...Nobody has to defend themselves even if they breed their cornsnakes for meat and leather, IMO. But I would expect that if they want to put up a thread here describing it, it would probably be a lively one....
This is true. But there is a HUGE difference, IMO, between
discussing options, and
challenging opinions. At first this topic was all about discussion. People were stating their opinions, discussing the reason and motives behind those opinions, and providing their personal options. But it soon became a matter of challenge vs. discussion, and that is where a problem evolves. The mere act of challenging someone to provide a reason "that fits my criteria" assumes condescension towards different criteria, superiority
because of criteria, and an arrogance that states, "My way is right and your's is wrong". THAT is what I have a problem with...the arrogance that is implied in asking to be judge based on personal criteria.
This discussion can be just as long, just as lively, and just as interesting to read, without ever challenging anyone else's ideals or opinions. There is nothing wrong with saying, "What motivates you to perform that action?". There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't agree with your choice because...". There is nothing wrong with saying " I wouldn't perform that action because it doesn't fit my criteria."
There IS something wrong with repeatedly saying, "You should have done it this way, because then it would fit my criteria." There IS something wrong with saying, "This action is morally acceptable if it meets this criteria, but unacceptable if it fits THAT criteria". And when you add the extreme amount of repetition that the above statements have seen in this topic, it only becomes more and more arrogant with each successive statement. And the more it gets said, the more challenging it becomes. The more challenging it becomes, the less it becomes a debate, and becomes an action of proving someone else wrong...which cannot happen in a matter that is purely personal and opinion.
...When you say "anyone who does participate" do you mean in culling or in the thread?...
I mean in the action, not the thread.
...I think if the conversation is about views on culling, and you join in and offer your views, you can expect to have them challenged. If anyone isn't ready to "defend the manner in which they do it" they aren't ready for the debate...
Only to a certain point. It is human nature to defend oneself from attack, whether it be physical or verbal attack. When a person's
opinion is continually challenged, it is only natural to defend that opinion as a matter of personal choice...which ALL opinions are. In this topic, it quickly became a matter of every different opinion being challenged in the same matter, rather than discussed openly. It would have been very easy for some people to simply have said, "OK...I disagree because..." and left it at that. But that didn't happen.
What DID happen is "people" kept saying, "Why don't you do it this way?" or "If you do it this way, it is acceptable, but not in the manner which you did it." Of course people are going to feel the need to defend their choices. This is a community above simply an informational forum. I enjoy feeling as though I am a part of this community, in a respected and respectful manner. I don't enjoy feeling as though I am being challenged in a negative light for personal opinions. If I DO feel negatively challenged...I am going to defend myself form that negativity. And when the challenge becomes repetitive, condescending, and even irrelevant in the use of examples...it becomes even more frustrating as the person being challeneged. When my action of culling a snake for whatever reason is compared to terrorism...that simply isn't fair. And to then further be told, "No, I don't think YOU are a terrorist...I just think the action is 'terrorist-like'."...well...IMO...that's a copout. It is a way to judge a person publicly, but cover yourself, because "I'm not judging you, I'm judging your actions". That's a quintessential cop-out, IMO.
I can sit here all day and say, "You shouldn't breed normal cornsnakes. It floods the market, creates a disposable pet syndrome, lowers market value for 'real' cornsnake morphs, and basically ruins the chances for the rest of us to make some money. If you want to breed, you should only breed high-end morphs. And it is my opinion that anyone who breeds normals is simply money-grubbing and greedy, trying to breed and sell as many snakes as possible just to make a greedy dollar." That is a VERY arrogant, self-centered, judgemental, and argumentative statement to make. I imagine that people like Kathy Love would feel very hurt by such a statement, and would probably try to defend their actions. If I then say, "I'm not judging you, only the action of breeding normals."...does that really make a difference? Is there really a seperation between my judgement of the action and my judgement of the person performing the action? I have still made a blanket negative statement about anyone performing that action. The action itself won't feel offended...but every person that
performs action is well within their rights to take offense to that statement, and to defend themselves FROM such a statement.
To further the argument...everytime someone DOES defend their motives and reasons, I come in and say, "But your reason for breeding normals is not consistent with my criteria for breeding cornsnakes. Therefor, you should not breed normals, unless you can do it within my range of criteria." Does the arrogance of that statement come through? Ultimately...THAT is the arrogance I have detected in several posts by a few select members.
I have no right to challenge someone else in the manners that I have described above, and I don't imagine that any member of this forum would disagree with this. But it is exactly the same manner in which opinions and choices have been challenged in this topic, of late. I DO have the right TO that opinion, and to state that opinion, if, in fact, that is my opinion. But I do NOT have a right to tell anyone else that they are wrong because their opinion is different than mine, nor do I have the right to outline for anyone else specific criteria that makes their actions morally acceptable or not. Breeding normals is breeding normals. If they are acceptable as first-time pets or as by-products of gene combinations, they should be acceptable for any reason I decide to breed them. Just like culling of healthy snakes should be. My motivation should not be held to someone else's standards, and I should not be made to feel as though there is something "wrong" with the choice I make because my motives are different than yours. There is an unspoken accusation that follows with such challenges, and it is this accusatory nature of the challenge that I have a problem with. If you intend to
publicly accuse me of wrongdoing, there better be something more than your personal opinion to back up that accusation.:smash:
Does that make sense?
Ultimately...I have no desire to cull anything other than unhealthy animals. My opinion is, ultimately, the same as the majority of the members of this forum. I chose option 1 in the poll. But I will not deny anyone else the right to make that choice for themselves, and I will not tell them that they are worng because their reasons are different than mine. I *may* tell them I don't agree with it, but I won't incessantly challenge them to provide me with reasons that I, personally, deem acceptable, and tell them their actions are unacceptable if they cannot do this. I won't accuse someone of wrongdoing based purely on a matter of personal choice and opinion...
