I've got a moral question

[rlditmars]

So your compairing child porn to a snake,,, REALLY? And my "blanket statement" as far as Im concerned is factual. People need to keep their nose in their own business. PERIOD. A fine example, Mayor Bloomberg. Just because he feels like those poor New Yorkers shouldent drink a large soda, does that really give him the right to make that call? The OP wasent trying to do the right thing, the OP was wanting someone to tell him/her what the right thing was. Maby the OP should seek the advice of Bloomberg.
spooky

Do you really think that my reference is a comparison between keeping snakes and child porn? That is taking things a litlle bit to literal. If I were to react similarly then I would ask, "Are you really comparing keeping snakes to drinking soda?" You stated people should mind their own business. I simply pointed out that this is a blanket statement and does not always apply in every instance. Though my example is extreme some people can't differentiate when it is more subtle than a sledge hammer. And yes, the OP is asking what is the right thing. However, right vs wrong seems to be in some peoples opinions, a matter of what works best for them. I think right vs wrong should be a little more straight forward then that.

WOW. Wonder if anyone here would report the rest of us, if or when ball pythons become illegal to own? And comparing owning a snake to owning child porn is pretty ludicrous.

As to the comparison, I will refer you to the first part of my response to Spooky.

I wouldn't know if someone on this forum would report me for having a ball python were it to become illegal. But if it were made illegal, and I were to continue to keep ball pythons, I would be breaking the law and it would be a crime. It would be wrong, pure and simple regardless of how much I disagreed. We tend to be less bothered by people breaking rules/committing crimes that we disagree with. Still doesn't make it legal. I am no saint and never claim to be. My response was just to provoke thought and discussion, not to impune or criticize, nor to steer the OP in any direction. And with regard to the OP having burms and now the other guy, I will leave you with another comparison which I hope all will take with the spirit in which it is intended.

How many people will drive over the speed limit, but will be upset by someone ripping past them on the freeway at a very high speed. We are alright with are own indiscretions until someone pushes it to the a place we are unwilling to go. Then we say they are wrong and will rationalize the difference as being a matter of safety or whatevr. But in fact both are a violation of the same law.

[mr.spooky]

YOUR quote "Would reporting a crime be "the right thing"? Should someone "stay out of a persons business", if that business is child pornography?". You said it, not me.
I dident compair keeping snakes to drinking soda. My comment about the soda was to add foundation to the fact that people need to stay out of others business.

"How many people will drive over the speed limit, but will be upset by someone ripping past them on the freeway at a very high speed. We are alright with are own indiscretions until someone pushes it to the a place we are unwilling to go."

Ill go there. I drive above the speed limit (usualy 5-10mph over as the rest of trafic) and when I see someone coming up on me at a high rate of speed, I get over, out of their way. I dont care how fast there going. At the end of the day, when you compair the #'s to people on the road that dont speed to the people that do speed (15-20+mph), the speeders are a fraction of a percent.... Now, hang on to that thought and cary it to the "snake world". Out of thousands and thousands of giant snake owners that were responsible, how many fatality cases are there in one year? fractions of a fraction of a percent. Now, why again do we/I NEED someone to tell me what to do, or whats "right or wrong"? I dont, but theres always someone that wants to stick their nose in someone elses business.

BTW, nothing against you, but debating is the only way to let people decide for themselfs what to choose.
spooky

[JaGv]

i would agree with some people and just stay out of his business.

[xFenrir]

Personally, I am WAY more concerned about the fact that you say he has/had a few venomous snakes as well, but you didn't seem 100% positive he still had them, or even that you knew more than that he at some point in time had been in possession of them. It's a LOT more dangerous if those little puppies end up getting out and into a neighbors' garage, or have an unfortunate run-in with a kid playing outside and sees the "pretty snake". I know that sounds really extreme, but from the information we've been given, there's no way to determine whether this guy is a responsible owner or not. Venomous snakes are not second-chance animals, and for all we know he could have anything from a Copperhead to a Taipan. That sounds like a much bigger problem than his Burms.

[olstyn]

Personally, I am WAY more concerned about the fact that you say he has/had a few venomous snakes as well, but you didn't seem 100% positive he still had them, or even that you knew more than that he at some point in time had been in possession of them. It's a LOT more dangerous if those little puppies end up getting out and into a neighbors' garage, or have an unfortunate run-in with a kid playing outside and sees the "pretty snake". I know that sounds really extreme, but from the information we've been given, there's no way to determine whether this guy is a responsible owner or not. Venomous snakes are not second-chance animals, and for all we know he could have anything from a Copperhead to a Taipan. That sounds like a much bigger problem than his Burms.

Where are you getting the impression that any of these supposed animals are improperly or unsafely housed or kept? The only channel of information we have on this stuff is the the OP, and even if he'd been highly detail-oriented in his description of the situation, which he hasn't, we'd still only be getting one side of the story, and that from someone who admits to a "falling out" with the person on the other side of the story. It's not exactly useful testimony, let alone reliable.

I'm as concerned for the safety of the public as the next guy, but you're over-amping the worry factor on this in a big way. If there was more and clearer information available, you might have a point here, but as it stands, we can't do anything but speculate based on assumptions of unknown quality, and that really doesn't get us anywhere useful.

[wilomn]

Personally, I am WAY more concerned about the fact that you say he has/had a few venomous snakes as well, but you didn't seem 100% positive he still had them, or even that you knew more than that he at some point in time had been in possession of them. It's a LOT more dangerous if those little puppies end up getting out and into a neighbors' garage, or have an unfortunate run-in with a kid playing outside and sees the "pretty snake". I know that sounds really extreme, but from the information we've been given, there's no way to determine whether this guy is a responsible owner or not. Venomous snakes are not second-chance animals, and for all we know he could have anything from a Copperhead to a Taipan. That sounds like a much bigger problem than his Burms.

And THIS, this right here, is how bruhahas gets started.

Someone who knows NOTHING has speculated that someone MIGHT have venomous and now someone else who has NO facts has an elevated heart rate and concerns that may well have NO basis in fact.

When you don't know sugar from shinola, just shut your pie hole and we'll ALL have better lives with our scaly friends.

[3skulls]

Who here would give up their snakes if a ban was enacted?

[carlson]

Who here would give up their snakes if a ban was enacted?

I will give them rope coiled in a ball painted pretty, it's a snake I promise now don't look in the bag and skedaddle!

[wilomn]

Who here would give up their snakes if a ban was enacted?

Foolish to ask, even more foolish to answer.

[xFenrir]

I know that sounds really extreme, but from the information we've been given, there's no way to determine whether this guy is a responsible owner or not.

Let me clarify my whole point of posting.

He says that the guy had venomous snakes, but now is unsure if he does. That's all the information that was given. If the guy is buying Burms and doesn't know that they're illegal now, or is buying Burms regardless knowing that they're illegal, it raises a concern that he's got something he shouldn't. That's what I'm saying. I never ONCE said he wasn't running a perfect setup and/or didn't know what he was doing. Heck, the guy could be one of the best of the best. I was simply saying that in the case of someone getting in trouble, the venomous snakes would be the ones that really threw everyone into a huge b!tchfit and that the media/society would have a LOT more fun running THAT in the tabloids than a python. That's what I meant with my "I'd be WAY more concerned about the venomous snakes" bit. It seemed kinda funny to me that the OP was debating turning in the guy for the Burm, yet seemed pretty nonchalant about the venomous.

But thanks for jumping on me anyway. We can all have a healthy conversation here without cursing people out, thank you.