was in, again, accidentally.

tin79

You can`t turn a dog or tiger into a goat. That's stupid, you`re stupid.

SEPT 23 1989

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Alright - there have been several cases of tigers being killed in zoos around the world who happened to have killed a member of staff from a purely accidental point of view. The staff member was acting according to protocol but for several reasons the tiger was allowed to gain entry to where the staff member was and maul and kill them. Thus, in situations such as this, I firmly believe that animal should remain in the zoos. Many other situations exist such as this - whereby bad management or pure accident resulted in the death of someone, maybe even a child. This isn't necessarily the fault of the animal, just the conditions in which it was in, again, accidentally.

you think people would want to go an see a Tiger who ripped a human apart?

wretcheddomain

tin79 wrote: »

You can`t turn a dog or tiger into a goat. That's stupid, you`re stupid.

Referring to ad hominem attacks only weakens your position, not glorifies it. But if that's what empty contribution you have to offer, I guess we have to take it and swiftly move on.

Genghiz Cohen

We are also animals, should we be assassinated for defending and protecting our friends and family?

tin79

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

you think people would want to go an see a Tiger who ripped a human apart?

They still pay to see Tiger Woods, what he did was no better!

super_furry

You know what, let bears, dogs, spiders or whatever become the dominant lifeform on this planet and they can kill us for pretending to throw a ball then laughing when they go to fetch it. Until then, humans rule OK!

steddyeddy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

you think people would want to go an see a Tiger who ripped a human apart?

People should realise that all tigers would rip a man apart if they had the chance.

wretcheddomain

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

you think people would want to go an see a Tiger who ripped a human apart?

We're all animals as another poster highlighted - would you want to go and see a tiger who ripped an antelope apart? In both cases, it was acting according to its nature.

The Backwards Man

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Alright - there have been several cases of tigers being killed in zoos around the world who happened to have killed a member of staff from a purely accidental point of view. The staff member was acting according to protocol but for several reasons the tiger was allowed to gain entry to where the staff member was and maul and kill them. Thus, in situations such as this, I firmly believe that animal should remain in the zoos. Many other situations exist such as this - whereby bad management or pure accident resulted in the death of someone, maybe even a child. This isn't necessarily the fault of the animal, just the conditions in which it was in, again, accidentally.

So, you think that a tiger should be left alone once it has acquired a taste for human flesh? Ever hear of the term 'man-eater'?

wretcheddomain

The Backwards Man wrote: »

So, you think that a tiger should be left alone once it has acquired a taste for human flesh? Ever hear of the term 'man-eater'?

If the zoo was any good i.e. protecting staff, then this would be perfectly legitimate. Tigers, I assume, have a predilection for most, if not all, flesh. That's not a good argument.

tin79

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Referring to ad hominem attacks only weakens your position, not glorifies it. But if that's what empty contribution you have to offer, I guess we have to take it and swiftly move on.

Who are the we you speak of? The zero people who have agreed with you so far?

As this is AH, I don't have a "position" or didn't you get the memo?

Also you are either very young, very naïve, dumb or just trolling. None of these makes me feel like giving your points any actual thought.

The Backwards Man

wretcheddomain wrote: »

If the zoo was any good i.e. protecting staff, then this would be perfectly legitimate. Tigers, I assume, have a predilection for most, if not all, flesh. That's not a good argument.

They don't have a predilection for human flesh. Once they get the taste of it, however.

CiaranK

I don't think the animals should be put down if they are put in a situation by humans, ie circus, zoo etc., and a human ends up killed. The animal doesn't have a choice, it doesn't want to be there. Even in bull fighting if the bull kills the human it gets put down.

SEPT 23 1989

wretcheddomain wrote: »

We're all animals as another poster highlighted - would you want to go and see a tiger who ripped an antelope apart? In both cases, it was acting according to its nature.

i care little for antelope

but if a rogue Tiger wants to step over the line and take down a human

its curtains for him

**Vai**

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

What would you do with rogue killler beasts?

cuddle them?

I can't speak for tigers but certainly with dogs who attack humans, rehab should be a serious consideration. The death penalty in all cases just isn't good enough.

**Vai**

The Backwards Man wrote: »

So, you think that a tiger should be left alone once it has acquired a taste for human flesh? Ever hear of the term 'man-eater'?

I think they should be left alone to begin with but we like to take all land we see.

SEPT 23 1989

**Vai** wrote: »

I can't speak for tigers but certainly with dogs who attack humans, rehab should be a serious consideration. The death penalty in all cases just isn't good enough.

would you trust a hound that took a lump out of child again?

Nemeses

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm referring to cases, which we've all heard at some stage, where an animal acts according to its own nature by attacking a human, be it a dog or tiger,

Been hoping over zoo fences again trying to play fetch with the tigers have we?

tsk tsk... there is a reason why there is a fence between you and the tiger...

ArmaniJeanss

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Alright - there have been several cases of tigers being killed in zoos around the world who happened to have killed a member of staff from a purely accidental point of view. The staff member was acting according to protocol but for several reasons the tiger was allowed to gain entry to where the staff member was and maul and kill them. Thus, in situations such as this, I firmly believe that animal should remain in the zoos.

Fairly sure this doesn't happen the way you say.
If a mistake has been made by the staff or caging equipment has failed then the tiger won't be blamed and will be kept alive.

Exception obviously if immediately killing the animal might save the staff members life.

**Vai**

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

would you trust a hound that took a lump out of child again?

Yes, without any hesitation.

Viper_JB

Thread reminds me of this article I was reading on cracked. But ya I actually agree with OP, depends on the situation though. If it's a loved house pet that attacks a child unprovoked then it's probably time for that animal to goto sleep. But if it's a tiger in the wild (or even taken from the wild) then it's a totally different story.

