Challenging The State

[Malum Argenteum]

"wanton murder"
"totalitarian policies"

It wasn't (because of the legal definition of 'murder'), and they're not (because of the meaning of 'totalitarian'). Using emotive language like that is both factually incorrect and undermining of rational discourse. So please don't, OK? It doesn't advance the discussion.

I'm not going to go through and address every one of the varied claims above, but as an example it is pretty simple to show that this isn't an axiom (=accepted without proof):

"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”"

That pet owners are the cause of invasive pythons in FL (well, specifically and more accurately that captive Burmese pythons that were in private collections are the most likely source of the current invasive populations, of which there seem to be two) is based on published data along with reasoning to the best explanation (this phrase doesn't just mean something like 'one possible explanation'; the phrase refers to a specific and well-studied process in scientific inference, where it is sometimes called 'abduction'). It starts on p. 34, in Burmese Pythons in Florida.

If a person wants to dispute the claim about pet owners being the cause, the way to do so is to look at the data and figure out why it is incorrect, or incomplete, or being interpreted incorrectly. That's quite a project, but that's the way science works. That's how holes get poked in arguments.

I'll also point out that playing the 'fallacy' card in a sloppy way isn't a win, neither here nor in any sort of legal challenge that one might want to flow from this. What I meant by 'fallacious reasoning' was actual argumentative fallacies -- that is, asserting reasons that do not support the conclusion in spite of looking like they do. Here's a familiar example: the claim that banning snakes shouldn't be done because cats cause more environmental harm. Now while it may be true that cats do more environmental harm (I think this would be fairly simple to show) and it may be true that banning snakes shouldn't be done (also likely demonstrable, though with more difficulty and possibly only to a degree), one doesn't follow from the other because the cat concern is a 'straw man' (sometimes called the 'appeal to worse problems'): the facts about whether banning snakes is environmentally beneficial neither stands nor falls on any facts about cats whatsoever and would be the same even in a world where cats never evolved -- their truth values are independent. And so while mentioning the cat situation makes many people (including me, honestly) feel superior and think they have the upper hand, it isn't a relevant consideration.

Oh, here's another easy one: "it seems fallacious to suggest that the existence of such an institute inherently implies that the anti-snake policies and activities carried out by and advocated by the FWC are effective". Yes, it would be fallacious (it would be an appeal to authority, I suppose), but I did not assert that the existence of such an institute implies that FWC's policies are effective. I mentioned the FWRi to counter this claim: "outside of the study in which someone in the FWC was actually involved in - any org can post links to studies they had nothing to do with". Refuting something I did not claim is another straw man (that's a common one in many discussions).

The reason this is all interesting is that if the herp hobby wants to change these legislative situations, we need to up our game.