|
RE: Reading comprehension 101
|
Reply
|
|
by Langaha on July 13, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well first I'd like to say that I, of coarse don't agree in any way feeding the snake puppies. It is just unethical in the minds of the majority. Being a reptile enthusiast and passionate studier of herpetology, I don't agree in any way killing snakes for merchandise, captive bred or not. How could I consider that ok when I spend all my free time studying these creatures, and I have so much compassion for their existence. It is us herpetologists and enthusiasts that are the only stronghold for snake conservation and education. We should all be on the same side, and try to change the opinions of others about snakes, and help to conserve populations, through education. By studying these awesome creatures, all of this comes with the territory for me. I'm not gonna babble to long, so finally; I think that MSTT has sort of an extreme and unique way of thinking. I can see you have your thoughts very together on what you beleive in, and so I won't put you down. Every one is entitled to his opinion. However, I think it is unfair to call the majority of us herpers cowards, just because we support and help our snakes we study in any single way we can. After all it is our passion and all would be lost if we didn't. I think it is fair to say however, that eating dogs and cats is an extreme thought, and rather unethical in this world today. I'm not putting you down in any way, I'm just saying that your opinion is a bit different, although I see where you get some of your points, I can't necassarily agree with them.
It seems the teacher may not have been very "involved" in the herp world and science, to have done something like that. Almost like he just wants the snake as an attraction. I could be wrong though.
----Anthony
|
| |
|
RE: Reading comprehension 101
|
Reply
|
|
by fizzbob7 on July 13, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
that has to be the dumbest guy alive....it would have been better if the snake escaped...but he wanted to feed it puppies.....in front of whiney little girls who were obviously gonna object....domesticated animals go through a whole lot worse than that but thats just dumb....
|
| |
|
Ethics vs. morals
|
Reply
|
|
by MSTT on July 14, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In response to Langaha's otherwise well worded post, I cannot agree that using puppies for food is intrinsically unethical. It may be immoral or unacceptable according to the culture-specific values that are held by North American and most of European society. It is certainly a bad idea for a number of reasons that we've already covered. But it is not unethical in the sense that it is an act that is intrinsically antisocial and harmful in every known cultural context. You could certainly argue that it is situationally unethical in this country because of the bad publicity it would generate for herpetoculture.
There are many living as well as historical cultures that value dogs as food sources. Calling their cultures unethical because they have different definitions of acceptable food animals is foolishly ethnocentric. American cultural values include many things that could be considered wrong and immoral by the standards of other countries. Would it be really fair to say that it is unethical to eat beef because the Hindus revere cows? Or that we Americans are loathsomely unclean and defiled because we eat pig meat?
Every culture has its own unique food taboos and restrictions, many of which make very little logical sense when viewed rationally by an outside observer. Every culture thinks that their way is the one and only proper way to eat, and other groups that break these taboos are disgusting, unclean, evil, cruel, immoral, cursed by the gods, etc. Every culture tends to regard every other culture's ritual taboos as strange, silly and irrational, while clinging tightly to their own irrational taboos and considering these to be perfectly logical and normal.
This ignorant, ethnocentric attitude is not limited to Stone Age pygmies; it seems to be quite prevalent among Americans who think they are enlightened and educated. The fact is that the majority of the folks who believe they are educated and rational are at heart rather primitive creatures of reflex, ritual, totem and taboo. They completely bound by the taboos and ritual beliefs of their culture and are both unwilling and unable to think or act beyond them. The only difference seems to be that primitive peoples justify their taboos with religious or magical reasons, and we try to justify them with science, even when the actual scientific facts are very much to the contrary.
How would you judge a culture that had an irrational taboo against hunting or eating an entire large class of creatures with only two or three exceptions by species? The class of creatures that they abhor are an excellent source of protein, very numerous, quite delicious when properly prepared, and are enjoyed by many other cultures around the world. People actually go hungry or even starve to death in some cases because they will not gather or eat of this bountiful natural supply. The exceptions to this strong taboo are conversely considered very good food and command premium prices, though closely related species are completely rejected even by a starving person. Would you judge members of this culture as being primitive, superstitious, irrational or just plain dumb? Think carefully about your answer.
The class of creatures I am discussing are arthropods and insects, and the culture I'm talking about is American. If you can answer rationally the question "Why don't I eat any of the good edible arthropods other than shrimp and lobster," you might have some business passing judgements on the food taboos of other cultures. Except that there really is no rational answer other than the admission than you are just as superstitious and taboo-bound in your beliefs about food as the average member of any other ethnic group with a different set of taboos.
Regards,
TT
|
| |
|
RE: Ethics vs. morals
|
Reply
|
|
by skeeter on July 14, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why do you think that it's okay to impose your personal doctrine of 'tolerance' on others when you don't accept the culture of the rednecks that run the rattlesnake roundups? Do you not think that a puppy in the coils of a boa will for a brief moment in time experience pain and terror? Why is that okay but rattlesnake pain is not? Contrary to your wordy arguments you cannot justify everything or categorize everything according to science, situational or cultural morality. At any point in time a government may decide that there are just too damn many people in their country and a few of them need to be turned in to pig chow. Would that be okay with you? Apparently absolute morality is not a philosophy with which you are familiar. Some things are wrong no matter how you try to dissect it. Feeding puppies to snakes is almost as evil as you are.
|
| |
|
Utter ignorance
|
Reply
|
|
by MSTT on July 16, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Science, situational and cultural ethics is a fairly reasonable yardstick to judge most situations by. Ignorant, emotional, knee-jerk reflexes such as you are displaying are generally much less productive.
Is a puppy's suffering any more or less terrible than that of a snake's, or a cow's, or a pig's? What if the suffering in one case was the result of casual and needless human cruelty, and in another case was the result of a natural interaction between predator and prey in the wild with no human participation? How do the ethics of killing for food change when humans are involved? When is it morally right to kill, and when is it morally wrong? Can you answer those questions clearly, and relate those answers to anything you are actually doing in real life? I doubt you can. You just don't like it when people kill puppies because they are cute.
How much did that cow suffer so that you could have that hamburger you enjoyed yesterday? What actual steps have you taken to reduce the amount of animal suffering that you buy? Do you know or care? Again, I doubt it. Your notion of "absolute morality" is much too easy to define - it is basically that everyone else must follow your personal morals. It is wrong to kill animals that you think are cute and fuzzy and lovable, and okay to kill animals that you do not think are cute and fuzzy and lovable. Anyone who disagrees with you is eeeevil, even if we're talking about entire countries here. LOL
As for comments about governments who use euthanasia to dispose of surplus members of the population, it's been tried before in recent history. Attempting to equate the Nazi Holocaust to cultural differences in acceptable food animals is a bit ridiculous.
TT
PS - I can see why you're rooting for redneck culture. Since you don't like wordy responses, don't forget to say hello to your mother and sister today. From the quality of your writing, I would guess that you can probably manage that with just one word.
|
| |
|
Teacher Wants to feed Puppies to Snake
|
Reply
|
|
Anonymous post on July 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Although I didn't have time to read all of the posts many were very well written with good points made. My suggestion is we feed the teacher to the snake and have the puppies, administrative staff, principal and students watch. I realize that teachers are underpaid-- but are they required to be stupid too?
|
| |
|
RE: Teacher Wants to feed Puppies to Snake
|
Reply
|
|
by GreenViper on July 21, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like both snakes and Dogs but on this article i don't approve. The teacher who wanted to feed the puppies to the snake should be fired or not allow to teach that particular subject. I've had rats before and as my teacher placed a rat inside the snake tank and watched the snake go after the rat i was into shock but again it's mother nature. Theirs alot of Dog lovers in this country and if bunch of kids comes home and tells their parents that their teacher is planning on feeding 3 puppies to the snake that you know that theirs going to be alot of parents complaining to the principal about the puppy feeding business.
What the hell was this teacher thinking?
|
| |
|
Teacher Wants to feed Puppies to Snake
|
Reply
|
|
by MAMBAMAMA on August 5, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In addition to giving snake keepers a bad name, it should raise some concern about this teachers psychological fitness as a teacher and the same for the school board memeber that "donated" the pups.
How could educators not know that this would upset not only school children but human beings in general.
I would take a good hard look at these two people if they were involved with my kids!!
Carol
|
| |
|
Teacher Wants to feed Puppies to Snake
|
Reply
|
|
by mbslither on August 18, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Feeding live puppies to a snake in a government school is a foolish thing because the public reaction is entirely too negative and paints snakes in a negative light. Again. The teacher and the school board member now know this. It is unacceptable in today's USA. Unfortunately. (Probably unacceptable to feed dead puppies or kittens to a snake as well.)
A friend breeds purebred dogs for a living. One bitch had two stillborn pups. The friend gave the pups as food for a boa. Seemed reasonable to her, reasonable to me, reasonable to the boa. Feed the boa, feed the worms in the garden, feed the rats at the dump... take your pick.
The situation in the USA WRT unwanted animals in shelters and pounds is an outrage. There is no excuse for this hideous population explosion. My vet struggles to find homes for unwanted animals. There are always puppies, kittens, dogs and cats available.
We should be ashamed.
I hope this school fiasco sparked some serious discussion at homes in the area. About neutering pets.
Regards,
MB
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
