mobile - desktop
Available Now at RodentPro.com!
News & Events:
Posted by Serpwidgets on May 05, 2003 at 19:36:28:
In Reply to: The Reverend RESPONDS!!!!!!!!! posted by snakepimp on May 05, 2003 at 11:45:05:
First, I would like to question your re-iteration of the phrase "in its enormity," seemingly to mock me.
The opening of that post (especially "insipid inception") sounded to me like someone trying to look really really intellectual. I found the alliteration and IMO overabundance of 50-cent words to be hilarious. Of course I mocked it... it was irresistable. ;-)
Do you know what that word means? Go look it up. You don't know how to spell discrete, so you can't be trusted to know the definition of such a misused word as enormity.
I suggest you look up both spellings.
I do not hold a degree in biology. If you do, serpwidgets, then bring forth all fury that you have to prove YOUR point.
The point is that I don't have to use biology to prove my point. The point is that your point has no basis.
...but there is no logical argument that states Lampropeltis getula californiae would, could, or should breed with Elaphe guttata guttata in any naturally occurring situation.
There doesn't need to be. The only way that is even relevant is if there is an assumption that "anything which happens in nature is acceptable, anything which doesn't happen in nature is unacceptable," or "irresponsible" or whatever negative stigma you wish to explicitly or implicitly attach to it next time.
That, in fact, is the entire basis of the rest of your argument. It's an assumption. That is why I mentioned a "universal right or wrong" which you seem to be using, yet cannot show any basis for.
(Go ahead and rip on my ending a sentence with a preposition, too. Tell me that ending sentences with prepositions is something up with which you will not put. LOL)
Elaphe guttata: weakly keeled scales, 27-29 scale rows, anal plate divided.
Lampropeltis getula: smooth scales 19-25 scale rows, anal plate single.
I agree, they are different. So what?
I should have brought up “salmontine” boas. Boa constrictor occidentalis is listed on CITES appendix I, and all other boas are listed on app. II. Occidentalis is likely to be extinct in my lifetime, yet people persist in degrading their incredible natural beauty and uniqueness by crossing them with animals from far-removed locations.
That is an opinion. It is based on your tastes. There is no universal determining factor which dictates "one is better than the other." One man's "degrading" is another man's "improvement." Why does that make someone irresponsible? Because they don't choose to perpetuate what you prefer?
That is what I meant by “Our rape of the Earth’s living resources is enhanced by these frankensteinian creations.” And “We are making an unforgivable mockery of the beauty of nature’s creations through such practices.”
What you implied is that the entire world should revolve around your tastes, and you are appalled that it does not. You imply that anyone whose tastes don't match your own is without taste. You imply that others' ideas of "beauty" should be mocked. It is offensive.
Salmontines are irresponsible, Creamsicles are far less implicitly so.
The comparison is meaningless without a basis for making value judgements.
I am aware of the hybrids used in commercial agriculture, and I do my best to avoid them.
Didn't you just within the last couple of days decide about your opinion on hybrids in the pet trade? You mean to say that you had this apparently awful opinion of hybridized plants some significant amount of time before then, yet in the interim couldn't make up your mind about herps?
What basis is there to assume that agicultural hybrids are "bad" and should be avoided? Apparently this must be something different from the "basis" for assuming hybrids in the pet trade are "bad."
Some genetically modified corn kills Monarch butterflies, is that a good thing? We (humankind) can’t see the long-range impact of our decisions because of our immediate selfish desires.
No human being is qualified to make such a judgement as to whether or not that is a good thing.
We also cannot see the long-range impact of alternate decisions, including the decision to do nothing, or leave things as they are. It is not possible to know all potential consequences of everything we do, and it is not reasonable to assume that any time we do something which changes the world around us, it is automatically a bad thing.
The fact is that the world changes whether or not we ("selfishly") decide to change it. It changed many times in many drastic ways long before we were around, and would continue to do so even if we all disappeared right at this very moment.
How do you know that this genetically modified corn might not allow other creatures to thrive? You really don't know any of the far-reaching consequences either, yet you imply that it's bad. How do you know?
If a huge asteroid were plummeting toward Earth and we had the ability to stop it, and did so, would that also be one of our "selfish" acts that is no less than another act of rape committed upon nature?
What a perfect way to illustrate my point about “Our rape of the Earth’s living resources” being related to a “connection between what happens in a population of snakes which live in plastic, wooden, or glass boxes, eating dead rodents, and populations of wild animals.”
It’s what we desire.
That is bad... how?
Whose (equally or more important) desire are we countering by such acts? How does "change" mean the same as "rape?" I don't see any connection.
Your implication that I may be so stupid as to make you shudder is wholly unwelcome.
I was just returning the favor. ;-)