Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[MindOverMatter]

The tiger was loose in the zoo and posing a threat to other humans. The police officers that responded had only their regular weapons, not tranquilizer guns. In that scenario, do you still think it was wrong to kill the tiger? If so, what would you have proposed they should have done differently?

It seems that Lightbringer is proposing that maybe the police officers should have tried to talk to the tiger and reason with it.

Who is doing that? Who, in this thread, has expected the tiger to be a moral being or held to moral standards?

The tiger should be held to moral standards and it was. That is why it is now dead.

No, the fear that since the tiger posed a real and present threat, others might be harmed. You seem to be under the impression that the tiger was captured, sequestered in a safe location and then the decision was made to destroy it. Not so.

No, that’s what he wants, minus the destroyed part. He wishes that the tiger was captured and taken to another location where it can be given another opportunity to kill and maim other humans.

We? We who? Who here has argued that the zoo is without blame in failing their responsibility?

Don’t see anybody arguing that the zoo is without blame, but there sure are a lot who are trying to argue that the tiger was and is without blame.

 

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea
I haven't seen anyone claim it was wrong to kill the tiger. Unfortunate, sad, yes, but not wrong. It had to be done.

Well then you are not paying attention to the thread. Many of the others believe it but they don’t want to come out and say it. Instead, they have chosen the route of insinuation. On the other hand, only Lightbringer has the guts to come out and say it. MOM has to respect him for that.

Those voices I mentioned...So do you read palms as well as hearts, MOM? :think:
you're hallucinating
Can you guess what I'm insinuating? You'll have to read between the lines, I suppose.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Zoo's have tranquilizer guns and a written assessment of what to do in the case of an animal escape, along with personnel that are trained for this event.

How about in the case of a wild animal that has escaped, murdered, mauled, and that is prepared to continue to murder and maul other humans that are in its path? What is the written assessment for that?

Yes, that is a correct statement as far as the threat involved is concerned, but one that side steps the ultimate question of responsibility before the fact.

And so the tiger is running around killing and mauling and you want the police to ignore that fact and move to first find out who was responsible?

The decision to have the animal was made, the cages have been built, the plans for the unforeseeable events of animal escape laid out, the control of patrons entering an area of potential danger in place, but yet some fool comes in, does something that creates an incident that ends with death and we kill the only creature that responded exactly as it should?

Don’t forget that those fools came in and did what 20 -25 % of fools who go to the zoo do. In other words, those fools were responding exactly how a good number of zoo goers respond to the animals.

Which of the systems failed?

1. The decision to have a dangerous animal....no!
2. The building of the cage...yes!
3. The plans or animal escape...no!
4. The equipment for animal capture...no!
5. Patron control...yes!
6. A human acting responsibly and not foolishly...yes!

And yet we kill the Tiger!

Again, let MOM remind you, the failure of a system or the failure to live up to the responsibilities of ownership, does not excuse someone or something from suffering the consequences of their actions. The failure of the system does not absolve the tiger. It broke a Law and it rightly paid for that action.

Where the police acting responsibly? Yes, since they are trained to defend life and when all else fails...shoot! Did all else fail...no! Nothing was done short of calling the police (not the animal control personnel, which are required to be on the grounds during hours of viewing) and they reacted as they where trained, (by the way, the police are not trained for this type of event) so they did what any reasonable officer would do, they shot the Tiger.

And so what is your problem with the police‘s decision?

Any one that accepts the responsibility of owning a dangerous animal not only takes the responsibility of ownership but also the responsibility for that animals welfare! And if any one sees it any different they are side stepping responsibility!

No one has stated otherwise. You are the only who is trying to absolve one of the guilty parties.

And yes, I have raised a large dangerous animal and for fifteen years it was a wonderful companion, but I did so responsibly not only for those around us, but for the animal as well.

Hopefully that will answer your questions.

Wonderful companion? First, what was it?

Secondly, as a companion, what did you all do together?

 

[lightbringer]

MindOverMatter: "How about in the case of a wild animal that has escaped, murdered, mauled, and that is prepared to continue to murder and maul other humans that are in its path? What is the written assessment for that?"

