Please save the tigers

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Chatha, Nov 17, 2006.

  1. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Anyway, the talk about the pitbull attack is one of the things that makes me wonder how much you know about animals. Miniature dachshunds have been known to tear each other to bloody scraps, and the fighters that I have seen tearing into each other have been German Shepherds, Chocolate Labradors, and Great Danes. Any dog can be a "killing machine." You don't seem to know enough to sort out the misinformation.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    Its not exactly me but thats just the fact about the society. The survival of the society is more important than the individual. By this reason nobody is going to domesticate large dangerous Animals, not unless they miniaturize them first, say something down to the size of a Cayote perharps. You could take the smallest specie of Tigers and breed them with a Leopard for example, then breed the offspring with a domestic Tiger cat or Pharoah cat. Like you said Metakron "we worry too much about genetic preservation". Tigers are just too big. By the way, have you ever seen a Tiger in real life? Most people don't really know how big a Tiger is until they see them at a zoo.
    To show you just how perilous Tigers can be with their weight alone, a Zoo worker in Australia broke his knee when two of his pet Tigers were play sparring near him in a closed enviroment.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Bad logic, Chatha. Humanity grew up with animals as large as the tiger and larger. We occasionally get injured and killed by them, and we've lived with that for as long as humanity has been around. What's the big emergency? Oh yes, someone has a bug up his ass about it.

    Do you have any idea why I would not want to respond to someone who sounds like they simply want to eliminate the human condition, make life so sterile and "safe" by their standards? They shouldn't have the slightest control over anything I do because there are actually people who can be safety conscious without deciding that they have to destroy my lifestyle to do it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    I find that you are being very selfish. You've been ignoring all of the numerous justifiable posts that I have put forth that stand for the integrity, well-being and preservation of the habits for mountain lions, yet you insist on cutting them all down for your own selfish reasons.

    All you keep thinking about is: "I want to have my pet cougar." "Don't take away my right to have a pet cougar." "You are all against me so I hate you all." "You're just like ...... who all want to prevent me from having my pet." Yet you keep ignoring everything I post about why this is inhumane?

    A mountain lion (or a cougar or puma or whatever you want to call it as their all the same species, just called a different name in different regions) has a natural habitat free-range of over a 100 square miles. So where you going to keep it? One square mile is 640 acres. One urban house is about 1/4 acre.

    You accuse National Park officials of treating mountain lions like "museum pieces." Well, what is wrong with that. Compare that to what you plan to do and how you plan to treat one! In a national park or a national forest we treat them as "museum pieces" in a similar way that we treat a Rembrandt or a Picasso, yes! You don't touch it. You make sure that it has the right habitat that it needs and adjust it accordingly, in a similar way that you adjust the temperature and humidity in a museum to preserve a cherished masterpiece. We try to put barriers around it so that nobody harms or steals it and so that it can continue to endure for all prosperity to share and enjoy. Now compare that with what you want to do. you want to imprison an innocent animal that by instinct and Nature needs a large area of free range, and by doing so, you give it a bad name that bleeds off into the perception of the community as a possible threat that needs to be destroyed. So in captivating this "Born to be Free" animal, you cause society to condemn it. to view it as a possible threat that might get lose and maul their children - and you damn well know it might (Siegried and Roy - Timothy Treadwell). So by captivating it and keeping it as a pet, only for your own selfish desires, you contribute to it's extinction. Can't you see that? By keeping this free-ranging animal imprisoned in the cage of your house, you'r propagating the threat of it being something to be fearful of and destroyed. This opinion then bleeds off in the community, into the local news, into the surrounding society, then into the belief that we all should be fearful of them, that they are no good, that they all should be killed. Captivating this naturally free-roaming beautiful animal is not only cruel and inhumane, but contributes to it's extinction in this way.
     
  8. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Get over yourself.
     
  9. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Again. That's a warped idea and you damn well know it. What is irritating is your "quest for enslavement" of a natural free-roaming magnificent beautiful animal that needs a large habitat area and needs to be kept free - not jailed up in somebody's urban home. Do you have a 500 square mile park or sanctuary that you can devote to to ensure it's safety, freedom and well-being? If not, you have no right to enslave it for your own selfish egotistic ideas and selfish amusement. Selfish amusement is the entire underlying basis of every single one of your posts about what you want to do with a cougar:


    And what do you have to put them in that's any better than this? How are the "so-called conservationist fighting [you]"? You cannot argue that large protected forests and preserves are better than smaller institutions, whatever that means? What do you mean by "institution"? Have you ever heard of the phrase "being institulionalized"? We certainly don't want a large free-roaming cougar with a large habitat area to be forced to be "institutionalized". Isn't this what are you intending on doing?
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2006
  10. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    What are you going to do, Valich, to take responsibility for the lives of the cougars and other animals that are pets right now? You want to tear them away from their homes, break up their relationships with the people they love, so what do you plan to do to make it better for them? They aren't just garbage, or do you know that?
     
