|
punkencack
May 15, 2008, 10:37 PM
Post #1 of 89
(36154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 20, 2002
Posts: 5
|
That's right. The snake migration has virtually shut down sinks canyon again. Only a crazy-ass fool would go there during this snake hey-day. Hundreds of them swarming in groups of two to nine, super-aggro, venomous and deadly. Probably won't be safe to climb at Sinks again until late August. Maybe later. PHOTO ATTACHED
|
Attachments:
|
Rattlesnakes.jpg
(41.9 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 15, 2008, 10:49 PM
Post #2 of 89
(36145 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
I hate those damn snake migrations. Nothing much you can do but go climbing at the gym!
|
|
|
|
|
mccarthykm
May 15, 2008, 11:06 PM
Post #3 of 89
(36132 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2004
Posts: 194
|
Oh come on, you've got to appreciate how amazing these mass migrations are! And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous." Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand...
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
May 15, 2008, 11:10 PM
Post #4 of 89
(36123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
mccarthykm wrote: And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous." Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand... Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as: Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomous
(This post was edited by ja1484 on May 15, 2008, 11:11 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
mccarthykm
May 16, 2008, 1:13 AM
Post #6 of 89
(36066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2004
Posts: 194
|
ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous." Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand... Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as: Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomous While I haven't written any dictionaries lately I will point out that certain rattlesnakes, including eastern and western diamond backs as well as timber rattlesnakes all produce "venom" that includes a hemotoxin and neurotoxin. The first causes damage to your blood and tissue while the other attacks your nervous system. The point of venom is to kill and begin the digestion process for the snakes. On the other hand, poisons typically is a severe allergic reactions that can potentially cause sickness and even death through "ingestion." So I'll more clearly restate... poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage. But unfortunately you'll see these incorrectly interchanged in several state and federal brochures... Except in Missouri where I am an environmental educator.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
May 16, 2008, 1:53 AM
Post #7 of 89
(36047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
mccarthykm wrote: ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous." Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand... Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as: Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomous While I haven't written any dictionaries lately I will point out that certain rattlesnakes, including eastern and western diamond backs as well as timber rattlesnakes all produce "venom" that includes a hemotoxin and neurotoxin. The first causes damage to your blood and tissue while the other attacks your nervous system. The point of venom is to kill and begin the digestion process for the snakes. On the other hand, poisons typically is a severe allergic reactions that can potentially cause sickness and even death through "ingestion." So I'll more clearly restate... poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage. But unfortunately you'll see these incorrectly interchanged in several state and federal brochures... Except in Missouri where I am an environmental educator. So if I inject Rattlesnake venom into my bloodstream, is it poison or venom? What if I add it to a salad dressing? Is acid technically a venom because it acts via tissue damage and breaks down body tissue? Or is it only venom if an acid-shooting Japanese Giant Hornet squirts it on me, but it's poison if I drink it? But what if I drink the hornet? Is it poison and venom, or is it still venom because technically the hornet will be applying it to the inside of my digestive tract? THESE ARE IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEED TO KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(This post was edited by ja1484 on May 16, 2008, 1:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
May 16, 2008, 3:28 AM
Post #8 of 89
(35995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
mccarthykm wrote: ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous." Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand... Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as: Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomous While I haven't written any dictionaries lately I will point out that certain rattlesnakes, including eastern and western diamond backs as well as timber rattlesnakes all produce "venom" that includes a hemotoxin and neurotoxin. The first causes damage to your blood and tissue while the other attacks your nervous system. The point of venom is to kill and begin the digestion process for the snakes. On the other hand, poisons typically is a severe allergic reactions that can potentially cause sickness and even death through "ingestion." So I'll more clearly restate... poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage. But unfortunately you'll see these incorrectly interchanged in several state and federal brochures... Except in Missouri where I am an environmental educator. Unfortunately, what you “restate clearly” is confusing. [“poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage” is so undecipherable as to be not even wrong.] In technical areas, words may be used differently than in ordinary speech, but your attempt at clarification fails. I would recommend that you do make use of standard dictionaries, since you are an educator. Poisons do not “typically” cause an allergic reaction, e.g., arsenic or carbon monoxide, and one can inject a poison as in a lethal injection or inhale a poisonous gas. These modes do not involve ingestion into the alimentary system. In ordinary usage, “venom” has a more restricted meaning than the more generic term “poison”. Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary elaborates on the more restrictive sense of “venom”, stating inter alia, “venom may refer to a poison interjected with fierce malignant hostility <the venom of the rattlesnake>”. I have a feeling these terms are not being interchanged incorrectly anywhere except perhaps in Missouri. Gratias et valete bene! RobertusPunctumPacificus
|
|
|
|
|
photoguy190
May 16, 2008, 3:44 AM
Post #9 of 89
(35981 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2006
Posts: 191
|
You now you can drink venom some people think it makes them stronger there are no ill effects as long as you don't have an ulcer. You naturally digest the venom, which is actually a protein like an egg white. Another cool fact if you inject one rat with egg white and another with rattlesnake venom the one injected with egg white will die faster. I have seen this done it really wild.
|
|
|
|
|
chossmonkey
May 17, 2008, 3:36 PM
Post #11 of 89
(35892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414
|
clausti wrote: jon06 wrote: I hate those damn snake migrations. Nothing much you can do but go climbing at the gym! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES, IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING CANYON!!!! Don't bring your mom to the canyon and you will be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 17, 2008, 3:50 PM
Post #12 of 89
(35882 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
robdotcalm wrote: mccarthykm wrote: ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous." Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand... Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as: Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomous While I haven't written any dictionaries lately I will point out that certain rattlesnakes, including eastern and western diamond backs as well as timber rattlesnakes all produce "venom" that includes a hemotoxin and neurotoxin. The first causes damage to your blood and tissue while the other attacks your nervous system. The point of venom is to kill and begin the digestion process for the snakes. On the other hand, poisons typically is a severe allergic reactions that can potentially cause sickness and even death through "ingestion." So I'll more clearly restate... poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage. But unfortunately you'll see these incorrectly interchanged in several state and federal brochures... Except in Missouri where I am an environmental educator. Unfortunately, what you “restate clearly” is confusing. [“poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage” is so undecipherable as to be not even wrong.] In technical areas, words may be used differently than in ordinary speech, but your attempt at clarification fails. I would recommend that you do make use of standard dictionaries, since you are an educator. Poisons do not “typically” cause an allergic reaction, e.g., arsenic or carbon monoxide, and one can inject a poison as in a lethal injection or inhale a poisonous gas. These modes do not involve ingestion into the alimentary system. In ordinary usage, “venom” has a more restricted meaning than the more generic term “poison”. Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary elaborates on the more restrictive sense of “venom”, stating inter alia, “venom may refer to a poison interjected with fierce malignant hostility <the venom of the rattlesnake>”. I have a feeling these terms are not being interchanged incorrectly anywhere except perhaps in Missouri. Gratias et valete bene! RobertusPunctumPacificus I live out here in California and every biology/ecology/herpetology class i have ever taken has also said these to terms are not synonymous. When in context of animals, there is most definitely a deference. What me to reference a book?
