Assassination of Animals for Acting Naturally

wretcheddomain · 27-06-2013 02:42PM #1

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** · 27-06-2013 02:43PM

Nope.

DipStick McSwindler · 27-06-2013 02:44PM

This post has been deleted.

Adyx · 27-06-2013 02:45PM

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

wretcheddomain · 27-06-2013 02:45PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:46PM

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

Aspiring · 27-06-2013 02:46PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:47PM

What would you do with rogue killler beasts?

cuddle them?

The Backwards Man · 27-06-2013 02:48PM

Animals naturally kill other animals that act naturally.

wretcheddomain · 27-06-2013 02:48PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:48PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:48PM

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

MarkR · 27-06-2013 02:50PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:51PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:51PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:52PM

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

SEPT 23 1989 · 27-06-2013 02:54PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:55PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:55PM

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

tin79 · 27-06-2013 02:55PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:55PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:56PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:56PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:56PM

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 · 27-06-2013 02:58PM

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 · 27-06-2013 03:00PM

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 · 27-06-2013 03:00PM

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 · 27-06-2013 03:01PM

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 · 27-06-2013 03:01PM

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** · 27-06-2013 03:01PM

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** · 27-06-2013 03:02PM

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.

Assassination of Animals for Acting Naturally

Comments