Originally Posted by minorhero
Morality in many situations can be quite tricky as it is frequently in the eye of the beholder, I just don't see how morality differs in this specific case from the law itself.
Bizarre. Morality regarding frog-keeping is different than morality sensu lato
? I ain't buying that, not for a second.
This also implies that moral=legal in general? Unless there is something fundamentally different about frog keeping, somehow.
Also, this implies that while morality is typically subjective
(note that I'm sure not making this claim), morality just happens in this case to be objective
and furthermore is completely described by legislation (and what's more, legislation that is somewhat in disagreement [Lacey and CITES don't square entirely]). Wow.