Handling Vietnamese Centipede

[snakefin]

I didn't read all of the posts in this thread, but I just would like to point out the reason Steve Irwin got killed was because one of his cameramen startled the stingray and unfortunately (a big understatement) he was just swimming overtop of the stingray...hardly his fault and NOT because he "fudges" with any animal or doesn't have the training and the experience. He treats all the animals he meets with respect and he have saved COUNTLESS lives of animals across the world.

On another note, you sir (OP) are a true man...I wouldnt be caught dead in the same room as that.

Steve Irwin was also my idol, but you cannot ignore the fact that he knew the risks and took it anyway. It doesn't take any courage to handle a centipede unnecessarily.

 

[koltsixx]

Equivalently, he's risking the reptile trade and its reputation. Stop all the nonsensical talk about the government who is supposed to serve us and related crap. They do what they think is best for us, however wrong they may be at times. Be realistic.

You're speaking of a perfect world, whilst this world is full of stupid people who are everywhere most of the time. Stupid people believe that snakes are the make of the devil; machine guns in the form of a sentient enemy of sorts. So please cease all of this "ideological" talk about this and that, it works on paper but rarely in reality.

Secondly, you're saying that it is sensible to handle something that does not need handling or interaction?
I do believe it is within the sanctity of most exotic keepers to realise that this is not possible with pets of such reduced intelligence.

Lastly, breaking laws make sense many a times, but one must have the social responsibility, to consider the greater effect on incessant monkeys misunderstanding certain actions. And no, I don't have a car.

You talk of social responsibility and the need to follow certain laws, but you alone know which ones to follow and which ones not to and the situations that deem their breaking. What makes you so above everyone else that you know these things? Don't you see how hypocritical your statement is to the rest of your points? Also how is it nonsensical "crap" that a government that's supposed to be for the people by the people and me stating I think we should make sure it stays that way "crap"? It's idealistic to think we should do what's in our power, to not let the government pass laws we don't agree with?

It's unfortunate that in an attempt to sound intelligent instead you spoke in nonsensical and hypocritical circles and tried to break apart what I said by using parts of my statements. A common trait often seen by people who have a inferiority complex and use narcissism to compensate, it's actually really laughable. I stated it was my opinion and for you to start running off at the mouth just proves your motivation. As I didn't insult anyone and for you to start insulting my opinion makes your true intentions quite apparent. Your just doing it to fuel your own self esteem. Truly I am sorry that you feel so inadequate that you need to attack others in an attempt to make yourself feel superior.

For instance I offered speeding as an example of many little laws people break. I didn't say it was the only one so trying to counter with I don't have a car is laughable. lol! That doesn't defeat my point as it was just one example. I can say with utmost certainty that the vast majority of people Jaywalk you included I'm betting? Jaywalking is an informal term commonly used in North America to refer to illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway. Examples include a pedestrian crossing between intersections (outside or, in some jurisdictions, also inside a marked or unmarked crosswalk) without yielding to drivers and starting to cross a crosswalk at a signalized intersection without waiting for a permissive indication to be displayed. So if you break this law out of convenience, is that your definition of necessity? Clearly your point is moot as there's no necessity in either action and there's a risk to ones self. So where's the difference between the 2? Oh that's right jaywalking is actually against the law. So unless you react the same way with a rant every time you see someone jaywalking stating the government will just make more laws to compensate for their actions your point is moot and hypocritical.

It's sad cause I know how this will play out. You'll try to insult me back to coddle your wounded feelings. Matter of fact if there's a single typo here I bet you'll use it to insinuate my lack of intelligence, quite predictably I might add. As well as compare my retaliation to your insults as proving that I have my own feelings of being inadequate. Never realizing that your essentially an internet bully and my retaliation is comparable to someone standing up for themselves. While you feel the need to belittle someone without provocation which can only come from a internal feeling of being inadequate. So any response will do nothing but further prove that my evaluation of you is correct. Your a little person trying to be hard from behind a keyboard for the reasons I stated above.

We are not accusing him of breaking laws, we are simply worried that this type of behavior will be the reason for MORE laws.

