Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[lightbringer]

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.

:rotfl: The return to the dark ages? The moral agency of animals! Priceless!

 

[zoo22]

Weevils on trial

"... More startling, if possible, are the trials in which collectivities of wild animals--rats, birds, snakes, insects--were called to ecclesiastical courts to answer for crop depredation and other anti-social behaviour. In 1545, the winegrowers of St. Julien in the Savoie region complained to the local ecclesiastical court about some weevils that had ravaged their vineyards (Evans 38). Presumably, the plaintiffs had to pay for their own counsel, but the weevils had both an agent and an advocate appointed for them. The court issued a proclamation recommending public prayers, repentance, contrition, three consecutive high masses, and "above all to pay tithes" (39). Scrupulous adherence to the programme solved the problem nicely, but several decades later, the weevils returned. This time, the wine-growers' representative beseeched the court to appoint a new agent and advocate for the weevils (the first two having died), to observe the damage done by the weevils, and to proceed to an excommunication.

Various defence arguments and adjournments ensued, such that the court case had not moved ahead appreciably over the summer. The plaintiffs held a public meeting, during which they agreed to set aside a tract of land for the weevils,... "

Bottom line: If those animals don't want to do the time, they shouldn't do the crime!

Also, if we do bring back animal trials, I don't think that the animals should be afforded free council. If they're too lazy to work for a living, they can represent themselves.

 

[lightbringer]

Bottom line: If those animals don't want to do the time, they shouldn't do the crime!

Also, if we do bring back animal trials, I don't think that the animals should be afforded free council. If they're too lazy to work for a living, they can represent themselves.

Zoo22, you're pretty cool for a Christian! Love the above!

They can represent themselves!!!:rotfl:

 

[Rusha]

Note that they also put werewolves on trial.

Silly Zoo.

That only works if they are tried and convicted before the next full moon.

:chuckle:

 

[zoo22]

Silly Zoo.

That only works if they are tried and convicted before the next full moon.

:chuckle:

So as not to drive this ever-enlightening thread even further into the chaos and absurdity it has already careened with MindOverMatter at the helm...

The werewolf trial thread: Random thoughts on werewolf trials and such.

 

[koban]

How is it beaten to death? There are so many things still to argue. We have yet to get to the best part. So this thread may be long but it is far from dead.

Is it dead yet?






(faint voice) I don't want to go on the cart!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Are you purposely being difficult?

Actually, MOM is trying to make it as simple as possible. You are making this difficult.

I have explained this already. Predictability decreases as the capacity for learned behavior increases.

And again, that decrease in predictability is negated by the two factors of nature and situation or circumstance.

This is a general truth that can be applied to all animal behavior.

….if you want to ignore the factors of nature and situation or circumstance.

The reality of this becomes obvious from observing animal behavior in a large spectrum of animals. Animals have both instinctual and learned behavior. Some animals are more capable of learned behavior, but this does not entirely eliminate the influence of instinct.

In other words, learned behavior does not eliminate the influence of nature and situation or circumstance?

Could have, should have, would have.

Anyone with half a brain should realize for themselves the obvious fact that reality is not always in line with expectations.

However, when an organization is offering a public product (in this case observation of animals) there are social liabilities assumed from such a product. As a customer at a zoo it is reasonable to expect that the animals will not escape. Otherwise the people in charge at the zoo are not doing there job properly.

Of course it is reasonable for the customers to expect that animals will not escape from the Zoo. But that was and is not the point that MOM was making. The point is that your expectation and reality may not be on the same page. In other word’s, your belief or expectation may be diametrically opposed to what is in present reality. So you better make sure that your expectation or belief lines up with reality. Because in case you are not aware, reality trumps belief.

Yes that is one way the tiger demonstrated it was a threat to humans. Do you know when the tiger was killed? Was it while it was still loose? Or did they capture it again and then decide to kill it?

While it was loose and after it had killed and mauled.

By George, you've got it! (Well kind of)

By George, you’ve got what? That by learning how to escape, the tiger is now more proper in the area of escaping from it’s enclosure than other tigers? That’s not hard to see. Who was arguing against that? What MOM was sayings is that this newfound knowledge does not necessarily mean that the tiger was far more intelligent than all other tigers.

When was the animal killed?

After it had killed and mauled. What does the timing of the tiger’s death have to do with this simple fact: Judging from the present looks of things, if the zoo had kept the tiger alive, a major part of the public might have agreed with that decision.

Animals that have a greater capacity for learned behavior are capable of greater individuality. This logically follows from the result of a greater capacity for learned behavior. And the idea has been confirmed by repeated observations of animal behavior. Are you denying this is the case?

MOM is not denying anything. Just want you to present the evidence that points to this fact?

Now you are off on another tangent. Who are you intent on destroying? Or are you alleging that one or some other people are not offering the public the truth?