  11. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    You are not worth
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2006
  12. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    One more minute of my time.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2006
  13. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Valich, why don't you just come out and say "better dead than caged" so I can start screaming and cussing at you and not erase it this time?

    What do you like? Do you like the animals being political footballs? Do you like the way that the animal rights groups go around and get local governments to snuff out the lives of tigers and cougars and pitbulls and others? Do you like using the "danger" as the lame excuse that it is to help kill off the billions of animals that are in human hands? You tell me that pitbulls are killing machines and should be gotten rid of when the most official figures, and I gave you a link, show that they are not a significant problem. What's up with that? Just getting on my nerves, are you? Just don't want to use your brains at all? What is this, has "safety" become an idiot meme to help all humans become terminally paranoid and wierd, sort of like getting really drunk before going out and exterminating a village of Native Americans?

    In other words, just what in God's name is wrong with you? Your reasoning processes really suck. It's like talking to a vacuum. You're one more person who I cannot believe is real.

    I can't do anything much to stop humans from encroaching on habitats but with some financing I can keep a few animals safe in and near my home. So they should be free-ranging. What is so damned wrong with me wanting to protect them from predation by humans? The safety issues that you raise are absolutely, totally moronic. It's degrading to even have to wade through this stuff that you haven't bothered to process and that you use to drain my energy by making me have to read it out loud to you.

    I don't think you're real and I do think you're worthless.
     
  14. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    By the way, Valich, I also hate you for pulling out this thing about "selfishness."
     
  15. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    Tigers are different because Tigers are cats. Cats are not the most social of animals. The only naturally social cat is a lion. Tigers are fiercely territorial and anti-social, anything can tip off a Tiger, which is why they are classified as unpredictabe. However we could always train them. The problem with cats as opposed to dogs is that they are very instinctual. Even after hundreds of years of living with people the domestic cat is still very instinctual, he wants the ability to hunt, and with the right circumstance he will chase and kill a vermin. This strong instincts are what deters his ability to learn and adapt like Dogs.
    Nobody's going to domesticate a 600 lbs carnivore, just forget about that. There are other methods. There is already too little space in the general public for a 600lbs domestic cat. We would have to miniaturize them to carefuly domesticate them, and domesticating them is probably their very last resort on the long term.
     
  16. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Better alive and free in a free-roaming sanctuary or a "protected" national park or forest than imprisoned in enslavement in somebody's house. Don't think you're doing them any favors just to have them for your own selfish enjoyment as a pet.

    Why don't you contact the the Cougar Fund, the Mountain Lion Foundation,
    the Lion Conservation Fund, the Ontario Puma Foundation, the WWF, the IUCN, the World Conservation Unit, or the Sierra Club and ask them what their views are on the subject. Or are you scared to? All these groups are specialists involved in the conservation and preservation of our wildlife. You are not.
     
  17. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    "Selfish enjoyment", is it? I think of your so-called moral qualms as being on the same level as this "selfish enjoyment" that you talk about, except maybe not so good because my "selfish enjoyment" includes feeding the animal, sheltering it, cleaning up after it, placing my life at risk to care for it (small risk but still there), and sometimes running it to the vet at 3 am for some emergency or another, and the expense. Your "morality" leads you to kill animals for being human friendly.

    I am by far your superior on this.
     
  18. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    The three most likely scenarios:

    1. Threat to the Community: neighbors become very concerned, families with children nearby become extremely fearful, paranoia spreads, entire community concerned, havoc, leading to overall discontent and a disdain for this magnificent and beautiful species, leading to its demise and extinction.

    2. Harm to the Community: sooner or later you turn your back or the sly stalking predator finds a way out and has a quick meal with the neighbors cat or dog. The authorities are called in and your pet mountain lion is confiscated and euthanized.

    3. Abandonment: as the 25 years go by you get bored and tired of dealing with all the resulting problems and the dilemma that you now find yourself in. Perhaps you want to get married and have children yourself, have your own family, and you now realize that you must get rid of your pet. You look around to find a place that will take it, but can find none. You then think that your only option is to drive 50 miles out of town and let the animal go free in the unknown wilderness. It then finds it's way back into civilization and is quickly euthanized to prevent anyone from getting hurt.

    Ultimate result of all the above scenarios: a bad rap for the lions, inhumane treatment, lack of freedom, and eventual death.
     
