- This topic has 64 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Do animals have a sense when their time is coming and go curl up in a cave somewhere? How come the only dead animals I ever see are road kill? Where do animals go when they are ready to pass on?
Animals aren’t natural city slickers. Hence you don’t tend to see them lying dead in Times Square.
They usually get recycled, as some other animal’s dinner.
They probably do try to get comfortable when they’re sick, so I assume they die in their homes/lairs/burrows/dens/whatever.
Animals in the wild simply do not die of old age. If they aren’t hunted while alive, when they die vultures eat them.
Lior: That is out-of-townism. I see (quite naturally) dead animals all the time where I live (out in the sticks, in the ancient territory of the Munsee Indians). Then again, some of them do die in their sleep in their nests, presumably, which would put them out of sight.
I do see a lot of extremely depressing roadkill, though; baruch Hashem though I’ve yet to have caused one myself.
edited
ws: Why do you assume stepping on a bug isn’t as bad as running over a bird or skunk?
“Why do you assume stepping on a bug isn’t as bad as running over a bird or skunk?”
I don’t see this assumption anywhere in this thread.
RebYidd23, please reconcile the assertion that “Animals in the wild simply do not die of old age” with the reference to “when they die, f they aren’t hunted while alive.”
Patur: Joseph was referring to Writersoul’s statement that she herself has not caused any roadkill – he assumes she has stepped on
insects (sounds reasonable to me).
They die of disease or injury.
Randomex:
As you point out that is an assumption. But let’s grant the assumption. I still don’t see how being thankful that you haven’t killed any larger animals, indicates that it is worse than killing insects. You can’t be thankful for not killing insects if you have in fact killed insects. Hence my objection. If anything chuvim (Joseph)’s question would have been closer to being a valid question if writersoul HADN”T ever killed an insect – then at least there is a possible implication that it’s worse to kill animals, from the fact that writersoul is thankful that she has never killed any but did not express thankfullness that she hasn’t killed insects. Though it still wouldn’t be such a good question because you can simply answer that the topic being discussed here is animals, so there is no reason to start talking about insects just for the sake of expressing thankfulness.
wow, Joe still posts
Also, maybe the statement of thankfulness for not killing insects is what got edited.
What would’ve been so objectionable about saying that to have been edited out?
Maybe the Moderator feels that it is in fact worse to kill animals than to kill insects and allowing the post would have equated the two so he had no choice but to edit it.
Also, a careful reading of the post shows that writersoul may actually have killed animals as well: The statement “I’ve yet to have caused one myself” is referring back to the statement of “I do see a lot of extremely depressing roadkill” so all it means is that writersoul never caused a DEPRESSING roadkill. If that is the case then the thankfulness is not for not killing animals; it’s for not killing them in a depressing way which obviously doesn’t apply to insects which are never killed in a depressing way. So chuvim (Joseph)’s question is all the more baseless.
Mammals and birds are similar to humans. Insects are not.
Humans are mammals, but 1) possums would be marsupial roadkill, and there are probably others I could name if knew them, and 2) what makes birds similar to humans?
One wonders what Writersoul could possibly have had in that post that needed to be edited out. I guess we’ll never know.
Maybe someone should start a forum somewhere to post things people tried to post but had rejected (especially if they don’t understand why).
Personally, I try to avoid killing anything I can see – so yes, I do my best to avoid killing insects, other arthropods, or anything larger. I am guilty on not caring if I kill Bacteria however…
“One wonders what Writersoul could possibly have had in that post that needed to be edited out. I guess we’ll never know.”
I thought I answered that already.
“Maybe someone should start a forum somewhere to post things people tried to post but had rejected (especially if they don’t understand why).”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/daas-torah-2/page/7#post-533222
Lol -Mr. Laughing Moderator
Birds are warm-blooded and intelligent with a four-chambered heart.