Who said anything about destroying anybody? You made a comment basically asking if you should give people the truth even when they can’t handle it. And in return MOM just said that it Depends. This is because it is known that people generally don’t offer the truth to those who they are intent on destroying. In other words, giving someone the truth depends on the situation and the individual. Because of an impending situation, someone may not feel the need to give you the truth.

 

[noguru]

Actually, MOM is trying to make it as simple as possible. You are making this difficult.

I disagree, and I think your previous responses support my opinion, rather than yours.

And again, that decrease in predictability is negated by the two factors of nature and situation or circumstance.

Is it negated? Or are these things that must be factored into the equation for any given situation? If an ocean current is going north and the wind is going south does the wind negate the ocean current? Or are these things that must be factored into any sailors decisions.

….if you want to ignore the factors of nature and situation or circumstance.

I am not ignoring them. Would you stop being obtuse? We have to start somewhere when trying to formulate an explanation for phenomenon. Greater individuality does not preclude predictability entirely. It increases the pool of possible responses.

In other words, learned behavior does not eliminate the influence of nature and situation or circumstance?

You have an amazing knack for stating the obvious.

Of course it is reasonable for the customers to expect that animals will not escape from the Zoo. But that was and is not the point that MOM was making. The point is that your expectation and reality may not be on the same page. In other word’s, your belief or expectation may be diametrically opposed to what is in present reality. So you better make sure that your expectation or belief lines up with reality. Because in case you are not aware, reality trumps belief.

I agree that expectation and reality are not always in line. We have already agreed on this point.

I was bringing this up in regard to liability law. Guido Calabrese is the founder of modern liability law. The most important aspect of his claims is that of "The least cost provider". IOW, it is less of an effort for the zoo keepers to create a container from which tigers cannot escape than to leave the responsibilty of avoiding injury from physical contact up to each person in the zoo and the tigers.

While it was loose and after it had killed and mauled.

Correct.

By George, you’ve got what? That by learning how to escape, the tiger is now more proper in the area of escaping from it’s enclosure than other tigers? That’s not hard to see. Who was arguing against that? What MOM was sayings is that this newfound knowledge does not necessarily mean that the tiger was far more intelligent than all other tigers.

That is not what I meant. Individuality means that each individual has their own unique set of talents and intelligence. Why are you being so obtuse?

After it had killed and mauled. What does the timing of the tiger’s death have to do with this simple fact: Judging from the present looks of things, if the zoo had kept the tiger alive, a major part of the public might have agreed with that decision.

The tiger was killed as a precautionary measure. So that no other humans would be injured. I am really not concerned with public opinion on this matter.

MOM is not denying anything. Just want you to present the evidence that points to this fact?

There is much evidence in behavioral biology that supports this. Perhaps if you actually did some research instead of blowing a lot of hot air, you might discover the evidence.

Who said anything about destroying anybody? You made a comment basically asking if you should give people the truth even when they can’t handle it. And in return MOM just said that it Depends. This is because it is known that people generally don’t offer the truth to those who they are intent on destroying. In other words, giving someone the truth depends on the situation and the individual. Because of an impending situation, someone may not feel the need to give you the truth.

You brought it up. I was simply responding to you bringing up that a persons motives regarding "the destruction of others" has an effect on the dissemination of truth.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well MOM from my experience I would be more confident to say this description is a better reflection of you than it is of TH.

Well maybe you need to expand your experience. Anyway, as we continue we will see who that description fits. We’ll see who doesn’t understand simple scientific reasoning. But judging from evidence, MOM will have to say that it is those who are of this current generation.

>>>Europeans' Understanding Of Science, Evolution, More Advanced Than Americans

>>>U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

 

[MindOverMatter]

Please stop beating around the bush.

Don’t try to drag the President into this. :rotfl:

Just come right out and tell me where you think my view is inaccurate. I am an adult, I can accept criticism when it is productive. And I consider the attempt to gain a more accurate view to always be productive. So please tell me exactly what you have to offer this area in terms of more accurate ideas? Is it your hypothesis on opportunity, or on boredom, or both?

Well, one of the places where your view is inaccurate is in the area of lower animals intelligence. Because of your misunderstanding of nature, instinct, and learning, you are failing to realize the levels of animal intelligence and morals.

Secondly, you are failing to realize that nature and situation trump learning.

 

[zoo22]

Oh good. The tiger thread is back.

Meow.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I plainly stated several times now that nothing can happen without opportunity.

And yet, you have emphatically stated that opportunity does not exist as a reason. NOGURU POST # 296

And so again, how can something exist as a cause and yet not be a reason?

Of course there has to be opportunity. Of course if the tiger did not have the opportunity to escape and attack it would not have. How does this help us understand animal behavior better?

