I'm sorry, but clearly...you've learned nothing...you remain falithful to the same (flawed) pre-determined conclusions you started with. What's funny is that with a header like "What I have learned" implies you are open to learning, but clearly you are not. You condemn the "old guard" for standing fast in their convictions that are based on years of experience, hard learned life lessons, and history. Yet, you are even more closed minded than they are and you have nothing to base your convictions on, other than "feelings".

The thing is, this has absolutely nothing to do with reptiles, large or small. It has to do freedoms and rights, concepts you apparently either do not hold dear or do not completley understand. To take away someones rights, IMHO there must be some type of clear and overwhelming threat to others, not a precieved or concocted danger that is far from clear. In this case, there is no evidence or even a substantial probability of public endangerment to support a case for banning large constrictors. Outside of extreme south Florida, there is not even an environmental threat.

The fact that you do not think they make appropriate pets is completely irrelevant. The only relevance is for your personal choice, don't keep them. But (in the absence of clear and significant threats to others) to belive it is appropriate to tell anyone else what they can and can not keep/do based on your feelings is what leads to things like dictatorships and theocracies. Do you want someone in power (elected or otherwise) telling you what to believe, to worship or not to worship, who to worship or who not to worship, based on their feelings??? There is really no difference. The concept is the same. It is simply imposing one's will over another's without the burdens associated with trying to maintain freedoms and rights.

Mark


-----
uncommonboa.com

[ Show Entire Thread ]