Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[noguru]

Uh, don’t you mean not quite as big? At least that was what some of you all have been saying. It’s all in the size?

Generally what we find in animals is that the larger the cerebral cortex is the more capacity they have for learned behavior and the more developed the functioning of this portion is. In mammals there is a neocortex which contains a frontal lobe.

Neocortex

Cerebral cortex

Frontal lobe

Compare this to the brain of reptiles or fish. Pay close attention to the behavior of many different types of reptiles and mammals and there certainly seems to be a corrolation between the size and functionality of certain parts of the brain. Although what must be also factored in is the size of the animal. Larger animals need larger brains to control their larger bodies.

 

[lightbringer]

Secondly, just out of curiosity, why is Mrs. Cattyfan editing your posts for you?

I have no idea what your talking about and wasn't aware that Mrs. Cattyfan was editing my post, why not ask her yourself!

Are you getting paranoid?

 

[MindOverMatter]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1670425&postcount=465

Moral standards DO NOT apply to animals, nor should they.

Well, see POST # 511

Secondly, if moral standards do not apply to animals, then why was the tiger killed? Or did the officer choose to kill the tiger just for the hell of it? Or did the officer make his decision from the standpoint of objectivity?

Think about this clearly: It is against the law (as it should be) for regular citizens to euthanize their next door neighbor or some dude you meet on the street based on the criteria that they are a danger to society, have an illness that can't be treated, etc...

Key word being “LAW.”

Secondly, it is not against the LAW for a regular citizen to euthanize their next door neighbor if said neighbor attacks that citizen.

Thirdly, based on the criteria that you have just given, it’s not against the Tiger’s LAW for it to euthanize its next door neighbor.

However, not so in the case of animals. Animals are not protected and given the same rights as human beings because they are of less value and held to a different standard.

Why? Does “less value” automatically mean that one is to be held to an entirely different standard of judgement? Is that what’s going on around here? Where is that seen in nature? Do both the tiger and the human not fall to the ground when they jump out of a skyscraper? Or does the tiger not hit the ground as a result of its “less value?” Or does the human not hit the ground because of its “greater value?” Does “greater value” mean that one is to be held to an entirely different standard of judgment?

I can LEGALLY have my animal euthanized by the vet without any trial or intervention of the law ...

Because that is the LAW. It is legal for you to do so. You could also LEGALLY euthanize humans if it was the LAW.

The animal did NOT have bad morals ... it acted like an ANIMAL ... EOS. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have been put down btw.

“The animal did not have bad morals.” Question: Would you then say the same thing about a murderer who has just killed one of your family members? Or the robber who just robbed your neighbor? Or the pedophile who just molested a child? Are those individuals not guilty of having bad morals?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes...haven't you noticed? It doesn't matter what you say or which side of the discussion you take. MOM has a response.

If you all stop posting here, at least it will have to find another thread on which to display it's craziness.

Please. I beseech you. Leave it alone.

Yes, of course, intelligence and reason are seen as craziness by those who are closer to lower animals and beasts than intelligent human beings.

By the way, you wouldn’t happen to be a member of ALF or PETA?

 

[MindOverMatter]

But but but, Catty, IF we do that, and it does as you said it would do, then it would ruin perfectly good threads!

:hammer:

Sweetheart, there’s no ruining what you all have already ruined.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I'm about ready to give up anywho....

~SP

So soon? Well, you know what they say, “If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.” Or in this case, if you can’t compete then take a back seat.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Did you know that if you rearrange MindOverMatter, you get Me, Rat Vomit Nerd?

That is beautiful. That is very good Caille. :BRAVO: )))Please think of some more. Keep em coming.

 

[Town Heretic]

Especially, if you are here to mindlessly argue without any logic or reason.

I suppose this would be the point where, were I you, I would begin breaking out definitions to demonstrate that it is in point of fact impossible to argue without logic or reason, however flawed...but in light of the rabbit holes I've watched you leap into with others I thought it wouldn't hurt to interject a little humor, however lost it might become in the larger farce. When someone you once praised for reason and willingness to debate becomes someone you feel the need to dismiss as you attempted above, it might be time to ponder the question of why that is...but on the other hand, this does seem a bit of fun for all involved, so---:idunno:

Especially, if you are here to argue about what someone else has said, when you yourself have not thoroughly vetted that information. Especially, if you can’t understand simple scientific reasoning.

There's an old saying about assumptions that comes to mind. And it's as though this thread was a sailing ship and you have taken the helm with everything you need to sail it safely home except a compass.