  19. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    1: Do you do anything to defuse the paranoia or do you egg it on?

    2: When has any big cat done "harm to the community"

    2.5: Why in fuck is "Community" capitalized in your post?

    3: So it's OK to force abandonment or euthanasia because you are afraid that the owner will abandon or euthanize an animal at a time not of your choosing?

    Lions were becoming more and more popular before the disinformation campaigns got into full swing just a few years ago. The reasons for this include the fact that keeping them had a good safety record, the fact that people hadn't learned paranoia from the liars, and the fact that freedom was becoming a little more respectable. You will never make me believe that the "bad rap" is because of anything but the disinformation campaign.

    Try again.
     
  20. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I do consider the anti-ownership measures to be total violations of my constitutional rights. Those animals are about as dangerous as horses, and someone copping a nasty attitude about it does not change that fact. I suppose that you will not consider it to be a violation of my rights when various non-governmental organizations spread propaganda and lobby Congress to get rid of what little rights I have left, but I do.

    "Danger" is not a valid criteria for violating a constitutional right, not when the dangers are so miniscule. I realize that you are putting on a zero-tolerance attitude towards that miniscule danger. This literally means that you consider a one in a million chance to be as bad as a one in ten chance. You're going to treat it the same way, no sense of proportion. One of the reasons why so many people won't listen to you is not because they are morons or irresponsible. It's because they know the difference between reality and whatever it is you are selling. It's a lot more moronic to see the one in a million chance as a certainty. It is also irresponsible to refuse to live your life because of the one in a million chance that living your life will make you die sooner.

    If you were a person of substance, Valich, you wouldn't even try to use the methods of persuasion that you are trying to use here. The character that you project by your methods is not one of true authority. It is classical false authority, and I guess that's about the only kind that people know these days. False experts, false authorities do things like accuse a breed of dog of being a "killing machine" because its breed has killed a bit over 2 people each year over the last 27 years, and those figures show that the dogs are safer to be around than humans, trained or untrained owners.

    False authorities also use jargon like "human-lion interface" and expect it to snow anyone with an IQ over 60.

    Valich, a sensible person, with all his faculties intact, simply cannot believe the propaganda you have been putting up here. A sensible person looks at the 999,999 out of a million that's good instead of the one that turns out bad. Why would you even want it to be different from that?

    Did you know that the wild cougar is pretty much extinct in Kansas and Missouri? There are a few hundred in captivity which proves that captive breeding does work, so the species is not extinct. I don't believe in the silly things that you and Chatha do to try to take the credit away from people who have succeeded in preserving a species that would otherwise be extinct, and I sure as hell don't believe in the things that you and Chatha do to try to destroy the results of these efforts.

    So they are pets and so people enjoy them. Even the Puritans weren't quite this nasty about people taking pleasure in a job well done. Where do you get this nastiness? Isn't it more than a little childish, just like your logic? When you bitch about people wanting the animals for pleasure, you are not showing maturity at all. You are playing a childish playground game of putting down your opponent, and it is an ad hominen attack. What, do you think that when something is "important" like this, it is fine to indulge in bad behavior, as long as it is aimed at the bad guys? It is OK to lie and spread dishonest propaganda and bend reality and even destroy the animals you pretend to want to save, out of childish spite? That's what you, Chatha, IFAW, and others are doing, in real world terms when you strip away the nonsense.
     
  21. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    The zero tolerance attitude is not just irresponsible. It is also deliberate oppression. It is exactly the kind of thing that the U.S. Constitution was written to try to prevent. A scant two hundred years ago, this Constitution was written to try to prevent government abuses like burning people alive for speaking their minds, for free thinking. These days some free-thinkers are destroyed by proxy, buy destroying their pets and using pretexts to justify it.

    The danger thing is a pretext. The "better dead than caged" thing is worse than a pretext, it is also presuming that most of the animals would rather be dead, and lying about the conditions under which they are kept. You do not have science behind the idea that animals are miserable when they are kept in human homes and cared for. I have seen first-hand that they are quite pleased with living arrangements like controlled temperature, food on demand, comfortable beds and couches, and human servants. Instead of studying this and going where the science takes you, you just deny it and call me dirty names, or at least Chatha does. Come to think of it, Valich, you are calling me dirty names too and this is because you do not have a good understanding of the issues.

    Pet owners deserve a lot of respect, not only for the jobs that they do but for the garbage that they put up with from some segments of the public.
     
  22. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    Fine, where is any evidence that private owership has contributed to the prosperity of any endangered animals?
     
  23. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Ever hear of the buffalo, Chatha?
     

Share This Page