Posted by walter on December 24, 2019, 12:57 am, in reply to "Re: Health warning"
Me: "It's not beyond you."
"What in particular? this statement is out of the dark." No it wasn't - you said this: "-The lady merely returned the owl to its natural situation. Why you might find that "unpleasant" is beyond me." As noted, I already explained what I found unpleasant. So, not out of the dark in fact. Note that this was also a dig - pretending I found something different to be unpleasant when I had already explained twice exactly what. You made other digs in your first reply too. "I've pointed out that the "interference" was in most cases of human causation. That mice die on roads is hardly justification for doing nothing for the decline and extinction of a broad spectrum of species." That's a straw man. Running over mice on roads then when you hit one of their predators feeding mice to them is obviously unbalancing nature - hence the last part is (unbalanced) interference; I queried it not to discuss methods of addressing decline and extinction of species, but because you used that 'nature' claim to justify the action, as if the fact that owls eat mice somehow meant it shouldn't be unpleasant to watch.