It ludicrous and offensive to suggest that anyone was comparing breeding dogs or snakes to “breeding humans”

I meant no offense, but I didn't make the analogy between champion dogs and supermodels.

The analogy is about genetics. As you just stated:
“…not just any woman out there can be a supermodel, …..While genes may disqualify some women from being supermodels…”
This is exactly my point.

You've parsed my words pretty severely in order to miss the point that I was making. The people who have extraordinary qualities that are at least somewhat determined by genetics are people who received those genes by the luck of the draw. If I understand what you (and others) have said about dogs, the average guy next door who breeds his Irish Setter to the Irish Setter down the street is not going to produce a grand champion regardless of how pretty the puppies grow up to be. However, his daughter, the offspring of his average self and his average wife, may have the bone structure to grow up to be a supermodel, have the ear and coordination to grow up to be an elite violinist, or have the intelligence to grow up to find the cure for AIDS. The genetic side of this potential is still luck and not planning. Where people are different from the others is that good genetics is not planned, and the analogy from snakes to dogs to people breaks down in that area.

Another breakdown of the analogy is in the work required to realize potential. For a person, realizing an extraordinary potential is about hard work and dedication and usually a good amount of family support. The daughter given in the previous example is not going to be a supermodel if she eats too much ice cream, is not going to be a violinist if she doesn't practice, and is not going to find a cure for AIDS if she won't study. If I understand correctly, realizing the genetic potential of a show dog is also the result of long hours of training by the owner. I don't criticize those who enjoy putting this effort into a dog, but to me, this effort is the "primping" that the other poster mentioned. For a snake, I'm not aware of anything necessary to make a $10,000 snake reach its potential other than the same good husbandry that one would practice in raising and breeding a $40 normal.

These differences are why the whole analogy is hitting me strangely. I have no problem with the fact that unusual snakes cost a great deal of money. The breeders have invested a great deal of time and money into breeding these animals, and I don't have a problem with their receiving what the market will bear. I just think this discussion has spun the analogies a little far. I'm sorry that you're offended that I see it that way.


Bill
-----
It's not how many snakes you have. It's how happy and healthy you can keep them.

[ Show Entire Thread ]