If you fall into any one of those categories, then MOM will also tell you that you need to abandon all hope.:grave:

If I don't (to your mind) then you've wasted a little time in pointing out that which is essentially meaningless. :think: Which now that I think on it...

 

[MindOverMatter]

Aw... Sore are we? And by we, I mean you.

Sore? Little lady please. MOM is far from sore. MOM doesn’t get sore and frustrated like you. This old soul takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

Darling I'm sure that if murderers had to listen to you they wouldn't have to beg for the chair, they'd do the job themselves...

So why are you still here?

Sweet Pea - What she meant to say is that I've seen enough of her to expect her to be rude and hypocritical.

Again Johana, please present the proof that substantiates your accusations. MOM knows that in the land of lower beasts and animals, that no proof is necessary to substantiate ones feelings and accusations. But please, as hard as it may be, try to move up from that world and provide US with the posts which substantiate your accusations.

Let MOM show you how its done. First, MOM is going to accuse you of being rude.

Secondly, MOM is going to back up that assertion by presenting the posting where you called her a rodent. >>> Johana Calling MOM a rodent HOCUS FOCUS Post # 214

Now, do you see how easy that was?

 

[MindOverMatter]

So you think the tiger was thinking "Boy these humans are irrational! I will kill them for being irrational"?

Actually, it was probably thinking, “I don’t have any direct proof, but my gut tells me that these guys who are waving and yelling are trying to kill me. Hell, who needs any proof. Afterall, I am a tiger. And as a tiger, all I need is my gut feeling. So, let me go up there and kill these guys while I now have this opportunity.” :execute:

 

[noguru]

Actually, it was probably thinking, “I don’t have any direct proof, but my gut tells me that these guys who are waving and yelling are trying to kill me. Hell, who needs any proof. Afterall, I am a tiger. And as a tiger, all I need is my gut feeling. So, let me go up there and kill these guys while I now have this opportunity.” :execute:

That might be very complex thinking for a tiger. But I do not know that for sure. :crackup:

My idea would be a little different. I think the tiger was feeling threatened. Was probably bored from being in a Zoo for so long. Analysed the containment unit with her shrewd feline instinct and was also aware of her own agility and athleticism. Thought it would be best to rid herself of this possible threat and acted on that.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There are enough things wrong in there, and they take such a weird little journey of "if this, then that," that I don't quite know where to start. So I won't.

Well, then what is the purpose of your statement? If you are not going to even try to “fix” what is wrong, then why do you even bother to make the statement that something is wrong? Maybe it’s because there is nothing wrong and you just want to make it appear as if there is?

But you are doing it again. Building an "argument" on a fallacious premise. And once again, you are creating an "either/or" in a place that it doesn't belong.

Were? How?

Oh, I know what I wrote. I also know what your "so what you are saying, ZOO, is this..." said. I read it. And lo and behold, what you told me I was saying wasn't what I was saying. And I said as much.

Actually, it’s not what MOM told you that you were saying. Instead, it is what MOM asked you if you were saying.

The antelope comment was actually just a lighthearted comment, not meant as a discussion point... A response to the "nobody ever expects the tiger" post. But things take funny (ie: odd) turns sometimes.

Well, since this is a discussion forum, MOM thought that your comment was part of the debate. Didn’t know that it was meant to be a frivolous comment.

That's why you think it's funny (ie: ha ha) that people are reading less?

Yes. It is always quite entertaining to watch Arrogance and Ignorance (AI) together in action. Just think about: The people who are reading less, are the ones who are trying to tell other people how to apply their Laws and run their countries. Those who are becoming increasingly ignorant and destitute of knowledge, are trying to govern and lead others. Don’t you see the irony in that? No matter how many times MOM sees it happen, she can’t get enough of it. It is quite fascinating and hilarious stuff.

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool [is] right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel [is] wise.
Proverbs 14:16 A wise [man] feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.

 

[zoo22]

There are enough things wrong in there, and they take such a weird little journey of "if this, then that," that I don't quite know where to start. So I won't.

But you are doing it again. Building an "argument" on a fallacious premise. And once again, you are creating an "either/or" in a place that it doesn't belong.

Were? How?

Right here:

Now by saying that antelopes are aware of the fact that tigers are capable of attack but humans are not, you are essentially stating that humans have devolved below the level of instinct.

First of all, that is not what I am "stating," essentially or otherwise. Fallacy.

And if they have devolved below that level, then two things:

First, the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level.

Secondly, if the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level, then antelopes currently have more intelligence than supposedly highly developed humans.