Are you paying attention? It helps you to understand animal behavior because it shows you that animals will engage in some activities just because the opportunity has been made available. Therefore, if no opportunity then no engagement.

I don't think you listen to what you are saying.

And judging by your opportunity is not a reason remark, MOM knows that you can’t possibly be listening to some of the things that you have been saying.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I am very clear on the meaning of my words. You seem to be making the claim that both opportunity and boredom are also factors in how this happened.

Never said that both opportunity and boredom are factors in how this happened. MOM originally mentioned and still maintains that opportunity is the main factor in the occurrence (MOM POST # 239). You on the other hand, are the one who brought boredom into the equation (Noguru POST#309).

Now, this is not to say that boredom was not a factor. But if you will look, you will see that it is only an Ancillary Factor. This is because without opportunity, boredom and everything else becomes a non-issue. In other words, opportunity is the key or fundamental factor that everything else hinges on. The tiger’s boredom is mute without the opportunity. Without the opportunity to attack, the tiger just remains a bored tiger in a cage. Only after the opportunity is made available does boredom become a factor.

I agree with that. But I do not think these are the motivational forces behind why the tiger did what it did.

Well, if you are of the mind that opportunity and boredom could not have been part of the tiger’s motivation to act, then you better look again. Even though neither is the primary motivational force, those two may still be a part of the cocktail of forces which moved the tiger to act. As we have already discussed in POST # 444, the tiger’s desire is its primary motive.

They both facilitated the tigers drive to attack based on self-preservation to become manifest in an incident of aggression. These are certainly aspects that the zoo should be addressing in regard to safe animal handling in the zoo. Perhaps you think that I am denying that, but I am not.

Noguru, you can’t have it both ways. Examine and listen closely to what you are saying. You are contradicting yourself: In one line you say, that you don’t think that opportunity and boredom are the motivational forces behind the tiger’s attack. But then in this line, you say that you believe that those two things facilitated the tiger’s drive to attack.

So, how does a facilitator not become part of the force? How do you exclude the facilitator from the equation? What does a facilitator do? And here is why MOM asks these questions:

If you are not aware, one’s Nature is in itself a motivational force that directly influences actions and movements. In fact, Nature is the main or primary controlling motivational force. And as such a force, it is the first agency or influence which rouses or incites a living organism to activity. Or we may also say that Nature is the primary agency or influence which is responsible for the production of Actions and Movements. And also, if you will note, this is why in the area of Nature is where you will find the conscious impulse which is called desire. The desires of everyone and everything can be traced back to Nature. And so the reason why the tiger desire’s to kill someone who it perceives to be a threat is because that is what is found in its Nature

While it is the primary controlling motivational force, Nature alone does not produce Actions and Movement. This is because without Opportunity, Nature cannot physically reproduce or recreate the Actions and Movements which are found in it. In other words, Nature must have an Opportunity to express itself. For example: When hungry, it is in your Nature to eat. Hunger and eating are both actions which are found in your Nature. But there is a problem: without any food, you can only reproduce the physical Action and Movement of hunger. But you cannot physically reproduce or recreate the act of eating food. And so what this means, is this:

First, the presence of the food, gives you an Opportunity to reproduce an Action and Movement which is found in your Nature.

Secondly, the Opportunity given to you by the presence of the food, coupled with your Hungry Nature, moves or draws you to physically reproduce or recreate the act of eating.

So, you can say that Nature is the primary motivator and secondary facilitator. And Opportunity is in essence a primary facilitator and secondary motivator. And as a primary facilitator, Opportunity is necessary for the physical reproduction of the Actions and Movements which are found in Nature. And it has the power to move or draw you to physically reproduce or recreate those actions.

Now Noguru, though you may like to, you can’t exclude Opportunity from the equation. It is essential and therefore necessary.

I don't really need to do that. Anyone who is interested can go back and see that for themselves.

Well, if you don’t feel the need to provide proof for your assertions, then what is the purpose of asserting them? If you feel that MOM or the paraphrasing is off base, then please provide the proof.

I will say that perhaps I was inaccurate in what you have been saying. But that is because you have been very vague about your criticism.

Okay. Vague in what way?

Who would have ever expected that? I generally give people the benefit of the doubt at first. Until their motives become clear. Your motives are still unclear. It would be nice if you were to clarify.

MOM’s motives are as clear as day. MOM’s motive is to get you to closely reexamine the information that you have been looking at. The science is "incomplete" and "flawed." Closely reexamine it yourself.

 

[noguru]

Never said that both opportunity and boredom are factors in how this happened. MOM originally mentioned and still maintains that opportunity is the main factor in the occurrence (MOM POST # 239). You on the other hand, are the one who brought boredom into the equation (Noguru POST#309).

