most reptile owners are sadists.

this is reality. most people get into reptile ownership because they want to watch live feedings. that's why theese people are disproportionately anti-social types like goths for example. reptile ownership should be a red flag. reptiles do not show the same level of socialization as other animals. this is simply a fact. I'm not claiming that they aren't sentient, but they have a very primitive brain that is heavily skewed towards prey drive and solitary survival. a disproportionate amount of animal abusers, murderers, and other violent criminals have also been reptile owners.
example
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jun_Lin

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any anon here that has good knowledge regarding Lizard but specifically larger ones like the Gila Monster, if so and are willing to answer 1 thing lmk!

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    CHOMP SQUAD

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I call it dirt spaghetti

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >lobotomite

    I like it, but it kinda sounds like it describes one who advocates for the use of lobotomy, instead of the lebotomized.

    Also, turtles are the best reptiles.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >biggest mass murderer in history owned a dog, therefore all dog owners are mass murderers
    This is how you sound.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s not how they sound, they are making a very perceptive point and you must have a bias cause you are elaborately gaslighting them

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        That would imply OP has an actual valid point to begin with and is not merely lashing out from his own biased perspective with a fallacy as his evidence and little personal experience with the community that he is making broad statements about.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that you are coddled enough to have this opinion upsets me.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are they coddled or are they trying to point out areas of society that should be scrutinized? Sure I’m your mind they are coddled cause you just expect the world to stay as shitty as it is now forever. What wild animals do is not something that should be commodified for entertainment and normalized in a safe society

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Animals aren’t people. Humans are predators and can kill animals without being crazy. Your argument is invalid.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Scrutinize what exactly? A person feeding a pet? I don't know what you think it's like out in nature, but if you're not an autotroph, you by definition, need to kill to sustain your own life. Whether it be plant or animal or whatever else ya might eat. Does it feel bad to feed live? Yes. I'm sure most people don't like knowing they are personally responsible for ending a life. As humans we can have that self reflection and empathize like what if I was fed by some giant to their pet. It'd suck and it's not fun. But things have to survive. This is how nature works. Is it a little sad? Yeah, sometimes it can be. But you need to be an adult and realize that it's probably not some sort of sin or moral failing to own an animal that requires things die to consume them. Nature doesn't work like a kid's movie where everything can just get along and nothing really bad ever happens. One man's bacterial infection is some bacteria's existence thriving. Lions consuming a wildebeest is a boon to the lions. And there are also counterpoints to that. You can see it both ways. As a loss to the consumed and as a benefit to the consumer. This is how life on our planet evolved and finds equilibrium.

        Things live, they die, and new things are born in their place. That's okay. We don't have to shy away from harsh realities.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >as humans we can have paranoid delusions about being eaten by giant cats
          That’s just a low IQ schizo thing. I feel nothing when vermin dies. Try not being buddhist or new age or whatever mind virus has infected you. Most animals are essentially machines and reveal not how human they are but how animal we are. Especially the feelings. Feelings are purely animal. We are better because we can choose them. Unfortunately you chose to have moronic ones instead of good ones - forget vermin. Even if it wasn’t automated flesh the most torturous death for it would be less suffering than a human being experiencing momentary pain.

          t. Registered nurse saves at least one human life a day

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you even talking about? None of what you said even came close to addressing what I said.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most people I can think of in the hobby use frozen thawed with their reptiles that eat rodents or birds. It wouldn't surprise me if anti social types would enjoy watching live feeding for sadistic value, but it seems unreasonable to me to assume the average snake owner owns the snake to relish in the death of other animals even if they live feed. I would imagine many murders also own cats or dogs, but no one would come to the conclusion that dog owners are largely sociopaths. I personally want to own a snake because I think they're beautiful and very cool animals. Here's a picture of my dog.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >frick with me and I'll bite off your clitoris

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've found the most vile, disgusting, and graphic live reptile feeding on youtube. This one is not for the faint of heart.
    You have been warned.

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just think turtles and frogs are cute —_( ' _ ' )_/—

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'll never be able to jerk off

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The main reason to avoid live feeding is it's expensive. A hopper is $3.50 live but I just bought 100 frozen for 49 cents each

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jun_Lin
    Surprise surprise, the killer was a schizo gay who murdered another gay he met on a hookup app. Really it would be better to just euthanize schizos the first time they commit any sort of violent or sex crime. Schizos are unironically demon-possessed and don't deserve to live for the good of society.

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    just look at this and tell me with a straight face that reptilian owners aren't sadist

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus fking Christ were doing another live feeding thread, aren't we?
    Rule of thumb
    If its okay to kill an animal in public or just generally in front of others, then its 100% okay and socially acceptable to livefeed (crickets, roaches, some invertebrates and fish, probably some rodents like mice and rats, most pests)
    This does not make you psychopath.
    If its not okay to kill an animal in public, but its commonplace, like for food or fur, then its still okay to live feed, but does raise some questions, probably shouldn't expose others to it or gaslight people into thinking it's normal. At the end of the day, you're no more psychopathic than a butcher, fishery worker or an animal control specialist.
    If an animal is taboo to kill in public, would likely get you into trouble if you did, and is frowned upon in your society if you do so even in private, outside of some specific exceptions like controlled shootings of stray dogs or protecting your livestock (most pets like cats and parrots, as well as endangered or well liked species like storks or otters), If you linefeed these, ye, its safe to assume there are a few screws loose in your head.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Your rule of thumb sucks.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    stop pretending to be moronic ITT, its clear op is not talking about people with cute geckos and turtles

    more like this kind of people

    youtube is absolutely loaded with zoosadists / vore fetishists
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HfVYKKxe9TU
    who get a pass of "muh nature" for some deranged reason

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >some SEAsian voregay on youtube equates to most reptile keepers
      Off yourself

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        just one random video out of hundreds of thousands from all over the world

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/SMBACGK.png

      just look at this and tell me with a straight face that reptilian owners aren't sadist

      This is garden variety shit considering a huge number of normalgay dog owners constantly threaten other people with their shitbulls, rottweilers, german shepherds, etc. over gay facebook arguments. The allure of "taming the beast" has always appealed to humans, and stupid people who lack empathy seek outlets for their violent inclinations. It's the same reason the "gun community" is full of machismo morons who ruin the hobby for the smarter people.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >its clear op is not talking about people with cute geckos and turtles
      But you just described reptile owners. Isn't that what this thread is supposedly about?
      Try to keep it together, you projecting psycho.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"all reptile owners are sadists"
      >shown multiple examples to the contrary
      >"wait hold on, I didn't mean all of them, let me move the goalpost real quick"
      Also, how do these people represent the majority of people with reptiles? And for that matter, why are YOU the one posting this disgusting shit and not the reptile owners ITT?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        NTA, but trying to harangue the whole point of the thread over the OP being slightly vague in not distinguishing over veggie herps is c**tery of the highest order. Stop being a little b***h, we aren't talking about geckos eating onions paste, never were.
        As for your second point, you obviously aren't following the thread too close

        https://i.imgur.com/VEtWnH0.jpg

        reptiles can be based sometimes

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >we aren't talking about the majority of reptile keepers, never were. Ignore the fact that "the majority of reptile keepers" was specified by OP multiple times

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Shut up homosexual.

  18. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Man, I just want a blue tongue because they look and act silly. I can't help but laugh when I see them.

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    reptiles can be based sometimes

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Your fellow, average, well-adjusted herp owner, friends and countrymen.

      >I don't have an argument
      >you're moronic and my ridiculous hypotheticals aren't

      I just made an argument, and the logic you are presenting would be seen as edgy and immature by the vast majority. "A newly discovered species of strangler-worm has begun decimating local orangutan populations, targeting yearlings primarily, but given that this is simply Nature playing out, it would be immoral for us humans to intervene or cast judgement."

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        No you are imagining a devastating plague that eradicates every member of a species effortlessly. This is not how predators and especially reptiles function in nature you literal child.

        If there was an invasive species decimating an indigenous population, everyone including me and environmentalists would want to fix that.

        But here you sit and screech "what if a new worm killed every orangutan" that that's a fair representation of the other side, you're a child.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          First off, 'decimating' means to reduce by 1/10, so I articulately described a survivable and potentially stable prey/predator dynamic.
          I'm not talking about an invasive species either, just a newly discovered one that exists in the natural environment. I never said 'killed every orangutan', I was highlighting the absurdity of natural moral relativism.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So are you saying we should eradicate predators? Only keep smart predators like cats? Delete animals other than mammals and birds? Do snakes not serve an important role in nature? Why must you make up ridiculous and fantastic scenarios to escape arguing about the actual subject at hand? Is it because your argument is actually the ridiculous and indefensible one if you actually grounded it in reality?

            I've never owned a reptile, btw, I think they're weird.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Why must you make up ridiculous and fantastic scenarios to escape arguing about the actual subject at hand?
              >What do you mean, 'what if I didn't have breakfast this morning?' I did eat breakfast.

              Good on you though, I'm glad we can agree on that.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I understand the value of analogies, but usually a good analogy has some semblance to reality and isn't a stand in for having any argument about the actual topic at all.
                If you can only stand behind analogies it makes me wonder if you have anything to say on the actual subject at all, which it seems you've confirmed you don't

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cute pic! it looks just like my BP <3

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              Cute, and I bet the man in the pic resembles you 😉

              >Human existence necessarily involves consumption of land and resources
              True, but...
              You are conflating inevitable injustice
              >Taking up a certain amount of land and culling/displacing it's wildlife to grow necessary crops
              With a voluntary injustice
              >Doing the same, but to raise a cow for slaughter in addition to existing fields for necessary crops.
              It's not complicated or difficult to understand you are just in denial. It's not ridiculous or inconsistant to say my first responsibility is to myself but I would avoid animal exploitation and murder wherever possible or practicable.

              Everyone owning a chicken coop is not the solution to animal exploitation, it merely decentralizes the issue.
              Also, chicks are not sexed before being sold to small consumers like at commercial facilities, everyone who gets a chicken coop I've known ends up with roosters they have to kill or "send to a rooster farm" :c

              >human science could step in
              I'm not opposed to scientific solutions, even better would be to clone eggs infinitely.
              >roosters self cull
              In the wild roosters are not very aggressive to each other unless ones authority is directly contested. The reality is a few breeds of domesticated roosters have been bred for wiener fighting. So this is not the fault of chickens but of human influence. Egg laying roosters are often tolerant of each other besides some pecking here and there, but they are not a commercially viable product and thus a waste to nourish and house.

              >The fact that snakes are important to todays ecosystems isn't compelling
              It's hard for some people to comprehend pragmatism or the here and now. Just keep living in your escapist scifi head canon.

              We can quibble over the semantics and degrees of responsibility, but they're extremely minor differences. Ultimately, we agree that the best option is for science to alleviate us of any ethical burdens to enjoy what we prefer.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry fren, that's your mom 🙁

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What if a worm strangled every orangutan baby
        >Lmao you are the edgy one
        How would you know what normal people think?

  21. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay Ill inform Pretzel, the ball python that is so dumb and shy he tries to eat food sideways sometimes that Im clearly a sadist for owning him.

    Most people own reptiles because they think reptiles are cool, cute, or beautiful. Sure, some people get off on the live feeding aspect Im sure, but this thread is like saying all dog owners are bad because people who fight dogs exist. Absolutely moronic.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      <3 my bp

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can try to talk about how 'boopable your snake's snoot' is, but it's an uncaring creature that eats higher-order, more mentally developed creatures to survive. "I love my swamp slug! Who cares if it has to survive on dolphin meat? Maybe some owners get off on their death clicks and squeals, but not I!"

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        It’s another atheistard vegan thinks brain complexity equals value

        I would kill 50 dolphins to save a well trained gun dog and a 120 iq autistic animal fricking loser to save a hard working, pro social average moron.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >It takes exactly this long until snake owners are unable to hide their anti-social autism.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Having a more developed brain doesn't make a creature more evolved or "higher order" you are arbitrarily ascribing value to that trait. The snake is every bit as evolved to it's environment.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          And a swamp slug could be highly evolved towards killing dolphins, the way of thinking you are trying to entertain is ridiculous.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't have an argument
            >you're moronic and my ridiculous hypotheticals aren't

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you're don't actually care about the environment you just hate the animals you don't personally think are cute and valuable? Am I getting that right?

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              I believe humans have every right to carve the environment into a greater, more harmonious system, even one that aligns with our predominant values. Articulating this isn't common, but it's the exact, undeniable trajectory of human society as we are on now. We are wiping out predators and parasites, and modifying the remaining life on Earth into a pyramid of greater accomplishment. If something isn't cute, valuable, or worthy of our concern, why preserve it? Nature has never been static, and it would be a waste of our venal powers to keep it as such against our own interests. Ultimately though, this is all a bit outside the scope of this thread.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                It’s another atheistard vegan thinks brain complexity equals value

                I would kill 50 dolphins to save a well trained gun dog and a 120 iq autistic animal fricking loser to save a hard working, pro social average moron.

                There you go, he's not a vegan. please don't slander my people again.

                We certainly wipe out predators that interfere with a human way of life, but we don't typically get rid of predators that aren't in our way somehow, unless you have some examples.
                Most people describe our impact on wildlife and the environment as negative, and for good reason.
                >nature isn't static
                This is a bad framing of conservation, the goal isn't to maintain the natural status quo, it's to reduce negative human impact, so you are being kind of tricky.
                We are also wiping out prey animals and cute herbivores so by your logic should we kill everything living outside a fence?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Not a vegan
                Correct, I am a vegetarian. I don't even know how the frick I'd get enough protein without dairy, and eggs are so nutritionally convenient. And in a perfect world, they could both be endlessly harvested ethically.

                Arguably, humanity has always over-hunted predators on whim, rather than to the degree necessary to protect cattle. I'm not saying people go on active moral crusades to exterminate species for moral reasons, more that they are far more likely to be comfortable with a 'disgusting' or 'unethical' creature being wiped out. As for active exterminating on a whim, you have the buffalo situation in the past, which may have been exterminated specifically to undermine Native interests. In modern terms, you have mosquitos.
                Nature conservationism isn't universal in its moral theory, it's done for numerous different reasons, and conservationists only represent a minor fraction of humanity's overall impact on nature.
                By steps small and large, this is what will happen as we use genetic modification to create an environment that supports us, at the expense of a wild environment with every species battling for their own individual supremacy. It'll be like metronomes aligning in tempo, and eventually our scientists will begin stepping in in a more major capacity as our techniques of manipulation become more advanced.

                I understand the value of analogies, but usually a good analogy has some semblance to reality and isn't a stand in for having any argument about the actual topic at all.
                If you can only stand behind analogies it makes me wonder if you have anything to say on the actual subject at all, which it seems you've confirmed you don't

                Snakes are dumb, simple creatures, far more rudimentary in lived experience than mammals. This concept is easy for even a simple person to understand in extremes, thus the example of a worm killing orangutans, but it becomes harder to parse and delineate as the differences become less extreme.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's bad when snakes eat feeder mice
                >It's ok when I consumer other animals though
                Is it ok for you because you're smarter (barely) than a snake? Is that basically your argument?

                >My future will slowly and inevitably be reached through the dialectic machinations of our evolving society
                Then why are you in her making a stink about snakes existing and people wanting them as pets when all you have to do is kick back and wait? Are you just an ass?

                >Reptiles are dumber than mammals
                I understand and agree with this, I don't understand how it makes them less valuable to their local ecosystems or how it's an argument against their existence.

                https://i.imgur.com/oRvzB9r.jpg

                I believe humans have every right to carve the environment into a greater, more harmonious system, even one that aligns with our predominant values. Articulating this isn't common, but it's the exact, undeniable trajectory of human society as we are on now. We are wiping out predators and parasites, and modifying the remaining life on Earth into a pyramid of greater accomplishment. If something isn't cute, valuable, or worthy of our concern, why preserve it? Nature has never been static, and it would be a waste of our venal powers to keep it as such against our own interests. Ultimately though, this is all a bit outside the scope of this thread.

                >well in the far future it's inevitable that...
                So basically you are an idealist who wants to make really edgy and flashy statements and then hide behind a non prescriptive stance? That doesn't feel cowardly at all to you? Like why even pipe up if you argument taken all the way to it's end is
                >Well actually I don't really have anything to offer, just obstinate and prophecy.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's ok when I consumer other animals though
                Where is your reading comprehension? I said I was a vegetarian.
                I didn't make the thread, I just agree with the sentiment that predatory reptile ownership is immoral, and an extremely strong signifier of dark personality traits.
                A disease that painfully wipes out huge portions of humanity would be of value to our local ecosystems from such a perspective as that, but there's no reason to divorce ecological management from all ethical standards. The world would be better if snakes were unnecessary and non-existent, the fact that they serve a temporary, stop-gap purpose in certain ecosystems isn't overly compelling.
                If you want my 'plan in action for the moment', I say abhor and regulate the predatory reptile/amphibian pet industry and caution people against owning those pets. The status quo is, most people think snake owners are fricking weirdos anyway, so I'm not asking for change, I'm ridiculing the 'snoot booping' herp normalization movement that is striving for change. I could pull up a hundred articles/videos/scientific journals of people talking about the social stigma against reptile ownership.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                We don't live in your perfectly ethical egg and dairy fantasy, so the truth remains that countless animals are culled so you can have your tasty treats, it's just an aesthetic difference.

                >A disease that painfully wipes out...
                Why would it be necessary to be painful? Are you just being sensational for edginess sake again? Lemme guess this is how >normal and >simple people best understand again?
                I don't know if cynicism and genocide are the only ways to be less destructive, it could be that among other things urbanization and sustainability are viable pathways?

                If this whole time you meant to say that
                >Owning obligate carnivores perpetuates and commodities animal suffering.
                Then being a vegan, I would agree with that completely, but I think it's a bit inconsistent to think this is worse than mastication of male chicks at sorting facilities that supply layer hens for your tasty eggies.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                A certain percentage of animals are also culled for every plot of grain, with further externalities over displaced habitat, pesticide usage, and farming tactics that stress local environments and lead to further death and suffering. The truth is, human existence almost universally displaces the previous ecosystem and its status quo. I would be better off striving to harvest my own eggs and milk to ensure ethical practices, but the same could be said of harvesting grain more ethically, it's a matter of slim percentages. This is also where technology comes in, we could easily have a future were we genetically modify chickens to naturally produce males to a 1/10 or 1/99 ratio. A huge aspect of male chicken suffering, is due to male chicken nature, they're largely incapable of peaceful living with other males and will naturally self-cull in rather brutal fashion. This is where human science could step in to create a brighter future for both chickens and humanity in co-existence.
                The example of a painful disease was just an analogy to show how gauging natural management without consideration of ethics or animal complexity is absurd. If we shouldn't judge the methods employed by a predator to subjugate its prey, why should we judge a disease's methods to proliferate through its hosts? We must, in fact, apply ethical considerations to the management of both.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Human existence necessarily involves consumption of land and resources
                True, but...
                You are conflating inevitable injustice
                >Taking up a certain amount of land and culling/displacing it's wildlife to grow necessary crops
                With a voluntary injustice
                >Doing the same, but to raise a cow for slaughter in addition to existing fields for necessary crops.
                It's not complicated or difficult to understand you are just in denial. It's not ridiculous or inconsistant to say my first responsibility is to myself but I would avoid animal exploitation and murder wherever possible or practicable.

                Everyone owning a chicken coop is not the solution to animal exploitation, it merely decentralizes the issue.
                Also, chicks are not sexed before being sold to small consumers like at commercial facilities, everyone who gets a chicken coop I've known ends up with roosters they have to kill or "send to a rooster farm" :c

                >human science could step in
                I'm not opposed to scientific solutions, even better would be to clone eggs infinitely.
                >roosters self cull
                In the wild roosters are not very aggressive to each other unless ones authority is directly contested. The reality is a few breeds of domesticated roosters have been bred for wiener fighting. So this is not the fault of chickens but of human influence. Egg laying roosters are often tolerant of each other besides some pecking here and there, but they are not a commercially viable product and thus a waste to nourish and house.

                >The fact that snakes are important to todays ecosystems isn't compelling
                It's hard for some people to comprehend pragmatism or the here and now. Just keep living in your escapist scifi head canon.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bit of confusing wording
                >Egg laying roosters
                I meant to say roosters of chicken breeds typically used for laying, not that the roosters lay eggs

  22. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    🙁

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >yoshi tongue noises

  23. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >there are people that kill, skin and disembowel large animals themselves to eat and they're psychologically totally fine
    >"nooooo you can't just feed mice to lizards to you psycopath"

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >hunters are fine
      You clearly either are one or have never lived in the country. Hunters are very much NOT mentally well.

  24. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously we need a new turtle thread. Might as well be this homosexual one.

  25. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The most deranged gecko owner > the sanest vegan.
    Fact.

  26. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >behold, a sadist offering an innocent life to their cold blooded evil beast

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh the horror. Thank god cats and dogs don’t do this

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      NSFL

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cute!

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh the horror. Thank god cats and dogs don’t do this

      Double double dubs tortchads stay winning

  27. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Herpgays are ALWAYS extremely demented "people" in real life. Once upon a time I liked pretty much everyone that just liked animals, but herpgays are NOT like aquarists or bird watchers or gardeners or any other group that just likes a group of species. They like reptiles because they're fricking psychos that love gore and watching live prey be killed.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wut?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Haha look at him go 🙂

        My uros never eat prickly pear cacti for some reason.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why would it? Yours is in captivity, which can afford to have much better plants and will prefer those plants than cacti

          desert oises gotta eat anything they can in their wild environment, just like Camels adapting to eat cacti since there's almost nothing else

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cacti is pretty tasty

  28. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I live feed and I'm mentally ill and likely a danger to others

  29. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I keep vegetarian reptiles. Tell me, what personality disorder do I have?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      As much as I agree with a lot of OP's sentiment, he clearly fricked up by not pointing out the leafy bois aren't hurting anyone.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        The iguana clearly hurt the skink's feelings

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        That only makes you more moronic than OP, by your own admission.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Jesse, what the frick are you talking about?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        That skink reminds me of Michael Saylor

  30. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    bait

  31. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I was at the pet store the other day buying a collar for my new kitten and all the beardies ran to the front of the tank when I squared down in front of them.
    I squeezed and let out an audible
    >So kyuuute :3
    Am I a sociopath 😡 I'm actually worried guys.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Squealed*

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      yea, begin antipsychotics immediately and lock yourself indoors. Finding cute animals cute is the first symptom of sociopathy

  32. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    My dog eats rabbits. I think it’s hilarious. I also eat rabbits.

    I don’t believe you should share a home if you don’t share a diet.

  33. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  34. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    reptile owners coming in angry af. lol as expected. anti-social people proving the point.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >make moronic statements
      >people come to refute
      >"lol mad"
      So yeah as I thought, this is a thread just to bait people.
      I'm sure you'll get more idiots on /misc/ to swallow this, though.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        They would slurp it like slurry and mudroll in it

  35. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not "into" reptiles, I only got a reptile because I'm irresponsible and they're low maintenance and hard to screw up. Don't even need to feed it every day
    so I figured an easy pet would be a good way to help myself become more responsible

  36. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >one guy that happens to share a trait with you does X therefore you also do X

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I bet you breathe air, you literally hitler son of a b***h.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      And then full blown generalization happens and pwah! That being said I do dislike live feeding and all the youtube shithole that's linked to It...

  37. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >people who own leopard geckos (that eat bugs), bearded dragons (that eat bugs and greens), frogs (that, again, eat bugs), or crested geckos (that can subsist off literal paste) are sadists
    >industry that advises snake owners to feed pre-killed, frozen-thawed rodents is sadist
    >industry that is worth over a billion dollars annually in the US and attracts hundreds of thousands to reptile expos annually caters to sadists
    >4% of households in the US are full of anti-social sadists
    Goodness gracious, I worry about society with so many sociopaths running around. It worries me that nothing has changed over 30 years and the number of people feeding live puppies to their axolotls or anoles has only gone up. Good thing we have fine, upstanding citizens like you to warn us about the dangers of those reptile owners, though.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      why are you conflating "the industry" with the general population? secondly, feeding live mice is just as bad as a puppy when you really think about it and break free of the social/cultural conditioning you've been raised with. both are highly intelligent mamals capable of showing a shocking amount of affection and companionship with other mammals. the "industry" you speak of also sells live feeder mice in nearly every pet store.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Life isn’t valued based on intelligence but the costs and benefits of its continued existence. Either that or religious mandates. Dogs lower crime rates and extend lifespans (in areas where humans are high IQ enough to have animals), mice destroy food stores and spread disease basically everywhere.

        You essentially believe in souls with missing steps and lots of cope.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          What's with the spacing? Is Reddit down? Anyways... you're forgetting that all the shit we build and the farms are unnatural and invasive. Habitat destruction. It's ALWAYS a case of LOW IQ when someone gets mad that mice or squirrels chew up shit they own when they decide to build a neighborhood in the middle of the woods they cut down. Perhaps you're conflating your own worth? Humans always talk of "taming nature" instead of realizing that it's fine the way it is, and should instead learn to coexist. Your type of thought is what's responsible for the way the world looks now, and the degredation of morality in the human race. You desire comfort over all else.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you’re low IQ for not making way for inferior lifeforms
            Absolute nonsense. Sorry mice are pests. My cat will eat them and I will be happy.

            Frick off to whatever jain temple you crawled out of.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              What is an inferior lifeform? Your entire existence is propped up by a minority of human beings who are far smarter than you and built society. You are just a 21st century conssomer npc domesticated and fueled by grocery store food and city electricity/water. the mouse actually survives without the help of your politicians..

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >why are you conflating "the industry" with the general population?
        Because they're tied together, moron. The industry to supply people with reptiles and supplies for said reptiles wouldn't have grown as large as it did if more and more people didn't want reptiles. And you can't blanket state that several million people in the US and around the world all want to go out and murder people.
        >secondly, feeding live mice is just as bad as a puppy when you really think about it and break free of the social/cultural conditioning you've been raised with.
        Actual moron statement.
        Anyway, live feeding is never good and as I said before, the industry promotes pre-deceased food items over live spectacles. Sucks if you like mice, I'm sure, but intelligence (which is not universal to the human preconception of intelligence btw) doesn't preclude an animal with a short lifespan and an r reproductive strategy from being food for not just snakes but foxes, cats, birds of prey, mustelids, etc. If there was a better option, I'm sure the industry would prefer using it (there are prey sausages that exist, but they are not widespread enough and not guaranteed to get the attention of a whole prey-focused animal).

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      feeding live insects or even freeze dried baby mice is simply an example of the slippery slope. it's not that far disconnected from live mice which isn't that far from live small mammals of other types. desensitization is a very real psychological thing. the fact still remains that the overwhelming majority of reptile owners love the legality of witnessing the predatory nature of these animals where such things are banned in other species of pet ownership. people would be in shock if you were throwing live pet mice in a room with a house cat and laughing as you film it to post on YouTube. nobody except for the usual crowd bats an eye when people do this for reptiles because it's considered "normal" and acceptable by the reptile crowd.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Humans are predators. There is no slippery slope. We eat baby cows and then save baby kittens. A wolf eats a baby elk and then raises a baby puma (yes they will do this if you give them a baby puma). Our brains, like every predators, are wired to see some animals as food and others as not food unless we’re starving to death.

        It’s not reptile specific either! Dogs will gladly eat rabbits, mice, birds, and cats. Cats will eat rabbits, mice, birds, and bugs. How about falconers, huh?

        You’re just a vegan trying to get your own slippery slope rolling. I refuse. I am not a hindu or buddhist. I do not believe life has innate value the same as a human life does. It has value, but it’s finite, and if I am hungry enough nothing is off the table. When the trucks stop you will starve and I will eat pigeons.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Again, with the Reddit spacing... the fact that you automatically call someone a vegan because they don't like sociopathic people who abuse animals means you clearly have a dog in the fight. Perhaps you should be red flagged. Eating meat does not mean you have to abuse animals, especially as a human where you have access to multiple methods of humane killing, and you don't depend on survival because your government controls your domesticated ass anyways. Farming is unnatural, including vegan farming. As is factory farming. It all introduces invasive species and punishes native species who get in the way. I'm not going to suspect that your parents didn't show you enough love, sometimes kids just turn out fricked up on their own. Luckily your estimated lifespan is around 70 years, if you're lucky. Sooner or later there will be one less low iq sociopath in the world. Ever little bit helps in a game of inches.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is an inferior lifeform? Your entire existence is propped up by a minority of human beings who are far smarter than you and built society. You are just a 21st century conssomer npc domesticated and fueled by grocery store food and city electricity/water. the mouse actually survives without the help of your politicians..

            Tldr

            My cat will eat the mice and he will be happy. Morals without holy backing are irrational question begging nonsense. Holy backing other than the lord God is heresy. Simple as.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              God does not agree with you. Not once were you ever told to be an immoral nature rapist. Animal cruelty should not occur if we truly understand the command to be “caretakers” of the earth.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >new ager spouts arbitrary pseudo spiritual nonsense that aligns with the feefees of well off white children
                KEK.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                yellerman who thinks killing endangered species and using teir bodyparts for medicine will boost his libido, and that eating animals alive makes them taste better. you truly are the work of evil. it's a good thing your building codes are poor,

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are wild boars predators?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I believe the life of any random animal is exponentially more valuable than any random human

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That isn't even a belief. That's just a fact.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Humans are scavengers THOUGH

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok nope nope nope no no no. Frick off, we're full. None of you allowed. Not in my genus or whatever. We're full and you can pound sawdust or whatever it is you like to sniff. Frick off.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Humans are predators that evolved from scavengers, which is why we use our hands to kill rather than teeth (most convenient bone cracking device for a monkey -> weaponized).

            >hunters are fine
            You clearly either are one or have never lived in the country. Hunters are very much NOT mentally well.

            Hunters are mentally well, and represent the basal human condition. I'd argue for modern farmers being the most mentally ill of all people.
            >The modern farmer:
            >self isolating lifestyle, species evolved to be anything but. "companions" are illiterate mexican workers who only communicate in "yes boss".
            >keeps animals captive for the sole purpose of killing them, makes no effort to give them any purpose in life besides their death
            >torture animals, even ones that are meant to be companions with purpose, for prolonged periods just because it's easier
            >totally desensitized to all forms of suffering
            >highest suicide rates in their respective societies without being truly or practically enslaved
            >higher violent crime per capita regardless of race
            >higher drug addiction rate
            >not the "rural" you're thinking of when you "retvrn to trad" post. genuinely dysfunctional people.

            >Hunters, of any century:
            >Being social is mandatory to survival. Must bring at least one friend on outings. Preferably entire hunting parties canvas the area so the group can ensure a large meal.
            >Majority of time is spent with nothing to do but hang out with other hunters - several days of work feeds the group for several weeks
            >Preparing animals is a group activity
            >More in common with an urbanized man than meets the eye
            >Being a hunter is not mutually exclusive with anything else, no need to stay in one place
            >Travels frequently, lives a life rich in experience
            >Animals they kill live freer than them and suffer less than their peers, and much less than farm animals
            >Cooperates with his fellow predators so they can both live a better life
            >Prelude to a cooperative agricultural society, the state from which modern man degenerated when he began enslaving his prey

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              The hunters that are mentally ill are all super isolated rural farmers who are butthurt at coyotes and wolves existing. They torture and revenge kill them over their barn cat or a sheep that was state subsidized and actually died because of their own incompetence.

              These are also the loudest and most obnoxious of hunters.

              >inb4 someone thinks trophy hunting is mental illness
              You're just paying africans to kill an animal they were going to kill anyways so they can buy guns to kill other africans ie: poachers. That's actually based.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Hunters are mentally well, and represent the basal human condition
              Your first point, absolutely fricking not. I've lived with the psychotic bastards. They are not okay. Your second point, possibly, but humans are largely garbage so that's no surprise. Hunters literally caused the only mass extinction event caused by a single species other than cyanobacteria at the beginning of life on Earth.

              No, homosexual, your weird gore rituals of maiming your kills or drinking their blood or fricking drunk hunting on land you're trespassing on are not okay behaviors. I bet you've never returned a shopping cart in your life. Both hunters and farmers are pure death to the biosphere. Literally the two largest sources of environmental destruction in existence right now, but they're ALSO the two strongest lobbying groups when it comes to environmental concerns, so everyone just spreads their bullshit propaganda, which is 100% lies and the opposite of how ecology works. Dumb shit like predators being the noble kings of nature and herbivores being harmful pests that need to be removed. This shit is fiction. Nature DOES NOT work like this.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >anti-human anti-predator schizo thinks his dad is mentally ill because he got called a gaygit
                lmao
                gaygit

                predators are the noble kings of nature. herbivores are parasites of based plant life and predators are here to defend our leafbros from the soulless gut fermenting menace.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Liar and homosexual, thinks posting online makes his chinese communist party tier propaganda true
                Just fricking move there already.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hysterical, mentally ill nonsense posting continues
                wolves, orcas, big cats, bears, sharks, all have existed for much longer than humans
                none caused any problems. they mostly eat meat and their population is controlled by the availability of meat, which is the overpopulation of herbivores so that more individuals become malnourished, ill, or parasitized. without meat they weaken and reproduce less or just starve and die. it worked fine.

                humans also worked fine for a very, very long time. there were hardly 300,000 of them. they mostly walked around africa and south asia eating meat and the occasional berries, like skinny bears.
                and then they realized that they still had the genes necessary to digest most plants as long as they pre-digested them with fire, exploded, and destroyed the planet because life = cancer.

                https://i.imgur.com/2fUOkPV.jpg

                [...]
                Nature literally does not work like this. AT ALL. Most large megafauna are untouchable by predators and removing them from the environment literally causes plants to go extinct. You moronic homosexuals would know this if you were people instead of propagandists.

                Yes, nature literally works like this. Large megafauna only evolve because predators control smaller, weaker individuals and in that process ensure the large megafauna have access to food as they grow. Predators also ensure they grow larger, faster by eating them when they stall small, ensuring that only the ones that get biggest the soonest survive. And then large predators evolve because their population is constrained by meat availability. Lol!

                Large megafauna are larger tumors
                Only when large predators evolve do the vast forests return, enabling... the evolution of even larger megafauna.

                Go be a moronic schizo somewhere else

                killing is natural. killing is good. life has no innate value. only well evolved self preservation urges because the suicidal morons croak before breeding.

                Like you will.
                Go extinct. The trucks will stop, WE will eat meat, YOU will die. We won't miss you. This is evolution, and you aren't invited.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Remain silent.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Dumb shit like predators being the noble kings of nature and herbivores being harmful pests that need to be removed. This shit is fiction. Nature DOES NOT work like this.
                Nature literally works like this. You throw coyotes in an ecosystem and now you have perennial vegetation other than grass. You throw wolves in and coyotes stop causing total beaver death and now you have wetlands and forests. Even the plants aren't all alright, even if you think they're pretty - they will turn the beautiful rocks into a bunch of stinking, filthy dirt.

                Because the modus operandi of all forms of life, even artificial life, is to consume and reproduce until terminated, predation is absolutely mandatory. It's a naturally evolved, macro-scale version of how an organisms body avoids dying of cancer. Life is the definition of cancer. It is part of the earth that mutated to just consume and replicate without end. The larger the tumors get, the more you need slightly smaller aggressive tumors to terminate them before they consume everything. The only real cure for cancer is terminating all life at once.

                In fact, the herbivorous side of man's psyche is entirely responsible for his mass envrionmental destruction. If man did not eat the plants he would have no need to farm them and never think of farming them just to farm even more animals than he actually needs to eat. Either this species needs to return to being primarily carnivorous, or it needs a predator to keep its numbers under ~3 billion. Humans are living proof that something needs to kill something else.

                Nature literally does not work like this. AT ALL. Most large megafauna are untouchable by predators and removing them from the environment literally causes plants to go extinct. You moronic homosexuals would know this if you were people instead of propagandists.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Dumb shit like predators being the noble kings of nature and herbivores being harmful pests that need to be removed. This shit is fiction. Nature DOES NOT work like this.
                Nature literally works like this. You throw coyotes in an ecosystem and now you have perennial vegetation other than grass. You throw wolves in and coyotes stop causing total beaver death and now you have wetlands and forests. Even the plants aren't all alright, even if you think they're pretty - they will turn the beautiful rocks into a bunch of stinking, filthy dirt.

                Because the modus operandi of all forms of life, even artificial life, is to consume and reproduce until terminated, predation is absolutely mandatory. It's a naturally evolved, macro-scale version of how an organisms body avoids dying of cancer. Life is the definition of cancer. It is part of the earth that mutated to just consume and replicate without end. The larger the tumors get, the more you need slightly smaller aggressive tumors to terminate them before they consume everything. The only real cure for cancer is terminating all life at once.

                In fact, the herbivorous side of man's psyche is entirely responsible for his mass envrionmental destruction. If man did not eat the plants he would have no need to farm them and never think of farming them just to farm even more animals than he actually needs to eat. Either this species needs to return to being primarily carnivorous, or it needs a predator to keep its numbers under ~3 billion. Humans are living proof that something needs to kill something else.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              our ancestors weren't scavengers for long
              https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/23/human-hunting-evolution-2million-years

              https://i.imgur.com/oHn7CpP.jpg

              >hysterical, mentally ill nonsense posting continues
              wolves, orcas, big cats, bears, sharks, all have existed for much longer than humans
              none caused any problems. they mostly eat meat and their population is controlled by the availability of meat, which is the overpopulation of herbivores so that more individuals become malnourished, ill, or parasitized. without meat they weaken and reproduce less or just starve and die. it worked fine.

              humans also worked fine for a very, very long time. there were hardly 300,000 of them. they mostly walked around africa and south asia eating meat and the occasional berries, like skinny bears.
              and then they realized that they still had the genes necessary to digest most plants as long as they pre-digested them with fire, exploded, and destroyed the planet because life = cancer.

              [...]
              Yes, nature literally works like this. Large megafauna only evolve because predators control smaller, weaker individuals and in that process ensure the large megafauna have access to food as they grow. Predators also ensure they grow larger, faster by eating them when they stall small, ensuring that only the ones that get biggest the soonest survive. And then large predators evolve because their population is constrained by meat availability. Lol!

              Large megafauna are larger tumors
              Only when large predators evolve do the vast forests return, enabling... the evolution of even larger megafauna.

              Go be a moronic schizo somewhere else

              killing is natural. killing is good. life has no innate value. only well evolved self preservation urges because the suicidal morons croak before breeding.

              Like you will.
              Go extinct. The trucks will stop, WE will eat meat, YOU will die. We won't miss you. This is evolution, and you aren't invited.

              >The trucks will stop, WE will eat meat, YOU will die. We won't miss you. This is evolution, and you aren't invited.
              i hope you mean you'll be eating free range vegan
              rats and urban vermin have too many parasites imho and the logical endpoint of human evolution is continuously evolving to predate on more numerous hominids or else they destroy the planet

              a cooperative form is not possible, it will always be subjugated by a selfish morph.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why pigeons anon? Jesus have some taste. At least go for mourning doves.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Humans are not "predators", they're obligate herbivores. Meat causes sickness, both in the long and short term.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            ironic shitposting is still shitposting

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              Sorry, but it's the facts.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Gorillas, chimpanzees, and other large apes and monkeys have huge canines despite being herbivorous because they use body language to threaten each other with their teeth. Bears use their teeth the same way because they are omnivorous scavengers that only rarely hunt large prey with the exception of polar bears. Humans don't have huge canines, because we communicate by other means and know how to use and perceive weapons as threats. If we weren't adapted to eating meat then we wouldn't be able to digest it, simple as.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Right

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Humans are not "predators", they're obligate herbivores. Meat causes sickness, both in the long and short term.

                Humans are predators. Meat causes no sickness if properly consumed. Much like plants will only make you sick, if you first process them into seed oils or eat the wrong parts.

                >BUT MUH TEEF THO
                Humans kill with their hands, not their mouths. We have over two million years of evidence of humans primarily eating meat.
                >BUT MUH STOMACH THO
                Human digestive proportions are most similar to omnivorous and primarily carnivorous macaques, but we still lack a lot of their herbivorous functions. Transit times are too fast and we produce enzymes that are mostly for breaking down meat. Human stomach PH, depending on conditions, range from as strong as a vultures to as strong as a tigers. We are incapable of gut fermentation implying that if the human-chimp ancestor could digest leaves we ate so much meat we lost that ability. The coefficient of fermentation of the human gut is the same as the gut of a WOLF.

                Eating nothing but heat fried prime fatty cuts and processed grain causes sickness because your body EVOLVED to eat the whole damn animal and fruit and berries instead of fricking purified starch. Early man had a diet ranging from 50% to 90% meat, including organ meats, marrow, and tougher cuts, and the remainder was filled with so many oddball plants that we now believe that 100% of modern humans are dysfunctional due to nutrient deficiencies.

                You are a dog fed kibble, still possessing the gut and body of a wolf.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >humans are obligate herbivores
            >in order to survive entirely off plants, i need an impossible combination of crop availability and diversity year round that does not exist anywhere on earth without an invention that wasn't present except for the past 10,000 years of our species 2,000,000 year history
            >which, despite existing, only enabled a small minority of religious nutjobs to avoid eating meat
            there is more precedent for humans mostly eating bugs and small game like glorified housecats than humans being vegetarian.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Small majority of religious nutjobs
              Objectively untrue, hundreds of millions of Indians, for instance.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                We're talking about humans. Not low IQ, 5'4" garbage apes that aren't capable of maintaining a civilization.

                We are talking about civilization building apex predators. Not a bunch of diminutive brainlets that only had a civilization when they were just the slave labor caste of iranian kings that went around hunting big cats for fun using stone age implements and will never have a civilization again without a massive eugenics program or chinese rule.

                God bless feral dogs and rabies for making up the only natural predator of homosexual erectus and homosexual degeneratus. Whats it called when a subspecies has no natural predator except for the combination of an animal that isn't capable of killing them otherwise and an infectious disease, but it's still the only naturally occurring predation analogue?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                The Chinese culled a majority of all dog breeds population to 1/4 due to SARS and presumably rabies.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I bet we'd all burst out laughing at how blatantly dysgenic and unkempt you look in real life.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          how do I updoot this?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You post a cute reptile

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >feeding live insects or even freeze dried baby mice is simply an example of the slippery slope.
        >it's not that far disconnected from live mice which isn't that far from live small mammals of other types.
        lmao I can't even take these statements seriously. It's about on par with saying "feeding your cat/dog canned food is a slippery slope," that's how absolutely unhinged this is.
        >desensitization is a very real psychological thing.
        When there is something to provoke a reasonable sensitive reaction. It's one thing if you're squeamish, but if you are breaking down because you're watching a lizard eat a cricket or you see a dead rodent which you have no meaningful attachment to, then there is a mental issue that is on the complete opposite end of someone who gets their thrills off to watching a python eat a living puppy or baby monkey. And both cases can be explained one way: you have an immature concept of death.
        >the fact still remains that the overwhelming majority of reptile owners love the legality of witnessing the predatory nature of these animals where such things are banned in other species of pet ownership.
        And here you go again, projecting this statement without any hard proof. It reads like someone who hasn't even interacted with any reptile keepers, yet apparently has an informed opinion on the matter. The entire basis of your argument is that the window of reptile keepers hasn't shifted from a niche crowd of weirdos and dedicated hobbyists to a more general audience that is able to afford them now that the overall cost of reptile care and acquisition has gone down.
        You're welcome to come out of the closet from 30 years ago and join the rest of us in the real world, but you can also keep sperging out about "muh reptile serial killers" while you've probably passed at least a few keepers in your daily life.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        OP clearly doesn't know much about the modern reptile community because live feeding rodents is largely frowned upon and considered unacceptable unless you have an especially picky snake that'll starve before it accepts dead prey. People who still feed live mice outside absolute necessity are now outcasts within the hobby and increasingly rare, at least in internet circles. Yeah there are a lot of weirdos who are into reptiles but reptiles are increasingly popular and basically mainstream among gen z. Maybe there's a social stigma if your circle consists of boomers and religious fundies. It's like characterizing the majority of people who watch anime as antisocial perverts based on your encounters with the freakiest breed of anime fan.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          We're all well aware that the herp community is waging a desperate normalization campaign to try to stop scale ownership from drying pussy across the globe.
          >unless you have an especially picky snake that'll starve before it accepts dead prey.
          You say that like it's even the least bit mitigating. Your dumb, 'picky' snake is better off as boots.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If it was a “desperate campaign” it would be a wildly successful one. The reality is that a lot of people think snakes are cool and keep them in spite of and not because you have to feed them mice and shit. They would only be more popular if you could feed them kibble. You have no idea how many times I’ve seen people (usually girls) say they love snakes and wish they could have one but are too squeamish to handle dead mice.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >People would totally be into these pets, if they weren't so viscerally horrifying to maintain.
              This is not the own you think it is. And from your own words, I don't think the herp normalization campaign is going too well.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                the point is that they’re already extremely popular *despite* the issues. Apparently the percentage of gen z americans that own a reptile is 18-27% which is even higher than I expected. The claim that started this thread is that most reptile keepers keep them specifically out of sadism towards their food when that’s obviously untrue. The comparison to tattoos is hilarious cuz thats something else that went from being considered deviant to utterly normified.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                t. herpetophobe

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Way off, other direction entirely, in fact. But this has nothing to do with aesthetics and fantasy.

                the point is that they’re already extremely popular *despite* the issues. Apparently the percentage of gen z americans that own a reptile is 18-27% which is even higher than I expected. The claim that started this thread is that most reptile keepers keep them specifically out of sadism towards their food when that’s obviously untrue. The comparison to tattoos is hilarious cuz thats something else that went from being considered deviant to utterly normified.

                *A reptile*, and we've already established that there's quite a broad swathe of veggie reptile ownership. Wanna hazard a guess how many of those are geckos, iguanas, tortoises and such? Sure, there's lots of people who might theoretically be interested in owning a snake, but the trumping consideration is the barbarity of their feeding practices, literally by your own admission in

                If it was a “desperate campaign” it would be a wildly successful one. The reality is that a lot of people think snakes are cool and keep them in spite of and not because you have to feed them mice and shit. They would only be more popular if you could feed them kibble. You have no idea how many times I’ve seen people (usually girls) say they love snakes and wish they could have one but are too squeamish to handle dead mice.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                A lot of them are veggie/bug eating lizards but ball pythons are the 2nd most popular pet reptile species. Lots of other snakes are extremely popular too and if you go to a reptile expo it feels like the majority of animals there are snakes. Turtles and iguanas aren't as popular as they used to be cuz they're big and need a lot of care while snakes tend to be pretty low maintenance. I'm willing to bet at least a quarter of pet reptiles are snakes.

                The "barbarity" of feeding snakes dead things is just an aesthetic difference from owning a cat or dog that eats food made from dead things. Male chicks are killed and discarded by egg farms which is kinda fricked up but they make a great cheap food source for snakes (just as good as mice) and get turned into dog food or fertilizer otherwise. There's even some companies that make ground up sausages for snakes now, which are currently kinda expensive but should allow more squeamish people to own snakes in the near future.

                pet snakes were also somewhat popular in ancient greece and rome:

                https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/CJ/44/4/Household_Pets*.html

                >You say that like it's even the least bit mitigating. Your dumb, 'picky' snake is better off as boots.

                A lot of wild snakes refuse to eat dead prey for the same reason you might eat a fish you caught but wouldn't eat a dead fish you find floating in the water. You don't know if that shits safe to eat. Captive bred snakes (the overwhelming majority of pet snakes) pretty much always eat dead prey cuz that's all they know unless they had a shitty owner that fed them live food for whatever reason.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >barbarity
                >difference
                Cats torture shit alive and people think its cute. That’s normal. That’s baseline, properly functioning human. That’s what survives famines. That’s what builds empires. AKA not vegans. Those oversee their collapse.

                My dog is periodically allowed to hunt and kill their own rabbits to the benefit of a local farmer. OP is some oversocialized nitwit like anyone who freaks out over a fricking snake.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                95% chance OP is terrified of snakes and shits his pants when he sees one and needs to demonize ppl who like snakes as a cope

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >and we've already established that there's quite a broad swathe of veggie reptile ownership. Wanna hazard a guess how many of those are geckos, iguanas, tortoises and such?
                >just because I specified that the majority of reptile owners are psychos doesn’t mean I’m talking about the majority of reptile owners
                You’re moronic

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You think it's only 4% in america? Possibly the least believable thing you posted.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Somewhere in that ballpark. 4 - 5 million households with at least one amphibian or reptile out of around 130 million households.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Crested geckos may be the most moronic of all geckos but damn do they love their sloppa

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      this gif always makes me marvel at the wonder of binocular vision and eyeball syncing

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >4% are sadists
      sounds accurate

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are ignoring the point. No someone that feeds their frog bugs is not inherently a sadist.

      OP is talking about the rampant zoosadism happening under the noses of every day society. Most of the population engages in one form of zoo sadism or another and in the extreme cases of those that actually request or perpetrate abuse themselves they are potential threats to humanity.

      People that have snakes and highly carnivorous reptiles are in that spectrum of zoosadists

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the rampant zoosadism happening under the noses of every day society
        >Most of the population engages in one form of zoo sadism or another
        >People that have snakes and highly carnivorous reptiles are in that spectrum of zoosadists
        How do you define zoosadism? Is it the malicious intent to harm and torture an animal because it stimulates you, or is it merely the act of hurting any animal directly or indirectly? Because if your definition is the second, then I can see why you would think most people are zoosadists, but you're also just making a broad, hysterical statement that paints a majority of people as guilty sinners for no particular reason than to stoke moral egotistical highs.
        In reality, however, while there could quantifiably be a lot of zoosadists out there because there are a lot of people on this planet, they are still only a small portion of the population. I don't think someone feels pleasure from stepping on a bug or killing a rodent in a trap other than the relief that their house isn't infested, a farmer doesn't feel pleasure from killing one of his livestock aside from providing food, and a zookeeper doesn't feel pleasure from feeding a carnivorous animal aside from seeing the animal get fed.
        As for snakes, it has been stated over and over that the normal practice for feeding snakes is to feed them pre-dead, frozen-to-thawed rodents. Live-feeding has been discouraged. And many people who own snakes in the modern day do so because they enjoy the sight of snakes and seeing their behaviors, not because they get pleasure from feeding them. One need not look further for evidence in that regard than seeing how readily accessible and cheap frozen rodents are to purchase versus live rodents.
        You could insist that it's still wrong anyway, but at that point the conversation becomes a different topic.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        OP said “the majority of reptile owners” more than once you fricking lobotomite

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good job proving his point.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *