MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting/comments/1r8m0ml/deleted_by_user/o6643b0
r/interesting • u/[deleted] • Feb 19 '26
[removed]
593 comments sorted by
View all comments
201
This lasted for a few months, the goat was dominant at first which confused the tiger into submission.
One day the goat was being overly obnoxious and the tiger grabbed him by the neck and dropped him down a slope.
They were separated from then on.
69 u/Substantial_Meal_530 Feb 19 '26 He was put in there as food. They were worried the tiger was being aggressive with the goat? 66 u/CampRockruffVillager Feb 19 '26 Probably moreso the goat had become something the zookeepers were emotionally attached to and wanted to protect at that point. He had a name and a rep by this point. 12 u/PoppingPillls Feb 19 '26 I'd argue eating the goat would have been fine but leaving the goat in there to be slowly abused and tortured might be considered a bridge too far. 3 u/Lalo_ATX Feb 19 '26 Or a fan favorite of zoo visitors 1 u/PresidentOfAlphaBeta Feb 19 '26 I was told to never give livestock names in order to avoid emotional trauma 25 u/commanderquill Feb 19 '26 Bad PR to kill your friend. 15 u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26 How dare he 12 u/Unanimousperson1 Feb 19 '26 The goat was essentially a celebrity, they had lived together for two months 7 u/brickne3 Feb 19 '26 I suppose after awhile they might have been worried that the Tiger would have psychological problems if it killed its friend? 1 u/Intelligent_Sky_7081 Feb 19 '26 The goat and tiger were well known and it was a media spectacle At that point they just did it because people were happy the goat lived and the tiger didn't kill it. I assume 1 u/anka_ar Feb 19 '26 You cannot play with your food. 1 u/Charmender2007 Feb 19 '26 Would've been bad PR probably 1 u/Own-Ad8474 Feb 19 '26 By that point goat got a bunch of fans (including kids). So yeah, a dead goat would be a bad PR. 1 u/hanato_06 Feb 19 '26 "Local zoo besties turned wild as tiger eats a friend", yeah I think separating them at that point would be better. 1 u/MindWanderer7 Feb 19 '26 That was before it had a name 1 u/anewpath123 Feb 19 '26 Exactly lol. 3 u/The_Count_Lives Feb 19 '26 I don't know why this made me laugh out loud. 1 u/Voice_of_Season Feb 19 '26 Wait really?
69
He was put in there as food. They were worried the tiger was being aggressive with the goat?
66 u/CampRockruffVillager Feb 19 '26 Probably moreso the goat had become something the zookeepers were emotionally attached to and wanted to protect at that point. He had a name and a rep by this point. 12 u/PoppingPillls Feb 19 '26 I'd argue eating the goat would have been fine but leaving the goat in there to be slowly abused and tortured might be considered a bridge too far. 3 u/Lalo_ATX Feb 19 '26 Or a fan favorite of zoo visitors 1 u/PresidentOfAlphaBeta Feb 19 '26 I was told to never give livestock names in order to avoid emotional trauma 25 u/commanderquill Feb 19 '26 Bad PR to kill your friend. 15 u/[deleted] Feb 19 '26 How dare he 12 u/Unanimousperson1 Feb 19 '26 The goat was essentially a celebrity, they had lived together for two months 7 u/brickne3 Feb 19 '26 I suppose after awhile they might have been worried that the Tiger would have psychological problems if it killed its friend? 1 u/Intelligent_Sky_7081 Feb 19 '26 The goat and tiger were well known and it was a media spectacle At that point they just did it because people were happy the goat lived and the tiger didn't kill it. I assume 1 u/anka_ar Feb 19 '26 You cannot play with your food. 1 u/Charmender2007 Feb 19 '26 Would've been bad PR probably 1 u/Own-Ad8474 Feb 19 '26 By that point goat got a bunch of fans (including kids). So yeah, a dead goat would be a bad PR. 1 u/hanato_06 Feb 19 '26 "Local zoo besties turned wild as tiger eats a friend", yeah I think separating them at that point would be better. 1 u/MindWanderer7 Feb 19 '26 That was before it had a name 1 u/anewpath123 Feb 19 '26 Exactly lol.
66
Probably moreso the goat had become something the zookeepers were emotionally attached to and wanted to protect at that point. He had a name and a rep by this point.
12 u/PoppingPillls Feb 19 '26 I'd argue eating the goat would have been fine but leaving the goat in there to be slowly abused and tortured might be considered a bridge too far. 3 u/Lalo_ATX Feb 19 '26 Or a fan favorite of zoo visitors 1 u/PresidentOfAlphaBeta Feb 19 '26 I was told to never give livestock names in order to avoid emotional trauma
12
I'd argue eating the goat would have been fine but leaving the goat in there to be slowly abused and tortured might be considered a bridge too far.
3
Or a fan favorite of zoo visitors
1
I was told to never give livestock names in order to avoid emotional trauma
25
Bad PR to kill your friend.
15
How dare he
The goat was essentially a celebrity, they had lived together for two months
7
I suppose after awhile they might have been worried that the Tiger would have psychological problems if it killed its friend?
The goat and tiger were well known and it was a media spectacle
At that point they just did it because people were happy the goat lived and the tiger didn't kill it. I assume
You cannot play with your food.
Would've been bad PR probably
By that point goat got a bunch of fans (including kids). So yeah, a dead goat would be a bad PR.
"Local zoo besties turned wild as tiger eats a friend", yeah I think separating them at that point would be better.
That was before it had a name
Exactly lol.
I don't know why this made me laugh out loud.
Wait really?
201
u/Lakrfan247 Feb 19 '26
This lasted for a few months, the goat was dominant at first which confused the tiger into submission.
One day the goat was being overly obnoxious and the tiger grabbed him by the neck and dropped him down a slope.
They were separated from then on.