The Backwards Man

**Vai** wrote: »

Yes, without any hesitation.

I love my dog to bits, and I would do anything to save her life, but if she ever bites a child she gets both barrels without hesitation. No question.

wretcheddomain

tin79 wrote: »

Who are the we you speak of? The zero people who have agreed with you so far?

As this is AH, I don't have a "position" or didn't you get the memo?

Also you are either very young, very naïve, dumb or just trolling. None of these makes me feel like giving your points any actual thought.

I'm not trolling, this is an actual position espoused by myself and several other posters on this thread. I may be in the minority with my view here but that doesn't equate with being labelled a troll. You're negatively impacting this thread with these posts so I won't reply to you and your continued diatribe of insults any more.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

They don't have a predilection for human flesh. Once they get the taste of it, however.

I completely understand this position but feel that this would then require better standards at the zoo. After all, it is us who are placing the animals in the zoo, there's a greater onus on us to ensure the safety of staff and the environment rather than placing blame on the animal who has no choice but to be there.

**Vai**

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I love my dog to bits, and I would do anything to save her life, but if she ever bites a child she gets both barrels without hesitation. No question.

That's the difference between owning dogs and understanding them. Your opinion is probably the one most people share but I would disagree.

The Backwards Man

**Vai** wrote: »

That's the difference between owning dogs and understanding them. Your opinion is probably the one most people share but I would disagree.

There's nothing to understand. I value the life of a child higher than the life of a dog.

**Vai**

Viper_JB wrote: »

Thread reminds me of this article I was reading on cracked. But ya I actually agree with OP, depends on the situation though. If it's a loved house pet that attacks a child unprovoked then it's probably time for that animal to goto sleep. But if it's a tiger in the wild (or even taken from the wild) then it's a totally different story.

Agree totally but how do you prove the house pet was unprovoked? That takes some seriously honest parents. You cant ask the pet if its because a child pulled on its newly infected ear.

WoollyRedHat

Hey you think the animals are your friends? How naive, they'd kill you the moment they got a chance, for now we have the advantage but only for now, it's those animals that attack us which have ideas above their station, that have to be eliminated, no questions asked.

You wanna put the tiger on trial? Put him in a cell and hope he doesn't reoffend? Or release him back in the wild, and maybe this time he comes back, with some of his homies to join in.

They'd love to be at the very top of the food chain, love it, but we can't let them.

It's them and us. I say, and some might be alarmed by what I say, but if a tiger attacks us, I say we kill him, parade him around town, maybe put him on a wall afterwards, and for good measure, kill the rest of them. None of this hippy saving the animals claptrap... they'll kill us, they'd love to!

**Vai**

The Backwards Man wrote: »

There's nothing to understand. I value the life of a child higher than the life of a dog.

Ah but there is something to understand. Just because you aren't willing, doesn't make it non-existent.

I wont even get into the second sentence of your post because it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. You might as well have typed "wont somebody think of the children".

There are cases when dogs/cats/whatever need to be put down of course but it shouldn't be a blanket consequence.

wretcheddomain

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Hey you think the animals are your friends? How naive

You wanna put the tiger on trial? Put him in a cell and hope he doesn't reoffend? Or release him back in the wild, and maybe this time he comes back, with some of his homies to join in.

It's this type of sarcastic nonsense that pollutes threads on boards.ie. You ask a question and then assume an answer. Completely straw man rubbish and rubbish which I'll ignore in future. When you have a serious argument to make, put it on the table, but all you're doing is kicking people underneath that table at the moment and it's deeply unconstructive.

hatrickpatrick

In a lot of cases yeah. Like when a dog mauls a kid who climbed into its yard - dogs will defend their territory, it's up to you to make sure your kids aren't trespassing FFS.

ArmaniJeanss

Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about.

The Backwards Man

**Vai** wrote: »

Ah but there is something to understand. Just because you aren't willing, doesn't make it non-existent.

I wont even get into the second sentence of your post because it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. You might as well have typed "wont somebody think of the children".

There are cases when dogs/cats/whatever need to be put down of course but it shouldn't be a blanket consequence.

Do you think viruses should be allowed do what comes naturally unhindered?
Cancer?
We are humans, we didn't choose to be here, yet here we are.

wretcheddomain

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Do you think viruses should be allowed do what comes naturally unhindered?
Cancer?
We are humans, we didn't choose to be here, yet here we are.

How can you seriously compare viruses with deliberately sheltering animals in zoos for the public to take appreciation of them? This is fallacious on so many levels.

--Kaiser--

A domestic pet that attacks people should be put down.
A wild animal, in the wild, that attacks people? No

Herb Powell

Say a dog proves itself to be dangerous by attacking someone. Do you really think it's ok to keep that dog around people? Plenty of dogs never attack anyone, so it's not "acting naturally". They have been domesticated for millenia.

You can deal with the dangerous animals OP, if you love them. I will consider human safety a priority.

steddyeddy

Well to be honest I don't think an animal in a zoo should be killed if it mauls a human. It didn't choose to be in the zoo in fairness and probrably wasn't acting naturally anyway. A lot of the times it's the public's or the zoo's fault and I don't see how the animal is to blame.

After the girl had her hand mauled by the tiger in Dublin zoo some people were sayin "oh it might try and kill a human now"! It's a tiger!! Humans are always on the menu it will always try and kill if possible. With that mentality why not kill it the minute it gets in the zoo.

Same goes for the muppets in sea life who get eaten by (clue in the name) killer whale! It's an intelligent powerful animal in captivity I can tell you now it doesn't consider you a friend!