Quote:
Originally Posted by ms_terese
I think it might be a stretch to call a cottonmouth "deadly". While I won't argue that they can inflict a nasty bite, I live in an area abundant with cottonmouths and have not heard of a death in decades. Certainly the very young and the very elderly are at higher risk for a serious reaction, a normal healthy male doesn't have much risk of death. I, myself, would be more concerned about a reaction to the antivenin than the snakebite itself.
Considering that the U.S. averages 12 fatal snake bites per year, and 99% of those are from rattlesnakes, I think it's a stretch. You're much more likely to be killed by a dog or a bee sting.
|
How dare you use a means of factual basis for your argument. That's just outright cheating! Cottonmouths are deadly because (with completely disregarding other possible reasons or factors that could've perpetuated the death of someone bitten by a cottonmouth) people have died from being bitten by them so that justifies them as deadly.
A city allowing bee permits is totally justifiable because bees make honey and hospitals have epipens.
Only unlicensed dogs kill people. Licensed dogs don't actually kill people because licensed dogs are domestic and the government says domestic animals are ok to have as pets because the government is looking out for our best interest.
In my city you can't have any reptile because you can possibly run the risk of getting salmonella and not know how to treat it properly and die so really the ban on all reptiles is justified because they could carry salmonella and kill lots of people so technically all reptiles are deadly and that is totally not a stretch.
So you should stop with using facts as your argument because then arguments that don't use facts appear to be wrong and every argument that doesn't use facts is actually right.