Post removed

The rancorous post was removed. Posts will be removed if they (1) offend a significant number of people *AND* (2) contribute no significant knowledge of any kind. I felt that this was such a case. The other two moderators are currently unavailable, but I hope they support this decision. And I hope everyone else will just get back to discussing caudates, rather than discussing what should or shouldn't be discussed. Controversial topics, including those that offend some people, are still welcome here, as long as they are approached with some tact and intelligence.

Sorry to have been away, my home computer has crashed and I'm only able to check in sporadically from my office comp for the next couple of weeks.

On the subject of this post: I did see the original post and the responses to it. I had the feeling it would lead to some harsh posts, and clearly the discussion degraded. For that reason, I do support Jenn's decision to remove it.

However, I do not feel the original post deserved to removed, rather, the furious responses to it were the problem, in my opinion. I think people are a bit too sensitive, personally. The guy was asking a legitimate question. He had extra offspring and was curious. People in Mexico ate axolotls for thousands of years. I'm sure the majority of us eat sheep, pigs, cattle, poultry, fish, etc. It is no different. Caudata.org is an educational and informative forum: well, that's what this guy was hoping for. He wanted to know about the toxicity of a salamander, and there is no better place he could have received an answer than here at caudata.org. He was not blatantly offending anyone (except people that clearly have an issue with eating a salamander but don't realize they eat animals too). He was not making fun of the hobby, he keeps axolotls himself.

I think people should realize that other people in the world do eat salamanders and newts. If prepared correctly, I would be very curious to eat an axolotl, and I guarantee you I love this hobby as much as anyone else.

I also worry about the ability of immediate, emotional responses from people here to influence what is allowed to be posted. I'm for free speech, and free ideas. Notice I don't include "as long as they aren't offensive" because frankly, some of us here get insulted by silly and harmless things and tend to act on emotion. If we didn't allow a post because it offended someone, nothing would get posted. Instead, I feel we should try to focus on posts which blatantly insult people and which were posted for no reason other than to insult people. This post was definitely not in the latter category.

Just my two cents on the issue.

(Message edited by nate on June 30, 2003)

Nice to hear from you, at last, Nate.

I COULD post - again!!! - about how there is a world of difference between the "properly prepared" diet of a native Mexican and someone wanting to eat their pets ***alive*** (even the "surplus" ones); about what a shame it is that someone who seems so rational, (so cool-headed?) writes off other's cogent argument as mere sensitivity and emotion that degrades discussion from people "who don't realize they eat animals too" (yup, just noticed I'm a guilty carnivore so anyhting goes with my pets now); I could comment on your bizarre exaggeration ("If we didn't allow a post because it offended someone, nothing would get posted"... nothing?!); I could re-iterate that the pictures of roasted newts posted here on one occasion did not offend me, highly unpleasant as they were, but did fill me with the intellecutal curiosity about other cultures which our friend hid behind; I could ask what role a moderator has in your world of free speech and free ideas; or I could try to draw attention to the issues you are avoiding, such as the fact that what would be a crime in many jurisdictions was being openly asked about, or the issue of the number of impressionable novices who pass through here.

But I won't.

Instead - no doubt to the relief of many, I'll just shut-up so the thread can R.I.P., at last... barring that it is twenty-five final words which I'd like you to hear.

I have never disagreed more with anyone on a forum than you after what you have just written and I doubt if I ever will.

Respectfully,
Matthew

Well Matt, there are those here (including myself) who, despite your passionate objections, see no moral difference between eating an axolotl alive and the butchering/cooking of a fish or a pig or a cow, etc. Either way, an animal dies for food. I'm not comfortable making the moral claim that eating a live axolotl is unacceptable when I regularly feed live animals to my own salamanders as well support the raising and butchering of other animals by eating their meat. I consider it hypocritical. You may make some moral distinction based on your particular belief systems, but I (and others, apparently) do not.

These "many jurisdictions" you speak of where eating domestic axolotls would be a crime...where are they? Do they represent the entire world? They certainly don't represent my part of the world. And if they don't represent the entire world, then don't present their ideals as such. This is an international forum. If we had a South Korean on here mention he/she regularly eats dog meat, I would not let people abuse he/she for it. You claim this person hides offensive motives behind an intellectual curiousity for other cultures...I don't presume to know the mindset of this person. I just know he wasn't calling anyone names or being disrespectful and did not appear to have any direct, malicious intent. He was simply posting a salamander-related post in the General Discussion Forum. The only thing he did wrong that I can see, is post it with a bit of a "dark" sense of humor which many people apparently didn't get. I feel the question was legit and the responses were disproportionately hostile.

And to answer your question (which you did ask) as to what purpose a moderator has in "my world of free speech and free ideas", I would answer: Most importantly, to prevent people with differing opinions from being railroaded and harrassed by people of an opposing mindset and to make sure people are not abused and/or insulted.

And to all a good night...

Thanks for getting back to me Nate. To save your crashed computer any more wear and tear I thought I'd just pop in to say I've got it now... I've seen the light:

All the people who objected are just emotional, oversensitive types.
Oh and the animals were surplus.
And... errm... I haven't realised that I eat meat too, that beef comes from cows, which are also animals.
Oooh... and if I suggest we ask ourselves whether a message adding to a caudate's suffering doesn't belong on a caudate-welfare site, then I'm railroading people into reject their differing mindset and forcing my morality on the world.


The scales have fallen from my eyes and it is all so clear now.

***

I was determined to walk away from this but after hitting "send" I realised there was one other last voice I wish we could listen to.

What about the person who gave / sold those axolotls (or their parents) to him?
Wasn't it implicit in the contract that they were to be pets, to be looked after?
If he had been honest about his little curiosity, would he have them now?
Wouldn't the breeder see a "direct, malicious intent", even if it eludes your moral relativism?
Or happily give him the go ahead because it is simply the moral equivalent of us feeding a worm to the axolotl or eating a hamburger?

***
Oh just finally - if there is moral equivalence between me gulping down a LIVE Caudate and the death of a cow, presumably we needn't bother stunning these animals anymore before slaughtering / eating them?

Just think of all that time people waste trying to minimise unnecessary suffering. Don't they realise it is pointless, because I mean I give my newts worms don't I?! How inconsistent of me! Scrap the lot! I bet some of the people campaigning internationally to stop the Spanish abusing donkeys to the point of death had a ham sandwich that day! Well - I see it now - they are hypocrites!!!

I fed some crickets to my Sals last night - how can I ever complain about - say Asian practices of hanging dogs on wire and skinning / boiling them alive? It all just depends on your private morality and where you happen to live. Oh good, good, we can all sleep easily now.

I mean - like you say - "Either way, an animal dies."

Those are the buffers your train of thought hits aren't they?

Come off it Nate - there must be a time for a bit less of a show of Libertarianism and a bit more expression of the humane, consistently expressed in what we do with the captive animals in our care, in why we come to this forum and how we talk about our animal husbandry.

Long post people.

"I think people should realize that other people in the world do eat salamanders and newts. If prepared correctly, I would be very curious to eat an axolotl, and I guarantee you I love this hobby as much as anyone else."

Many different cultures eat salamanders and newts in different fashions from cooking the animal alive to pickling the animal in alcohol or vinegar.
Axolotls were in fact originally cultured as a food item and only relativly recently have been kept/bred as a pet item (which is also true for guinea pigs).
What Nate is trying to say is that there are different cultural beliefs as to the uses of the various animals and that the beliefs of that person should not be disparaged or attacked even if you do not agree with them.
In many of these discussions (not necessarily here) where a different nationality/belief system about a animal as food is used one of the main points that often seems to become forgotten is that the different nationality/belief system may not have the ready access to affordable different food items/protien sources. This is why many of the conservation programs have failed for many years. To boil it down, person eats animal x as there isn't much else readily available to eat, person gets told they cannot eat animal x as they are rare/endangered/protected but little else is available, person continues to eat animal x and people who want it protected are shocked and upset. (Personally, I am happy to live in a country where I can go down to the local market and buy a prepackaged goverment certified hunk of whatever kind of meat I want to eat at that time, but I do not expect that everyone necessarily has that option nor should I force my beliefs in any manner onto another person but should give that person suitable other options and educate them to the value of that animal, which usually works better with kids). (I describe myself as an opportunistic carnivore).
I did not read the original post but became curious after the post was pulled as this is very uncommon on the list.
As for the humane slaughtering of animals by stunning them in the USA, this is not the universal method of slaughter as some major religious groups do not allow the stunning/adminstering anesthesia to the animals before slaughter as this makes them unfit for consumption.
Whether the animals were surplus is a moot point for both sides. If the person wants to resurrect some old recipes for axolotls (which is a legitimate branch of science by the way) by pursuing some cultural anthropology, then I personally have no issues with it.
Ed

Ahem, managed to check my email today. For those who don't know, I'm currently in the USA again and not in close proximity to email.

I saw the original post. I must admit to having been a little confused as to whether it was a genuine question or someone trying to stir up trouble. However, I left it alone because I thought it was the former. I'm some what disappointed to see that this flared up so much. While I don't agree with eating salamanders in principal, I don't see the harm in talking about it. I do not condone the practice though.

I'll check in again in a few days. Have fun everyone.

don't you think it's funny?
the original post was removed, but we're still here to talk about it, so the discussion wasn't banned anyway...
this makes me think about the role of moderators and the meaning of deleting post...

in my own opinion, i think the original post had an interesting starting point, which was talking about cultural differences.
and that's what people are doing here in this post.

so, wouldn't be better to let people talk (ehm..write) and see what happen?
the point is, discussions are always good as they leed to confrontation and, finally, to comprehension between opposite ideas.

In the words of Columbo, one more thing.
One last thing.

I was thinking of a way to get Nate to see that this isn't about censoring people who disagree or emotional reactions to alternative cultures.

I guess this is the one that will get me moderated and I'll be dismissed and /or deleted. But this I think shows the absurdity of what was put up in THIS place and then defended in THAT manner (Nate, you seem to have picked up Kaysie's free speech baton, adding a whiff of moral relaticism. What about a sister Website... www.killingcaudatesfor globalunderstanding.com?)

