Philosophy Now Forum

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.