I disagree. The deaths can be directly observed and also allow for post-mortem examination. They are not some sort of hypothetical conjecture.
It would also be patently ridiculous to suggest that poison is effective, but only the ones that cause painful death.
Furthermore, presentation matters. OP presented it as “definitely” being a horrible death with details that would support this. Follow-up comment was straight-up presented as conjecture with nothing to support it. If they aren’t confident in their own point, then why should I be?
Presumably because they aren’t “one of the best ways to get rid of a rodent invasion.”
Considering that I don’t see any reason for this to be the case, I’m not going to presume that without some supporting evidence.
We have as much evidence for it being a horrible death as we have for it being one of the best ways to treat an invasion
I disagree. The deaths can be directly observed and also allow for post-mortem examination. They are not some sort of hypothetical conjecture.
It would also be patently ridiculous to suggest that poison is effective, but only the ones that cause painful death.
Furthermore, presentation matters. OP presented it as “definitely” being a horrible death with details that would support this. Follow-up comment was straight-up presented as conjecture with nothing to support it. If they aren’t confident in their own point, then why should I be?
My point stands. Nice try though.
Have you done this?