Man eating tiger being hunted

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by hydralisk86 (8642 posts) -

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/world/asia/india-rogue-tiger/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

So basically there is this tiger that seems to have gotten a taste for humans. Hunters are searching for it, as well as at least one person who hopes to save it from being killed. The tiger has killed at least 10 people, and when it eats a human little is left.

#2 Posted by MrGeezer (57206 posts) -

Wow, this guy is a piece of shit. It's one thing to try to catch the tiger before hunters kill it, but this asshole is deliberately trying to throw them off its trail.

#4 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

#5 Posted by hydralisk86 (8642 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa: What i meant was this tiger seems to be continually eating people. I'm a little tired right now, but i think the article might have said this is unusual (for the tiger to consistently do this)

#6 Posted by thegerg (16252 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

#7 Edited by Allicrombie (25583 posts) -

I thought it said tiger eating man at first, was much more excited.

#8 Posted by hydralisk86 (8642 posts) -

@Allicrombie said:

I thought it said tiger eating man at first, was much more excited.

Yeah, but the article itself is somewhat scary...The people living in the area are so terrified, some don't even go outside to work. It's like one of those scary movies involving a shark.

#9 Posted by Master_Live (15837 posts) -
Loading Video...

#10 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@hydralisk86 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa: What i meant was this tiger seems to be continually eating people. I'm a little tired right now, but i think the article might have said this is unusual (for the tiger to consistently do this)

No I understand what you mean. I just never understood how the term was ever created seeing any tiger will eat a man if given the chance.

#11 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

#12 Edited by thegerg (16252 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

#13 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.
They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.
If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

#14 Posted by always_explicit (3135 posts) -
@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

This is a stupid argument. Both of you understand the article. Both of you understand each others points of view yet you both insist on dancing around each other trying to prove a moot point.

#15 Edited by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

Why are they hunting this guy? Dude just wants to eat his tiger in peace.

#16 Posted by GamerForca (7107 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

This is a stupid argument. Both of you understand the article. Both of you understand each others points of view yet you both insist on dancing around each other trying to prove a moot point.

No. If people stopped doing this, then this place would no longer be the OT that we all grew to love. Let them argue. This is how it should be.

#17 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@always_explicit said:
@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

This is a stupid argument. Both of you understand the article. Both of you understand each others points of view yet you both insist on dancing around each other trying to prove a moot point.

You seem to be a bit confused there, so let me clear it up for you. I responded to TC, then gerg responded to me completely missing my point, so I pointed that out to him in a gif. End of story. There is no "both of you" dancing around anything unless you are referring to that mouse in your pocket.

#18 Edited by always_explicit (3135 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@always_explicit said:
@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

This is a stupid argument. Both of you understand the article. Both of you understand each others points of view yet you both insist on dancing around each other trying to prove a moot point.

You seem to be a bit confused there, so let me clear it up for you. I responded to TC, then gerg responded to me completely missing my point, so I pointed that out to him in a gif. End of story. There is no "both of you" dancing around anything unless you are referring to that mouse in your pocket.

and his response to your gif?

End of story on your part perhaps but he still felt the need to call you out on what you said. He even said "What's your point then?".

Knowing full well what your point is.... Its ridiculous.

There is no confusion.

#19 Edited by airshocker (31295 posts) -

@always_explicit said:
@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

This is a stupid argument. Both of you understand the article. Both of you understand each others points of view yet you both insist on dancing around each other trying to prove a moot point.

This sums it up nicely. Both of you are acting like idiots. Amazon more so.

#20 Edited by Storm_Marine (12223 posts) -

Is it Shere Khan?

#21 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@always_explicit said:
@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

This is a stupid argument. Both of you understand the article. Both of you understand each others points of view yet you both insist on dancing around each other trying to prove a moot point.

You seem to be a bit confused there, so let me clear it up for you. I responded to TC, then gerg responded to me completely missing my point, so I pointed that out to him in a gif. End of story. There is no "both of you" dancing around anything unless you are referring to that mouse in your pocket.

and his response to your gif?

End of story on your part perhaps but he still felt the need to call you out on what you said. He even said "What's your point then?".

Knowing full well what your point is.... Its ridiculous.

There is no confusion.

His response to my gif is irrelevant. I stopped it with the gif by not replying after that. So yeah there is confusion on your part. it takes two to have a dance. I am not part of that dance, so unless you are, there is no dance. Not going to waste my time going back and forth with you either. We are done here.

#23 Posted by airshocker (31295 posts) -

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@airshocker said:

@always_explicit said:
@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

This is a stupid argument. Both of you understand the article. Both of you understand each others points of view yet you both insist on dancing around each other trying to prove a moot point.

This sums it up nicely. Both of you are acting like idiots. Amazon more so.