The fallacious premise: Higher instinct level (particularly instinct regarding tiger attacks per the conversation) equates to higher overall intelligence. This is simply wrong. Silly.

The "either/or" that you created where it doesn't belong: A human is EITHER of higher intelligence OR has less instinct regarding tiger attacks than an antelope. Again, simply wrong. It's not an either/or situation.

Because of the fallacious premise, your following argument, or discussion, or "debate," or whatever it is you call it, is pointless. We might as well compare shades of natural or artificial purple coloring between humans and tigers and antelopes, and discuss how it relates to flying ability.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Of course they are not exactly the same in that they are not equal. But both are still part of consciousness. The difference lies in where each is located on the levels of consciousness: Instinct lies at the lower levels of consciousness and intelligence lies at the higher levels of consciousness. Intelligence is essentially an instinct that has gone through evolution or a highly evolved instinct. And instinct is essentially low level intelligence or intelligence that has not evolved past a certain low level.

Now by saying that antelopes are aware of the fact that tigers are capable of attack but humans are not, you are essentially stating that humans have devolved below the level of instinct. And if they have devolved below that level, then two things:

First, the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level.
Secondly, if the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level, then antelopes currently have more intelligence than supposedly highly developed humans.

Thirdly, if the instinct that the antelopes currently have is presently at a higher level, and antelopes currently have more intelligence than supposedly highly developed humans, then maybe some beings are not as highly developed and rational as they have presumed themselves to be. "

And the above was posted by one of the highly developed animals, now which is it? An antelope or human?

When doing multiple choice, you should always have more than two categories.

Instinct: An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

Intelligence: The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.

Okay, and you posted those two definitions to say what? If you have posted them to try to refute what MOM has said, then you have failed. MOM would advise you to study those definitions again.

Now, when studying those definitions, ask yourself these questions: Why is the animal reacting by instinct? Why did the tiger instinctively attack? Why does a rabbit instinctively run when it sees a fox? What causes or moves an animal to react instinctively?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hmmm, types of dead there are? (sorry, just turned Star Wars off for a moment)

Yes, there are many types of dead. Dead is not just dead.

This isn't another Alabama crack, is it? :shocked:

Don’t know, never tried Alabama crack. Is there a difference between that and lets say… Mississippi or Texas crack? Is Alabama crack whiter and therefore a purer form?

Well, your posts have ruled out rationality and you've just left off emotions...so what would that leave? :think:

Let MOM see…how about we say umm… intelligence!

:idea: You're lastoneislefty in disguise, aren't you? Come on, come on, out with it.

Let's hear the voices in your head in full bloom.

Well, MOM is trying to hear them but she can’t because the voices in your head are drowning hers out. Can you please tell your voices to quiet down for a minute?

Relax MOM, consider your leg stretched into infinity. Did I sound remotely emotionally invested in this topic? Well...there's my avatar.

:rotfl: Don’t you know that you don’t have to sound to be?

He's not dead either (though he does seem dizzy---watch it!) lain:

You better look again.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Red didn't say the tiger shouldn't have been killed, he said that it was innocent. He didn't go on to say that innocent animals shouldn't be killed.

Yes it is true that he didn’t come out and directly say that innocent animals shouldn’t be killed. But at the same time, he also has not stated that the tiger should have been killed. Now in the light of those two details, what he has managed to do is to continually assert the “innocence” of the tiger.
‘
And so, what do you think is the purpose of that constant assertion? In other words, within the context of constantly stating the tiger’s innocence and not stating that it should have been killed, what do you think he is accomplishing? Is he not trying to insinuate something other than the should have been killed?

Red’s Constant Assertions:
>>>Post #110

>>>Post #135

>>>Post # 144

>>>Post # 193

>>>Post # 357

 

[Caille]

Gee whiz - aren't you tired of talking to yourself yet?

 

[MindOverMatter]

lain:

It's really kind of fascinating. Is anyone else fascinated?

Yes, MOM has already told you that watching Arrogance and Ignorance together (AI) is always fascinating. MindOverMatter POST #572

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.


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.

That you have no idea what MOM has been talking about?

 

[Town Heretic]

That you have no idea what MOM has been talking about?

MOM, no one has...I think you'd be hard pressed to summarize a summary of the index page for this thread. Reader's Digest would refuse to attempt to condense it. This thread has become the literary equivilent of a Mobius strip...the intellectual equivilent of an Escher sketch...and no, that's not a children's toy. Though that's not a bad idea. :think: