Arizona Black Rattlesnake!

[ripcord]

When people want to kill animals for no reason. Your comments should bother you as well.

Unsportsman like, even.

 

[Arc]

When people want to kill animals for no reason. Your comments should bother you as well.

It's not for no reason. I would think a fellow ex military guy would understand why we remove threats before they can harm us.

 

[I<3oil]

It's not for no reason. I would think a fellow ex military guy would understand why we remove threats before they can harm us.

That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. My god.

 

[Hohn]

As a society we rid ourselves of those who are a threat to others so why would you give a rattlesnake a pass?

Because they are generally not a threat. Certainly they are a manageable one with even a modicum of effort.

Sorry to say, but your postings in this thread suggest that you can never forgive a snake for taking your pet and now every snake is a "threat."

Snakes can be threats, but not just be virtue of being a snake.


What's the difference between an armed thug invading my home and and hunter in the woods? Both are armed and are equally "threats" so I should kill them both dead?


The ability to reason and see nuance is what separates humans from animals.

 

[fdcg27]

Tarantulas are venomous, and their venom can cause pain and other reactions in people. Their venom isn't as dangerous as some old horror movies portray, though.

You're right, although their venom wouldn't be lethal.
Apparently a black widow's venom isn't either but the aftereffects are very unpleasant.
As an aside, how many here know that a venomous snake can deliver what's called a dry bite?
This is a strike releasing little or no venom and is mainly a defensive action.
The snake is trying to warn you away as it tries to get away from you.

 

[I<3oil]

Because they are generally not a threat. Certainly they are a manageable one with even a modicum of effort.

Sorry to say, but your postings in this thread suggest that you can never forgive a snake for taking your pet and now every snake is a "threat."

Snakes can be threats, but not just be virtue of being a snake.


What's the difference between an armed thug invading my home and and hunter in the woods? Both are armed and are equally "threats" so I should kill them both dead?


The ability to reason and see nuance is what separates humans from animals.

Thank you for that. I can’t anymore with this person. I legit can’t.

 

[wemay]

Beautiful snake, thanks for sharing.

 

[Arc]

Because they are generally not a threat. Certainly they are a manageable one with even a modicum of effort.

Sorry to say, but your postings in this thread suggest that you can never forgive a snake for taking your pet and now every snake is a "threat."

Snakes can be threats, but not just be virtue of being a snake.


What's the difference between an armed thug invading my home and and hunter in the woods? Both are armed and are equally "threats" so I should kill them both dead?


The ability to reason and see nuance is what separates humans from animals.

I was trying to figure out why someone would let it go knowing it could easily kill someone. I've read two articles this week about children being bitten by rattlesnakes and I'm sure more never made the news. Myself I would do what I could before killing the armed thug because they can sometimes be reasoned with. The rattlesnake on the other hand can't be reasoned with, it doesn't know anything except to bite and try to kill.

 

[Arc]

That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. My god.

Just trying to understand the thought process of someone who would let a rattlesnake live another day to bite someone. It's not an argument and I'm not upset with you I just fail to understand your logic so I was carrying on the conversation to better understand where this is coming from. You advertised that you served so I figured we might use that to come to an understanding. If we are both willing to put our iron sites on a human being why would you not be willing to take out a rattlesnake? Does the snake not also just bite someone in defense as does a hostile enemy when we come after them? I personally see no difference yet you do and I find that interesting.

 

[I<3oil]

Just trying to understand the thought process of someone who would let a rattlesnake live another day to bite someone. It's not an argument and I'm not upset with you I just fail to understand your logic so I was carrying on the conversation to better understand where this is coming from. You advertised that you served so I figured we might use that to come to an understanding. If we are both willing to put our iron sites on a human being why would you not be willing to take out a rattlesnake? Does the snake not also just bite someone in defense as does a hostile enemy when we come after them? I personally see no difference yet you do and I find that interesting

So, in your mind, any animal that is poisonous, venomous, or can hurt/kill humans needs to be eradicated, because they *could* be a threat at some point, maybe, in time. That is extremely interesting indeed.

By your logic, the military should shoot anyone because they *could* be a threat, at some point, maybe, in time. Do you not see any issues with that, whatsoever? Not like, a single one?

You are all over the place. You're advocating killing things because they could be a threat down the road at some point and then you bring up self defense, as if that's the same thing. This is starting to read like r/showerthoughtsfromanadolescent

 

[2005jettatdi]

I was trying to figure out why someone would let it go knowing it could easily kill someone. I've read two articles this week about children being bitten by rattlesnakes and I'm sure more never made the news. Myself I would do what I could before killing the armed thug because they can sometimes be reasoned with. The rattlesnake on the other hand can't be reasoned with, it doesn't know anything except to bite and try to kill.

A grizzly could easily kill someone. A cougar could easily kill someone. A wolf or even a coyote could easily attack and kill a child. In fact, an elk can, and has, kill. How far does it go? Reason with an armed thug? Really? I don't think so. I have had better success reasoning with rattlesnakes. In the wild the rattlesnakes agreed to go on their way peacefully, in my back yard I reasoned with the snake just fine. He stays out of yards now.

 

[ripcord]

So, in your mind, any animal that is poisonous, venomous, or can hurt/kill humans needs to be eradicated, because they *could* be a threat at some point, maybe, in time. That is extremely interesting indeed.

By your logic, the military should shoot anyone because they *could* be a threat, at some point, maybe, in time. Do you not see any issues with that, whatsoever? Not like, a single one?

You are all over the place. You're advocating killing things because they could be a threat down the road at some point and then you bring up self defense, as if that's the same thing. This is starting to read like r/showerthoughtsfromanadolescent

No, his calculous assumes that humans have higher intrinsic value than animals. Your arguments seem to more equate humans and dangerous animals in value and worth. That's why you've been talking past each other for over a week now. Neither are necessarily wrong, that is the crux of it. Please forgive me for over simplifying.

One side views humanity as separate or at least in some way above nature. The other views humanity as part of nature and incorrect when it asigns itself moral superiority over animals.

This treads very close to the rules so I won't elaborate further.