Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[MindOverMatter]

Mom, at this point I believe that discussion with you is futile.

Far from. Remember, the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I don't even understand the points you are making. This could be because of my lack of intellect, or it could be because you are not saying anything.

Could be.

I have lost all interest in continuing this discussion.

No you haven’t.

Please take your brilliant ideas and publish them for peer review. Maybe you will get somewhere in that arena.

Been doing that.

I have never denied that opportunity is necessary for anything to happen.

Yes you have. In >>>POST 296, you said that opportunity is not a reason. And in case you are not aware, by making that statement, you denied that opportunity is necessary for a result. And as far as MOM is aware, opportunity and reason are necessary for every result.

This is saying absolutely nothing because it is true for everything.

Well, that in itself says a lot. The fact that opportunity is necessary for everything, says a lot. This is because if there is no opportunity then there can be nothing else. In other words, the fact that it is necessary for everything, makes opportunity a fundamental and vital element. And as a fundamental and vital element, it is a foundation without which an entire system or complex whole would collapse. You know, kinda like water is to this world.

Think about it:
First, the zoo failed to properly secure the tiger.
Secondly, the zoo’s failure gave the tiger the opportunity to escape and attack.
Thirdly, when the opportunity was realized, the tiger escaped and killed.
Fourthly, when we heard the news, we began a discussion about it.
Fifthly, here we are today still in discussion.

Now, if you will notice, we wouldn’t be here having this discussion if the tiger had not escaped and killed the young man. The tiger would not have escaped and killed the young man if it had been properly contained.

So what this tells us is that the tiger’s improper caging gave it an opportunity to escape. So in essence, everything that we are currently doing on this thread is built upon the tigers escape, which took place because of opportunity. In other words, in regards to this matter, all of the events which have transpired, can be traced to the opportunity which the tiger received.

Your insistence that opportunity is somehow a valid answer is nonsensical because since without it nothing would happen, then it can be removed from consideration as a distinguishing factor.

WOW! In other words, since nothing would happen without water, scientists should not consider its presence when searching for life on other planets? Water should be removed from consideration as a distinguishing factor or fundamental and vital element, when searching for life on other planets? That is quite an interesting concept. So, the scientists have been going about this thing the wrong way?

No wonder why we are lagging in science and math.
>>>US Students Do Worse in Science and Math

Secondly, didn’t you notice that opportunity is “removed” at the zoo. Do you not see that it is a distinguishing factor at the zoo? Do you not see that the reason why the animals do not attack humans at the zoo is because the opportunity has not been made available. Go to the zoo and take another look.

 

[Caille]

Another virtuoso achievement in nothing by the Queen of Nothing!


Kudos MOM!

 

[zoo22]

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?

Maybe Toledo presented the tigers with the opportunity to adopt super-morals. Tigers love opportunity.

I'd be interested to meet the Toledo super-moral tigers. Are they at the zoo, or do they wander about freely? I wouldn't think a super-moral tiger would need to be in the zoo, except that it might be a good place for them to lounge about or take a nap. Also, it would be easier for people to find the tiger. Kind of like visiting someone at their office. But that's just speculation. I don't know anything about these super-moral Toledo tigers. Where they would live or whatnot. Nothing. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Caille]

Maybe Toledo presented the tigers with the opportunity to adopt super-morals. Tigers love opportunity.

And tunafish sandwiches!

 

[zoo22]

And tunafish sandwiches!

That's for sure. I've never known a tiger not to love a tunafish sandwich. Though I am not saying it isn't possible. Just that I've never encountered it. I think it's pretty widely accepted that tigers do love tunafish sandwiches, and that most tigers would welcome the opportunity to eat one. Or more. I imagine that they might even make them if 1) they were able to, 2) the opportunity presented itself.

 

[noguru]

WOW! In other words, since nothing would happen without water, scientists should not consider its presence when searching for life on other planets? Water should be removed from consideration as a distinguishing factor or fundamental and vital element, when searching for life on other planets? That is quite an interesting concept. So, the scientists have been going about this thing the wrong way?

No. From what we know of life, water is necessary for life. Its presence is a factor involved with the opportunity for life. What I am saying is that identifying what brings opportunity (water) is sound logic. But saying that opportunity itself is a factor is such an obvious logical statement that, well, it says nothing. Do you get it yet? Probably not. It is obvious that you are not very quick.