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
May 17, 2008, 4:21 PM
Post #13 of 89
(35860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
jon06 wrote: robdotcalm wrote: mccarthykm wrote: ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous." Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand... Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as: Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomous While I haven't written any dictionaries lately I will point out that certain rattlesnakes, including eastern and western diamond backs as well as timber rattlesnakes all produce "venom" that includes a hemotoxin and neurotoxin. The first causes damage to your blood and tissue while the other attacks your nervous system. The point of venom is to kill and begin the digestion process for the snakes. On the other hand, poisons typically is a severe allergic reactions that can potentially cause sickness and even death through "ingestion." So I'll more clearly restate... poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage. But unfortunately you'll see these incorrectly interchanged in several state and federal brochures... Except in Missouri where I am an environmental educator. Unfortunately, what you “restate clearly” is confusing. [“poison invokes reactions and venom causes damage” is so undecipherable as to be not even wrong.] In technical areas, words may be used differently than in ordinary speech, but your attempt at clarification fails. I would recommend that you do make use of standard dictionaries, since you are an educator. Poisons do not “typically” cause an allergic reaction, e.g., arsenic or carbon monoxide, and one can inject a poison as in a lethal injection or inhale a poisonous gas. These modes do not involve ingestion into the alimentary system. In ordinary usage, “venom” has a more restricted meaning than the more generic term “poison”. Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary elaborates on the more restrictive sense of “venom”, stating inter alia, “venom may refer to a poison interjected with fierce malignant hostility <the venom of the rattlesnake>”. I have a feeling these terms are not being interchanged incorrectly anywhere except perhaps in Missouri. Gratias et valete bene! RobertusPunctumPacificus I live out here in California and every biology/ecology/herpetology class i have ever taken has also said these to terms are not synonymous. When in context of animals, there is most definitely a deference. What me to reference a book? That's fine if it's a discussion amongst biologists/ecologists/herpetologists. For the rest of the public, the terms are going to remain synonymous for the most part, like they always have, because common usage dictates meaning in language just as much as vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
May 17, 2008, 4:47 PM
Post #14 of 89
(35852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
jon06 wrote: «I live out here in California and every biology/ecology/herpetology class i have ever taken has also said these to terms are not synonymous...there is most definitely a deference.» More confusion. Which word has deference to which word? In my posting, I did not say the terms were synonyms (“one of two or more words having essentially identical definitions…’ Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary). It was stated that “poison” was the more general term and venom the more restricted. OK, I agree with one thing you wrote. People in California are as confused as those in Missouri. Gratias et valete bene! RobertusPunctumPacificus
(This post was edited by robdotcalm on May 18, 2008, 11:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bolderer
May 17, 2008, 6:10 PM
Post #15 of 89
(35829 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2006
Posts: 48
|
that pic makes my blood run cold, whether it's venom or poison that scares me shitless.....
|
|
|
|
|
janderson4010
May 17, 2008, 7:28 PM
Post #16 of 89
(35804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Posts: 56
|
clausti wrote: jon06 wrote: I hate those damn snake migrations. Nothing much you can do but go climbing at the gym! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES, IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING CANYON!!!! I can't believe no one caught on to that, thats some funny shit
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 17, 2008, 8:32 PM
Post #17 of 89
(35780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
Ok, now i'm getting pissed. Not at you robdotcalm. But at this web page. I got sucked in. I need to get ready to go camping/climbing this afternoon, and what am I doing? I'm flipping through text books to quote. You're right, I am confused. But not about those definitions in the context we are using them. When referring to animals, Venomous: A toxin injected by an animal. (rattlesnakes, scorpions, platypus) Poisonous: A toxin that is Harmful if swallowed (Poison arrow frog, California newt) I'm done. I'm going climbing. You should to!
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 18, 2008, 3:42 AM
Post #18 of 89
(35716 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
they're just rattlesnakes. whats the big deal take a shovel. sorry i'm just used to them and i kill everyone since i got stuck on the heel when i was younger. there is enough non- viper snakes to take up the slack around my part of texas that killing them wont hurt the ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
May 18, 2008, 11:22 PM
Post #19 of 89
(35645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
jon06 wrote: Ok, now i'm getting pissed. Not at you robdotcalm. But at this web page. I got sucked in. I need to get ready to go camping/climbing this afternoon, and what am I doing? I'm flipping through text books to quote. You're right, I am confused. But not about those definitions in the context we are using them. When referring to animals, Venomous: A toxin injected by an animal. (rattlesnakes, scorpions, platypus) Poisonous: A toxin that is Harmful if swallowed (Poison arrow frog, California newt) I'm done. I'm going climbing. You should to! jon06: I give you credit for trying, but it’s still not right as you’ve used the word “toxin” in a way inconsistent with its meaning. Merriam-Webster Unabridged defines toxin thusly «any of various poisonous substances that are specific products of the metabolic activities of living organisms, are colloidal substances related to proteins and usually very unstable, are notably toxic when introduced into the tissues but are almost all destroyed by the digestive juices, and are typically capable of inducing antibody formation in suitable animals» Thus referring to something a person (or animal) swallows as a “toxin” is inappropriate. The confusion here may arise from the fact that the adjective “toxic” has a more general meaning than the noun “toxin”. I agree with you that I’d be better off climbing than being a word Nazi, but I’m healing from some fractured vertebrae ( stupid accident ) so word play is one of my substitute activities. Incidentally, I did see a small rattlesnake last week while hiking along the Devils Backbone Trail here in Loveland. It was a cold day, and the poisonous snake was lethargic and not exhibiting any venomous behavior that indicated it would inject a toxin into me. Cheers, rob.calm Sunday, 18 May, 2008 17:18 MDT
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
May 18, 2008, 11:44 PM
Post #20 of 89
(35634 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
chadcummings wrote: they're just rattlesnakes. whats the big deal take a shovel. sorry i'm just used to them and i kill everyone since i got stuck on the heel when i was younger. there is enough non- viper snakes to take up the slack around my part of texas that killing them wont hurt the ecosystem. don't kill snakes, asshole. I've thrutched through plenty of underbrush in Texas looking for The Next Great Crag, and run into plenty of water moccasins, copperheads, and cottonmouths. I've come across rattlers wedged in handcracks in Red Rocks that turned 5.8 jamming into 5.11 stemming. I've had two baby rattlesnakes on different occasions fall and land on me, once while 500 feet off the deck. I've sat back in the shade in the desert, heckling friends on climbs while belaying only to hear a rattling in my ear. And I've never had to kill a motherfucking snake, asshole.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 19, 2008, 12:38 AM
Post #21 of 89
(35612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
camhead wrote: chadcummings wrote: they're just rattlesnakes. whats the big deal take a shovel. sorry i'm just used to them and i kill everyone since i got stuck on the heel when i was younger. there is enough non- viper snakes to take up the slack around my part of texas that killing them wont hurt the ecosystem. don't kill snakes, asshole. I've thrutched through plenty of underbrush in Texas looking for The Next Great Crag, and run into plenty of water moccasins, copperheads, and cottonmouths. I've come across rattlers wedged in handcracks in Red Rocks that turned 5.8 jamming into 5.11 stemming. I've had two baby rattlesnakes on different occasions fall and land on me, once while 500 feet off the deck. I've sat back in the shade in the desert, heckling friends on climbs while belaying only to hear a rattling in my ear. And I've never had to kill a motherfucking snake, asshole. Eh? So?
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
May 19, 2008, 3:24 AM
Post #22 of 89
(35564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
camhead wrote: chadcummings wrote: they're just rattlesnakes. whats the big deal take a shovel. sorry i'm just used to them and i kill everyone since i got stuck on the heel when i was younger. there is enough non- viper snakes to take up the slack around my part of texas that killing them wont hurt the ecosystem. don't kill snakes, asshole. I've thrutched through plenty of underbrush in Texas looking for The Next Great Crag, and run into plenty of water moccasins, copperheads, and cottonmouths. I've come across rattlers wedged in handcracks in Red Rocks that turned 5.8 jamming into 5.11 stemming. I've had two baby rattlesnakes on different occasions fall and land on me, once while 500 feet off the deck. I've sat back in the shade in the desert, heckling friends on climbs while belaying only to hear a rattling in my ear. And I've never had to kill a motherfucking snake, asshole. Good writing here. I like the asshole symmetry.
|
|
|
|
|
fiferguy
May 19, 2008, 3:56 AM
Post #23 of 89
(35551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2008
Posts: 14
|
camhead wrote: chadcummings wrote: they're just rattlesnakes. whats the big deal take a shovel. sorry i'm just used to them and i kill everyone since i got stuck on the heel when i was younger. there is enough non- viper snakes to take up the slack around my part of texas that killing them wont hurt the ecosystem. don't kill snakes, asshole. I've thrutched through plenty of underbrush in Texas looking for The Next Great Crag, and run into plenty of water moccasins, copperheads, and cottonmouths. I've come across rattlers wedged in handcracks in Red Rocks that turned 5.8 jamming into 5.11 stemming. I've had two baby rattlesnakes on different occasions fall and land on me, once while 500 feet off the deck. I've sat back in the shade in the desert, heckling friends on climbs while belaying only to hear a rattling in my ear. And I've never had to kill a motherfucking snake, asshole. But they taste so good... what do you do for food on your trips, pack it in? **gasp**
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 19, 2008, 4:15 AM
Post #24 of 89
(35538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
call me an asshole all you like. it wont affect me that some guy on the internet thinks im an asshole. Have you ever been bitten? seen someone with health problems get struck by one and seen the pain and struggle for life? what any little kid that got bite by a baby rattler becuase they didn't know? i'm not scared of snakes i kill them with a pocket knife and a stick to hold their head down. you know what i am an asshole. thanks for teaching me that
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 19, 2008, 5:37 PM
Post #25 of 89
(35447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
I got bit by a dog when why I was a kid. Do you know how many more people are killed by domestic dogs than rattlesnakes? Dose this mean I should kill every dog I see on the spot? Give me a fucking break! You don't see past you're own nose, and use a very faulty reasoning. You probably got bit in the ankle when you were a kid because you were trying to step on it. Karma's a bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 19, 2008, 5:42 PM
Post #26 of 89
(12893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
zeke_sf wrote: camhead wrote: chadcummings wrote: they're just rattlesnakes. whats the big deal take a shovel. sorry i'm just used to them and i kill everyone since i got stuck on the heel when i was younger. there is enough non- viper snakes to take up the slack around my part of texas that killing them wont hurt the ecosystem. don't kill snakes, asshole. I've thrutched through plenty of underbrush in Texas looking for The Next Great Crag, and run into plenty of water moccasins, copperheads, and cottonmouths. I've come across rattlers wedged in handcracks in Red Rocks that turned 5.8 jamming into 5.11 stemming. I've had two baby rattlesnakes on different occasions fall and land on me, once while 500 feet off the deck. I've sat back in the shade in the desert, heckling friends on climbs while belaying only to hear a rattling in my ear. And I've never had to kill a motherfucking snake, asshole. Good writing here. I like the asshole symmetry. I call those bookends. Asshole bookends.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 19, 2008, 5:52 PM
Post #27 of 89
(12889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
I still hate snakes. No worries about me killing them. I'm staying as fucking far away from them as I can. Had two snake warnings given to me this weekend. One about a six-foot snake sunning on a ledge that "you won't see until you're on top of it," and another about baby copperheads on a crimp ledge near where a rap station is. Instance #1: stayed the fuck away from any and all ledges, thus turning a 5.6 into something way headier than that. Instance #2: rapped with doubles all the way to the bottom. God that picture gave me the shivers.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
May 19, 2008, 6:26 PM
Post #28 of 89
(12863 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
clausti wrote: jon06 wrote: I hate those damn snake migrations. Nothing much you can do but go climbing at the gym! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES, IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING CANYON!!!! Thank you!! I was hoping someone would go there.
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 19, 2008, 11:16 PM
Post #29 of 89
(12840 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
well should you choose to kill every dog you see, tape it for me. i'd like to see what peta does to you, or the owner of that dog. why even compare your dumbass getting bite by a dog to a venomous snake? i don't even care anymore, there is no point to this. just another person is going to come out of the corner bitching. i say give me one good, valid reason why you give a shit if someone kills a venomous snake? other than that fuck off
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 19, 2008, 11:24 PM
Post #30 of 89
(12832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
well, i can think of s whole bunch of reasons, but how about this one; Rattle snakes are an important and valuable form of red-neck population control. If you don't want people "coming out of the corner bitching" than don't stand out in the middle of the ring asking for it. p.s. Dumbass!
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 19, 2008, 11:39 PM
Post #31 of 89
(12808 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
oh no a red neck joke? hmm i gonna say that is not a good nor valid reason. thats gonna cost the lives of say 4 or 5 snakes. care to try again?
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
May 19, 2008, 11:53 PM
Post #32 of 89
(12793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
chadcummings wrote: oh no a red neck joke? hmm i gonna say that is not a good nor valid reason. thats gonna cost the lives of say 4 or 5 snakes. care to try again? how about the painfully obvious: snakes (including rattlesnakes) eat rodents. rodents that carry pestilence and harm grain crops and get into houses.
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 20, 2008, 12:04 AM
Post #33 of 89
(12784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature.
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 20, 2008, 12:21 AM
Post #34 of 89
(12772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
this is kinda fun. 1. there are many more snakes ( non-venomous) that will fill the role of the venomous ones. 2. my life is more important than a snakes fuck all of you that say a snakes life is more important than a humans. even though i'm enjoying this now, i have started to grow bored with the eco-fucks. So how many of you have protested a rattlesnake round-up? you know why they do those and what happens with the ones that got caught right?
