From the dogs perspective? About as close as we could ever get. Though I'm sure your monkey parents were so horrifically concerned with what you would turn out to be several million years later. Not a world view as we see it, but a very basic assessment of what is around them, and how the world works (in their view). Is it better to disrupt that, or alter the initial perception before it is even made? And fish do not actually feel pain - their nerve receptors are not quite that acute (they realise that they're being eaten, but do not feel pain as you or I would). But that is beside the point, the argument is the senseless waste of life in the name of vanity. Killing for food = awesome. Killing because it looks pretty = silly. Again, shades of gray. And I'm not disputing this, just saying that breeding for a particular look is a few shades "better" (for a given value of better) than forcibly harming an animal (and most likely killing it in the process) just to give it a bit of a different look. Who experiences more pain through their life: somebody born with a severe crippling disability, or somebody who comes into it through an accident, after they've lived a number of years without it, leading by all standards a normal life? When one is born different, one has no indication that it is different, unless it is told otherwise. You can argue genetic memory all day, but as far as the higher brain functions go, they wouldn't know any realistic difference. The laser technique is rather interesting, and I wouldn't be opposed to that as such (other than it looks like ass) provided that it didn't directly harm the fish itself, in so much as it didn't make it more prone to sickness, or death. As I stated earlier in this post, fish do not directly feel pain like we do, and the tissue around the mouth is almost entirely devoid of nerve endings. So hooking a fish (providing you don't get it through the gills) does very little damage to the fish, healing in just a few days, providing the water is top notch. And cutting the head off a fish kills it instantly, and is one of the more humane, accepted methods of euthanization. Bigger fish to fry? Obviously we could be doing something to end world hunger, or get our global economy out of the current faltering state it is in (according to some people), or even make sure every rapist gets murdered before they can rape, but lets be realistic: how are you as a single person going to do that? Preventing inhumanity to animals starts by not buying poorly treated animals, thus putting an end to the demand for such creatures. It doesn't take all that much to sway the market on what is essentially a niche hobby. Oh, and if you're wondering: artificially colouring, or improper housing of fish is illegal in the UK. There are next to no laws on it over this side of the pond.
QUOTE=Malfoleo;1925808]From the dogs perspective? About as close as we could ever get. Though I'm sure your monkey parents were so horrifically concerned with what you would turn out to be several million years later.[/QUOTE] My point exactly. There is no valid and informed consent because there is no understanding. From my observational experience, both suffer. How you are going to judge who suffers more is a psychological and philiosophical question I would not want to touch with a ten-foot pole.
I would judge that it is impossible for anyone to make an accurate judgement due to the subjective and discrete nature of the reality each of us has. However, admittedly, some would say that is my answer to all difficult questions
I haven't been keeping up with this thread (you can only read so many 3-pagers before you get sick of seeing the same thing said 20 times). Has anyone thus far pointed out that fish are largely insensitive and have brains and nervous systems too primitive to be considered sensational creatures? Disclaimer: I don't like this tatooing thing, I just wonder how much people know about the degrees of animal suffering. A frightening number of people actually think less evolved life-forms experience pain in the same way as more evolved ones, which is like believing the sun goes around the earth.
Yes, yes I did. But that is not the argument I was directly trying to make: more the exceptionally high mortality rate of these fish. As for the whole subjective pain argument: I still say that pain is only experienced by the mind when it knows what it is. I've read stories of infants who were violently abused, sexually and physically, to the point where they would cry and scream whenever attention was paid to them, except when violence was inflicted upon them, wherein they would start to laugh and giggle. This would be akin to a conditioned response. Kind of like you would get through training in a dog. And yes, I do realise how detached that last statement makes me sound.
saying fish dont feel pain isnt as clear cut as that http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm http://cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm its like the saying goldfish only have a 5 second memory and are not intellegant at all, its untue. like the betta(siamesse fighting fish) for example can actually recognise its owner and in some cases only accept food if its put in the tank by its owner http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=534 tattooing the fish was greatly shortening the fish's lives
No, it's not. Logical fallacy alert: those two statements are not made on the same grounds. There is scientific evidence in favour of the claim that fish are neurologically simple and do not experience pain in the same way higher lifeforms do. There is scientific evidence against the claim that goldfish have 5-second memories.
I don't see the point I buy pets to keep them alive as long as possible not to kill then in 2 weeks (most of the goldfish I've bought have lived 1-2 years)
Don't see the benefit, once they get old they're a pain in the ass anyway, developing incontinence, deafness, arthritis and such. I'd much sooner euthanise them than be dragging them around in a state of slow decay. Obviously that logic isn't 100% applicable to fish...
You have my sympathy as a total uncaring individual! I have an 8 yr. old Black Lab who is blind from inoperable cataracts and diabetic. I give her an insulin shot every afternoon at 5 PM. I get the "bucket" which has her alcohol and needles and we get the insulin and a hot dog out of the refrigerator. She functions well in my back yard which is 1/3 of an acre. She has a seeing eye dog in my wife's miniature dachshund. We added several tags and they go outt together. I should put her down? I have terminal COPD with emphysema and pleural calcification from 30+ yrs. exposure to asbestos. You want to put my Hell's Angels butt down too? Bring it! Banning be damned. john
I apologise. Not because you have a Hell's Angel butt, but because I was being sarcastic, completely so - though on reflection, it's not very obvious. I meant no offense. Some people genuinely find convenient pet-euthanising normal. For the record, I don't in most circumstances. My last experience of death was my dog bleeding to death internally in the kitchen, so I'm sympathetic to the reality of slowly-dying pets. I go both ways on the euthanasia thing; when it's to prevent genuine suffering and imminent inevitable death, I think it's merited. When it's because the pet has developed inconvenient but manageable problems (like loss of senses), I think it's a bit distasteful. Vis a vis the fish, this is hard to apply. On the one hand, they're having their lifespans shortened drastically for the sake of a tacky, tasteless aesthetic modification, which doesn't seem cool. On the other hand, they're fish, and they feel about as much as my xbox. So I dunno. Is suffering always wrong regardless of the subject's simplicity of consciousness? I think it might be. I've never been a fish, so...hm. I don't know. It's horrible in principle but pragmatically acceptable.
its a moral question. should i be causing harm/pain whatever you want to call it to an animal. simple answer really is no its not a technical question as to what the fish feel or dont feel. its just cruel
Well, cruelty is defined by intent, so if you genuinely believed what you were doing wasn't causing the fish any pain or suffering, you wouldn't be guilty of cruelty. These people seem so genuinely stupid that that just might be the case. This has limited bearing on whether it should be allowed, of course - if we defined all laws by intents we'd be in a difficult place. But, for the sake of argument, if we were to make tattooing fish illegal, what would our premises be? Do we have a good reason for doing so, if we know the fish don't experience pain on a conscious level, just because it offends our personal sensitivities and a personal conviction that any act which could be 'cruel' should be forbidden?
the part where the miniature dachshund is the seeing eye dog for your black labrador is kind of cool, animals are amazing... the rest... what a shame... i wish you all the best
its cruel on the side of the suppliers, who have to know it shortens the fish life and just the act of actually ttaking a needle to a fish sounds cruel. you cant really blame a customer that buys it and doesnt realise it cruelty to animals doesnt have to mean pain anyway per se. overfeeding a dog to extent that he cant walk properly is cruel and can be seen as cruelty in the eyes of the law(i watched some thing on fattest pets the other nite where this happened) and well say a dog that is dying and in pain isnt cruel but letting it go on can be seen as cruel. cruelty is always going to be based on your own peronal sensitivities but you can definately be cruel without knowing it(or cause cruelty which ever way you want to put it) i guess distingushing it in a legal sense is much harder