I realize that discussion with you is an exercise in futility. But I will continue to correct you whenever you make stupid comments like this.

MOM, I don't say this often, but you are an idiot.

It is no wonder that your attempts to have an imapct on science through publishing peer reviewed articles have resulted in complete failure.

 

[zoo22]

MindOverMatter, have you considered that your communication method might not be particularly effective? Signs do seem to point. Sifting through the battered and torn remains of this thread and your Hocus Focus thread (and others, as most of them seem to quickly spiral into sheer chaos), I'd suggest that there was little to nothing accomplished. Perhaps you might want to take the opportunity to step back and reassess.

 

[MindOverMatter]

What "current evidence"?

Are human population numbers rising or falling?

Rising and Falling

 

[MindOverMatter]

Are you trying to exhaust me with questions?

No. Are you exhausted? Is your mind out of shape? MOM hopes that you know that questions are but exercise for the mind. So get up and exercise!

If you really need to understand all this perhaps you should do some research on your own.

Been there and done that. Actually, been trying to see if you will do some research on your own.

I don't seem to remember you paying tuition at my school.

Don’t remember you having a school. When did that happen?

 

[Caille]

Rising and Falling

I'm sorry my dear, you're wrong.


Amusing as ever, but wrong.

As usual.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Have you seen recordings of the taunts from other zoo visitors? Are you certain that those taunts were exactly like the ones made by these three people? Are you the mother of one of these taunters?

So, if the taunts of the other zoo visitors were not exactly like the ones made by those who were attacked, then are you arguing that the tiger was able to distinguish between taunts? Are you of the mind that tigers are able to tell the difference between taunts or insults?

I have been very clear. I do not know everything in regard to animals and behavior. What is your point? Where do you think I am inaccurate? Enough with the barrage of questions, please be specific or stop this nonsense.

Well Noguru, excuse MOM. MOM thought that you were an expert on this issue.

Secondly, practically all of your assumptions and assertions have been inaccurate.

My patience with you is growing very thin.

Patience is a virtue. There is no need to get uptight young man.

You have not made a single point that I can tell, yet you continue with these questions.

Then you are not paying attention because MOM has made several points.

You are very annoying.

Sorry to hear that.

Are trying to taunt me?

Actually, if you didn’t notice, MOM was trying to engage you in a debate. You spoke as if you were quite knowledgeable .

All you are doing is making yourself look very foolish.

By engaging you in debate? How do you look foolish in a debate forum by engaging in debate and providing objective evidence and proof? Shouldn’t that be the other way around? Shouldn’t the foolish looking one be the individual who is not trying to debate and who is not providing objective evidence and proof?

I am beginning to agree with many of the other members here who find you to be wacky.

Well, of course you would begin to agree. That is to be expected and therefore not at all surprising. And here is why:

First, that is generally what eventually happens here when someone can’t grasp or comprehend what another person is saying.

Secondly, because every one here assumes themselves to be right, you will find that they do not like two things:
A. When you try to reprove them.
B. When you try to point out that their beliefs and arguments are not based in this reality and therefore are on shaky ground. You know the old saying about the way of a fool….

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool [is] right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel [is] wise.

So Noguru, you are no different.

You must be a joy at parties. I bet people line up to discuss things with you.

The funny thing is that they actually do. You should see all of these people who sit around MOM.

 

[noguru]

So, if the taunts of the other zoo visitors were not exactly like the ones made by those who were attacked, then are you arguing that the tiger was able to distinguish between taunts? Are you of the mind that tigers are able to tell the difference between taunts or insults?

I do not think that a tiger can distinguish between taunts and insults. How would you insult a tiger? I am saying that certain behavior appears more threatening to tigers than other behavior.

Well Noguru, excuse MOM. MOM thought that you were an expert on this issue.

I am no expert. Just a well informed member of the audience.

Secondly, practically all of your assumptions and assertions have been inaccurate.

I do not believe this is true. Can you explain what makes you think this?

Patience is a virtue. There is no need to get uptight young man.

I have quite a bit of patience relative to most people. But I am human and I do become frustrated with people who are pretending to be something they are not.

Then you are not paying attention because MOM has made several points.

What were those points again?

Sorry to hear that.

Don't be sorry. Just consider why I said it.

Actually, if you didn’t notice, MOM was trying to engage you in a debate. You spoke as if you were quite knowledgeable .

I am quite knowledgeable. And if you think you are engaging me in debate then you are sorely mistaken. What you seem to be doing is trying to impress others with a misguided onslaught of verbage.

By engaging you in debate? How do you look foolish in a debate forum by engaging in debate and providing objective evidence and proof? Shouldn’t that be the other way around? Shouldn’t the foolish looking one be the individual who is not trying to debate and who is not providing objective evidence and proof?

I have tried to engage you in debate. But you give me the impression that you are not here for debate. It seems that you have confused effective debate with just arguing for arguements sake.

First, that is generally what eventually happens here when someone can’t grasp or comprehend what another person is saying.

I am having a difficult time grasping what you are saying. And it seems that you are having a difficult time grasping what I am saying. I am not the only one who finds your strategy counterproductive. If most people tell you this about yourself, then perhaps there is some truth to their claims.

Secondly, because every one here assumes themselves to be right, you will find that they do not like two things:
A. When you try to reprove them.
B. When you try to point out that their beliefs and arguments are not based in this reality and therefore are on shaky ground. You know the old saying about the way of a fool….

I do not assume myself to be right. I am searching for truth and accuracy. I have spent much time observing animal behavior as well as much time learning what professionals say about the matter. What have you done?

So Noguru, you are no different.

I am no different than who? Are you admitting that this is what is behind your efforts? Or are you saying I am like everyone else except for you?

The funny thing is that they actually do. You should see all of these people who sit around MOM.

Yes, and they probably leave your presence with a sinking feeling of confusion.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull****."

 

[noguru]

No. Are you exhausted? Is your mind out of shape? MOM hopes that you know that questions are but exercise for the mind. So get up and exercise!

I am not exhausted yet. I think that is your debate strategy. Because it can seem effective to some.

Been there and done that. Actually, been trying to see if you will do some research on your own.

I have done much research. What research have you done?

Don’t remember you having a school. When did that happen?

I don't have a school. It was a figure of speech. You are asking questions that a freshman would ask.

 

[Morpheus]

I noted that MOMmy has avoided responding to Zoo's admonitions. I remember a couple professors who considered themselves so exceptional in their field that they saw this as the reason the overwhelming majority of their students either dropped their classes or failed to break the C barrier. Those students, not to speak of all those other academicians, just were too dense to understand the wisdom that so freely flowed from their mouths. Everyone else knew quite well that the reason for the communication failure was the professors' delusions, and likely mental disorders.

 

[MindOverMatter]

disagree with the definition you used. I think the one I pointed out is more appropriate.

Actually, both definitions apply. But if you like, we can examine your definition. >>>INSTINCT

INSTINCT: noun: 1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity *had an instinct for the right word*
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Now, what is it that you wanted to highlight? What is the big deal with that definition?

At any rate the term "reason" as it is used in the first definition is not the same as "a reason". You seem to be stuck on that distinction.

It’s not? Listen to yourself! Questions: Where does reason come from? What leads you to reason?

Secondly, what causes an animal to go into fight or flight mode? Is it not because an animal feels threatened? Is that not a reason?

Thirdly, What is so hard to understand about the fact that you can’t do anything without reason?

Have you stopped taking your medication again?

:rotfl: The better question is, when will you start taking yours?

 

[cattyfan]

Have you stopped taking your medication again?

:rotfl: The better question is, when will you start taking yours?

I see MOM subscribes to the "I know you are, but what am I" (elementary) school of argument.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I'm starting to grow hair on my back that's more interesting than you, Inverted Marmot.

What, are you reverting back to K_ _ _ N? If you are, thank you because MOM kinda misses that guy.

 

[MindOverMatter]

:tunes:
MOMs forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air,
They fly so high, nearly reach the sky,
Then like my dreams they fade and die.
Fortune's always hiding,
I've looked everywhere,
She's forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air.

She's dreaming dreams, She's scheming schemes,
She's building castles high.
They're born anew, their days are few,
Just like a sweet butterfly.
And as the daylight is dawning,
They come again in the morning!

Jaan Kenbrovin and John William Kellette, for the most part...Well, the arguments have been beaten to a fine paste, you don't like Caille's anagrams, so I thought why not commentary by way of music?

This sounds like a good song for the current housing crises. So how about this one:

:tunes: ))) We in America were forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air,
They fly so high, nearly reach the sky,
Then like dreams they fade and die.
Fortune's always hiding,
We in America had looked everywhere,
We were forever blowing bubbles,

Pretty bubbles in the air.

We in America were dreaming dreams, We in America were scheming schemes,
We were building castles high.
They're born anew, their days are few,
Just like a sweet butterfly.
And as the daylight is dawning,
They come again in the morning!

Very good song. :rotfl: Maybe you should have sent it to the FED Chairman. :guitar:

>>>Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes, if you look back I mentioned the fight or flight mechanism previously.

Yes, MOM is very aware of your mentioning of the fight or flight mode. But the problem does not lie with what you have mentioned. Instead, the problem lies with you mentioning the fight or flight mode and then stating that the tiger’s behavior was unpredictable. In a situation in which it feels a threat, a tiger has two choices: fight or flight. All of it’s behaviors will flow from those two choices. So what is unpredictable?

My statement about predictability in regard to animal behavior was very clear. Predictability generally decreases as the capacity for learned behavior increases. I have repeated this several times. Do you want a percentage for how reliable a prediction can be in regard to tigers? I do not think I can give you one. Perhaps someone who specializes in feline behavior would be a better option if that is what you need.

Again, Noguru, does learned behavior change Nature?

If learned behavior does not change nature, then your premise is flawed. And here is why:

Predictability generally decreases if you are only concentrating on the fact that the animal has learned a new behavior or behaviors. But learning a new behavior is not the only factor that is involved in predicting an animal’s actions and movements. So by just concentrating on that lone factor, you are ignoring two other far more important factors: nature, and situation or circumstance. And if taken into account or consideration, what you will notice is that those two additional factors will negate the decrease in predictability. In other words, predictability increases when nature and circumstances or situation, are factored in. This is because all of the actions or movement that an animal makes, begins with its nature and environment.

Now, the problem that you and so many others have, can be summed up in five words: The Illusion of Learned Behavior. Learning or schooling tends to create the illusion of great character change. But the fact of the matter is that it doesn’t. Learning does not change or alter an individual’s inherent character or nature; instead, it is incorporated into that inherent character or nature. And since that is the case, two very important factors still remain:

First, the nature or the physical constitution or drives of the individual still remains.

Secondly, situations or circumstances still remain.


So, what do those two remaining factors essentially tells US? Well, they tell US that when the right situation or circumstance arises, the learned individual who by inherent character or nature is a thief, murderer, rapist, etc.., will still steal, murder, rape, etc.. This is because in the area of nature, there is little difference between that learned individual and the unlearned individuals who by nature are thieves, murderers, rapists, etc... Instead, the only difference between the two, lies in the area of learned behavior. And because this is the case, what you essentially have, is two groups of thieves, murderers, rapists, etc… One group consists of the individual who has incorporated the learned behaviors or the additional skills into his or her old nature. And the other group consists of the individuals who did not incorporate learned behaviors or the additional skills into their old nature.

In other words, as a result of the incorporation of learned behavior, what will occur, is the creation or development of a more skillful and clever thief, murderer, rapist, etc… Or you may also say that as a result of learned behavior, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc… evolve or change into groups of more skillful and clever thieves, murderers, rapists, etc…

Now, since the thief, murderer, rapist, etc… is now more skilled or learned, and is still in possession of the same old nature or physical constitution or drives, all that remains is a favorable or advantageous juncture of circumstances or situation. In other words, when the appropriate circumstances or situation is made available, the thief, murderer, rapist, who is now in possession of the learned behaviors or skills, will utilize those learned skills to fulfill the desires of that old nature. Or you can also say that when the opportunity becomes available, the learned or skillful thief, murderer, rapist, etc…, will move to steal, murder, rape, etc…

 

[zoo22]

This might be a good solution... Bringing animal trials back.

Although of course, "in modern times, it is considered in most criminal justice systems that non-human creatures lack moral agency and so cannot be held culpable for an act." But MindOverMatter's animal-morals arguments are so compelling, I imagine she's well on her to swaying the general public to seeing things her way. After all, it worked with everyone here, right?

Note that they also put werewolves on trial.