The thread discusses an incident involving a man who put a rattlesnake in his mouth and subsequently got bitten. Participants explore the implications of this action, the nature of the incident, and the broader themes of human behavior and responsibility in the context of owning venomous animals.
Participants generally express a consensus on the absurdity of the man's actions and the humor in the situation, but there are differing views on the causation of the swollen tongue and the implications of the incident regarding animal ownership and responsibility.
Some statements rely on assumptions about human behavior and the legal implications of owning venomous animals, which are not universally agreed upon. The discussion includes speculative elements regarding motivations and consequences.
Too bad he only qualifies for an honorable mention!ZapperZ said:
morphism said:
ZapperZ said:
ekrim said:
my god. classic. I think the bigger question is what would drive you to then want to appear on CNN and broadcast your idiocy on a national level!G01 said:Nope not really. You see, while most people wouldn't think twice and assume that the swollen tongue was caused by the snake, it was actually caused by the guy's own stupidity...
This is a classic textbook example of confounding in experimental results.....
The proximate cause of the swollen tongue is the snake bite, but the ultimate cause is the guy's stupidity. Moonbear said:Actually, it's a pretty classic example of proximate vs ultimate causation.
Moonbear said:
