- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 150
Nice ad hom attack.
Well, we can't all be masterdebaters like you, I suppose:sarcasm:
Of course we are all just ignorant savages and any argument against your position is silly.
We are all bow to your wisdom.:laugh:
Yes, you do look stupid for bashing me for saying that driving a car is more dangerous. I am glad to see that you recognize that.
So, are you now saying there is some master level of risk that is acceptable for every group of people based solely on age and that needs to be enforced with the power of law? For example, you NOW claim that the risk of caring for a hot scorp is only excessive when added to the risk associated with driving a car. (nice cover, by the way) So by that rationale, if a teenager is not driving, then they should be allowed to care for the hot scorp. Or maybe if they ride skateboards and skydive occasionally then they could have a slightly less hot species according to your master risk gauge. Ridiculous argument. And feel free to correct me if that isn't your current assertion. Not trying to straw man you here.
So, if you don't like the car analogy, (and no, it's not the only analogy I can think of) how about teens caring for dogs. Should we have laws that say that teens should not be allowed to care for certain species of dogs (and I hate to stereotype because I love them but the stats don't lie) like pit bulls or rottweilers and should stick to safer breeds of dogs?
Or how about skateboarding, which, in my opinion, is a similiar level of risk to working with hot scorps (as in, if you screw up there is a good potential to be in a lot of pain or very slight potential to be dead). Should it be against the law for teens? (or only if they also drive)
Why should we infringe on people's rights to decide on the level of risk that they find acceptable just because somebody thinks it doesn't have any value or benefit to society? How does skydiving or bungee jumping benefit society as a whole? I am sure you do a lot of things that have no benefit to society, just as everyone else does. Owning hot scorps has benefit to some people in society (breeders and dealers of hot scorps, businesses that sell supplied for inverts, etc. ) so I guess it depends on how you want to quantify that. Personal freedom is far more important than being as safe as possible at all times.
In regards to comparing hot scorps to hot snakes, we are talking apples to oranges. I kept hot herps (rattlers) when I was a teen and there is a world of difference in terms of the danger involved. I would take a sting from a deathstalker/ Andro/ Parabuthus/ whatever over a bite from a mamba, cobra, or even a rattler any day of the week. You are also talking about an animal that has a reach of a few inches that is easily contained in a glass enclosure versus an animal that has a reach of several feet (or far more in some cases) and have a much higher risk of escape.
Basically, I believe people should be responsible for their own decisions and choices.
I really don't feel that it is the government's job to protect people from their own choices or actions.
If you choose to own an animal that has the potential to seriously injure you, whether it be a dog, horse, snake, scorpion, whatever, then you live with the consequences of that choice. Being a particular age doesn't absolve you of dealing with the consequences of your actions either. And a parent that misjudged their child's level of responsibility would have to suffer the consequences as well.
The only way I could see a dealer having any real liability is if they mis-represented the species as being mild or mixed them up somehow, eg. the customer ended up with a deathstaker and was told it was a desert hairy. If the customer was educated on the danger involved and purchased it anyways (which can be handled with a signed disclaimer) they have no reason to place any liability on the dealer. I do recognize that anybody can sue anybody without true cause so the best way to protect yourself as a dealer is to not sell them to anyone under 18 but I don't believe that there is any reason to legislate it or create a bureaucracy to hand out DWA licenses.
I decide the level of risk I am willing to take and act accordingly, and I face the consequences if something happens.
Last edited:
