RCReptiles.com

[Buck_99]

[NickMyers03]

LOL out gunned? my brother buck is driving a Tank LOL

[deborahbroadus]

AND THAT'S A DEBATE!

Now, each of these points raised by Buck must be addressed. Not ridiculed, not pushed aside with a "he said she said" but with a genuine logical argument.

[junkopardner]

Your primary goal should be to ensure that the person asking the question is educated about the risks involved. After it is clear that the risks are understood, if you still believe that the person might follow a risky course, then it is certainly appropriate to provide them with safety guidelines.

Well, before I get into this any further, let me just say that you shot yourself in the foot right off the bat here. The wise man built his house up on the rock, and you can’t build an argument on the sand like you’re attempting here and expect it to hold. Take Feral’s case, for instance. She picked up two BP’s that had been sharing the same enclosure for 4 years (with the one in there since birth). I advised her to keep them together, because if it wasn’t broken, I saw no reason to fix it. “Provided” she understood the guidelines to eliminate any risk, the key one being to feed them in separate enclosures. And no one was “educating” her any real risks anyway (go back and read the thread again). All she was getting was a bunch of better safe than sorry fear mongering based in ignorance. And what is this “if you still believe that the person might follow a risky course, THEN it’s certainly appropriate to provide them with safety guidelines”? That didn’t happen Buck, and you know it. Besides, this statement is ludicrous because it suggests that there IS a way of knowing if a person is going to follow a “risky” course. There is no way of truly knowing that, and that’s a main reason why it’s completely and utterly irresponsible to not give out the guidelines on how to do something correctly, provided that you know what they are.



However, to volunteer the safety guidelines information up front without a clear explanation of the risks is at least as irresponsible as only telling a person not to pursue the risky course.

Look, you guys had the “risks” all covered (a lot of which were completely sensationalistic, by the way) so why do I need to need to get into all of that? It was obvious she wasn’t going to get the guidelines on how to do it correctly from any of you; because everyone was too busy screaming “The Sky is Falling”. If the guidelines given are followed, there are no risks, either. So yet again, you’re drawing on a weak hand.


As HH says, it amounts to tacit approval. Failure to speak to the risks can easily give the impression that there are no risks, and the risky behavior becomes more likely. The risks must be told.

“Failure to speak to risks”? There was no shortage of talk about that Buck. In fact, that’s all that it was. To speak of nothing “but” the “risks”, without providing the guidelines to eliminate them if it’s done anyway, is completely irresponsible. I have no problem with saying that if you feed them in separate containers, then X, Y, or Z could happen, but that’s not even what was being laid out either. So again, if the so called “risks” is all that’s being talked about, then why would I (or anyone) need to talk about that?


You know we could have all sorts of fun with this debate. People will kill people, it's in their nature, right? So let's make sure they know how to do it humanely while keeping themselves safe from physical harm and legal repercussions. Is this analogy a little too over the top? Ok, I'll bring it down a few notches. People will use illegal drugs, it's in their nature. So it stands to reason that we should advise them on the safest drugs, proper dosages, and how best to avoid incarceration. After all, they're going to do it anyway, so the least we can do is try to keep them alive and out of trouble, right?

Well, we could have “fun” as you say except this is too ridiculous for me to have fun with. People killing people and taking illegal drugs are irresponsible acts and against the law. My “safe sex” analogy was about responsibility. Sex is legal. Housing two BP’s together is legal. And both can be done responsibly. You cannot be “responsible” in coaching someone on how to take part in something as inherently “irresponsible” as breaking the law and taking illegal drugs. So while “you” and others can have fun with these asinine attempts at undermining a legitimate analogy, I can’t because they’re completely lame.

I can see where someone might take this view. I like this analogy because people have different opinions on the degree of risk, just as we do in the debate on the other thread. If you think the risk is minimal, I contend that you're still obligated to educate about that risk before dishing out advice on how best to beat the odds, for the "tacit approval" reasoning provided above. If you believe the risk is great, then you're obligated to attempt to persuade people to avoid the risk altogether.

