i mean, i may be an annoying bimbo, a novice, presently a lay person (actively working on changing that), etc but what’s it say about the actual strength of the arguments, policies, etc if someone like me can poke holes like this at the beginning of my research into the subject? because largely what i am calling into question are things which seem to be taken as axiomatic truths both without and within the hobby eg: “pet owners are the cause of invasive pythons in FL” “extermination policies are effective” “banning private ownership of specific invasive animals while completely ignoring other more significant invasive species is both effective and fair” “the people deciding these policies are actual conservation experts with demonstrated credentials, expertise or whatever” etc - there seems to be a tremendous amount of fallacious argumentation being presented and used as both pretext and justification for unethical and totalitarian policies
Reply With Quote