“Lol -Mr. Laughing Moderator”
I still don’t know if Mr. Laughing Moderator is the one that was mad at me in that thread.
not mad at you, just doing my job
Is that an implicit admission that the Laughing Moderator and the Daas Torah Moderator are one and the same? I already know that the Laughing Moderator is 100 as per http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/alter-the-thread-titles/page/2#post-534235
I am glad that there are no hard feelings. I’ll forget about our past conflict when measured against all the positives:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/alter-the-thread-titles#post-532252
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/alter-the-thread-titles/page/2#post-533606
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/your-coffee-room-report-card-comments#post-533380
“One wonders what Writersoul could possibly have had in that post that needed to be edited out. I guess we’ll never know.”
That’s a great question. I have absolutely no recollection and I’m ridiculously curious. Any mods happen to remember? (Out of the hundreds of posts you’ve modded over the last week? Nu?)
And I’ve gotta say that I’ve never had a post of mine so pilpuled before.
And in answer to the original question- of course I’ve stepped on bugs. But causing roadkill is actually dangerous and potentially expensive in car repairs (especially deer). If I had all my ‘druthers, though, I wouldn’t kill either, but yeah.
Though thank you PAA for your diyukim in my defense.
“And I’ve gotta say that I’ve never had a post of mine so pilpuled before… thank you PAA for your diyukim in my defense.”
Just doing my job (as I plagiarize the Moderator):
“Just doing my job (as I plagiarize the Moderator):
I should have quoted the original source:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/33#post-536677
And I like my explanation(s) better than yours.
To answer the original question, the Gemara in Chagigah (16a) says:
??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????… ???? ?????
?????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ?????
The Iyun Yaakov quotes a Medrash in Bereishis Rabbah which has a fourth similarity to animals – humans die like animals. He therefore asks why the Gemara doesn’t list it. He answers: ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???”? ?????? ???? ???? ?”? ???? ????? ??? ?”? ??? ??”?
(I haven’t gone through all above posts.)
Did you mean these “original questions,” PAA?
Do animals have a sense when their time is coming and go curl up in a cave somewhere? How come the only dead animals I ever see are road kill? Where do animals go when they are ready to pass on?Because I don’t see how that answers them.Check out this little trick:
(edited)
“Did you mean these “original questions,” PAA?
Do animals have a sense when their time is coming and go curl up in a cave somewhere? How come the only dead animals I ever see are road kill? Where do animals go when they are ready to pass on?”
Nope. I meant the ORIGINAL QUESTION. There is only one. And it’s not in your list.
Randomex:
Have you figured out what I was referring to?
No (see above note?). A few candidates do come to mind, though:
1) Na’aseh adam b’tzalmeinu kidmuseinu.
(First recorded question in Chumash.)
2) Af ki omar Elokim “Lo sochlu mikol etz hagon”.
(First question in the world recorded in Chumash.)
3) Ayeko.
(Hashem’s first question to a worldly being recorded in Chumash.)
4) A question in one of the above categories which preceded the first question in that category in the Chumash, but is not in the Chumash, only in another source.
(edited)
I forgot to say – I don’t see how you answer any of those questions either, of course.
(edited)
Sorry, you are 0/4. Why did you suddenly assume that I wasn’t referring to this thread?
And why haven’t you read through the thread yet? There are only eleven posts in between your posts.
PAA:
1) I assumed “ORIGINAL QUESTION” referred to something significant from any perspective.
2) I made my three posts in a row without reading everything up to that point, so there were actually more than eleven unread posts.
Let’s go!
Maybe the Moderator feels that it is in fact worse to kill animals than to kill insects and allowing the post would have equated the two so he had no choice but to edit it.Mods aren’t allowed to block things just because they disagree with them.
Also, a careful reading of the post shows that writersoul may actually have killed animals as well: The statement "I've yet to have caused one myself" is referring back to the statement of "I do see a lot of extremely depressing roadkill" so all it means is that writersoul never caused a DEPRESSING roadkill.Here’s a reasonable assumption – Writersoul finds all
roadkill depressing, and “extremely depressing” was meant to express a feeling about “roadkill,” not to modify (and thus limit) it, whether that is correct usage or not.
If that is the case then the thankfulness is not for not killing animals; it's for not killing them in a depressing way which obviously doesn't apply to insects which are never killed in a depressing way. So chuvim (Joseph)'s question is all the more baseless.Chuvim’s question assumes (“as bad as”) that Writersoul believes there is something bad about running over a bird or skunk. This appears to be baseless. It is understandable that Writersoul’s feeling about roadkill is that it is depressing, and it can be assumed that she does not feel this way about insects (as demonstrated by your assumption that this non-feeling is universal – “insects which are never killed in a depressing way”).
