New responses (20. Randomex:)
Re: 5
It is true that one cannot be thankful for not doing
something one has done. However, being thankful that
you have not killed animals, although you have killed insects, indicates that you see killing animals as worse than killing insects, for if they are of equal importance, you have no cause to be thankful. By this reasoning, Joseph’s question is valid.
(If we were to consider killing animals and insects to be separate offenses, even if of equal importance, one could be thankful for not having killed any of the one even if one has killed some of the other. Compare doing multiple toldos of the same av versus toldos of multiple avos in hilchos Shabbos. But why would we? Until we have compelling reason, Joseph doesn’t have to hold of this distinction.)
Re: 14
True in theory. But there is no system of checks and balances in the Coffee Room.
Facetious.
That would just make it that there are three levels - non-depressing, depressing, and extremely depressing.
Very well – replace
“Here’s a reasonable assumption – Writersoul finds all
roadkill depressing”
with
“Here’s a reasonable assumption – Writersoul finds all
roadkill extremely depressing.”
There, that’s better.
You are just adding another kashya on Chuvim's question.
You interpreted Writersoul’s statement as though it had been written with a precision of language not expected (of a seminary girl) in an online forum post, and proclaimed Joseph’s question “all the more baseless” on the basis of your interpretation (perhaps facetiously).
I offered a different explanation of Writersoul’s statement and why Joseph’s question was baseless not in addition to yours, but to replace it (though we agreed that Writersoul’s issue with roadkill was that it is depressing).
Side note:
Seemingly, it turns out that Writersoul doesn’t distinguish between any kinds of roadkill, nor between killing animals and killing insects, but is thankful because “causing roadkill is actually dangerous and potentially expensive.”
In order to adequately answer that all I have to do is
provide a possibility.A plausible possibility, if you want the answer to be
accepted.
Re: 18
So the question is can someone presume a theory to be false because to him it is obviously false? Well I think it depends on the person's status and the subject matter of the theory. I am alleging that Randomex is not of the caliber to presume my (perfectly reasonable) theory to be false.
I think this is facetious, but I’ll respond to it anyway.
In this case, my status is “Mayor of Coffeetown”, and the subject matter is a Coffee Room post. I rest my case.
(Also, your “perfectly reasonable theory” hinges on an abuse of power by a mod, runs contrary to your own answer to Joseph {"there is no reason to start talking about insects just for the sake of expressing thankfulness"}, and was not borne out by the facts ["of course I've stepped on bugs"].)
Re: 12/19
The “original question” is that of the thread title,
“[Have you e]ver seen a forest animal die of old age[?]”
And your answer is that a Medrash says the death of humans is like that of animals, so in this sense humans are animals. Therefore, if you’ve seen a person die, you’ve seen an animal die.
But there are two problems here:
1) Assuming humans are animals, they’re not forest
animals.
[This also applies to your assertion that you “provided Torah sources”.]
2) The question is if you’ve ever seen such a death, and
you have not told us that (unless we’re meant to assume it). After all, wouldn’t a peaceful human death of old age be likely to go unobserved?