Posted by:
FR
at Sun Apr 16 10:45:52 2006 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by FR ]
These monitors we speak of are no more venomous today, then they were, six months ago. You know, when they were not venomous. They are exactly the same. No changes. That is the reality.
We(humans) can change the names and difinitions back and forth. But what does it have to to with the monitors? As they are still as harmless as they were before.
This type of converstion reminds me of two people arguing over which is worse, getting sprayed by a striped skunk or a spotted skunk. One stinks way more then the other, but both stink like heck. But then, getting squirted will not hurt you. It just sorta stinks.
In this case, this new determination of these species being "venomous" does not make their bite any worse then when they were harmless. Besides in reality, its not the venom that may cause real harm, its those dang sharp teeth and those powerfull jaw muscles. In reality, thats what you need to worry about. This thing called reality actually sucks, hey?
Thats why I argued with Venomdoc in the first place. While they do have something you can call venom, in reality, its still a harmless venom. So why call it venom. By difinition, venom is suppose to cause harm, not have the potential to cause harm. Venom to people is what causes harm to people, not a mouse. To be harmful to humans they must be harmful to humans. Or they would be spotted night snakes. Those cause strong venomous reactions on geckos, but nothing to humans. So they are harmless. Venom wise, monitors are harmless to humans, with the possible exception of Komodos. But then, a Komodo bite without venom would not be harmless either. Just the bite would cause serious harm.
So why call them venomous? I know why, because you can. It does have some similarities to real effective snake venom, all except the delelterious part. Which is the venomous part. Cheers
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: More on reality Ian - FR, Sun Apr 16 10:45:52 2006