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
May 20, 2008, 12:39 AM
Post #35 of 89
(12767 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous." Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand... Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as: Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomous The venom is poisonous, not the snake. the venom has poisoning properties, whereas the snake on the whole only has the capabilities to produce the venom, hence venomous.
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 20, 2008, 1:23 AM
Post #36 of 89
(12761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
chadcummings wrote: this is kinda fun. glad your enjoying your snake killing.
In reply to: 1. there are many more snakes ( non-venomous) that will fill the role of the venomous ones. Irrelevant.
In reply to: 2. my life is more important than a snakes Please justify your reasoning.
In reply to: fuck all of you that say a snakes life is more important than a humans. Again, irrelevant. Try using actual reasoning.
In reply to: even though i'm enjoying this now, i have started to grow bored with the eco-fucks. Make up your mind already.
In reply to: So how many of you have protested a rattlesnake round-up? you know why they do those and what happens with the ones that got caught right? Is this really your argument? You are far off base from the point. Also, I have been bitten by a Copperhead before, and for some strange reason I do not feel the need to kill any copperheads I come across.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
May 20, 2008, 1:26 AM
Post #37 of 89
(12758 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
Adrian_Falcus wrote: Also, I have been bitten by a Copperhead before, and for some strange reason I do not feel the need to kill any copperheads I come across. Also, I have been bitten by a toddler before, and for some strange reason I do not feel the need to... actually, um, nevermind.
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 20, 2008, 1:47 AM
Post #38 of 89
(12749 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
irrelevant. everything i say will be just that to each of you. so i'll tell you what, i'm not going to waste anymore of my time with your bullshit and avoiding to give what i would say is a good and valid reason. I will let you all count this a a win for you. good for all of you. pat yourselves on the backs. bravo ah goodtimes on rc.com. love it
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 20, 2008, 2:13 AM
Post #39 of 89
(12740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
Alright, this is my reason. The natural world around you is very complex. More so than you or me or anyone can understand. You killing a rattlesnake, as well as thousands of other like minded people killing rattlesnakes, has huge consequences other than, "oh, another non-venomous snake will take its place." If you want to protect any part of what has always been there, then you need to protect all of it. If you come across a snake, and you kill it, do you really think you're saving somebody? I kind of doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 20, 2008, 2:35 AM
Post #40 of 89
(12732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
i understand that. but theres a reason i do what i do and they hold those round-up. its to control the mass numbers of rattlers. theres been studies and shown that the king snake and bull snake are better for my local. No lose of live stock, pets or injurys. i go look for them when people have problems with them. i work construction and been under a house eye to eye about a foot away from a 6footer. not so much fun.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
May 20, 2008, 2:39 AM
Post #41 of 89
(12729 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
sungam wrote: ja1484 wrote: mccarthykm wrote: And I've got to give credit to the original post for using "venomous" and not "poisonous." Snakes are not POISONOUS... you don't eat them so you don't get sick! Mushrooms on the other hand... Merriam-Webster lists them as synonyms: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poisonous I think it's safe to say you could use either descriptor. In fact, Merriam-Webster also lists the second definition of "venomous" as: Having a venom-producing gland and able to inflict a poisoned wound. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venomousThe venom is poisonous, not the snake. the venom has poisoning properties, whereas the snake on the whole only has the capabilities to produce the venom, hence venomous. Good, we’ve returned to discussing the subtle differences in words. Nice try Sungam, but you’re not quite there. Besides which, what would somebody in Scotland know about poisonous snakes? I remember being in the UK about 20 years ago, when it was a big deal that somebody had been bitten outdoors by a poisonous snake. The TV news said it was the first time in decades that had happened. The doctors were unprepared for it. Anyway, as I explained above, “poisonous” is a more general term than “venomous” . Thus all venomous creatures are poisonous, but not all poisonous creatures are venomous. One can’t help but notice that many of the contributions in this thread are venomous. Gratias et valete bene! RobertusPunctumPacificus
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 20, 2008, 12:28 PM
Post #42 of 89
(12703 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
chadcummings wrote: irrelevant. everything i say will be just that to each of you. so i'll tell you what, i'm not going to waste anymore of my time with your bullshit and avoiding to give what i would say is a good and valid reason. I will let you all count this a a win for you. good for all of you. pat yourselves on the backs. bravo ah goodtimes on rc.com. love it Well I assumed you had no valid reason from the start, c'est la vie. The fact that you think anyone challenging you is simply trying to win an argument against you is rather sad, I must admit. It's obvious your set in your ways and have a determined mindset on the issue, that wasn't expected to change. I was merely curious as to your reasoning for having such a caustic mindset.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 20, 2008, 1:55 PM
Post #43 of 89
(12678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. So then apparently it's okay to kill snakes if you feel threatened by them? That's the obvious conclusion from your statement.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 20, 2008, 1:57 PM
Post #44 of 89
(12677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
jon06 wrote: Alright, this is my reason. The natural world around you is very complex. More so than you or me or anyone can understand. You killing a rattlesnake, as well as thousands of other like minded people killing rattlesnakes, has huge consequences other than, "oh, another non-venomous snake will take its place." If you want to protect any part of what has always been there, then you need to protect all of it. If you come across a snake, and you kill it, do you really think you're saving somebody? I kind of doubt it. But by your own admission, you don't really know if he's saving someone else or what the consequences of that action really are.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 20, 2008, 2:18 PM
Post #45 of 89
(12671 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
my redneck filter must be broken - I'm seeing way too many posts in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 20, 2008, 2:36 PM
Post #46 of 89
(12663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Personally, I don't kill rattlers, because I really enjoy seeing them. I also quite like the fact that it isn't totally safe to spend time in wild places. Of course, I don't spend much time in places where they congregate in such numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 20, 2008, 2:47 PM
Post #47 of 89
(12654 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
shockabuku wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. So then apparently it's okay to kill snakes if you feel threatened by them? That's the obvious conclusion from your statement. Incorrect. You misinterpreted for your own conclusions. A snake would lack the capacity to understand that (in most cases) the human is not attempting to kill the snake. There is a difference between feeling threatened and being attacked. As with many other creatures in the animal kingdom, it is often kill or be killed. There is a difference between defending yourself and rounding up animals to be killed.