Now, this is not to say that boredom was not a factor. But if you will look, you will see that it is only an Ancillary Factor. This is because without opportunity, boredom and everything else becomes a non-issue. In other words, opportunity is the key or fundamental factor that everything else hinges on. The tiger’s boredom is mute without the opportunity. Without the opportunity to attack, the tiger just remains a bored tiger in a cage. Only after the opportunity is made available does boredom become a factor.



Well, if you are of the mind that opportunity and boredom could not have been part of the tiger’s motivation to act, then you better look again. Even though neither is the primary motivational force, those two may still be a part of the cocktail of forces which moved the tiger to act. As we have already discussed in POST # 444, the tiger’s desire is its primary motive.



Noguru, you can’t have it both ways. Examine and listen closely to what you are saying. You are contradicting yourself: In one line you say, that you don’t think that opportunity and boredom are the motivational forces behind the tiger’s attack. But then in this line, you say that you believe that those two things facilitated the tiger’s drive to attack.

So, how does a facilitator not become part of the force? How do you exclude the facilitator from the equation? What does a facilitator do? And here is why MOM asks these questions:

If you are not aware, one’s Nature is in itself a motivational force that directly influences actions and movements. In fact, Nature is the main or primary controlling motivational force. And as such a force, it is the first agency or influence which rouses or incites a living organism to activity. Or we may also say that Nature is the primary agency or influence which is responsible for the production of Actions and Movements. And also, if you will note, this is why in the area of Nature is where you will find the conscious impulse which is called desire. The desires of everyone and everything can be traced back to Nature. And so the reason why the tiger desire’s to kill someone who it perceives to be a threat is because that is what is found in its Nature

While it is the primary controlling motivational force, Nature alone does not produce Actions and Movement. This is because without Opportunity, Nature cannot physically reproduce or recreate the Actions and Movements which are found in it. In other words, Nature must have an Opportunity to express itself. For example: When hungry, it is in your Nature to eat. Hunger and eating are both actions which are found in your Nature. But there is a problem: without any food, you can only reproduce the physical Action and Movement of hunger. But you cannot physically reproduce or recreate the act of eating food. And so what this means, is this:

First, the presence of the food, gives you an Opportunity to reproduce an Action and Movement which is found in your Nature.

Secondly, the Opportunity given to you by the presence of the food, coupled with your Hungry Nature, moves or draws you to physically reproduce or recreate the act of eating.

So, you can say that Nature is the primary motivator and secondary facilitator. And Opportunity is in essence a primary facilitator and secondary motivator. And as a primary facilitator, Opportunity is necessary for the physical reproduction of the Actions and Movements which are found in Nature. And it has the power to move or draw you to physically reproduce or recreate those actions.

Now Noguru, though you may like to, you can’t exclude Opportunity from the equation. It is essential and therefore necessary.



Well, if you don’t feel the need to provide proof for your assertions, then what is the purpose of asserting them? If you feel that MOM or the paraphrasing is off base, then please provide the proof.



Okay. Vague in what way?



MOM’s motives are as clear as day. MOM’s motive is to get you to closely reexamine the information that you have been looking at. The science is "incomplete" and "flawed." Closely reexamine it yourself.

You are either purposely misrepresenting what I have said or you are excersising selective memory. I have stated emphatically that nothing can happen without opportunity. Since it is a universal factor of any equation for all phenomenon, it is not a meaningful reason. It is not something that can be used to distinguish reason. Are you familiar with the basic rules of math?

In this following equation opporunity (x) can be removed from both sides because it is universal.

x(y+1) = x(z-1)

It is certainly a factor in predicting whether an action is possible. But not in determining the animals motivation after the fact. Now in recognizing this, if we eliminate the opportunity (make a container from which the tiger cannot escape) then the possibility of a tiger attacking a customer at a zoo becomes a null set.

It would be as if x = 0 zero, as opposed to 1. If x = 1, we could still have a non-zero value for this equation. If x = 0, then both sides of the equation would = 0. If x = 1, then the probability of z = (y + 2). If x = 0, then no value of probability can be assigned to either z or y.

 

[koban]

Oh good. The tiger thread is back.

Meow.

Aaaaack!

There - it just coughed up a hairball. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Oh, wow. The tiger thread!

 

[cattyfan]

are we at the tail end of this discussion yet?

 

[Stripe]

are we at the tail end of this discussion yet?

:rotfl:

I think the point is that someone has it by the tail.. :chuckle:

 

[red77]

are we at the tail end of this discussion yet?

According to MOM, after 44 pages we still haven't hit the "best part" yet.....

:liberals:

Personally speaking, that would be the thread actually being closed.....

 

[koban]

According to MOM, after 44 pages we still haven't hit the "best part" yet.....

:liberals:

Personally speaking, that would be the thread actually being closed.....

Closed, deleted, burned and everyone involved banned. :chuckle: