Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[lightbringer]

I'm sure MOM is well and resting in preparation for the big come back!

 

[Town Heretic]

Wow....my great granpa Town Heretic told me about this thread, but I never thought it would still be here. Sort of dark, isn't it? :think:

Can I bring any of you something? Juice maybe?

Something more substantive to :chew: on?

Hello?

(sound of footfalls receding into the distance...door slams)

(wind...)

 

[Morpheus]

Wow! Everyone seems so quick to believe the ultra-liberal left-wing media that these kids deserved what they got. :nono:

How about changing the story a bit. Three drunk teens jump off a cliff and one dies while the others are in critical condition. So would anyone think that they didn't deserve the consequences of their actions? "Oh no!!! Those poor boys never should have suffered and died for jumping off a cliff. Boo-hoo-hoo."

 

[Morpheus]

Wow....my great granpa Town Heretic told me about this thread, but I never thought it would still be here. Sort of dark, isn't it? :think:

Can I bring any of you something? Juice maybe?

Something more substantive to :chew: on?

Hello?

(sound of footfalls receding into the distance...door slams)

(wind...)

I know that initially I just ignored this thread, but today I saw it back up on top and wondered just what could possibly be keeping it alive so long. I did figure out just why they figured they had to shoot the tiger instead of capturing it. What would they feed it? Would they have to go out and capture more morons? I know that there is no shortage in San Fransisco, but if necessary they could import from L.A.

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

Okay and MOM would agree.

That’s it…let me at this ‘crazy’ piñata.

What took you so long?

A tiger as murderer or moral agent?

Both. Actually you can also say that the tiger was a murderer, moral agent, victim, sister, etc... There is no rule that says that the tiger must be relegated to a single role.

Is that what this thread has devolved into?

Actually, that would be, Is that what this thread has evolved into? Don’t know about you but we kinda like to evolve around here.

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.

First, whether you realize it or not, most human actions flow from instinct. So, are most humans not to be “scaled or judged as you would a man?” Is Man not to judge those humans who break the LAW when they instinctively react in a situation?

Secondly, since most human actions flow from instinct, even the choices which are made after you “override” your instinct, are generally the result of instinct.

Thirdly, maybe you can answer this question: Can it still be instinct if reason is involved?

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.

Why? Under what Law? So far we know that the tiger can plan and plot. What else does it need for criminal intent?

>>>Apes demonstrate ability to plan ahead

>>>Birds, Like Humans, Can Plan Ahead

Or have there been a rash of guilt ridden tigers roaming the bush lately?

How about roaming the cities? Why are you worried about the bush? Do you live in the bush?

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.

Actually, was studying the definition of MORAL and MOM never noticed the part where it stated that morals were limited to humans. Go figure!

Secondly, what is an AGENT? >>>AGENT

AGENT: noun: 1 : one that acts or exerts power
2 a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle3 : a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result

Wow, look at that! It looks like the tiger also fits all of those definitions. Who would have thunk it?

Thirdly, Murder should be judged by the murderer’s perspective? That is quite an interesting concept that MOM needs to examine. Wonder how long a civilization would last if it adopted that idea?

So, when did the tiger’s perspective become necessary for it’s actions (or for that matter any other action) to be seen by others as moral? MOM guesses that because a murderer’s perspective is different, then the majority is not supposed to see his or her actions as immoral?

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.

Questions: Does a handgun make its own plans? Is a handgun able to pull its own trigger? Does a handgun shoot itself? Or does it need someone else to first plan to pick it up, then pick it up, and finally pull its trigger? Maybe MOM is missing something here but did someone plan to pick the tiger up, then pick the tiger up, and finally pull the tiger’s and shoot?

What’s next, trials for sharks?

:rotfl: They already have them. What rock have you been sleeping under sleepy head?

I mean, a shark goes after someone who isn’t even splashing AT him?

They do.

What an evil and obviously immoral creature, no?

It Depends. From the shark’s standpoint, no. But from the standpoint of the person who has been victimized, yes.

And don’t even get me started on ant eaters…

Please go right ahead.
Cont…

 

[Caille]

Ahhhh...

Once again, there is balance in the universe.

 

[zoo22]

Ahhhh...

Once again, there is balance in the universe.

Balance from misbalance. Hmm.

 

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
That’s it…let me at this ‘crazy’ piñata.

What took you so long?

The math…

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
A tiger as murderer or moral agent?

Both. Actually you can also say that the tiger was a murderer, moral agent, victim, sister, etc... There is no rule that says that the tiger must be relegated to a single role.

:shocked: You don't say...no seriously, stop saying that.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
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.

First, whether you realize it or not, most human actions flow from instinct.

Uh, MOM, I actually wrote that man can and does override his instinct (you're skimming, aren't you)…which means that he is driven by instinct as well. Flow from instinct is amorphous enough to mean whatever you want it to so it’s hard to argue.

So, are most humans not to be “scaled or judged as you would a man?” Is Man not to judge those humans who break the LAW when they instinctively react in a situation?

Y-e-a-h, I would tend to judge men as I judge men. :think: And men have instincts, they aren’t instinctively robbing a gas station…:nono: We’re rational creatures who for the most part act by will. When we don’t it actually can be used as a defense, but those cases are rare and normally involve extraordinary context.

Secondly, since most human actions flow from instinct, even the choices which are made after you “override” your instinct, are generally the result of instinct.

Flow is so general, again, it’s virtually meaningless here. I have an instinctual need for food. I could rob a 7/11 where there is food…or I could get a job and buy food or go to a shelter and so on. Instinct drives but does not control. But about that tiger…

Thirdly, maybe you can answer this question: Can it still be instinct if reason is involved?

Can what still be instinct if reason is involved? Can I call this ketchup if mustard is involved?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
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.

Why? Under what Law? So far we know that the tiger can plan and plot. What else does it need for criminal intent?

Planning ahead is not illustrative of mens rae. Understanding the rightness or wrongness of your actions would be. A tiger cannot conform, lacks that level of intellectual understanding/complexity and cannot be judged as a moral agent. Next…

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
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.

Actually, was studying the definition of MORAL and MOM never noticed the part where it stated that morals were limited to humans. Go figure!

Until you arrived on the scene, MOM, no one thought they had to remind people that complex ideas were the domain of human beings alone. :squint:

[regarding agency and morality]

Wow, look at that! It looks like the tiger also fits all of those definitions. Who would have thunk it?

Only you, MOM…only you. Honestly, you're the only one who thinks that. lain:

Thirdly, Murder should be judged by the murderer’s perspective? That is quite an interesting concept that MOM needs to examine. Wonder how long a civilization would last if it adopted that idea?

See, you assume that the murderer is in fact a murderer and then go into perspective. In this case we (and by we I mean you) have yet to establish the first part of that and so the second part is without merit.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
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.

Questions: Does a handgun make its own plans? Is a handgun able to pull its own trigger? Does a handgun shoot itself? Or does it need someone else to first plan to pick it up, then pick it up, and finally pull its trigger? Maybe MOM is missing something here but did someone plan to pick the tiger up, then pick the tiger up, and finally pull the tiger’s and shoot?

MOM is most definitely missing something…like the proof of mens rae on the part of a tiger who, acting on instinct is no more culpable than the gun. Neither understand the abstract idea of morality and consequence from that perspective.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
What’s next, trials for sharks?

They already have them. What rock have you been sleeping under sleepy head?

Prometheus's I think...

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
What an evil and obviously immoral creature, no?

It Depends. From the shark’s standpoint, no. But from the standpoint of the person who has been victimized, yes.

Only if they have been bitten on the head.
:e4e:

 

[Sweet Pea]

geeze....this thread is STILL going on! HOW many weeks has it been since I chose this avatar in honor of it????

:chuckle:

~SP

 

[Morpheus]

I mean, a shark goes after someone who isn’t even splashing AT him?

They do.

What an evil and obviously immoral creature, no?

It Depends. From the shark’s standpoint, no. But from the standpoint of the person who has been victimized, yes.]

Actually most surfers, divers, etc. who are attacked by sharks hold no hostility toward their attackers. Most admit later, "That's what sharks do. We go into their domain." When a (supposedly) reasoning human engages in risky behavior the danger is predictable. The tiger, shark, bear or pile of rocks that produce consequences are not culpable.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Cont. From POST# 605

And again, no. Properly, we can examine their acts as accomplishing good or ill ends as those actions relate to our moral sensibility.

Who else’s moral sensibilities are those actions supposed to relate to? Are we supposed to examine those actions as it relates to the tiger’s moral sensibilities?

The acts can be related by those who possess the understanding but not by the creature.

So, now the tiger has no understanding? The tiger does not understand that it is able to kill someone or something? That is quite interesting. :think: So when chasing prey, the tiger does not understand what it is doing? The tiger does not understand that its actions will result in the death of a creature which it felt was a threat to its life? Or that its actions will result in the death of a creature which it can use to quell its hunger and thereby save its life?

Please ask yourself, Why does a tiger feel threatened if it does not understand? If a tiger does not understand, then why does it feel the need to kill someone or something that it perceives to be a threat to its life? Why does it move and behave in a way that will eliminate what it perceives to be a threat to its life?

So here we have an animal that is supposedly so stupid that it kills animals to eat and try to save its life, but at the same time does not understand that killing is able to save its life. But the most ironic thing, is that the animal that is supposed to be so much smarter, can’t even see and comprehend that the mere fact that a tiger is able to feel threats and hunger, and moves to kill or eliminate those threats and hunger, points to the fact that the tiger understands the purpose of its actions. Gotta love it!

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...

Maybe you are, but no one on this end is arguing that you could teach a tiger to change its nature. Or do you believe that your teaching will automatically change the tiger’s nature? Or maybe we should go and ask Siegfried and Roy if years of teaching automatically changes a tiger‘s nature?

On a roll here.

Why? Why do you choose to get on a roll? What is wrong with a chair? In fact, MOM didn’t know that they made rolls that size.

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.

So where’s the error? Again, this is what MOM stated:

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

Please reread what you have just written and please point to the error in MOM’s statement.

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.

And so conditioning the animal to interact in a manner which is less likely to result in harm, is now a wicked and bad thing?

Secondly, you must be of the mind that understanding changes nature? The last time that MOM checked, understanding does not automatically translate into a change of nature. You can understand the consequences of an action and still move to commit that action. Your continued commission of an action does not mean that you did not understand what you were doing. You can understand and still not care. You can understand and still be moved by nature to do those things which you know that you should not do. Check the prisons for reference.

Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Cont…

 

[Caille]

Ahh yes....


and the crazy continues to flow unabated.


thank you, MOM.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Cont. From POST# 611

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.

Maybe you need to examine the definition of ETHICS. >>>ETHICS

ETHICS: noun: 1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values *the present-day materialistic ethic* *an old-fashioned work ethic* — often used in plural but sing. or plural in constr. *an elaborate ethics* *Christian ethics* b plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group *professional ethics* c : a guiding philosophy d : a consciousness of moral importance *forge a conservation ethic*
3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) *debated the ethics of human cloning*

A tiger kills because it is moved to kill by hunger or threat or an application of its natural instinct for stalking and acting.

:think: Hmmm, sounds familiar. So, what moves humans to kill? You must be of the mind that humans kill for other reasons? You must be of the mind that hunger does not move humans to kill? You must be of the mind that a perceived threat does not move some humans to kill? Now that one is especially funny. What illusion are you still living in? What rock have you been sleeping under?

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.

Notice what you have just said: “The cat may eventually REALIZE…“ In other words, the cat follows its nature until it grasps the significance or comes to the understanding that it is not chasing a normal prey. And after that, it concludes that it can’t catch or kill the light beam?

Thought these animals were not able to understand? :rotfl:

Thanks for continuing to prove MOM's point.

There is no morality involved on the part of the cat.

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

So, you are of the mind that from the cat’s standpoint, its chasing of the light beam does not conform to what it considers to be its standard of right behavior? In other words, the cat does not see its behavior as what is right for it and other cats?

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.

You better look again because a tiger does in fact reason abstractly. And because that is the case, if that is your reasoning behind your previous proclamations that tigers have no morals and therefore can’t be judged, then you better think again.

I missed that in the tiger cannon of moral and ethic, what page was it on?

You should have been attending class because Mrs. Broward went over it.

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.

Tigers are able to appreciate and distinguish between what is right and wrong for them. Are you not paying attention?

Here is another question taking your ideas and applying them a bit differently. Why aren’t hunters charged with and prosecuted for murder?

Umm, could it be because it is not against the Law? Could it be because it is still Lawful for a hunter to hunt lower animals and beasts?

If you’re right and animals are moral beings then the taking of their lives should amount to murder, no?

Well, then from that perspective every soldier that ever fought in a war was and is a murderer?

So, why have you been celebrating and supporting murder and murderers?

Secondly, what does the LAW say?

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?

First, because Man is not held to a lesser standard. He is held responsible for his needless killings. The only thing is that at this point in time he just thinks that he is not. Can you say, Reality Check!

Secondly, lower animals and beasts were made for Man.

Thirdly, at this point in time, Man needs to kill and consume other moral animals.

Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

This is a silly business.

Then why did you write it?

 

[noguru]

Cont. From POST# 611



Maybe you need to examine the definition of ETHICS. >>>ETHICS

ETHICS: noun: 1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values *the present-day materialistic ethic* *an old-fashioned work ethic* — often used in plural but sing. or plural in constr. *an elaborate ethics* *Christian ethics* b plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group *professional ethics* c : a guiding philosophy d : a consciousness of moral importance *forge a conservation ethic*
3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) *debated the ethics of human cloning*



:think: Hmmm, sounds familiar. So, what moves humans to kill? You must be of the mind that humans kill for other reasons? You must be of the mind that hunger does not move humans to kill? You must be of the mind that a perceived threat does not move some humans to kill? Now that one is especially funny. What illusion are you still living in? What rock have you been sleeping under?



Notice what you have just said: “The cat may eventually REALIZE…“ In other words, the cat follows its nature until it grasps the significance or comes to the understanding that it is not chasing a normal prey. And after that, it concludes that it can’t catch or kill the light beam?

Thought these animals were not able to understand? :rotfl:

Thanks for continuing to prove MOM's point.




So, you are of the mind that from the cat’s standpoint, its chasing of the light beam does not conform to what it considers to be its standard of right behavior? In other words, the cat does not see its behavior as what is right for it and other cats?



You better look again because a tiger does in fact reason abstractly. And because that is the case, if that is your reasoning behind your previous proclamations that tigers have no morals and therefore can’t be judged, then you better think again.



You should have been attending class because Mrs. Broward went over it.



Tigers are able to appreciate and distinguish between what is right and wrong for them. Are you not paying attention?



Umm, could it be because it is not against the Law? Could it be because it is still Lawful for a hunter to hunt lower animals and beasts?



Well, then from that perspective every soldier that ever fought in a war was and is a murderer?

So, why have you been celebrating and supporting murder and murderers?

Secondly, what does the LAW say?



First, because Man is not held to a lesser standard. He is held responsible for his needless killings

Secondly, lower animals and beasts were made for Man.

Thirdly, at this point in time, Man needs to kill and consume other moral animals.

Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.



Then why did you write it?

MOM, if everyone admits that the tiger was immoral, can we move on? :hammer:

Can we appoint you as judge at the next trial we hold for an animal? You seem to be the most motivated person I have ever witnessed when it comes to applying human ethics to animals. So I think you will be best at the job. I am just wondering who we can get as a defense attorney. Do you think they will go for the insanity plea?

 

[MindOverMatter]

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

~SP

…..and on, and on, and on, and on to infinity and beyond.

 

[MindOverMatter]

: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...

:tunes: ))) You keep going back to false Assumptions, Assumptions, Assumptions…

Your constant repetition of an inaccurate assumption does not change reality.

I don't think so...

 

[MindOverMatter]

Pretty silly arguing with a mind-reader, isn't it?

Cialle, why don’t you try debating and find out?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why are you answereing, point for point, a post I made directly to another poster?

Cialle dear, because this is a debate forum. Are you not yet aware of that? :guitar:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Ascribing moral thought processes to a tiger is saying that a tiger has the ability to have these moral thought processes as humans do.

Question: Where did humans come from?

It's not like you're simply dealing with a cultural difference here. You're dealing with a different species with a different brain that doesn't function in the same manner or level as a human brain.

Question: How did humans come to be?

Your last little comment about PETA is just nuts. (Ha! Like the rest of what you write isn't nuts. That one was a gift. I'm humouring you...) Remove the tin hat, sweetheart.

Sweetheart, why don’t you stop living inside that illusion? Why do you insist on living in denial? The funny thing is that its not as if the members of PETA and ALF are trying to hide their agendas. This is common knowledge.

>>>Center on Animal Liberation Affairs

>>>Jerry Vlasak

>>>From The Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA)

An adult would continue to love a person who beat them, abused them, encouraged others to abuse them?

Oh, is this news to you? Maybe you need to read more. Is Australia also suffering from a reading deficiency?

Maybe you should start with a couple of passages from the Book Of Life.

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
Job 1:22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

Perhaps this is the case with boys that torture animals, set fires and wet the bed but not with the great majority of people.

Who is talking about the great majority of people? The great majority of people are known to be ignorant, and from the looks of things it also appears that a lot of them have internet access. :guitar:

Again, if you're unable to understand this, I pity you. If you're being purposefully obtuse- grow up. It's not clever.

What is actually pitiful is the fact that you were not able to understand that MOM was not talking about the "great majority" of the people.

 

[Caille]

Question: Where did humans come from?

Humans come from Toledo. Surely you aren't making the claim that Toledo is the seat of morality? Perhaps you're making the claim that Toledo is the home of a breed of super-moral Tigers?

Question: Is there any point to your blathering gibberish?

Question: How did humans come to be?

Come to be what? Ambidexterous? Multi-lingual?

Question: Why do you keep on blathering such gibberish?