I see I won this debate....you resort to calling me names again. It’s become a real habit with you huh? Liberal tactic...I need not defend anything....except it sure looks like you did not watch the video. I’m POSITIVE using my brilliant common sense, that if a rat snake can eat a ‘rat’ that size, it is not going to bypass a kitten that size. LOL
“I see I won this debate.”
In ~your~ mind, I’m sure you truly do believe that.
That is so sad.
“I’m POSITIVE using my brilliant common sense, that if a rat snake can eat a ‘rat’ that size, it is not going to bypass a kitten that size.”
I’m POSITIVE, using my brilliant natural superiority, that I am Queen Of The Multiverse.
[*note to other FReepers; no, I don’t really believe that. I’m not delusional]
Tell me “Fawn”, why do you suppose they’re called “rat* snakes?
Do you understand *at all* the nature of snakes and their preferences for a particular type of prey?
I could not, no matter *what* I did, get my Ball Pythons to eat *anything* except rodents because that is what they eat.
Even captive Boas and the large Pythons, who are slightly less ‘prey specific’ will choose to eat rodents, rabbits and chickens.
Some snakes are famous for preferring to dine on other snakes.
The Kingsnake family, for example.
The only “odd” thing rat snakes eat are venomous snakes which is why sane people allow them to live close by.
They keep the vipers away.
Snakes, as a rule, generally eat only prey that cannot harm them as they are very vulnerable to being injured by their prey.
*Cats* are infamous for killing young wild snakes of all species.
I’ve seen many gory photos of what cats have done to snakes.
As usual, you have “the facts” bass-ackwards.
[and why should I watch a video of something I see happen every Friday night, in person?]
Face it, “Fawn”.
You have, as usual, absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Actually, the very act of jumping up and down to play the “I, won, I won” game is a well known indication that one has lost the debate—because the first person to play it is typically someone who cannot continue the debate based on facts and data. It is the ploy of someone who is more desperate to *feel* like he or she has won than the person who is confident, based on the strength of his/her arguments, that he/she has won.
It is the argument of the five year old who supposes that volume makes up for lack of substance of argument. The five year old has an excuse-—being unable to understand analytical thought.
Suppositions and hysteria are not facts or data.