(Ed: I appreciate stunning is not a world "norm", especially in Mulsim cultures... I just wanted to establish if Nate stops anywhere with the "either way an animal dies"... if this is the prinicple then it feels like any steps to reduce reducible suffering are a waste of time, that anything goes and eveything is permitted. Above all Ed, I wanted to suggest to you that the first post was grotesque because he is not someone "who may not have the ready access to affordable different food items"; he is a North American looking to kill an exotic pet in an interesting way as an interesting thing to do with his buddy. There ain't no starving belly there is there?) Oh sorry Nate that's a moral distinction, isn't it?

So here is my idea Nate. What if we took your ideas and applied them to the care sheets here (major clue about what the purpose of the site is... or so I used to think)... what about a postscript appended at Caudate Central like:

*Warning: after reading in great detail abbout how to give [insert species name] the proper housing, diet and temperature, you may get bored when they simply flourish and be overwhelmed by the desire to open your mouth and slip one down your gullet. This will not occur when you are hungry, simply when buddies visit.
The ideal place to find out more is at an animal Welfare Website where the people will gladly provide information on how to kill your pets. If anyone objects - perhaps suggesting the action is gratuitous and juvenile - don't foprget they are just sensitive. If they persist, you may find free speech and intellectual curiosity useful smokescreens to hide behind."
*Note: one caudate death is worth at least two, possibly three, seconds of amusement from a buddy.
*Warning: although your stomach may fill with dieing animals, your head will remain empty.

*Groan* what's the point?

Right I'm off to clean out - as opposed to destroy - the pets I have picked up a duty of care towards. Might even respect the surplus ones.

Anyway, a very long, long good night to you all.

Settle down Matt. My apologies to your flatmates and neighbors for stirring you up so (I can hear your self-righteous ranting from here). Do you not even realize there are large numbers of people in this world who are ADAMANTLY and MORALLY opposed to the keeping of any animal for a pet, period? People to which this very website is a crime against animals and all things decent and right? I'm sure the folks at PETA would love to discuss it with you. Email them, by all means. Tell them about your crusade and high moral standards.

So now I reiterate, any post on this forum is capable of offending someone. This person asked a legitimate question in the General Discussion Forum, a forum specifically designed to accomodate off-topic posts. Caudata.org is about more than just captive care of newts and salamanders, it's about information pertaining to them in general, whether you're happy with that or not. Whether it sits well with your moral standards or not.

I regret subjecting the forum to more of what I was posting about in the first place: unnecessary hostility in posts. The original post, while its content may have been controversial to some, was certainly polite and innocuous...unlike the spiteful and disrespectful diatribe that followed. These responses are what ruined the usefulness of the thread, not the original post. If a post like that offends you so, stop reading it and spare us all, because there is room on this forum for polite, salamander-related questions.

OK, OK, I'll settle down Nate. And now I am settled - promise! - could I share a story with you? I've shared it with quite a few people now because I couldn't quite believe it. Maybe - along with the noise that has disturbed my flatmates and neighbours - you have also heard a series of bangs... the noise of surprised and shocked jaws hitting the floor.

So then, if you are sitting comfortably, have you heard this one... once there was a wonderful Website where people could go to share tips and information about the amphibians they keep... oh and to share information "in general" about them too, of course.

One day someone suggested they had been talking with a mate about what to do with some spare animals. Now the suggestion they came up with was to open wide and post them straight down their mouths.
No, no wait... I haven't got there yet... it gets better.

No-one knew what to think at first - well, it couldn't possibly be serious could it?

Anyway, after a while someone replied in a unique way. He believed that just because the species in question has been included in the diets of other cultures, in other eras, that this was a perfectly ok thing to do once your animals become "surplus". Hmmmmm....

And then he said he thought the problem was the people who objected, that the people who had worked so hard to prolong the lives of their animals and enhance the quality of them, had thought this a less than favourable outcome for the animals involved. Such spite, he said.

Now some people were really confused by this. He said he "loved the hobby as much as anyone else".. but couldn't he have suggested other - kinder? -ways to amuse your friends or discharge intellectual curiosity or manage surplus stock?

Anyway, the amazing thing about this response is -wait for it - the person who condoned the ingest-your-pet approach to the care of your animals - he was the moderator of the site! No, no, honestly.. it is true!

In the words of a famous UK journalist and purveyor of bizarre tales... "you couldn't make it up".

***

I don't think I have anything to worry from the folks at PETA. They'd be lot more interested in the actions of people who can't be bothered to find good homes for their animal's offspring, get their buddies round and then add them to the dinner table. Alive.
Still, they are just doing it as part of their education and we as educators must help, right? Discover the inner Mexican, maybe?
Perhaps the people advertising surplus caudates need to say whether or not they are duel-purpose animals (to be looked after or ingested)?

Nate, this isn't just a random one-man passionate animal rights crusade. Even if he used an off-topic forum, his idea was diametrically opposed to the values and intent of so many - most? - of the people who come here... should you really just dismiss that as spite? (One of your fellow moderators, I believe, got this immediately.)

Outtahere,
Disillusioned of UK.