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