I thought I answered that already.[What was edited out of Ws’s post]No, you theorized, and that theory can be presumed false.
(edited)
“I assumed “ORIGINAL QUESTION” referred to something significant from any perspective.”
No. It was just to distinguish it from all the non-original questions in this thread which you quoted.
“Mods aren’t allowed to block things just because they disagree with them.”
True in theory. But there is no system of checks and balances in the Coffee Room.
“Here’s a reasonable assumption – Writersoul finds all
roadkill depressing, and “extremely depressing” was meant to express a feeling about “roadkill,” not to modify (and thus limit) it, whether that is correct usage or not.”
That would just make it that there are three levels – non-depressing, depressing, and extremely depressing.
“Chuvim’s question assumes (“as bad as”) that Writersoul believes there is something bad about running over a bird or skunk. This appears to be baseless. It is understandable that Writersoul’s feeling about roadkill is that it is depressing, and it can be assumed that she does not feel this way about insects (as demonstrated by your assumption that this non-feeling is universal – “insects which are never killed in a depressing way”).”
You are just adding another kashya on Chuvim’s question.
“No, you theorized, and that theory can be presumed false.”
First of all, since when can theories be presumed false? Second of all, you said “One wonders what Writersoul could POSSIBLY [emphasis mine] have had in that post that needed to be edited out.” In order to adequately answer that all I have to do is provide a possibility.
Let me know when you want to know what I was referring to.
Theories can be presumed false when they are obviously false.
1) Why was my theory obviously false?
2) If it’s obviously false you wouldn’t need to PRESUME it false.
1) I didn’t say your theory was false.
2) Because the person to whom it is obvious can still be wrong.
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 provided Torah sources:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ever-seen-a-forest-animal-die-of-old-age#post-537335
So for anyone who still cares, the ORIGINAL QUESTION was: “Ever seen a forest animal die of old age”
Which I answered: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ever-seen-a-forest-animal-die-of-old-age#post-537335
RebYidd23:
Thanks for this:
Theories can be presumed false when they are obviously false.Richashu:
[T]his has devolved into some sideshow rhetoric debate.
Instead of Coffee Room, they should just call this
chat room "knitpicking room."😉 That’s “nitpick,” derived from picking nits out of hair. And this is a “forum” or “message board,” not a chat room. 😉
As for the issue… LOL! Actually, it’s just us.
After our first clash, someone made a thread just for us to post in instead of taking up space in the original thread… not that we used it.
PAA:
See below (the post after the recap post).
RECAP (this has gotten complicated):
1. Writersoul:
I do see a lot of extremely depressing roadkill, though; baruch Hashem though I’ve yet to have caused one myself.
2. Joseph [as chuvim]:
Why do you assume stepping on a bug isn’t as bad as running over a bird or skunk?
3. PAA:
I don’t see th[at] assumption anywhere in this thread.
4. Randomex:
Joseph was referring to Writersoul’s statement that she herself has not caused any roadkill – he assumes she has stepped on insects (sounds reasonable to me).
5. PAA:
As you point out that is an assumption. But let’s grant the assumption. I still don’t see how being thankful that you haven’t killed any larger animals, indicates that it is worse than killing insects. You can’t be thankful for not killing insects if you have in fact killed insects. Hence my objection.
If anything chuvim (Joseph)’s question would have been closer to being a valid question if writersoul HADN”T ever killed an insect – then at least there is a possible implication that it’s worse to kill animals, from the fact that writersoul is thankful that she has never killed any but did not express thankfullness that she hasn’t killed insects. Though it still wouldn’t be such a
good question because you can simply answer that the topic being discussed here is animals, so there is no reason to start talking about insects just for the sake of expressing thankfulness.
6. PAA:
Also, maybe the statement of thankfulness for not killing insects is what got edited.
7. Lior:
What would’ve been so objectionable about saying that to have been edited out?
8. PAA:
Maybe the Moderator feels that it is in fact worse to kill animals than to kill insects and allowing the post would have equated the two so he had no choice but to edit it.