(This post was edited by Adrian_Falcus on May 20, 2008, 2:49 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny_Fang
May 20, 2008, 3:25 PM
Post #48 of 89
(12630 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 289
|
chadcummings wrote: i understand that. but theres a reason i do what i do and they hold those round-up. its to control the mass numbers of rattlers. theres been studies and shown that the king snake and bull snake are better for my local. No lose of live stock, pets or injurys. i go look for them when people have problems with them. i work construction and been under a house eye to eye about a foot away from a 6footer. not so much fun. I've read that over the last couple of dozen years or so, rattlesnakes have become less prone to rattling. I guess that people are more likely to find and kill a rattling rattlesnake than one sitting quietly under the brush or in a rock that they never see. So those that are genetically less prone to rattling before they strike are surviving, while those genetically prone to warn us first are being killed off. The irony is that, in our attempt to make things safer, humans have unintentionlly bred a more dangerous, stealthy snake. So. That's a reason to not kill rattlers. Plus, too, the prevalence of rattlers striking people by surprise is much, much less than those strikes on people who are messing with/trying to kill them. The fact is, rattlers generally fear animals as large as humans and will strike only if they feel in danger. Chad, I do understand the inherent problem of rattlers and other venomous snakes living in dense residential areas, and in that context I agree with you. Yes, kill them off or move them out. All of them. But leave the wild ones wild and severely restrict the development and reach of residential areas into wild areas.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 20, 2008, 3:33 PM
Post #49 of 89
(12627 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Adrian_Falcus wrote: shockabuku wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. So then apparently it's okay to kill snakes if you feel threatened by them? That's the obvious conclusion from your statement. Incorrect. You misinterpreted for your own conclusions. A snake would lack the capacity to understand that (in most cases) the human is not attempting to kill the snake. There is a difference between feeling threatened and being attacked. As with many other creatures in the animal kingdom, it is often kill or be killed. There is a difference between defending yourself and rounding up animals to be killed. You're so deep in your own hole that you can't see out. First, I wasn't talking about a round-up, second, most of the world disagrees with you about the relative value of human life vs. other life forms. Go to the grocery store, you can see that.
|
|
|
|
|
minexploration
May 20, 2008, 3:46 PM
Post #50 of 89
(12612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 15, 2006
Posts: 54
|
wow. How can I get smarter and dumber in the same thread?
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
May 20, 2008, 4:02 PM
Post #51 of 89
(11940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
shockabuku wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. So then apparently it's okay to kill snakes if you feel threatened by them? That's the obvious conclusion from your statement. AGREED! I will kill any stupid animal that I feel threatens me in any way. The snake isn't going to argue with the other snakes about the responsible thing to do, it's just going to bite the shit out of me. I am allergic to hornets - if hornets build a nest within a thousand yards of my house I will douse that motherfucker in gasoline and kill every last one of those bastards. If a copperhead crosses my path it's shovel-bait. But even more than that - I will kill animals to serve my own purposes. I will gladly kill a rabbit to eat it, and if I'm not in the mood to eat it, I will kill it for its fur. And maybe I might just kill it because the little asshole keeps eating the strawberries in my garden. I will kill a thousand animals if it ensures my survival in any way, shape, or form. And you know what? I consider myself an environmentalist. I try to limit my consumption of mass produced goods, I recycle and use compact fluorescent light bulbs. I generally try to not contribute to the wholesale raping of our environment which goes on daily. But if it comes down to it, I will gleefully take the life of any creature that I feel inhibits my quality of life in any way, shape, or form. I'd rather murder a hundred cute little kitties than spew thousands of tons of CO2 into my environment. Anything that isn't on the verge of extinction is fair game. Edit: I will also PTFTW the hell out of anyone who disagrees with me
(This post was edited by Valarc on May 20, 2008, 4:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
snowboardercolo
May 20, 2008, 4:16 PM
Post #52 of 89
(11927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2007
Posts: 87
|
I see an easy solution here! "my cat won't stop peeing in my basement. " Take your cat for a walk in the canyon and then defend your property/pet with a 12 gauge. Two or three trips through the canyon should pretty much clean it out?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 20, 2008, 6:49 PM
Post #53 of 89
(11903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Johnny_Fang wrote: I've read that over the last couple of dozen years or so, rattlesnakes have become less prone to rattling. I guess that people are more likely to find and kill a rattling rattlesnake than one sitting quietly under the brush or in a rock that they never see. So those that are genetically less prone to rattling before they strike are surviving, while those genetically prone to warn us first are being killed off. The irony is that, in our attempt to make things safer, humans have unintentionlly bred a more dangerous, stealthy snake. So. That's a reason to not kill rattlers. I can't speak to the veracity of your cause and effect, but I certainly have thought before that rattlers seem to rattle a lot less than they used to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shanz
May 20, 2008, 9:27 PM
Post #55 of 89
(11869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2004
Posts: 702
|
yet another post that has digressed into an "I am smarter than you" post. how sad good thing i graduated college now i can be dumb again
(This post was edited by shanz on May 20, 2008, 9:29 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 20, 2008, 10:29 PM
Post #56 of 89
(11849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
i didn't state that but i did try to imply that the king snake and bull snake are better for the control and harmless to humans, pets, and live stock.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
May 20, 2008, 10:58 PM
Post #57 of 89
(11842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. People be people. Food be food. Only very silly people get the two confused.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpandgo
May 20, 2008, 11:29 PM
Post #58 of 89
(11826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 1005
|
chadcummings wrote: i didn't state that but i did try to imply that the king snake and bull snake are better for the control and harmless to humans, pets, and live stock. Interestingly enough, the kingsnake is one of the few threats to the rattlesnake as well. They perform there own rattlesnake control. You must be a little careful to say other snakes are better than the rattler at control. nature has a way of balancing itself. If the rattler didn't have a purpose it would not survive very long. You wont really know til you succeed at killing all of them off now will you?
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
May 20, 2008, 11:33 PM
Post #59 of 89
(11823 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
Valarc wrote: shockabuku wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. So then apparently it's okay to kill snakes if you feel threatened by them? That's the obvious conclusion from your statement. AGREED! I will kill any stupid animal that I feel threatens me in any way. The snake isn't going to argue with the other snakes about the responsible thing to do, it's just going to bite the shit out of me. I am allergic to hornets - if hornets build a nest within a thousand yards of my house I will douse that motherfucker in gasoline and kill every last one of those bastards. If a copperhead crosses my path it's shovel-bait. But even more than that - I will kill animals to serve my own purposes. I will gladly kill a rabbit to eat it, and if I'm not in the mood to eat it, I will kill it for its fur. And maybe I might just kill it because the little asshole keeps eating the strawberries in my garden. I will kill a thousand animals if it ensures my survival in any way, shape, or form. And you know what? I consider myself an environmentalist. I try to limit my consumption of mass produced goods, I recycle and use compact fluorescent light bulbs. I generally try to not contribute to the wholesale raping of our environment which goes on daily. But if it comes down to it, I will gleefully take the life of any creature that I feel inhibits my quality of life in any way, shape, or form. I'd rather murder a hundred cute little kitties than spew thousands of tons of CO2 into my environment. Anything that isn't on the verge of extinction is fair game. Edit: I will also PTFTW the hell out of anyone who disagrees with me The other day I walk up to a boulder at one of my local spots. As the base of the problem comes into view I notice a five foot rattler at the base. She immediately moved back into a nook. We bouldered for about fifteen minutes wither her about three feet way. Then we walked away. Sure I was cautious, but I never felt threatened. If you're killing something for a purpose, like for food or if it is genuinely threatening you're life. I have no problem with that. Unfortunately, you and our other Darwin award hopeful have no real reason for killing venomous snakes, other then what you perceive as a threat to yourself. If your going around killing snakes you have a far greater chance of being bitten then if you leave them alone. Its like planes and cars. Most people are far more afraid of flying then driving even though flying is statistically safer then driving. Go figure. Would you really like to be rid of venomous snakes from you're neck of the woods. How about the world? You are a shitty environmentalist.
