The yellow rat snake that may enjoy some human contact.

[Cory]

Politeness and respect are due to all people. If something needs criticism it should be the ideas and evidence promoted, not the person. In essence, no ad hominem attacks. Since science seems to be admired by many of those who have posted already then scientific discourse may be a good model to draw from. In scientific discourse, the position is up for critique, not the person who posited it.

There is also no value in calling an idea stupid. Instead, any weaknesses and flaws in the idea or evidence could be exposed. In other words, show how the point posited is wrong with substance and explanation, not with simple insults that may serve to anger or intimidate but not to enlighten. It is quite possible that the person whose views are being critiqued has missed something and could benefit greatly from correction. We are merely human, after all. Such a person might be far less willing to learn if s/he is frustrated by the person critiquing his / her views in a rude manner.

[smy_749]

Originally Posted by Cory

Politeness and respect are due to all people. If something needs criticism it should be the ideas and evidence promoted, not the person. In essence, no ad hominem attacks. Since science seems to be admired by many of those who have posted already then scientific discourse may be a good model to draw from. In scientific discourse, the position is up for critique, not the person who posited it.

There is also no value in calling an idea stupid. Instead, any weaknesses and flaws in the idea or evidence could be exposed. In other words, show how the point posited is wrong with substance and explanation, not with simple insults that may serve to anger or intimidate but not to enlighten. It is quite possible that the person whose views are being critiqued has missed something and could benefit greatly from correction. We are merely human, after all. Such a person might be far less willing to learn if s/he is frustrated by the person critiquing his / her views in a rude manner.

If we are having a scientific 'debate' , then both sides should be based on size.

If One says : Snakes require a limbic system in order to feel emotion like we do, and this is absent as far as we know.

And the other says: No, my snake loves me because when I flick my tongue he flicks it back.

Then what sort of academic discussion do you expect to ensue?

[Ryodraco]

I question if scientists really understand the brain enough to be certain a limbic system is the only method of feeling emotions or having a higher intelligence. More than once I've read or heard scientists who study brains remark that there is a great deal they still don't know about how the human brain actually functions (let alone the very different brains of reptiles, amphibians, birds and such). Studying emotions/intelligence in most animals is still a pretty young science as well.

At the same time though I am doubtful any snake forms a bond with its owner beyond "this scent/sight is not dangerous and may feed me or keep me warm." For me that is enough.

[smy_749]

Originally Posted by Ryodraco

I question if scientists really understand the brain enough to be certain a limbic system is the only method of feeling emotions or having a higher intelligence. More than once I've read or heard scientists who study brains remark that there is a great deal they still don't know about how the human brain actually functions (let alone the very different brains of reptiles, amphibians, birds and such). Studying emotions/intelligence in most animals is still a pretty young science as well.

At the same time though I am doubtful any snake forms a bond with its owner beyond "this scent/sight is not dangerous and may feed me or keep me warm." For me that is enough.

Agreed 100% , which is why I said from what we know currently, this is my stance.