9. PAA:
Also, a careful reading of the post shows that writersoul may actually have killed animals as well: The statement “I’ve yet to have caused one myself” is referring back to the statement of “I do see a lot of extremely depressing roadkill” so all it means is that writersoul never caused a DEPRESSING roadkill. If that is the case then the thankfulness is not for not killing animals;
it’s for not killing them in a depressing way which obviously doesn’t apply to insects which are never killed in a depressing way. So chuvim (Joseph)’s question is all the more baseless.
10. Randomex:
One wonders what Writersoul could possibly have had in that post that needed to be edited out. I guess we’ll never know.
11. PAA:
"One wonders what Writersoul could possibly have had in that post that needed to be edited out. I guess we'll never know."I thought I answered that already.
12. PAA:
To answer the original question, the Gemara in Chagigah (16a) says:
??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????… ???? ?????
?????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ?????
The Iyun Yaakov quotes a Medrash in Bereishis Rabbah which has a fourth similarity to animals – humans die like animals. He therefore asks why the Gemara doesn’t list it. He answers: ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???”? ?????? ???? ???? ?”? ???? ????? ??? ?”? ??? ??”?
13. Randomex:
Maybe the Moderator feels that it is in fact worse to kill animals than to kill insects and allowing the post would have equated the two so he had no choice but to edit it.Mods aren’t allowed to block things just because they disagree with them.
Also, a careful reading of the post shows that writersoul may actually have killed animals as well: The statement "I've yet to have caused one myself" is referring back to the statement of "I do see a lot of extremely depressing roadkill" so all it means is that writersoul never caused a DEPRESSING roadkill.Here’s a reasonable assumption – Writersoul finds all
roadkill depressing, and “extremely depressing” was meant to express a feeling about “roadkill,” not to modify (and thus limit) it, whether that is correct usage or not.
If that is the case then the thankfulness is not for not killing animals; it's for not killing them in a depressing way which obviously doesn't apply to insects which are never killed in a depressing way. So chuvim (Joseph)'s question is all the more baseless.Chuvim’s question assumes (“as bad as”) that Writersoul believes there is something bad about running over a bird or skunk. This appears to be baseless. It is understandable that Writersoul’s feeling about roadkill is that it is depressing, and it can be assumed that she does not feel this way about insects (as demonstrated by your assumption that this non-feeling is
universal – “insects which are never killed in a depressing way”).
I thought I answered that already. [What was edited out of Ws's post]No, you theorized, and that theory can be presumed false.
14. PAA:
"Mods aren't allowed to block things just because they disagree with them."True in theory. But there is no system of checks and balances in the Coffee Room.
"Here's a reasonable assumption - Writersoul finds all
roadkill depressing, and "extremely depressing" was meant to express a feeling about "roadkill," not to modify (and thus limit) it, whether that is correct usage or not."That would just make it that there are three levels – non-depressing, depressing, and extremely depressing.
"Chuvim's question assumes ("as bad as") that Writersoul believes there is something bad about running over a bird or skunk. This appears to be baseless. It is understandable that Writersoul's feeling about roadkill is that it is depressing, and it can be assumed that she does not feel this way about
insects (as demonstrated by your assumption that this non-feeling is universal - "insects which are never killed in a depressing way")."You are just adding another kashya on Chuvim’s question.
"No, you theorized, and that theory can be presumed false."First of all, since when can theories be presumed false? Second of all, you said “One wonders what Writersoul could POSSIBLY [emphasis mine] have had in that post that needed to be edited out.” In order to adequately answer that all I have to do is provide a possibility.
15. RebYidd23:
Theories can be presumed false when they are obviously false.
16. PAA:
1) Why was my theory obviously false?
2) If it’s obviously false you wouldn’t need to PRESUME it false.
17. RebYidd23:
1) I didn’t say your theory was false.
2) Because the person to whom it is obvious can still be wrong.
18. PAA:
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.
19. PAA:
So for anyone who still cares, the ORIGINAL QUESTION was: “Ever seen a forest animal die of old age”
Which I answered:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ever-seen-a-forest-animal-die-of-old-age#post-537335
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?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.