Duff said:
Simple, they are being used as food. They are not being put down because they're not perfectly sellable offspring. At no point did I say I am against euthanizing when appropriate. I also made sure to point out that I'm not an extremist, specifically to avoid this kind of argument. Why is it that no one seems to have gotten the whole point behind my original post, even after I've tried to clarify it? And the whole lettuce thing?? Give me a break. Talk about reaching.
One last time, and then whoever flames or attacks what I say can have fun, cause I'm not gonna keep going on this anymore. I do not thinks it's appropriate to tell someone that their deformed or disabled hatchling has no chance at a decent life and if kept alive would just be cruel to it. You can't make a blanket statement like that without making sure to add that it's an opinion, and not a fact. That's it. That's all I was trying to say.
I think you are taking anyone who disagrees with you on any point and lumping the whole thing into one statement. If you want to equate disagreeing with "flaming and attacking" that is your option, but you're really missing the point if that's what you get out of any of my posts here.
For the record, my statement was that the person who hatched it is responsible for that decision and they should follow their conscience. You apparently missed that I agreed with you on the point that the decision is theirs and they should use their own judgement, which in itself very clearly implies that there is no valid blanket statement as to what action is an absolute "right or wrong" decision.
Where I disagreed with you, and still do, is on the premise that animals should be afforded the same "rights" as humans. I also strongly believe that life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness all go hand-in-hand, and any of them are worthless without the other two. I do not believe that non-human animals, whether they are pets or livestock or wild animals, can be said to automatically have the same rights. Obviously neither do you, since you deny your snakes the right to go where they want, eat what/when they want, and mate with whomever they want.
The question I was trying to ask is if you are going to extend "basic human rights" to other non-human living things, there is a point at which it becomes impossible to do so. You have to draw a line somewhere, so where exactly do you choose to arbitrarily draw that line? And by what reasoning do you expect others to draw their line in the same place as yours and simply imply they are cruel for not doing so?
Also for the record, this is Kinky, who had a severe kink when he hatched. I raised him to the age of four and then placed him in a happy home.
I don't think any of my statements in this thread can be reasonably interpreted as "personal attacks" or "flames" or whatever. If you do, then you are welcome to quote them here.
However, you are using "attack" tactics like saying that peoples opinions don't count because they are just following a clique, that those who would euthanize a deformed hatchling are cruel, unfeeling, and just doing it because it isn't saleable, and trying to mischaracterize expressing a contrary position as "flaming."