If you really believe that, then you really are an idiot. What part of I didn't respond is too hard for you to grasp. There is no back and forth with me and him. Stop trying to grasp at straws. Me telling him that he missed my point is hardly acting like an idiot. I feel sorry for you that you actually mentally went there off my simple gif reply. Grasping at straws, grasping at straws. I really don't know why I bothered responding to you. You always act like an idiot, why should this time be any different. Not going to bother responding to you in this thread again either. All of you crying over me and gerg instead of even bothering with the actual topic. Sad.

OT (seeing it is so hard for a few here to stay on) I hope they get it. Sad that it has to die though seeing they are endangered.

This is the definition of man eater. The term you are looking for is carnivore. A man eater is a very specific definition and you were using it incorrectly. Thegerg pointed that out, but he's normally a phlegmatic douche so I can understand why you'd get defensive. You then responded with these pictures of points, which you seem to be very fond of these days(also very douchey) and thus we're at this point.

The moral of the story: Use words correctly.

#24 Posted by themajormayor (24486 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

That's not how words work kiddo. Try to act like a big boy and hire an English tutor.

#25 Edited by Gaming-Planet (14685 posts) -

So how do tigers disgust our toxic bodies?

#26 Edited by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@Gaming-Planet said:

So how do tigers disgust our toxic bodies?

that's a pretty big question really, but very quickly:

felines are the most strictly carnivorous of all mammals. their physiology supports eating meat, flesh, etc.

also, being an apex predator - they're used to picking on the sick and the dying. easier to catch.

in my experience human meat has no toxic quality (haha only joking!)

#27 Edited by themajormayor (24486 posts) -
@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@always_explicit said:
@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

This is a stupid argument. Both of you understand the article. Both of you understand each others points of view yet you both insist on dancing around each other trying to prove a moot point.

You seem to be a bit confused there, so let me clear it up for you. I responded to TC, then gerg responded to me completely missing my point, so I pointed that out to him in a gif. End of story. There is no "both of you" dancing around anything unless you are referring to that mouse in your pocket.

That's not a gif that's a jpg

#28 Posted by playmynutz (6395 posts) -

Read this as tiger eating man on the hunt

#29 Posted by thegerg (16252 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.

They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.

If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

OK. This has no bearing on the fact that a animal who has not eaten a man is not a man eater.

#30 Posted by Jag85 (5673 posts) -
@Storm_Marine said:

Is it Shere Khan?

Not sure, but the conservationist trying to protect the tiger happens to be called Nazim Khan.

#31 Posted by indzman (20204 posts) -
@Storm_Marine said:

Is it Shere Khan?

Nope. Tigers name is indzman ^_^

#32 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.

They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.

If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

OK. This has no bearing on the fact that a animal who has not eaten a man is not a man eater.

I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then.
Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?

#33 Posted by Jag85 (5673 posts) -

@indzman said:
@Storm_Marine said:

Is it Shere Khan?

Nope. Tigers name is indzman ^_^

Hello, Mr. Richard Parker. How does human flesh taste like?

#34 Edited by indzman (20204 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@indzman said:
@Storm_Marine said:

Is it Shere Khan?

Nope. Tigers name is indzman ^_^

Hello, Mr. Richard Parker. How does human flesh taste like?

Yummy !!!

#35 Posted by MrGeezer (57206 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.

They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.

If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

OK. This has no bearing on the fact that a animal who has not eaten a man is not a man eater.

I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then.

Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?

And there are also starfish, which aren't stars and aren't fish.

It's generally agreed upon that certain types of animals are called "anteaters" because they est ants, whie other animals that eat ants are NOT called anteaters.

That's fine,because in that context we're talking about the common name of that species/genus/family of animal.

That is much different than what you're talking about. There is no species/genus/family attributed with the common name "man eater", while there ARE species/genera/families attributed with the common name "ant eater".

#36 Posted by sukraj (24222 posts) -

@Master_Live said:
Loading Video...

ha ha nice one mate this made me laugh

#37 Posted by always_explicit (3135 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@airshocker said:

@always_explicit said:
@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

@thegerg said:

@AmazonTreeBoa said:

Never have understood the term man eating tiger. Last I checked every tiger was a man eater. Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man while others have, but trust me, they are ALL man eaters.

"Some just haven't been given the chance to eat a man"

Right, so they haven't eaten a man, so they're not man eaters.

What's your point then? Your point seems to be that animals who do not eat men should be considered man eaters.

This is a stupid argument. Both of you understand the article. Both of you understand each others points of view yet you both insist on dancing around each other trying to prove a moot point.

This sums it up nicely. Both of you are acting like idiots. Amazon more so.

If you really believe that, then you really are an idiot. What part of I didn't respond is too hard for you to grasp. There is no back and forth with me and him. Stop trying to grasp at straws. Me telling him that he missed my point is hardly acting like an idiot. I feel sorry for you that you actually mentally went there off my simple gif reply. Grasping at straws, grasping at straws. I really don't know why I bothered responding to you. You always act like an idiot, why should this time be any different. Not going to bother responding to you in this thread again either. All of you crying over me and gerg instead of even bothering with the actual topic. Sad.

OT (seeing it is so hard for a few here to stay on) I hope they get it. Sad that it has to die though seeing they are endangered.

This is the definition of man eater. The term you are looking for is carnivore. A man eater is a very specific definition and you were using it incorrectly. Thegerg pointed that out, but he's normally a phlegmatic douche so I can understand why you'd get defensive. You then responded with these pictures of points, which you seem to be very fond of these days(also very douchey) and thus we're at this point.

The moral of the story: Use words correctly.

Haha awesome.

I like how you included a moral at the end. All the hallmarks of an excellent story.

#38 Posted by thegerg (16252 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.

They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.

If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

OK. This has no bearing on the fact that a animal who has not eaten a man is not a man eater.

I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then.

Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?

"I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then."

Sure they can.

"Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?"

This question makes no sense.

#39 Edited by themajormayor (24486 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.

They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.

If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

OK. This has no bearing on the fact that a animal who has not eaten a man is not a man eater.

I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then.

Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?

"Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?"

This question makes no sense.

Hahah are you really that dense kid? How old are you? 7?

#40 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.

They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.

If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

OK. This has no bearing on the fact that a animal who has not eaten a man is not a man eater.

I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then.

Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?

"I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then."

Sure they can.

"Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?"

This question makes no sense.

You said an animal can only be a "Man Eater" after they've eaten a man.

What about the animal referred to as an "Ant Eater", prior to it having it's first meal of ants, is it not an ant-eater?

#41 Posted by thegerg (16252 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.

They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.

If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

OK. This has no bearing on the fact that a animal who has not eaten a man is not a man eater.

I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then.

Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?

"I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then."

Sure they can.

"Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?"

This question makes no sense.

You said an animal can only be a "Man Eater" after they've eaten a man.

What about the animal referred to as an "Ant Eater", prior to it having it's first meal of ants, is it not an ant-eater?

Yes, it is an ant eater. That's what it's called.

#42 Posted by hydralisk86 (8642 posts) -

Oh come on, this thread wasn't meant to be an argument over definitions of words. Like half of this thread turned into that.

#43 Posted by Nibroc420 (13571 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

"I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then."

Sure they can.

"Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?"

This question makes no sense.

You said an animal can only be a "Man Eater" after they've eaten a man.

What about the animal referred to as an "Ant Eater", prior to it having it's first meal of ants, is it not an ant-eater?

Yes, it is an ant eater. That's what it's called.

But it hasn't eaten any ants yet.We shouldn't call it an Ant-Eater simply because it would eat ants if given the opportunity right?

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.

They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.

If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

OK. This has no bearing on the fact that a animal who has not eaten a man is not a man eater.

#44 Posted by thegerg (16252 posts) -

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

@thegerg said:

"I suppose that means "Ant-Eaters" cant be called that when they're first born then."

Sure they can.

"Because they haven't eaten any ants yet?"

This question makes no sense.

You said an animal can only be a "Man Eater" after they've eaten a man.

What about the animal referred to as an "Ant Eater", prior to it having it's first meal of ants, is it not an ant-eater?

Yes, it is an ant eater. That's what it's called.

But it hasn't eaten any ants yet.We shouldn't call it an Ant-Eater simply because it would eat ants if given the opportunity right?

@thegerg said:

@Nibroc420 said:

A lion, tiger, bear, crocodile etc, does not care that you are a man.

They dont think "Oh, he's a man, I'm no man eater"; You're meat, they eat meat, you're there, they're hungry.

If given the opportunity, they will eat you.

OK. This has no bearing on the fact that a animal who has not eaten a man is not a man eater.

"We shouldn't call it an Ant-Eater simply because it would eat ants if given the opportunity right?"

No, we shouldn't. The reason we should call it an ant eater is that that's what it's called.

#45 Edited by Cyberdot (3926 posts) -

There's no such thing as a man-eating tiger.

Tigers like meat no matter what it is.

#46 Posted by indzman (20204 posts) -

@Cyberdot said:

There's no such thing as a man-eating tiger.

Tigers like meat no matter what it is.

There is this thing. Tigers generally hunt fast animals as deer and are teritorial as in the forest where it lives .But when a tiger is wounded it can't prey upon such fast animals, so it always goes outside of forest to hunt and tend to attack nearby villages for slow animals as cows or humans as they can't really move fast.Thats when a tiger becomes man eating. That being said when a tiger is not wounded and if a human is in vicinity it will still attack and eat. But tiger won't try to leave its area to hunt for humans as there are other easily availble preys in its area.

#47 Edited by Morphic (4345 posts) -

If i was a tiger id probably wanna eat people too...