(This post was edited by jon06 on May 20, 2008, 11:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
drljefe
May 21, 2008, 1:00 AM
Post #60 of 89
(11781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2007
Posts: 119
|
jeeez loouise- I just wanted to show this amazing shot of a rattlesnake I got recently. Nobody seemed to notice...Waaaaaaaaaaa Crazy how this thread morphed first into a debate on semantics and then to whatever it is now.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
May 21, 2008, 1:58 AM
Post #61 of 89
(11770 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
jon06 wrote: You are a shitty environmentalist. No, I'm just not naive enough to think the "senseless killing" of a few animals that cross my path is going to have any impact on the environment. I guess the usual image one connects with environmentalism is delusional fanatics who base opinions more on knee-jerk gut reactions than any practical sense of reality. In that sense, I am indeed a shitty environmentalist. Also note, in your knee-jerk hippie response, you assume I want to remove all poisonous snakes from the world. I never said such a thing. I am a big fan of protecting our wilderness and not letting suburbia swallow up all of the natural surroundings. But I will damn sure kill any dangerous critter that comes anywhere near my home or in general if it crosses my path. And I might kill a couple of completely harmless ones, just to spite dirtfeet like yourself. And you know what? The environment will go on just fine. You wankers need to wake up to the reality that some guy with a shovel chopping off a snake's head is of minuscule importance compared to the real problems in the world. You've probably killed more animals typing out your very indignant reply, on your expensive computer manufactured from hazardous chemicals, using power from a dirty grid that spews out toxic fumes at a rate that would make my ass after a chili cookoff envious, than I will ever kill, even if I dedicate my life to it. My ancestors didn't scratch and claw their way to the top of the food chain for me to sit back and let some slithering fucker take me out because I believed some hippie bullshit that "nature is in harmony" and "the snake just wants to be left alone". I'm the one seeking the darwin award? Hardly.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
May 21, 2008, 2:00 AM
Post #62 of 89
(11768 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
drljefe wrote: jeeez loouise- I just wanted to show this amazing shot of a rattlesnake I got recently. Nobody seemed to notice...Waaaaaaaaaaa Crazy how this thread morphed first into a debate on semantics and then to whatever it is now. I actually loved the picture. I sure as hell wouldn't have stood around long enough to snap that - even a snake-bashing, woman-pleasing, killing machine such as myself knows when he's outnumbered. Edit - just realized you were talking about a picture later in the thread and not the original snake orgy shot. My bad. I was a little distracted by all the baby seals I have to club.
(This post was edited by Valarc on May 21, 2008, 2:04 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
drljefe
May 21, 2008, 2:06 AM
Post #63 of 89
(11762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2007
Posts: 119
|
dude, you're gnarly.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
May 21, 2008, 3:03 AM
Post #64 of 89
(11750 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
|
|
|
|
|
chadcummings
May 21, 2008, 3:29 AM
Post #65 of 89
(11739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 56
|
was that your finger by chance? ironic thing is that its more likely that one of you pro-life snake lovers will get struck by one long before i do. and who said that rattlers were not rattling as much? what area and what type of rattle snake? eastern, pigmy, what? now don't take what i said wrong i'm not wanting anyone to get bit by anything just you got to learn that shit like this is different for every person. I'm fine with how i am, i'm not going to change. I know what i say won't change how you feel. doesn't make a fuck if its about this or someother bullshit topic. Everyones view is different. i do alot of things worthy of a darwin, but i guess i know enough to avoid getting one. edit; just noticed that snake has been de-fanged which kills them by starving them. cant brake down the food.
(This post was edited by chadcummings on May 21, 2008, 3:56 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 21, 2008, 5:06 AM
Post #66 of 89
(11724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
shockabuku wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: shockabuku wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. So then apparently it's okay to kill snakes if you feel threatened by them? That's the obvious conclusion from your statement. Incorrect. You misinterpreted for your own conclusions. A snake would lack the capacity to understand that (in most cases) the human is not attempting to kill the snake. There is a difference between feeling threatened and being attacked. As with many other creatures in the animal kingdom, it is often kill or be killed. There is a difference between defending yourself and rounding up animals to be killed. You're so deep in your own hole that you can't see out. First, I wasn't talking about a round-up, second, most of the world disagrees with you about the relative value of human life vs. other life forms. Go to the grocery store, you can see that. The reason I brought up the round up comment was due to the fact that I wasn't initially talking to you, and my comments were towards chadcummings. You interjected your own comments so that would be where the confusion came from. As for the second part, it really makes no difference what the majority of the world comes to a consensus on when speaking about my individual point. I don't plan on compromising my views either way. It's a moot point. This is really just going in circles, as you and a few others are really just continually missing my points. Feel free to respond but please do not anticipate a response. But, the jokes on me anyway. I should have known better than to attempt to rationally arguing anything on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 21, 2008, 5:09 AM
Post #67 of 89
(11721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
knieveltech wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. People be people. Food be food. Only very silly people get the two confused. Color me silly then, and adopt a modest proposal. I have yet to hear anyone give me a rational reason for why human life takes precedent over other creatures aside from "duhh, only teh retards hippys likes animals better!" I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
May 21, 2008, 12:43 PM
Post #68 of 89
(11706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
Adrian_Falcus wrote: knieveltech wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. People be people. Food be food. Only very silly people get the two confused. Color me silly then, and adopt a modest proposal. I have yet to hear anyone give me a rational reason for why human life takes precedent over other creatures aside from "duhh, only teh retards hippys likes animals better!" I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter. geez, dude. the rational opinion is that if something is going to kill you, and you'd rather not die, you kill it. otherwise, you adhere to the higher moral good of not hurting other creatures. obviously this is not the stone tablets- if you see a breeding pair of copperheads in the backyard where you 2 year old plays, you should probably get rid of it. (move far away/kill it). i dont think that saying "you shouldn't go out of your way to kill something that isn't at the moment harming you" is tantamount to a judgment on the worthiness of respective lives. and besides, who judges "worth" of someone's life? each person is "worth" a diff amount to diff people. in the abstract, some people are worth more than a rattlesnake to me, some less. luckily i dont have to walk around putting that value judgment into practice.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
May 21, 2008, 12:43 PM
Post #69 of 89
(11706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
Adrian_Falcus wrote: I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter. I don't believe you would, actually. If human life isn't inherently precious to you above all other considerations then you are clearly suffering from profound mental/emotional problems. Seek therapy.
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 21, 2008, 2:44 PM
Post #70 of 89
(11687 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
knieveltech wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter. I don't believe you would, actually. If human life isn't inherently precious to you above all other considerations then you are clearly suffering from profound mental/emotional problems. Seek therapy. So do you have an answer for me then? I assure you I'm not trolling here. I'm pretty content and happy with myself thank you. And once again if that's your position on this issue, you can feel free to call me whatever you wish to make yourself feel comfortable in your justification, but please don't hide behind the facade that you have actually answered the question. Danke Schoen!
(This post was edited by Adrian_Falcus on May 21, 2008, 3:02 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 21, 2008, 3:01 PM
Post #71 of 89
(11682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
clausti wrote: geez, dude. the rational opinion is that if something is going to kill you, and you'd rather not die, you kill it. otherwise, you adhere to the higher moral good of not hurting other creatures. That's not what I'm really getting at here. I'm speaking in a broad general sense now, and looking for reasoning why in the grand scheme of things a human has more right to live on this planet than a snake or any other creature. Of course the survival of the fittest rule takes precedent with humans as with any other animal, we are not exempt. I am not dreaming of some harmonious utopia where all creatures get along. Nature is cruel, harsh and unforgiving.
In reply to: i dont think that saying "you shouldn't go out of your way to kill something that isn't at the moment harming you" is tantamount to a judgment on the worthiness of respective lives. Perhaps, but I suppose I have deviated from the original point to bring up mine. I was merely curious to some opinions, and of course stirring the pot a little helps at times.
In reply to: and besides, who judges "worth" of someone's life? each person is "worth" a diff amount to diff people. in the abstract, some people are worth more than a rattlesnake to me, some less. luckily i dont have to walk around putting that value judgment into practice. Correct, who does judge the worth of any life? In a general sense I do not believe one persons life holds more value over another's. But who am I to say that I do not value to lives of loved one's over that of strangers? After all, I am only human. I realize that it seems quite easy, and widely accepted to simply dismiss the argument I have submitted as "insane." This is not a deterrent for me though, sorry. This is merely an attempt to engage a few people in a discussion, one that I have had many times in the past few years with many groups of people. I am encouraging people to not only think outside of the box, but outside of their perceptions of reality as well. Please do not confuse my statements as some radical eco-terrorist attempting to convert a few new elves for his army.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
May 21, 2008, 3:11 PM
Post #72 of 89
(11672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
Adrian_Falcus wrote: knieveltech wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter. I don't believe you would, actually. If human life isn't inherently precious to you above all other considerations then you are clearly suffering from profound mental/emotional problems. Seek therapy. So do you have an answer for me then? I assure you I'm not trolling here. I'm pretty content and happy with myself thank you. And once again if that's your position on this issue, you can feel free to call me whatever you wish to make yourself feel comfortable in your justification, but please don't hide behind the facade that you have actually answered the question. Danke Schoen! On second though, nevermind.
(This post was edited by knieveltech on May 21, 2008, 3:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
May 21, 2008, 3:57 PM
Post #74 of 89
(11643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
knieveltech wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter. I don't believe you would, actually. If human life isn't inherently precious to you above all other considerations then you are clearly suffering from profound mental/emotional problems. Seek therapy. Depends on the human life. THere's a lotta fuckers out there I'd rather see dead than a single rattlesnake. You probably feel the same way too, whether you admit/realize it or not. We'll start with the mother-killers and father-rapers, move on to the mother-rapers and father-killers. Where it goes from there, IDC, but you see my point. Some people should be killed for the good of the human race, the only reason they're still alive is 'cause it's against the law to kill 'em.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 21, 2008, 4:03 PM
Post #75 of 89
(11640 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Adrian_Falcus wrote: I should have known better than to attempt to rationally arguing anything on this site. Yep, I can't contest that statement.
Adrian_Falcus wrote: knieveltech wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. People be people. Food be food. Only very silly people get the two confused. Color me silly then, and adopt a modest proposal. I have yet to hear anyone give me a rational reason for why human life takes precedent over other creatures aside from "duhh, only teh retards hippys likes animals better!" I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter. Here's the answer: because I get to decide. I decide whether or not to kill the snake (or at least try) or to leave it alone. Because I can. That's nature. It's (somewhat) random. I get to use my biases, my own sometimes good, sometimes faulty decision making, etc. to decide on life and death. It's beautiful, it's horrible, it's life. No other reason. Nothing has any "value" outside of what it's given. If I assign no value to the snake life, well, it gets none. You, on the other hand, get to make the same decisions with your own outcome. I don't like people overly much, but I don't really "like" snakes at all. So, if I see a reasonable situation/reason to kill the snake, I will (even though I generally don't). There are some people I might treat the same way if there wasn't the threat of going to jail.
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian_Falcus
May 21, 2008, 4:22 PM
Post #76 of 89
(7936 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 31
|
shockabuku wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I should have known better than to attempt to rationally arguing anything on this site. Yep, I can't contest that statement. Adrian_Falcus wrote: knieveltech wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I imagine the most obvious reason is that you have no right to simply kill a creature for no discernible reason. The snake bit you because the snake obviously felt threatened, big deal. Your life, or any other humans for that matter, is not more important than the life of any other creature. People be people. Food be food. Only very silly people get the two confused. Color me silly then, and adopt a modest proposal. I have yet to hear anyone give me a rational reason for why human life takes precedent over other creatures aside from "duhh, only teh retards hippys likes animals better!" I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter. Here's the answer: because I get to decide. I decide whether or not to kill the snake (or at least try) or to leave it alone. Because I can. That's nature. It's (somewhat) random. I get to use my biases, my own sometimes good, sometimes faulty decision making, etc. to decide on life and death. It's beautiful, it's horrible, it's life. No other reason. Nothing has any "value" outside of what it's given. If I assign no value to the snake life, well, it gets none. This is, for the most part, the answer most commonly given. However we as humans have been going around doing what we want (because as you said, we can) for around 10,000 years or so, and well...it hasn't worked out so well in my opinion. The problem isn't that we shouldn't be able to make individual value judgments on things, it's how we act upon these judgments. Humans have been granted the amazing power of foresight and judgment, which many creatures lack. If we continue to go around doing as we please we will inevitably pay the ultimate price- extinction. After all, we are but a speck on the timeline of our planets history, the earth will live on after we are gone- provided we don't kill all living organisms on it in our attempts to prolong our race. Valarc was correct when he stated the overall problems of our world vastly outweigh the killing of a few snakes in one's path, but this mindset in itself leads to a machiavellian-esque scorched earth policy if we all adopt it. Hell, most of us have already acknowledged and enacted this mindset either consciously or subconsciously in many respects.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
May 21, 2008, 5:15 PM
Post #77 of 89
(7917 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
stymingersfink wrote: knieveltech wrote: Adrian_Falcus wrote: I would honestly love to hear some rational opinions on the matter. I don't believe you would, actually. If human life isn't inherently precious to you above all other considerations then you are clearly suffering from profound mental/emotional problems. Seek therapy. Depends on the human life. THere's a lotta fuckers out there I'd rather see dead than a single rattlesnake. You probably feel the same way too, whether you admit/realize it or not. We'll start with the mother-killers and father-rapers, move on to the mother-rapers and father-killers. Where it goes from there, IDC, but you see my point. Some people should be killed for the good of the human race, the only reason they're still alive is 'cause it's against the law to kill 'em. Hell I've known folks I'd've killed just for the pleasure of watching them die, but sorry-ass motherfuckers aside....
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
May 21, 2008, 6:27 PM
Post #78 of 89
(7905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Adrian_Falcus wrote: This is, for the most part, the answer most commonly given. However we as humans have been going around doing what we want (because as you said, we can) for around 10,000 years or so, and well...it hasn't worked out so well in my opinion. Well, it hasn't worked out that badly either and, as you note, that's your opinion. Adrian_Falcus wrote: The problem isn't that we shouldn't be able to make individual value judgments on things, it's how we act upon these judgments. Humans have been granted the amazing power of foresight and judgment, which many creatures lack. If we continue to go around doing as we please we will inevitably pay the ultimate price- extinction. I'm guessing you consider that an undesirable, preventable, consequence.
Adrian_Falcus wrote: After all, we are but a speck on the timeline of our planets history, the earth will live on after we are gone- provided we don't kill all living organisms on it in our attempts to prolong our race. I'd be surprised if we could manage to kill all the other living organisms but anyway, I think it's our attempts to dominate each other where we really go wrong. Our attempts to prolong our race are probably secondary to that or at best go hand in hand.
Adrian_Falcus wrote: Valarc was correct when he stated the overall problems of our world vastly outweigh the killing of a few snakes in one's path, but this mindset in itself leads to a machiavellian-esque scorched earth policy if we all adopt it. Hell, most of us have already acknowledged and enacted this mindset either consciously or subconsciously in many respects. I don't know if I have the long term patience and dedication to really change anything significant. It's obvious that most of the rest of this country doesn't. I think we're doomed, Doomed (with a capital D) I tell you.
|
|
|
|
|
porkchop_express
Jun 5, 2008, 5:59 PM
Post #79 of 89
(7808 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2006
Posts: 62
|
Having been a philo major in college, I have no choice but to pipe up after seeing this thread careening wildly into the realm of speculative argument; However I was planning on visiting Sinks Canyon this summer and was wondering if it would be possible to climb safely without getting bitten by a rattler? I would prefer to avoid contact with venomous snakes but I would really like to check out the canyon...Is it like a 'look where youre walking' type of scenario to go in there in July and August or is it basically a deathwish? For what its worth (nothing, actually) I have no desire to kill any animals however cuddly or otherwise they may appear- but if its me or it, well, i'd as soon be the one to live. That said, if I could simply forgo the ethical grandstanding and just give them a wide berth, then that's my preference.
|
|
|
|
|
palidon11
Jun 5, 2008, 6:07 PM
Post #80 of 89
(7802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2007
Posts: 63
|
a little off topic, but the pic made it to the break.com galleries.. http://www.break.com/pictures/your-worst-hiking-nightmare514196.html
(This post was edited by palidon11 on Jun 5, 2008, 6:08 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jun 5, 2008, 6:28 PM
Post #81 of 89
(7795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
fixed.
(This post was edited by stymingersfink on Jun 5, 2008, 6:29 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
krusher4
Jun 5, 2008, 6:35 PM
Post #82 of 89
(7790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
|
Does this effect the Wild Iris area?
|
|
|
|
|
bob_54b
Jun 5, 2008, 6:58 PM
Post #83 of 89
(7773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 64
|
actually, the photo was taken 15 miles east of Riverton in the Gas Hills, nowhere near Lander. I know the people who took the picture (it's a small town) and it was on the Fremont County Schools website for a while.. but, the rattlers are out and migrating to their summer places, which means the dolomite, so, just keep an eye out and leave them alone...they control the rodents and it's bad karma to kill the Nagas...you'll come down with all sorts of rheumatic disorders. like they say...Wyoming, nothing but wind and rattlesnakes. you gotta love it.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Jun 5, 2008, 7:13 PM
Post #84 of 89
(7760 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
bob_54b wrote: actually, the photo was taken 15 miles east of Riverton in the Gas Hills, nowhere near Lander. I know the people who took the picture (it's a small town) and it was on the Fremont County Schools website for a while.. but, the rattlers are out and migrating to their summer places, which means the dolomite, so, just keep an eye out and leave them alone...they control the rodents and it's bad karma to kill the Nagas...you'll come down with all sorts of rheumatic disorders. like they say...Wyoming, nothing but wind and rattlesnakes. you gotta love it. Does this mean that the OP lied about the location of the rattlers just to keep people away from Sinks Canyon so that he and his cohort could have it to themselves? r.c
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jun 5, 2008, 9:14 PM
Post #85 of 89
(7731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Kill every damn rattlesnake ya see. Let the Bull Snakes and King snakes move into the neighborhood and take care of the mice.
|
|
|
|
|
bob_54b
Jun 6, 2008, 1:40 PM
Post #86 of 89
(7694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 64
|
undoubtedly he did, perhaps tired of the masses from Colorado/Utah/Jackson that horde every weekend at the main area like some great group grope that seem incapable of being apart from their fellow humans and their moronic dogs. I thought of saying nothing about it, but, shit, maybe I should now join the Chamber of Commerce for beautifying the image of Lander.
|
|
|
|
|
wyoclimb
Jun 6, 2008, 8:33 PM
Post #87 of 89
(7669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2007
Posts: 115
|
The best part is seeing their moronic dogs get bit by rattler . Ive' seen 2 dogs get it that shit hasta hurt. One was a local dog
|
|
|
|
|
victorblanco
Jun 17, 2009, 5:41 AM
Post #88 of 89
(7285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 17, 2001
Posts: 28
|
a little late; but, what the hell? here is the deal: you dumb shits! locals don't want your dumb asses wrecking local areas via greasing up routes (try brushing once in a while when lowering off of popular routes), over crowding areas/walls and parking incorrectly at area (sinks: park straight in you fucking morons) or hogging routes (fuck you coloradoans {slash east coast or west coast morons who moved to the rocky mountains and not natives} for putting up top ropes and trying to monopolize routes. also, don't bring your dog to the crag if they mis-behave, they will get reprimanded (kicked, hit with a quickdraw or shot) locals notice this shit and will call you on your discrepancies. what?!!!In reply to:
(This post was edited by victorblanco on Jun 17, 2009, 5:47 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Jun 17, 2009, 7:21 PM
Post #89 of 89
(7249 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
victorblanco wrote: a little late; but, what the hell? here is the deal: you dumb shits! You're by no means too late on this one. Being an intertard has no statute of limitations, broski.
|
|
|
|
|
|