I agree that such actions can hurt the hobby by giving the government more excuses to make unnecessary laws. How ever my only point is we should stand against the government instead of fellow hobbyists. How long before people being accidently bit by their piranha or stung by their stingray during regular tank maintenance becomes an excuse for them to ban them as well. In our hobby we deal with risks at times and I feel we should be the ones who dictate the risks we take and the more we let the government try to control these risks the more they will do it.

Oh yes, yes. Arguments like this, problematic to no point. Essentially, you're saying that if the whole world goes into anarchy and kills each other, then actions like those are fine and should not be corrected?

It is true that the people living in that world would concur that it is fine, but to us, onlookers, nope.

Hmmmm, I think my point was certain laws are unnecessary and if we have an opinion about them we should make our voices heard as is being done all over MFK with the bring Asian Arowana thread and others such as the petition going around against the Hawaii fish petition ban and others of it's ilk. You probably disagree with those as well. How does saying we should fight laws we think are unnecessary promotes anarchy and lawlessness? Hysterical that you try to expand my argument to anarchy so as to seem right. Also your statement "It is true that the people living in that world would concur that it is fine, but to us, onlookers, nope." is totally invalid as in this thread alone some onlookers do concur and they don't live in some post apocalyptic anarchy society which your speaking of and using in your statement. How does deciding to chance being hurt by a centipede equate to people killing each other and anarchy. Isn't that a ridiculous comparison? Why yes, yes it is.lol!

 

[NCStateFisher]

only thing to do with a centipede that big is squish it.... you've lost your mind son haha

 

[TheHolyArachnid]

You talk of social responsibility and the need to follow certain laws, but you alone know which ones to follow and which ones not to and the situations that deem their breaking. What makes you so above everyone else that you know these things? Don't you see how hypocritical your statement is to the rest of your points? Also how is it nonsensical "crap" that a government that's supposed to be for the people by the people and me stating I think we should make sure it stays that way "crap"? It's idealistic to think we should do what's in our power, to not let the government pass laws we don't agree with?

It's unfortunate that in an attempt to sound intelligent instead you spoke in nonsensical and hypocritical circles and tried to break apart what I said by using parts of my statements. A common trait often seen by people who have a inferiority complex and use narcissism to compensate, it's actually really laughable. I stated it was my opinion and for you to start running off at the mouth just proves your motivation. As I didn't insult anyone and for you to start insulting my opinion makes your true intentions quite apparent. Your just doing it to fuel your own self esteem. Truly I am sorry that you feel so inadequate that you need to attack others in an attempt to make yourself feel superior.

For instance I offered speeding as an example of many little laws people break. I didn't say it was the only one so trying to counter with I don't have a car is laughable. lol! That doesn't defeat my point as it was just one example. I can say with utmost certainty that the vast majority of people Jaywalk you included I'm betting? Jaywalking is an informal term commonly used in North America to refer to illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway. Examples include a pedestrian crossing between intersections (outside or, in some jurisdictions, also inside a marked or unmarked crosswalk) without yielding to drivers and starting to cross a crosswalk at a signalized intersection without waiting for a permissive indication to be displayed. So if you break this law out of convenience, is that your definition of necessity? Clearly your point is moot as there's no necessity in either action and there's a risk to ones self. So where's the difference between the 2? Oh that's right jaywalking is actually against the law. So unless you react the same way with a rant every time you see someone jaywalking stating the government will just make more laws to compensate for their actions your point is moot and hypocritical.

It's sad cause I know how this will play out. You'll try to insult me back to coddle your wounded feelings. Matter of fact if there's a single typo here I bet you'll use it to insinuate my lack of intelligence, quite predictably I might add. As well as compare my retaliation to your insults as proving that I have my own feelings of being inadequate. Never realizing that your essentially an internet bully and my retaliation is comparable to someone standing up for themselves. While you feel the need to belittle someone without provocation which can only come from a internal feeling of being inadequate. So any response will do nothing but further prove that my evaluation of you is correct. Your a little person trying to be hard from behind a keyboard for the reasons I stated above.



Hmmmm, I think my point was certain laws are unnecessary and if we have an opinion about them we should make our voices heard as is being done all over MFK with the bring Asian Arowana thread and others such as the petition going around against the Hawaii fish petition ban and others of it's ilk. You probably disagree with those as well. How does saying we should fight laws we think are unnecessary promotes anarchy and lawlessness? Hysterical that you try to expand my argument to anarchy so as to seem right. Also your statement "It is true that the people living in that world would concur that it is fine, but to us, onlookers, nope." is totally invalid as in this thread alone some onlookers do concur and they don't live in some post apocalyptic anarchy society which your speaking of and using in your statement. How does deciding to chance being hurt by a centipede equate to people killing each other and anarchy. Isn't that a ridiculous comparison? Why yes, yes it is.lol!

Wow, .

 

[snakefin]

You talk of social responsibility and the need to follow certain laws, but you alone know which ones to follow and which ones not to and the situations that deem their breaking. What makes you so above everyone else that you know these things? Don't you see how hypocritical your statement is to the rest of your points? Also how is it nonsensical "crap" that a government that's supposed to be for the people by the people and me stating I think we should make sure it stays that way "crap"? It's idealistic to think we should do what's in our power, to not let the government pass laws we don't agree with?

What do you mean I know everything? Do not believe that your own opinion is correct? In that case, why put it out in the first place? I stated my opinion, and it is YOUR job to prove me wrong, not whine about how this is equivalent to omnipotent knowledge. Let's make this simple.

1. Government made law for a reason; 2. Is reason logical, real, valid? ; 3. What corrective action should be taken, or not at all?
4. Does it benefit us on the long term to take the corrective action?

It is idealistic for the following reasons. Reptile keepers are still a minority. There is general misconception. Accidents will lead to the next misconceptions and fuel. Betraying the general principles of keeping exotics which are sound in consensus does not make any sense. Supporting such actions is even more questionable.

A common trait often seen by people who have a inferiority complex and use narcissism to compensate, it's actually really laughable. I stated it was my opinion and for you to start running off at the mouth just proves your motivation. As I didn't insult anyone and for you to start insulting my opinion makes your true intentions quite apparent. Your just doing it to fuel your own self esteem. Truly I am sorry that you feel so inadequate that you need to attack others in an attempt to make yourself feel superior.

Not my problem that YOU feel attacked. I never intended it that way. A discussion is simple, to prove you are right, prove the other fella wrong. Strangely, apart from a few of those who have come under criticism in the past and never came back, many others don't seem to think similarly to you.

For instance I offered speeding as an example of many little laws people break. I didn't say it was the only one so trying to counter with I don't have a car is laughable. lol! That doesn't defeat my point as it was just one example.

You must pardon my poor humour. Should really work on it, I think.

I can say with utmost certainty that the vast majority of people Jaywalk you included I'm betting? Jaywalking is an informal term commonly used in North America to refer to illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway. Examples include a pedestrian crossing between intersections (outside or, in some jurisdictions, also inside a marked or unmarked crosswalk) without yielding to drivers and starting to cross a crosswalk at a signalized intersection without waiting for a permissive indication to be displayed. So if you break this law out of convenience, is that your definition of necessity? Clearly your point is moot as there's no necessity in either action and there's a risk to ones self. So where's the difference between the 2? Oh that's right jaywalking is actually against the law.

Referring to my list above; we can break this down quite simply.
1. What is the point of an anti jaywalking law?
2. Do the reasons supporting this make sense? If yes, don't break it. Don't think any normal person would willingly die on the road.
3. So when does breaking the law make sense? Obviously, when they are no cars.

The government makes laws that they think make the most sense. Like you said, they are not omnipotent and they could be wrong.

It's sad cause I know how this will play out. You'll try to insult me back to coddle your wounded feelings. Matter of fact if there's a single typo here I bet you'll use it to insinuate my lack of intelligence, quite predictably I might add. As well as compare my retaliation to your insults as proving that I have my own feelings of being inadequate. Never realizing that your essentially an internet bully and my retaliation is comparable to someone standing up for themselves. While you feel the need to belittle someone without provocation which can only come from a internal feeling of being inadequate. So any response will do nothing but further prove that my evaluation of you is correct. Your a little person trying to be hard from behind a keyboard for the reasons I stated above.

Try to avoid showing your own arrogance by indicating what real douches would do. I will not pick at your grammar, actually you've written this thing rather well. Let's not turn this into some sort of messy moral argument; I don't really care if someone gets offended as per say, if you are wrong by a general consensus, you are likely wrong, and should deal with it.

I've always told my friends that many keyboard warriors aren't real life warriors because the more physically built warriors like to react to disputable circumstances through the virtue of a fist. I don't see keyboard warriors as too much of a derogatory term in general.

I agree that such actions can hurt the hobby by giving the government more excuses to make unnecessary laws. How ever my only point is we should stand against the government instead of fellow hobbyists. How long before people being accidently bit by their piranha or stung by their stingray during regular tank maintenance becomes an excuse for them to ban them as well. In our hobby we deal with risks at times and I feel we should be the ones who dictate the risks we take and the more we let the government try to control these risks the more they will do it.

What you say hear is true, but one must be fair and judge whether this risks are necessary. Ask yourself, is handling something with potentially painful conditions, necessary?

You probably disagree with those as well. How does saying we should fight laws we think are unnecessary promotes anarchy and lawlessness?

Let me clarify. I am saying that if someone does something you personally think is incorrect, but have the temptation to do; does that in any way justify your actions of following that person?

No, it certainly doesn't. Conversely, it halts human progress. My point about the anarchy...I just want to say that what is right and wrong are very perceptive, and more often than not, when a large group of people has done something over a large period of time, it is deemed acceptable.


So are you going to calm down, and conduct yourself in a sane manner now?

 

[aquaman95]

Everybody STOP there is very good points to be made here but the points will have no meaning if you keep repeating them.LETS JUST SUM THEM UP FEEL FREE TO ADD MORE JUST ADD THE LIST NUMBER TO YOUR POST.
1.people who blatantly break the law and post about it on public forums are idiots..let them be have a laugh and calm down..you know you are mentally superior so why "beat a dead horse"
2.The guy who started this thread did not just get this bug and he is obviously not new so do not jump his case keep your snappy little come backs to yourself...All he wanted was to show he held it who cares if he used his seat meat to pick it up or his hands it was not injured so idc.
3.Steve irwin died on accident If you where not there stfu and silently pay your respects to one of the most respected reptile/fish person's in the world..it was not due to lack of experience but due to being a human in the water..we do not have gills or fins so yes it was not smart/safe going out there but its not smart/safe swimming in small lakes anymore either soooo he messed up where...?
THESE ARE NOT ALL THE POINTS TO BE MADE IM JUST CATCHING UP LATE ARRIVALS .

 

[koltsixx]

What do you mean I know everything? Do not believe that your own opinion is correct? In that case, why put it out in the first place? I stated my opinion, and it is YOUR job to prove me wrong, not whine about how this is equivalent to omnipotent knowledge. Let's make this simple.
I was merely making reference to your statement that you know what laws to break and when and at the same time saying others don't. I've said everything I said is my opinion, while you have summarily in some of your statements judged the rest of humanity and your own belief in being smarter than most. Such a statement implies you know everything doesn't it? To say you alone know when to break laws and that the laws only exist for others who lack your common sense. That is something I don't do as I don't judge anyone until after they open their mouths, while you seem to judge most of humanity as being fundamentally inferior to you. So I summed it up by saying you must think you know it all.

1. Government made law for a reason; Hmmm think I said that and said I believe it's basically to make the masses feel like they're looking out for them at least in the instances we're discussing here2. Is reason logical, real, valid? ; I already answered this in 3 of my posts if you count the one above for you 3. What corrective action should be taken, or not at all? I also answered this now 3 times, I believe we should form a petition against such laws not browbeat our fellow hobbyists
4. Does it benefit us on the long term to take the corrective action?
I believe saving our hobby from unnecessary limitations does benefit us long term.

It is idealistic for the following reasons. Reptile keepers are still a minority. There is general misconception. Accidents will lead to the next misconceptions and fuel. Betraying the general principles of keeping exotics which are sound in consensus does not make any sense. Supporting such actions is even more questionable.

This is about the only point that is valid and not even all of it is. Yes he is betraying the general principles of keeping exotics as most agree you should only handle a dangerous pet when it's necessary. My point was merely that he should be able to without being attacked. There are better ways to communicate than to compare him to killing people as you did in your first post that I merely commented on. Instead of taking my advice that attacking doesn't help further your point, nor making a ridiculous comparison you chose to attack my statement with making reference to my opinion being compared to a monkey and it being nonsensical and so on. What's funny is I've repeatedly said I do not support his actions, merely his right to do so without being attacked. Also those who oppose the laws will almost invariably be the minority so again not a valid part of your point. As such it's not idealistic to think that we can do something about it. Again there are several petitions on here that you yourself said you don't disagree with so that means that your being hypocritical again as it implies the minority(monster fish keepers) are petitioning and you agree with that. So you are either idealistic and calling me the same for what point I don't know? Or you are hypocrite as you only believe in such actions when it's convenient for you.


Not my problem that YOU feel attacked. I never intended it that way. A discussion is simple, to prove you are right, prove the other fella wrong. Strangely, apart from a few of those who have come under criticism in the past and never came back, many others don't seem to think similarly to you.

Never said it was your problem, just pointed out my evaluation of your actions. Also it's apparent that you interpert my actions a certain way from your post here apparently as an attack on you. What's really funny about that is I primarily used your words that you used to describe my post to describe yours. I did that purposely to see if you would feel attacked and your responses make it apparent that you do. As a matter of fact you even asked me if I would act sane now, when all I did was mimic your post. So it means that you evaluate someone using your words as I guess insane.lol! The only difference between our posts was I actually offered up logical reasoning to support my post. Also because you haven't noticed there is essentially 4 people 2 on each side arguing the point. Myself/ Mysterious/yourself and Snakeguy. So again you made an invalid point to try and support your opinion. Even if that wasn't the case people don't necessarily visit the same thread repeatedly and some that do agree may not post and some who would agree with me may not visit this thread so even in those regards your point would be moot.

You must pardon my poor humour. Should really work on it, I think.
Nah, it's just hard to read sarcasm which has nothing to do with your sense of humour or mine so I wouldn't work on it if I was you. Over time people will recognize your writing style and get when your being playfully sarcastic.



Referring to my list above; we can break this down quite simply. [/COLOR][/SIZE]
1. What is the point of an anti jaywalking law?
2. Do the reasons supporting this make sense? If yes, don't break it. Don't think any normal person would willingly die on the road.
3. So when does breaking the law make sense? Obviously, when they are no cars.

The government makes laws that they think make the most sense. Like you said, they are not omnipotent and they could be wrong.
Which has been my whole point all along I believe the government is wrong. Also you've not answered one of my questions to prove your case which is what you said would be the point of a logical discussion. You've only offered more questions taking this convo. in a useless circle as I've already answered your questions several times.



Try to avoid showing your own arrogance by indicating what real douches would do. I will not pick at your grammar, actually you've written this thing rather well. Let's not turn this into some sort of messy moral argument; I don't really care if someone gets offended as per say, if you are wrong by a general consensus, you are likely wrong, and should deal with it.
For most arguments are based around 2 things their logic and their moral sense. So it makes no sense to say let's not make it about that. What do you think the discussion should be based on if not a persons logic and moral base? Also I will freely admit I am arrogant and I will admit it is a personality flaw which I'm trying to over come. The only real difference between us is I freely admit my flaws, while you won't and will instead try your best to focus on those of others as a way of avoiding your own very human limitations. None of us are perfect, but the road to enlightenment begins with us realizing it. Also at one point the general consensus was the world is flat and it was only because of those who where stubborn enough to keep on and trying to prove their point that the world as a whole benefited from it. This has been the case plenty of times from Columbus to Einstein, so again your point is moot. Essentially your only real thought seems to be if most disagree with you, you should just shut up and deal with it. Which in itself is a very flawed point.

I've always told my friends that many keyboard warriors aren't real life warriors because the more physically built warriors like to react to disputable circumstances through the virtue of a fist. I don't see keyboard warriors as too much of a derogatory term in general.
That's your opinion and your entitled to it, but if you read my point and understood it. I was focusing on your hypocrisy and nonsensical circular talk in combination with being a keyboard commando as being negative. It is another flaw of mine I freely admit I more often times than not react in a physical way to being insulted(or should I say my perception of being insulted). I how ever don't get worked up here because it's pointless as I'm powerless to do anything. I just respond as logically as I'm capable of. I will also freely admit that was not always the case. I used to try and call people out over the web. Seriously I find my prior actions regarding that hysterical. I would literally get to the point of almost foaming at the mouth. I was foolish to say the least.

What you say hear is true, but one must be fair and judge whether this risks are necessary. Ask yourself, is handling something with potentially painful conditions, necessary?
Again I repeat I don't agree with the action necessarily, just his right to do so without being attacked.


Let me clarify. I am saying that if someone does something you personally think is incorrect, but have the temptation to do; does that in any way justify your actions of following that person?
No, but I don't think anyone was implying that.
No, it certainly doesn't. Conversely, it halts human progress. My point about the anarchy...I just want to say that what is right and wrong are very perceptive, and more often than not, when a large group of people has done something over a large period of time, it is deemed acceptable.
I agree and actually give you ummmmm, mad props(lol!) for this statement at least as far as what you say about perception. It's one of my most sacred beliefs that perception is reality. Still again I refer back to my point about Einstein and how his disagreeing with what was normally held as law(scientific that is) led to a momentous discovery so I do not concur with such things as halting human progress yet rather helping it evolve. Simply put I think humanities greatest strength is our diversity and our sense of individualism that leads us to greatness.

So are you going to calm down, and conduct yourself in a sane manner now?

I responded to this earlier in this post, I'm actually quite calm. I've learned not to get excited about something I have no control over. It doesn't mean that I won't respond and I don't think I've acted in a irrational manner in any of my posts. Just like your attempt at humor earlier was misunderstood I believe my post was as well as apparently you believe me responding is in some way a irrational action. I will also thank you at least for complimenting earlier that my statement was well written. Both times I was for lack of a better term soused as I am now. It's also probably the reason for me being slightly more arrogant and difficult than usual.lol! Don't get me wrong though I'm not saying when I'm sober I would be less opinionated, just less likely to go back and forth with you. Still I'm enjoying this convo. because at least in my opinion some of what you said is insightful and intelligent so you've surprised me and nothing is more enjoyable than me being proven wrong.

 

[ruckaisawesome]

wow... never knew a simple post can create such a debate...

 

[snakefin]

Your purposes of being consistently skeptical with the government, I don't understand. I don't agree that the government is trying to pretend, I believe that they are genuinely fooled into believing some sort of exotic threat; but I am not in America, and if you are, then so are you better predisposed to comment on this.

When we browbeat our fellow hobbyists, we ensure that everything is done right first, you know what I mean? Its similar to correcting your child or something if they made a mistake regardless of whether they are your family.

If reptile keepers were not a minority, we wouldn't be worrying about any more bans in the first place, since it would become "acceptable". True, there is a large enough number to overturn a potential ban, but a minority nonetheless.

I think you will find very often that there are many people that tend to do very contradictory things and make perhaps, inappropriate justification for breaking certain laws; that is my basis. I am not saying that I have a certain common sense, I'd prefer to describe it as many people not having much sense at all. Lol, I don't exactly only know people on the internet, you know.

I attacked your ideas, we call this my friend, a discussion, you attacked my character, we call this, an emotion reaction.

I know what you mean about the general consensus, I don't like raising that point either, but I don't think it would make sense to sort of call it...a logical conclusion? That sounds insane doesn't it?

What I mainly don't get.... really, is what exactly you are supporting. I thought I understood it, but it appears to require more clarification.

 

[snakefin]

wow... never knew a simple post can create such a debate...

That's part of the fun really.