I'm trying to figure out what the POINT of this argument is in the first place?If a person feels it is too risky or dangerous to drape a ball python over their shoulders...then don't do it. How can anyone PROVE something when it's all a matter of opinion? Every single one of us makes risk assessments every single day and chooses which risks we are willing to accept and which we will avoid.
FACT: There are NO recorded instances of a ball python killing an adult human being...ever! (In fact, I don't believe there are any recorded instances of a ball python ever killing a human of ANY age, but I'm sure if I stated that categorically, someone would drag up an urban-legend article to "prove" otherwise)
FACT: People HAVE died (and do so every year) by choking on some item of food they have eaten and been unable to dislodge.
Therefore, no matter how you try to do the math, the statistics regarding strangulation (BY BALL PYTHON) versus choking on food are going to be ZERO to some positive number that is bigger than zero. (That number just depends on which set of statistics you are looking at)
To get all bent out of shape over the infinitesimal risk of strangulation by ball python just makes no sense to me whatsoever. Just don't do it if it bothers you that much.
Reply With Quote