Look, for whatever reasons you and some others believed this to be very “risky” and dangerous. So you all weighed it on it. But what you all “failed” to do was provide the guidelines for doing it. Maybe this failure was the result of the collective belief on this board that the “risk” was too great, and therefore it should have been avoided all together. But if anyone is going to “educate” people about the “risks” of any given subject, it would help to have an idea about what the actual, “real” risks are when “educating”. And this clearly wasn’t the case.


J, you are truly a master of the art of rhetoric. It's a real pleasure to witness the obvious skill which your liberal arts education has afforded you. Whatever you spent to acquire it, it was certainly worth every penny. That's why I find it so confusing that despite your education your attempt to construct a formal argument is so clumsy. Why bother with the "A)" and "B)" divisions if you're not going to take the time to make the separation meaningful by properly calling out the assumptions and premises? Please allow me to assist by breaking your argument into its core elements:

Well, I won’t argue that I’m a master of rhetoric, but I fail to see how my argument is clumsy in the slightest. And why would I take any additional time to make the separation meaningful if the separation I provided was sufficient in explaining the analogy?

1. Assume behavior X is risky.

I don’t “assume” that behavior X is risky if the guidelines are followed.

2. Assume behavior Y offers the best chance to mitigate (but not eliminate) the risk of X.

Behavior Y is the “only” way to do it, and the way that it has been successfully done in the herpetological community for many years. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

3. Assume person P is aware of the risks of behavior X.
I don’t know why we would assume this. It became overwhelmingly clear to me that person(s) P weren’t aware of the “real” risks.

4. Assume person P is aware of the mitigating capacities of behavior Y.

Again, I wouldn’t assume this either. That’s why I posted the guidelines. And it was safe to assume that person(s) P didn’t fully understand based on what was being said.

5. Assume person P has advised person F about the risks of behavior X and advised against that behavior.

I have no problem “assuming” this because that’s what happened. That’s “all” that happened.


6. Assume person P knows that person F will ignore the advice and engage in behavior X anyway.

I repeat; there is NO way of knowing if they’ll ignore or take any advice whatsoever. That’s why to be truly responsible when “educating” someone that you present all of the facts. Unless you’re just perfectly content to assume that it’s possible to know the unknowable and only present the side that “you” feel is right for fear of “tacit approval” (should you “truly” educate them and then let them make up their own mind.)

7. Assume person P knows that person F would follow the advice of person P regarding the practice of behavior Y, if such advice was offered.

So? What if they did follow the advice of person(s) P? More importantly, what if they didn’t AND didn’t have the guidelines because person(s) P was too busy fear mongering ignorance? I tell you Buck, there’s an awful lot of assuming going on. Way too much for me….


8. Therefore the best chance person P has to avoid realization of the risks posed by behavior X is to advise person F about behavior Y.

Oh, c’mon. I can’t take the melodrama; “avoid realization of the risks”? And again, person(s) P can “advise” person F about the risks of behaviors HIJKLMNO, but if they aren’t going to give sound, logical advise based on the “real” risks AND what steps can be taken to eliminate those risks then person(s) P is being irresponsible.


9. Therefore if person P does not provide person F with information about behavior Y, then he is responsible for the realization of any behavior X risks.

What do the P’s represent again?

“Assuming” that person F will take the advice of person(s) P (and thereby negate the need to provide the information how to do behavior X successfully) is beyond irresponsible. I don’t see how person(s) P could see it otherwise. Person(s) P are not omniscient.


Now let's make the argument as strong as we can. For the 6th premise, let's say that person P's knowledge that person F will ignore the initial advice is equivalent to epistemological certainty. Let's make the same adjustment to the 7th premise. So we now know in the most profound sense of the word that F will take steps to mitigate the risks by practicing behavior Y. I believe this takes us safely to the first conclusion, which follows logically without dispute from me.

But you’re “assuming” there are “risks” in practicing behavior Y if done correctly. So no, premises 6 and 7 do not lead us back to the first conclusion, because premise 1 is BS if behavior Y is practiced correctly.


The second conclusion is murkier, of course. Questions of personal responsibility often are. P has advised F on how to avoid the risk: Don't try behavior X. If F chooses to ignore that advice, the consequences fall squarely on his shoulders, right? But suppose P's the kind of guy who walks away feeling badly about the situation if the undesired consequences do, in fact, come to pass. In this case we could say he is responsible.

But again you’re assuming that behavior X is risky if behavior Y is practiced correctly. When you use the word “consequences”, you’re implying there is a possibility of it. The possibility of “consequence” only comes into play if behavior Y is not practiced correctly. But there are “consequences” when basic guidelines aren’t followed with one BP. If those potential “consequences” are the result of person F being negligent, then it falls squarely on the shoulders of person F and no one else. It’s called personal responsibility and accountability. And we couldn’t say that person(s) P would be “responsible” for any negligence on the part of person F; that’s why it’s “personal” responsibility.

If person(s) P is so guilt prone as to accept responsibility that’s clearly not theirs, I would encourage person(s) P to delve a bit deeper into what personal responsibility is involved when educating some one on anything. And that includes giving the accepted practices AND risks on a given subject, not just one or the other. Failing that, person(s) P is failing person F and therefore being irresponsible.


Is it a sound argument? Of course not. Premises #6 and #7 are both suspect. The level of certainty required to make the conclusions follow necessarily from the premises is not humanly possible. Let's take them individually, starting with #6. Person P can't know that person F will ignore his advice about avoiding behavior X, even if person F says he'll do behavior X anyway. He may change his mind, after all.

Now were getting somewhere. Person(s) P “can’t” know, and people are subject to change at any time, or tell you what you wanna hear and then go do what they’re going to anyway. Because of this, person(s) P have a “responsibility” to cover all bases.



Therefore F may honor the advice about avoiding behavior X. The choice is in F's hands, and P is absolved of responsibility from that point forward. This knocks down both conclusions, since offering information on behavior Y is no longer the only way for P to ensure risk avoidance, and so P has fulfilled his responsibility to do his best to prevent the potential disasters assotiated with behavior X.

Well, I thought we were getting somewhere. The potential of F honoring the advice of P and avoiding behavior X isn’t the issue. The issue is of P’s responsibility in accepting the fact that they “can’t” no what F will do or not. Also, P is only “absolved” of responsibility if they were completely responsible to begin with. And the only way that P can “fully” fulfill their responsibility is to provide accurate information on the accepted practice AND any potential risks involved. If P “assumes” his advice will be followed (either way), then P is living in denial. That’s why it’s incumbent for P to present ALL of the facts, regardless of their “personal” feelings. If person F does what they’re going to do anyway (against the preaching of the hellfire and damnation consequences), and person(s) P didn’t also give them the accepted guidelines for engaging in behavior X safely, and person F fails because of this lack of information and comes back and asks person(s) P “Why didn’t you tell me if you knew?”, what is person(s) P going to say? “Er, well, I had a strong feeling you would take my advice and not do it”. C’mon man, you seem like an intelligent cat.


Now let's look at the argument as you presented it and tackle this thing in English. Your premise (A) is an assumption which is open to debate. Are you a Determinist?

Is that a rhetorical question? I ask because if it’s not been clear that I don’t believe in pre-destination then I don’t know where you’ve been. I believe in free will. And I would hardly say that my statement about most people (adults and children) do what their going to anyway is an “assumption”. It’s the “rule”, and you only have to take a look around now and all throughout history to know that this “is” the rule. You wanna talk about “exceptions”, then you’re wasting time. I don’t know what microcosm of society you live in, but I would recommend stepping outside of the bubble and taking a look at the real world occasionally. And yes, it’s still there.


Have we no power to persuade our children? Have you really given up? Are there no cultures on Earth where the children consistently and reliably obey their elders when it counts? I've met kids who take abstinence and drug avoidance quite seriously, so I've witnessed firsthand what strong family values and involved parenthood can accomplish. To believe that kids cannot be taught to avoid certain behaviors is a cop-out, and if you believe otherwise then I fear for the future of our society in the hands of your children and others like them. That covers kids; adults are responsible for their own decisions and are therefore covered in my statements below.

Like I said, you can talk about exceptions all you want, but you cannot argue with basic human nature and how it applies to the rule. Do I believe you can educate children and adults responsibly and persuade them? Sure. But I also believe in free will and personal responsibility to educate based on ALL the facts, not just the one’s you’re trying to instill because your to selfish and near sighted to understand that you can’t half a$$ education. People constantly exercise their free will, and nobody has a perfect batting average. With that being a “fact”, then your choice should be clear as it pertains to your “full” responsibility.

Prove (A), and then we can consider whether (B) follows. I don't think you can prove (A). You're free to believe it, but to label it as "fact" under (B) is presumptuous. For the sake of enjoyment, however, let's go ahead and pretend (A) is completely true. What then of (B)?

Prove A? Are you kidding me? To suggest that it’s “false” that most human beings do what they’re going to do regardless is simply ludicrous, regardless of what you pump their heads full of. The mere fact that people aren’t perfect AND have free will guarantees that advice will not be heeded and mistakes will be made. Since mistakes are going to made, then people should be armed will ALL of the knowledge to ensure that their decision (if bad) eliminates or minimizes the consequences, so they can live to realize the error of their ways. If the decision is potently fatal, then you can’t really learn from the mistake if you’re not above ground to learn it, can you?


For starters, (A) is just a bunch of words for "Advice will be ignored." If that's the case, then the benefits assumed by (B) (i.e., safety) are hardly ensured. Why even bother providing advice about the safety guidelines? Are people not just as likely to disregard that advice? Then why give them advice that is more likely to result in the realization of undesirable risks?

People ARE as likely to disregard the advice either way; that’s my point. When you are giving advice, you have a responsibility to cover all the bases. After that, it’s out of your hands. It’s out of your hands anyway. The question is do you want it out of your hands only giving someone “half” of the story, with the potential for harm because you didn’t feel it important to include “the rest of the story” because you felt like it was an endorsement? That is blatantly irresponsible.


Next, you assert that failure to provide the guidelines would be irresponsible. Perhaps this is true, if you have not already advised the person about the risks. If you have been vocal about the risks and advised against the risky action, however, and the person has the capacity to understand the risks, then they, not you, are responsible for the consequences of their actions should they choose to ignore the risks. This is at the heart of the shaky relationship between my premises #6 and #7 above and how they bear on responsibility.

Again, I didn’t need to advise about the risks; there was plenty of it (most of sensationalistic BS, but nonetheless…). I “would” have clarified the risks being bandied about, but by that point it was long gone. And no, no, no, no; IF all you do is preach about the “risks” and don’t present fact-based information on how to reduce or eliminate the risks with it, then you’re NOT off the hook when it comes to potential consequences.


As to the "fear" that providing the safety guidelines will condone the behavior, are you completely oblivious to this possibility, or do you just deny it? How many children do you have? This is not a "fear," it is a reality. Do you really believe you can have a conversation with teenagers about the wisdom of abstinence, then turn around a moment later and give them condoms, and not think that you've just given them ammunition?

In that instance, there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. I’ve raised two kids and they’re just fine. There doesn’t “have” to be anything inherently contradictory in dissuading your children from certain activities and also giving them the proper education and safety guidelines on the issue. And I guess, Buck, if you were doing such a bang up job on the podium that if you did pass a basket of condoms around the room then no one would take one. My mom didn’t like me ramping dirt bikes when I was a kid either, but she got me a helmet.


How about telling them about the potential harms of marijuana, but if they're going to do it, go ahead and bake it into some brownies because it's easier on the lungs and Hey! It lasts longer that way! Or, it's ok to snort that white stuff as long as you got it from a reliable source, and cut yourself off before you've had too much. How responsible is that?

Potential harms of marijuana? Gimme a break. You pass out propaganda pamphlets before you screen Reefer Madness? That’s not to say I would condone children smoking marijuana, but I don’t condone children watching horror films either. This also goes back to your lame analogies above. Go re-read my response to those so I don't have to retype it here.


Never before have I had the pleasure of meeting someone with such unjustified hubris.

Hubris: correct.

Unjustified: incorrect


J

[junkopardner]

I just wanted to add that I'll be gone the next couple of days so I won't be on here. But I'll pick up with whatever is left when I get back.

I'd also like to encourage Buck (and whoever feels compelled to join in) to remember that this topic started as leaving live prey in with your snake overnight, then went into the housing BP's together debate and now it's almost turning into a philosophical/theological debate of free-will, morality, child rearing, etc.

So I think that this thread should stick to its topic, and the housing BP's together debate should be within it's thread, and if there is another debate brewing that's more philosophical in nature then it should have it's own (where, I don't know). I also personally don't have the ability to separate these topics into their respective threads (or I would).

My "safe sex" analogy was called into question in this thread and I explained it as an analogy of "responsibility". I feel that Buck (and maybe to a degree HH) missed the boat here. The two issues obviously are different, but they both share a burden of responsibility. If Buck (or anyone) doesn't agree with my very clear definition of responsibility as it pertains to the two, then I would suggest if further discussion is desired that we separate the two accordingly before it gets any muddier as to what we're "really" discussing.

I'm happy to talk about both issues, but the point of the analogy was "responsibility" and nothing more. As such, I feel the two issues are getting a bit too intertwined and they shouldn't be. Although both situations share a common theme of responsibility of advice and education, there are too many variables and nuances in the two to make an "exact" correlation (that's not what analogies are for anyway).

With that being said, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how this thread started with leaving live prey in with your snake overnight, then swung into the debate about communally housing BP's, and then got a little more philosophical about sex education etc.

They all share the common theme of responsibility.

Leaving a live mouse in a tank with a snake overnight is not very responsible (because it's obviously not going to be monitored the way it should).

Then Deb chimes in with a comment about how I want to "encourage" people to communally house BP's (which she has clearly stated she thinks is irresponsible because of "risks"). So the implication of her statement is that "both" of these practices are irresponsible (when only one is).

Then HH weighs in on my response to Deb about her comment, and he hadn't even followed the original thread that started this debate in the first place. So I respond to his claim that my analogy wasn't crap and explain why. Then Buck weighs in from a more philosophical angle on the issue.

It followed this chain and collision of seemingly unrelated topics because of the issues of responsibility in everyone of these topics; that's what all of these share. But there are "many" specific differences inherent to each topic.

So in closing, if there's a way to keep these topics in their appropriate threads, that would be great. I don't have the ability do do this, and I don't even know if it could be done now and still retain enough cohesion and context.

Talk to you soon.

Peace, Love, and Billy Jack-

Jonathan

[pdig69]

I've done it three times, and I left the mouse in there for four to five days. All were successful attempts, as long as there was food.
I never do it for kicks, just wanted to see everyone's opinions!
And I wanted to see more of J's debate theories!

[pdig69]

Wow, I'm loving this And yes, I knew the consequences, but I figured males are aggressors, and they are more apt to follow their aggressive nature, so I did not use any males. I think that males would undoubtedly bite the snake after a prolonged time period.

Females, on the other hand, I thought would work. Three times it was successful. She ended up eating each mouse anywhere between 4-5 days in. Then, I put a baby fuzzy in last week and that went within hours. Guess I found my solution!

Oh, and yes, I shouldn't have even put the bp in any risk, NOR SHOULD ANYONE ELSE! but I needed to test the waters, just in case it needed to be done again for an emergency. Now, I feel much more comfortable leaving a mouse in the tank, if I needed to leave it in overnight. Which could range anywhere from a 6 to 9 hour span. hopefully i don't have any more snakes that require emergency situations!

[pdig69]

[deborahbroadus]

Junk's proclamation that the cohabitation of snakes is not recommended due to ignorance pretty much killed any further discussion.

There is no "debate" when one is simply regurgitating information that they have heard and seen and picked up from a few days, or months, without any real background in the subject. Of course, during the period of time that he's regurgitating his viewpoints he will pick up like-minded folks.

THAT is what I meant by "and Junky wants to encourage..." I did not mean for it to go back to the former topic which has been discussed ad nauseum because there is nothing to debate.

We do not encourage the cohabitation of snakes as a rule. It can be done, but that's not what we encourage especially not of young newbies who may be tempted to "see" what would happen if they put a mouse in there and left it.

p.s. you keep saying that they had lived together for 4 years with no problems...but you are discounting a slug in there (I think something about a slug was mentioned, but I may be confusing it with another post). My advice would be the same regardless of how many "experts" you claim to have spoken to...separate them.

The same as my advice would still be the same on leaving live rodents in with the snake, do it under supervision. But I recognize that there will always be the few that are the cause of accidents with snakes that bring a bad name on us all and make us all look like irresponsible jackasses.

[hhmoore]