Murdered; to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.
Doesn't pertain to the Tiger!

"And so the tiger is running around killing and mauling and you want the police to ignore that fact and move to first find out who was responsible?"

Where did you come up with this?

"Don’t forget that those fools came in and did what 20 -25 % of fools who go to the zoo do. In other words, those fools were responding exactly how a good number of zoo goers respond to the animals."

"Again, let MOM remind you, the failure of a system or the failure to live up to the responsibilities of ownership, does not excuse someone or something from suffering the consequences of their actions. The failure of the system does not absolve the tiger. It broke a Law and it rightly paid for that action."

Laws were developed by humans for humans ( the thinking creature? ) animals are not of the same level of cognition, so how do you apply something that requires an advance level of reasoning to something that does not have the ability?

"And so what is your problem with the police‘s decision?"

Where do you see anything that I said that would make you believe I had a problem with what the officers did?

"No one has stated otherwise. You are the only who is trying to absolve one of the guilty parties."

You keep trying to bring the lower animal up to the same level as humans, may I ask what level of education you have obtained?

"Wonderful companion? First, what was it?"

A North American Mountain Lion.

"Secondly, as a companion, what did you all do together?"

It was a pet, we lived together.

Have you ever had pet?

 

[lightbringer]

MOM: "It seems that Lightbringer is proposing that maybe the police officers should have tried to talk to the tiger and reason with it."

You are the only person trying to apply human rules, morals, or responsibility to an animal! How are you able to think that way? Would you also apply these to a child 8 years old. If not, why not?

 

[MindOverMatter]

It was directed at me? Why?

Because you are actually using a higher level of intelligence and reason. Those who seek equality with lower animals and beasts generally don’t see eye to eye with those who use a higher level of intelligence and reason. This is because once you begin to use those things at a higher level, you will no longer remain equal to the lower animals and beasts.

No, I read it a couple of times and then responded to it point by point. What makes you think I didn't read it thoroughly?

I'm sure I can. I was, however, asking you who you thought promoted those views.

Would definitely like to see the person who is promoting hat the zoo was not partly responsible for the incident. Anybody with reasonable intelligence is aware that the zoo is partly responsible. So it is actually the other way around. Those who are without reasonable intelligence are of the mind that the tiger is not partly responsible for its actions.

I'm sure they did. They responded to a call, arrived at the site and found an escaped tiger with three humans vulnerable to further attack. Are you proposing that they should have delayed in their response and given the tiger time to finish the job?

That appears to be his proposal.

And if humans are in imminent danger? Do you suppose their "written assessment" stresses recapturing the animal or protecting the humans?

Maybe they should change it from stressing human protection to stressing animal protection and recapturing while ignoring human protection.

What do you suppose the officers "written assessment" stresses?

Those who wish to be equal to lower animals and beasts will tell you that it was stressing the wrong thing. They will insist that the officers should have had an assessment that stressed animal protection and recapturing.

You made the claim that killing the tiger was wrong. I'm claiming that, in the given situation, the officers who killed the tiger were acting appropriately.

What is appropriate is subjective and therefore is modified or affected by your personal views, experience, position, and or background. In this case, you may view the killing of tiger by the officers as appropriate. But on the other hand, those who are the champions of lower animal equality, and other lower animals and beasts, will view such an action as inappropriate. It depends on who or what you are.

Yes, to protect human life, in that given situation once the tiger had escaped. Do you think that was a wrong decision?

It appears that way. After all, he did state that it was wrong to kill the tiger. So in light of the fact that the tiger had killed a person, mauled others, and was in the process of harming others, and that Lightbringer was still able to arrive at that conclusion, then one must assume that he believes that protecting human life in that situation was and is a wrong decision.

I agree. The zoo was negligent in allowing the tiger to be placed in an enclosure where it could escape.

Judging from the info, they probably were.

As for the rest of your post, it's obvious that your emotions are coloring your reason.

Very true, but most of those who are in here are governed and led by their emotions and feelings. So he’s in with familiar company.

 

[noguru]

MOM, I notice that you did not respond to lightbringers question about 8 year old children .

 

[MindOverMatter]

"

Emotions color all of our views and our reasons... the question is, is it overly emotional?

You must be speaking for yourself and many of the others. Emotions color your views and reasons if you are a lower animal or beast. Are you aware of the fact that lower animals and beasts are primarily led by emotions and feelings? Could this possibly be the most likely reason as to why so many of you are so close and therefore are able to relate to the lower animals and beasts. Could it also be the reason why you all can't comprehend what MOM is saying? :cow))MOO! Say What((( :noway)) Say What! Woof!((( :dog:

The Law of Birds (LOB) at work: Birds of a feather will flock together.

Or do you feel we should not be responsible for our actions?

All should be responsible for their actions. And that includes your friend the tiger.

 

[Sweet Pea]

Look, this thread is long past beaten to death. The way I see it is that the tiger cannot be held responsible unless it is capable of moral reasoning (aka equal to humans). Either the lower animals *are* equal to humans and we can hold them morally responsible for their actions, or they are *not* equal to humans and we cannot. That the tiger was killed is a matter of practicality, not ethics or morality (though the PETA folks might think it is, I don't agree) except in that it would be unethical to allow that particular tiger to interact with the public again. IMO, tigers don't have the capacity for moral reasoning and therefore cannot be blamed, held responsible, or otherwise faulted for the outcome here. I value animals greatly, though not as much as people, but to simultaneously claim tigers have moral responsibility and that they are not equal to humans is a bit "off"...

~SP

 

[lightbringer]

MOM, I notice that you did not respond to lightbringers question about 8 year old children .

I'm sure MOM will respond after figuring out how to twist the statement around, seems thats the name of MOM's game. :banana:

I've never head such childish inane drivel coming from adults before. :vomit:

Lower animals being held to man made laws. :rotfl:

Priceless!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Oh puh - leese, you've been banging on about definitions of anthropomorphism and technicalities of such throughout this thread, what exactly are you trying to achieve?

Of course it would seem to be quite technical to you Red. The exact definitions of words appear to be quite meaningless to many of you. MOM is not surprised at your present attitude towards her insistence at paying attention to words and their exact definitions. Only from this immoral and failing generation could you expect to see that that action would be seen as something which is bad and abhorrent. And by the way, you are not the only one. Many others have been trying to redefine the meanings to words which they do not like.

Anyway Red, being that you are currently in a state where you are low and slow of wit. And being that you have failed to study the definition of MORAL, and by that inaction have refused to take the advice which was given to you for your development and benefit, let MOM explain to you the obvious details that you are missing. Lets look at the definition of MORAL. >>>MORAL

MORAL: adjective: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL *moral judgments* b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior *a moral poem* c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment *a moral obligation* e : capable of right and wrong action *a moral agent*

Now, if you were able to, you would have studied the definition of MORAL. And from that moment of study and reflection, you would have eventually come to the realization that everyone or everything has MORALS. That’s right, everything has MORALS. Or we may also say, that in respects o the Tiger, if you would have examined the definitions of MORAL, you would have seen that even as a wild animal, it does five things:

First, its actions and movements are able to relate to the principles of right and wrong behavior.

Secondly, it’s actions and movements are able to express or teach a conception of right behavior.

Thirdly, its actions and movement are able to conform to a standard of right behavior.

Fourthly, its actions and movements are sanctioned by and are operated by its own ethical judgment.

Fifthly, it is capable of right and wrong behavior.

In other words, Red, the tiger is a MORAL creature. You can assign MORALS to it because it does have MORALS. The tiger is capable of right and wrong behavior. It can do “good” and it can do “evil.”
Now, in the tigers MORALS or its ability to do right and wrong, lies one of the major differences between MAN and Beast. This difference stems from the fact that the tiger’s Actions and Movements which determine its MORALS are antithetical to the Actions and Movements of highly developed beings. This can be seen in the fact that in the tiger’s world, it has been determined that it is right for it to preemptively attack and kill--without any concrete proof-- someone or something that it believes to be a threat to it’s Self-Preservation or Life. In the tigers world, it has been determined that it is right to kill someone for simply waving and yelling at it.
And so with those two determinations, two other realities also become evident:
First, it is wrong for the tiger not to preemptively attack and kill--without any concrete proof--someone or something that it believes to be a threat to it’s Self-Preservation or Life.

Secondly, it is wrong for the tiger not to kill someone for simply waving and yelling at it.

Now, Red, those are the tiger’s MORALS. And because that is how the tiger and most lower animal and beasts operate, when they are captured, they are kept in cages away from their captors. And when they escape to kill one of their captors, they themselves are put down or killed.

So Red, once again you and many of the others have blindly come into another argument. And because of that blindness, you all have managed to stick all of your feet into your big festering maws. You and many of the others were and are mistaken when you constantly and ignorantly spout that “an animal can’t be held to some set of moral values.” Or that “Morality doesn't exist for animals.” (Red POST # 110) (Koban Post # 143) Since they are in essence modes of conduct, an animal does have morals. The only thing is that it just doesn’t have the same morals as highly evolved human beings.


Finally, if you like we can take a look at you statement that “animals are not subject to the laws of morality that Man put in place for himself. (Red Post #371) Just let MOM know when you are ready to start moving up instead of down.

And another thing Red, the funny thing is that without even realizing that you can’t be innocent unless you haven’t done anything WRONG, you have been screaming throughout the thread that no matter what the tiger is innocent (Red Post # 110). RIGHT and WRONG are both aspects of morality. MOM and some of her friends thought that it was quite funny to see you running around and emphatically declaiming the innocence of the tiger while saying that it does not have morals.


PS. Now you can once again go back into stewing in your illusionary reality. And of course, later on you and one of the others can reappear to respond to what MOM has just wrote with your regular hallucinatory responses of “MOM is twisting my words out of context,” “MOM is twisting the meanings of the words in the dictionary,” and “MOM is unreasonable and irrational.” The proof of who is doing what is always is in the pudding sweety. So check the pudding.

Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jude 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

And just WHY are you persisting with this third person posting rubbish?

Because you persist in your first person rubbish. At least MOM’s third person rubbish allows her to see and comprehend that lower animals and beasts have morals.

Is it supposed to be clever?

How so?

Is it accomplishing anything other than the fact that people would wish you would stop doing it?

It accomplishes a lot. Now if people are more concerned with that than they are with debating then that is on them.

Look at the rearranged title of this thread MOM, there's not many people from any side of the spectrum that would take issue with it I doubt.....

People tend to do such things when they are unable to debate. Cattyfan knows the real purpose why she tried to change the title.

 

[lightbringer]

The exact definitions of words appear to be quite meaningless to many of you.

MORAL: adjective: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL *moral judgments* b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior *a moral poem* c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment *a moral obligation* e : capable of right and wrong action *a moral agent*

In other words, Red, the tiger is a MORAL creature. You can assign MORALS to it because it does have MORALS. The tiger is capable of right and wrong behavior. It can do “good” and it can do “evil.”
Now, in the tigers MORALS or its ability to do right and wrong, lies one of the major differences between MAN and Beast. This difference stems from the fact that the tiger’s Actions and Movements which determine its MORALS are antithetical to the Actions and Movements of highly developed beings. This can be seen in the fact that in the tiger’s world, it has been determined that it is right for it to preemptively attack and kill--without any concrete proof-- someone or something that it believes to be a threat to it’s Self-Preservation or Life. In the tigers world, it has been determined that it is right to kill someone for simply waving and yelling at it.
And so with those two determinations, two other realities also become evident:
First, it is wrong for the tiger not to preemptively attack and kill--without any concrete proof--someone or something that it believes to be a threat to it’s Self-Preservation or Life.

Secondly, it is wrong for the tiger not to kill someone for simply waving and yelling at it.

Now, Red, those are the tiger’s MORALS. And because that is how the tiger and most lower animal and beasts operate, when they are captured, they are kept in cages away from their captors. And when they escape to kill one of their captors, they themselves are put down or killed.


Finally, if you like we can take a look at you statement that “animals are not subject to the laws of morality that Man put in place for himself.

Words, the definitions of words, the concept of evil, right or wrong, are all man made and apply only to man not animals or things.

If your computer has a glitch, is it because of, a mechanical failure, a software failure, the input of a virus from another malicious human, or has your computer developed morals and attitudes and has decided that it really doesn't like you?

MOM, you are a trip!:rotfl:

Maybe if you laid off the crazy tobacco for awhile things may come back to reality.

Shall we continue comparing apples and oranges? :dead:

 

[MindOverMatter]

No, of course not. I am saying "please" because I am of the mind that attacking and killing people for expressing themselves through "waving and yelling" should not be considered the same for tigers as for humans.

Most folks recognize this, although the conclusions they arrive at might differ.

And so what conclusions have you arrived at?

Similarly, it is currently accepted that tigers do not wear pants while in public.

And so you want to compare wearing pants with murder? So the act of wearing pants and the act of murder are both comparable? Are you saying that because they do not wear pants in public, a tiger should be treated differently from other murderers who are found in the same situation?

I am also saying "please" as a quiet cry for reason.

That’s funny because MOM has been in here all along trying to call for reasoning. And if you recall, at one time MOM actually got in trouble for doing that. :banned:

Yes, you've been saying quite a lot. Or, well, at least you've been saying it quite a lot.

Your "animals act because of opportunity" premise is flawed. So what's built on that is flawed. Broken.

And that is why MOM is trying to see if you can help her fix it. Please fix it?

I usually would have a conversation about it, but you stick to your shticks, and plow forward building on faulty foundations. Based on conversations in the past, and knowing the way you cling to base fallacies, there really seems to me very little point in having the discussion with you.

You mean like the base fallacy and faulty foundation that you had under your spanking is violence shtick? Why are the fundies so obessed with punishment as opposed to prevention? ZOO POST# 302


Remember, the one that MOM summarily toppled because it was on that faulty foundation. Why are the fundies so obessed with punishment as opposed to prevention? MindOverMatter POST # 308

Except when you tell me or others what it is I am saying. I don't much care anymore how you represent yourself (though I'll stop to gawk at the spectacle), but I'll generally respond to your shoving words into my mouth, and your telling me what it is what I'm saying when in fact it is not what I'm saying.

ZOO, in case you haven’t noticed, MOM doesn’t tell you what you are saying. Instead, MOM generally asks you to clarify what you are saying. Why don’t you go back and take a look.

Because you do it so often, we ought to have a long interactive relationship.

You really like doing that, hmm? Telling people what they're saying. Why?

ZOO, look at the example that you have just given. Notice the question mark behind MOM’s comment. MOM is asking you if that is what you are saying. In other words, if that is what you mean. MindOverMatter POST 419

From Post 419

And so, are you saying “Please,“ because as a “freedom” loving human, you are of the mind that attacking and killing people for expressing themselves through waving and yelling (freedom of speech) is right?

Cont...

 

[Town Heretic]

And so you want to compare wearing pants with murder? So the act of wearing pants and the act of murder are both comparable? Are you saying that because they do not wear pants in public, a tiger should be treated differently from other murderers who are found in the same situation?

I think most women have at least one pair of pants that is murder to wear, but I don’t see the relevance…

That’s it…let me at this ‘crazy’ piñata. A tiger as murderer or moral agent? Is that what this thread has devolved into? Animals are instinctual creatures and their actions flow from this, are the product of this and cannot be scaled or judged as you would a man, who can and frequently does override instinctive behavior to make choices wise and unwise. Additionally, there is no reason to suspect that a tiger has the necessary mens rae to fulfill the obligations under law of a guilty party. Or have there been a rash of guilt ridden tigers roaming the bush lately?

In other words, Red, the tiger is a MORAL creature. You can assign MORALS to it because it does have MORALS. The tiger is capable of right and wrong behavior.

In a word, no. You can ascribe morality to the tiger’s action from a human perspective, but it isn’t the tiger’s perspective and that doesn’t make the tiger a moral agent by the definition you provided or any reasoned application of it. It would be as unreasonable to assume agency and assert moral culpability as it would to try a gun for a bank robbery. Neither understand the moral concepts involved nor act with the intent to violate moral standards.

What’s next, trials for sharks? I mean, a shark goes after someone who isn’t even splashing AT him? What an evil and obviously immoral creature, no? And don’t even get me started on ant eaters…

First, its actions and movements are able to relate to the principles of right and wrong behavior.

And again, no. Properly, we can examine their acts as accomplishing good or ill ends as those actions relate to our moral sensibility. The acts can be related by those who possess the understanding but not by the creature.

Secondly, it’s actions and movements are able to express or teach a conception of right behavior.

No. I can teach a tiger to stand on a chair. I can’t teach it to value the chair or the act. Or do you mean we can use its actions to inform our moral sensibility. An entirely different animal...

Thirdly, its actions and movement are able to conform to a standard of right behavior.

On a roll here. No, this is little more than a restatement of your earlier error. We can keep it caged and if caged sufficiently then its actions will conform to “right” behavior because no other choice is possible. We can condition the animal to more often than not respond and interact in a manner which is less likely to result in harm, but again this conditioning does not speak to understanding on the part of the animal.

Fourthly, its actions and movements are sanctioned by and are operated by its own ethical judgment.

No. While there is an aspect of intelligence in higher predators, to use ethical judgment to describe the function of that intelligence is to render the phrase meaningless. A tiger kills because it is moved to kill by hunger or threat or an application of its natural instinct for stalking and acting. Have you ever enticed a cat to chase a light beam? The cat may eventually realize that the object can’t be caught or killed or eaten, but until it does it follows its nature to be attracted to movement and to act as a predator. There is no morality involved on the part of the cat.

Fifthly, it is capable of right and wrong behavior.

Rather, it is capable of behavior that we as moral beings can see in moral terms, meaningless as those terms are to the animal.

First, it is wrong for the tiger not to preemptively attack and kill--without any concrete proof--someone or something that it believes to be a threat to it’s Self-Preservation or Life.

If a tiger reasoned abstractly, shared your fine sense of moral distinction you might be making a point. It doesn’t and so you aren’t.

Secondly, it is wrong for the tiger not to kill someone for simply waving and yelling at it.

I missed that in the tiger cannon of moral and ethic, what page was it on? Even if you could somehow demonstrate that a tiger could appreciate and distinguish between right and wrong, assuming your standard of that morality would control would be nonsensical….yeah, tigers would be proof of moral relativism.

Here is another question taking your ideas and applying them a bit differently. Why aren’t hunters charged with and prosecuted for murder? If you’re right and animals are moral beings then the taking of their lives should amount to murder, no? If a tiger can be held responsible for the needless killing of a human, then why should man, who is capable of living as a vegetarian and therefore does not need to kill and consume other, moral animals, be held to a lesser standard?

This is a silly business.

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Cont From Post #513

It seems it'd only take a bit for you to settle back and actually think about what it someone is saying, instead of trying to shove them into some box. But to each. I suppose your misrepresenting "so what you are saying is ____" is a way of engaging people.

ZOO, in case you haven’t noticed, words convey many different meanings. Just because you or anyone else states something, does not automatically mean that that which was stated, will automatically convey what you intend. For example: Someone can look outside and see a young lady. And in viewing that young girl they can say, “That young lady is hot.”
Now, because ‘hot” means sexy, you may automatically assume that they are saying that the lady is sexually appealing. But this may not be the case. This is because “hot” also means angry. So in reality, they may be watching the most unappealing young lady who is outside ranting and raving out of anger. But because you had automatically assumed that by saying “hot,“ he or she was referring to the sexual appeal of the lady, you missed the message that was being conveyed.

So, in case you are not aware, MOM is not misrepresenting you by asking you to explain what you are saying.

And so, no. That's not what I'm saying. Don't be ridiculous.

I am of the mind that "right" is not applicable to tigers the same as it is to humans. Though yes, as I'd said, I believe there is base overlap. Despite that overlap, viewing human reason and morals as applicable to tigers seems fraught with problems. For both humans and tigers.

And so, you must be of the mind that it was wrong to kill the tiger? If human reasons and morals are not applicable to tigers, then you must be of the mind that it was illegal to kill the tiger? And because it was illegal to kill the tiger, then it should have been spared?

Also, "freedom of speech?" ... The tiger's attack is a "freedom of speech" issue? Uh... Hmm. I just heard a weird scary noise. Was it me? I don't think so... Wait, I think it may have been the sound of a collective rolling over in the grave of all the forefathers at once.

Maybe the forefathers were trying to roll away from your …. Why is the tigers attack not a freedom of speech issue? The last time that MOM checked the tiger killed a young man who was exercising his freedom of speech. Has it not been reported that the young men who were involved, were yelling and “taunting” the tiger? Does yelling and taunting not involve speech? Why are the young men not allowed to exercise their freedom of speech? And so again MOM will ask you, “As a “freedom” loving being, are you of the mind that a lower animal that attacks and kills people for expressing themselves through waving and yelling (freedom of speech) is right?

 

[Sweet Pea]

I chose my avatar in honor of this thread I see it's still going on...

~SP

 

[MindOverMatter]

Just for the record johana, you do put together reasonable arguments and I agree with them.

Brownies! Brownies! Fresh hot Brownies! Better get em while they’re hot!

I notice however, that there are others (who shall go unnamed) whose ramblings seem to have the support of no other readers. Funny thing, that.

That is funny considering the fact that you don’t need support from other readers to be accurate. Caille, in case you are not aware, not having the support of a certain group of people, does not mean that what you are saying is not accurate. The speed of light can vary. Check Galileo for historical reference.

On an unrelated note, did you know that if you rearrange MindOverMatter, you get Marred Oven Mitt? I didn't.

Yep, poor Mitt. He sure was marred by Senator McCain and Gov. Huckabee. Look at how he lost all that money.

 

[Town Heretic]

:tunes: You keep goin back to Callie, Callie, Callie...

The tiger is neither a moral instrument nor capable of moral distinction.

(let no man accuse me of hijacking)

I don't think so...

 

[MaryContrary]

Are you telling me Tigger isn't responsible for his actions?! It's because of people like you, refusing to assign the capacity for moral distinctions to Tiggers, that he still hasn't apologized for this...!!

Tigger attack!

Apologizing is apparently not what Tiggers do best...

 

[MindOverMatter]

I'm going to say that they're still not going to be feeling that loving feeling.

Well then you are not referring to highly rational intelligent mature adults.

Secondly, you are not paying any attention to the world that you live in.

In this thread? All of the ones that are based on the premise that humans and tigers think in the same way, are subject to the same moral guidelines and reasoning processes.

Okay, now please point to the thread where MOM has stated or even implied that “humans and tigers think in the same way. ” How about where MOM has said that both arrive at their conclusions through the exact same processes?

Please refer to POST # 511

The thing is, I could throw any number of reasonable arguments at you.

Could, should, but you haven’t. Let’s not dwell on couldas, shouldas, and wouldas; instead, let us talk about what you have done. Waiting………

I could show you a picture of a tigers brain and a picture of a human brain, explain that the area of the human brain responsible for higher thought isn't as developed in a tiger.

Could, should, but you haven’t. What’s stopping you? MOM would welcome a debate on the brains of each respective subjects.

I could reference experts, I could bring facts and statistics, history. For what?

For what is a good question; especially, when MOM has never stated or even implied that highly evolved humans and tigers think in the same way.

You commonly deny any expert opinions claiming that your half-baked ideas trump every known specialist because no one else thinks as well or as clearly as you.

Where? Please present the postings to back up your assertions.

Secondly, your experts and the specialists that you so fervently speak of, are you sure that they are not compromised? Are you so positive that there are no PETA and ALF adherents who are scientists, doctors, and specialists? Are you 100% positive that the results of some of those animal researches were not colored by PETA or ALF sympathizers?
Cont…