Rule-writers hate Eagles

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Walker »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote:Tell that to an eagle as its being killed by a windmill.

Cost benefit is way off. Run the numbers if you can't see it in death,

and are too callous to empathize with life by putting yourself in the eagles' position.

Zoos have been getting bad press lately.
I'll let you talk to the eagles since you seem to be the expert on them.

PhilX
Don't have to be an expert on death to see idiot rule-writers killing for ideology, as explained above.

Which begs the question with the obvious answer, who couldn't see it.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote:Tell that to an eagle as its being killed by a windmill.

Cost benefit is way off. Run the numbers if you can't see it in death,

and are too callous to empathize with life by putting yourself in the eagles' position.

Zoos have been getting bad press lately.
I'll let you talk to the eagles since you seem to be the expert on them.

PhilX
Don't have to be an expert on death to see idiot rule-writers killing for ideology, as explained above.

Which begs the question with the obvious answer, who couldn't see it.
You misread me.

I'll quote JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." (you seem to be opposed to having safe havens for the eagles so maybe you would like to see them die or you just don't care,).

PhilX
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Walker »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I'll let you talk to the eagles since you seem to be the expert on them.

PhilX
Don't have to be an expert on death to see idiot rule-writers killing for ideology, as explained above.

Which begs the question with the obvious answer, who couldn't see it.
You misread me.

I'll quote JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." (you seem to be opposed to having safe havens for the eagles so maybe you would like to see them die or you just don't care,).

PhilX
You seem to think idiots writing rules creating an unnecessary situation of extermination is acceptable.

What are you, a dalek?
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote: Don't have to be an expert on death to see idiot rule-writers killing for ideology, as explained above.

Which begs the question with the obvious answer, who couldn't see it.
You misread me.

I'll quote JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." (you seem to be opposed to having safe havens for the eagles so maybe you would like to see them die or you just don't care,).

PhilX
You seem to think idiots writing rules creating an unnecessary situation of extermination is acceptable.

What are you, a dalek?
That idiot description you just gave could easily apply to you because you do write that way on this thread. And no, I'm not a dalek.

PhilX
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Walker »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
You misread me.

I'll quote JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." (you seem to be opposed to having safe havens for the eagles so maybe you would like to see them die or you just don't care,).

PhilX
You seem to think idiots writing rules creating an unnecessary situation of extermination is acceptable.

What are you, a dalek?
That idiot description you just gave could easily apply to you because you do write that way on this thread. And no, I'm not a dalek.

PhilX
Sorry, but I am neither writing rules creating an unnecessary situation of extermination, nor am I advocating that these rules be written, as you are advocating. Neither am I advocating that this unnecessary situation of extermination should exist, as you are advocating.

The idiot rule writers of death are doing this and yes, they did not build an Eagle Zoo where those eagles could live that would have been killed.

Just kidding about the daleks.

They are not so pious. They just flat out exterminate without apology or anemic reasoning, and I don’t think they can read so they can’t write rules making it all official, with gold seals and blue ribbon panels.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote: You seem to think idiots writing rules creating an unnecessary situation of extermination is acceptable.

What are you, a dalek?
That idiot description you just gave could easily apply to you because you do write that way on this thread. And no, I'm not a dalek.

PhilX
Sorry, but I am neither writing rules creating an unnecessary situation of extermination, nor am I advocating that these rules be written, as you are advocating. Neither am I advocating that this unnecessary situation of extermination should exist, as you are advocating.

The idiot rule writers of death are doing this and yes, they did not build an Eagle Zoo where those eagles could live that would have been killed.

Just kidding about the daleks.

They are not so pious. They just flat out exterminate without apology or anemic reasoning, and I don’t think they can read so they can’t write rules making it all official, with gold seals and blue ribbon panels.
Extermination means trying to wipe out an entire group with intent. I'm sure that's not the government's intent. And they may save more lives than destroy which you keep overlooking.

PhilX
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Walker »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
That idiot description you just gave could easily apply to you because you do write that way on this thread. And no, I'm not a dalek.

PhilX
Sorry, but I am neither writing rules creating an unnecessary situation of extermination, nor am I advocating that these rules be written, as you are advocating. Neither am I advocating that this unnecessary situation of extermination should exist, as you are advocating.

The idiot rule writers of death are doing this and yes, they did not build an Eagle Zoo where those eagles could live that would have been killed.

Just kidding about the daleks.

They are not so pious. They just flat out exterminate without apology or anemic reasoning, and I don’t think they can read so they can’t write rules making it all official, with gold seals and blue ribbon panels.
P: Extermination means trying to wipe out an entire group with intent.
W:That's reason enough to never turn your back on a dalek, though there may be other reasons.

P:I'm sure that's not the government's intent.
W:I would say ... probably instead of sure, in this situation, at this time in history.

P:And they may save more lives than destroy which you keep overlooking.
Walker wrote:Cost benefit is way off to justify killing Eagles. Run the numbers if you can't see it in death,
and are too callous to empathize with life by putting yourself in the eagles' position.


PhilX
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote: Sorry, but I am neither writing rules creating an unnecessary situation of extermination, nor am I advocating that these rules be written, as you are advocating. Neither am I advocating that this unnecessary situation of extermination should exist, as you are advocating.

The idiot rule writers of death are doing this and yes, they did not build an Eagle Zoo where those eagles could live that would have been killed.

Just kidding about the daleks.

They are not so pious. They just flat out exterminate without apology or anemic reasoning, and I don’t think they can read so they can’t write rules making it all official, with gold seals and blue ribbon panels.
P: Extermination means trying to wipe out an entire group with intent.
W:That's reason enough to never turn your back on a dalek, though there may be other reasons.

P:I'm sure that's not the government's intent.
W:I would say ... probably instead of sure, in this situation, at this time in history.

P:And they may save more lives than destroy which you keep overlooking.
Walker wrote:Cost benefit is way off to justify killing Eagles. Run the numbers if you can't see it in death,
and are too callous to empathize with life by putting yourself in the eagles' position.


PhilX
You're equating cost with life. Good luck to you.

PhilX
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Walker »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
P: Extermination means trying to wipe out an entire group with intent.
W:That's reason enough to never turn your back on a dalek, though there may be other reasons.

P:I'm sure that's not the government's intent.
W:I would say ... probably instead of sure, in this situation, at this time in history.

P:And they may save more lives than destroy which you keep overlooking.


PhilX
You're equating cost with life. Good luck to you.

PhilX
I assure you, people will not die without windmills.

However, eagles will live.

Good luck with that anthropogenic fantasy.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote:
You're equating cost with life. Good luck to you.

PhilX
I assure you, people will not die without windmills.

However, eagles will live.
That's my basic point. And possibly with government help.

PhilX
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Walker »

Correction: People will die without windmills, but not because they are without windmills.

However, the eagles that would die with windmills would not die with no windmills.

Does that affect your basic point?
Last edited by Walker on Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Walker wrote:Correction: People will die without windmills, but not because they are without windmills.

However the eagles that would die with windmills would not die with no windmills.
Barriers can be erected to prevent that from happening or eagles can be relocated. I'm not concerned.

PhilX
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Walker »

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote:Correction: People will die without windmills, but not because they are without windmills.

However the eagles that would die with windmills would not die with no windmills.
Barriers can be erected to prevent that from happening or eagles can be relocated. I'm not concerned.

PhilX
Neither are the rule writers.

Which is why they hate eagles.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Walker wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Walker wrote:Correction: People will die without windmills, but not because they are without windmills.

However the eagles that would die with windmills would not die with no windmills.
Barriers can be erected to prevent that from happening or eagles can be relocated. I'm not concerned.

PhilX
Neither are the rule writers.

Which is why they hate eagles.
An unproven assumption.

PhilX
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Rule-writers hate Eagles

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Eagles are magnificent. To deliberately do something that will endanger them is despicable.
Post Reply