Jazz asks, "Why is it wrong to eat fish?"
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Joined
·
11,550 Posts
cos they don't really appreciate being eaten.
Joined
·
9,260 Posts
To put it simply, fish are animals just like us. A lot of fish are more intelligent than small mammals, such as mice and hamsters.
Joined
·
9,260 Posts
Are you sure the people weren't just being coy?
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
Quote:
"Swimming gormlessly around in their bowls or tanks, fish have long been dismissed as dunces compared with "higher" animals such as rats, cats, dogs and primates. This view is now being challenged by findings that could re-ignite the debate over the cruelty of angling. Tests on fish in aquaria at Oxford University have shown that despite their tiny brains, they possess cognitive abilities outstripping those of some small mammals."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...03/ixhome.htmlOriginally Posted by Sevenseas
Fish are sentient.
Do you have some sources for this?
"Swimming gormlessly around in their bowls or tanks, fish have long been dismissed as dunces compared with "higher" animals such as rats, cats, dogs and primates. This view is now being challenged by findings that could re-ignite the debate over the cruelty of angling. Tests on fish in aquaria at Oxford University have shown that despite their tiny brains, they possess cognitive abilities outstripping those of some small mammals."
Joined
·
2,950 Posts
Why don't you stick your head in a pirhana tank and ask =p
I think you need to ask yourself if you feel it is wrong to eat fish then what the word "wrong" means to you.
Do be wrong as in socialy unacceptable or does it go against your moral belifes etc.
Eating meat any kind or not eating it is a personal choice, asking us why it is wrong will not do you much good if you feel it is perfectly OK.
Do be wrong as in socialy unacceptable or does it go against your moral belifes etc.
Eating meat any kind or not eating it is a personal choice, asking us why it is wrong will not do you much good if you feel it is perfectly OK.
Joined
·
56 Posts
Have you ever seen a fish caught? The struggle? The desperate attempt to live? To breathe?
Or, if that is too heavy, have you seen The Little Mermaid? Sebastian running from the chef makes a very compelling argument.
Or, if that is too heavy, have you seen The Little Mermaid? Sebastian running from the chef makes a very compelling argument.
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
from Dawnwatch:
The Sunday, October 8, Los Angeles Times includes an op-ed headed,
"Hooked on a Myth" with the subheading, "Do fish feel pain? A biologist
says we shouldn't be so quick to believe they don't." (pg M5)
The piece is by Victoria Braithwaite, a behavioral biologist at
Edinburgh University.
It opens:
"Every year sportsmen around the world drag millions of fish to shore
on barbed hooks. It's something people have always done, and with little
enough conscience. Fish are well, fish. They're not dogs, who yelp
when you accidentally step on their feet. Fish don't cry out or look sad
or respond in a particularly recognizable way. So we feel free to treat
them in a way that we would not treat mammals or even birds.
"But is there really any biological justification for exempting fish
from the standards nowadays accorded to so-called higher animals? Do we
really know whether fish feel pain or whether they suffer or whether,
in fact, our gut sense that they are dumb, unfeeling animals is
accurate?"
She describes an experiment in which she and colleagues injected bee
venom under the skin of trout. The animals acted as if in pain -- they
lost interest in food, their gills beat faster, and they rubbed the
affected areas against the wall of their tank. When the fish were given
painkillers (which would not remove the irritating substance but would only
impact the experience of pain) the fish acted normally.
Braithwaite writes, however, "To determine what fish go through
mentally when they experience painful stimuli, we also need to determine
whether they have a capacity to feel emotion and to suffer.
"This is a much harder problem. It goes to the very heart of one of the
biggest unresolved issues in biology: Do nonhuman animals have emotions
and feelings? Are nonhuman animals conscious?"
(Millions of people who have seen their dogs go bounding around the
house at the site of a leash in their human's hand should be laughing at
the idea that the scientists are still trying to figure out whether or
not nonhuman animals have emotions.)
She writes:
"It turns out that the stereotype of fish as slow, dim-witted creatures
is wrong; many fish are remarkably clever. For example, they can learn
geometrical relationships and landmarks and then use these to
generate a mental map to plan escape routes if a predator shows up.
"And their brains are not as different from ours as we once thought."
Braithwaite explains that their forebrain areas are similar to ours,
that "If these regions are damaged in fish, their learning and emotional
capacities are impaired; they can no longer find their way through
mazes, and they lose their sense of fear" so they are obviously "more than
simple automata."
She asks whether that knowledge should change the way we treat fish.
You'll find the full piece on line at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail
OR
http://tinyurl.com/rnya2
It presents a great opportunity for appreciative pro-veggie letters to
the editor.
The Sunday, October 8, Los Angeles Times includes an op-ed headed,
"Hooked on a Myth" with the subheading, "Do fish feel pain? A biologist
says we shouldn't be so quick to believe they don't." (pg M5)
The piece is by Victoria Braithwaite, a behavioral biologist at
Edinburgh University.
It opens:
"Every year sportsmen around the world drag millions of fish to shore
on barbed hooks. It's something people have always done, and with little
enough conscience. Fish are well, fish. They're not dogs, who yelp
when you accidentally step on their feet. Fish don't cry out or look sad
or respond in a particularly recognizable way. So we feel free to treat
them in a way that we would not treat mammals or even birds.
"But is there really any biological justification for exempting fish
from the standards nowadays accorded to so-called higher animals? Do we
really know whether fish feel pain or whether they suffer or whether,
in fact, our gut sense that they are dumb, unfeeling animals is
accurate?"
She describes an experiment in which she and colleagues injected bee
venom under the skin of trout. The animals acted as if in pain -- they
lost interest in food, their gills beat faster, and they rubbed the
affected areas against the wall of their tank. When the fish were given
painkillers (which would not remove the irritating substance but would only
impact the experience of pain) the fish acted normally.
Braithwaite writes, however, "To determine what fish go through
mentally when they experience painful stimuli, we also need to determine
whether they have a capacity to feel emotion and to suffer.
"This is a much harder problem. It goes to the very heart of one of the
biggest unresolved issues in biology: Do nonhuman animals have emotions
and feelings? Are nonhuman animals conscious?"
(Millions of people who have seen their dogs go bounding around the
house at the site of a leash in their human's hand should be laughing at
the idea that the scientists are still trying to figure out whether or
not nonhuman animals have emotions.)
She writes:
"It turns out that the stereotype of fish as slow, dim-witted creatures
is wrong; many fish are remarkably clever. For example, they can learn
geometrical relationships and landmarks and then use these to
generate a mental map to plan escape routes if a predator shows up.
"And their brains are not as different from ours as we once thought."
Braithwaite explains that their forebrain areas are similar to ours,
that "If these regions are damaged in fish, their learning and emotional
capacities are impaired; they can no longer find their way through
mazes, and they lose their sense of fear" so they are obviously "more than
simple automata."
She asks whether that knowledge should change the way we treat fish.
You'll find the full piece on line at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail
OR
http://tinyurl.com/rnya2
It presents a great opportunity for appreciative pro-veggie letters to
the editor.
Joined
·
18,833 Posts
Quote:
The whole "goldfish memory" thing is a myth. It was disproved on "Mythbusters" as well.
It matters to me, too. I keep and care for 6 fish on a daily basis. They matter. They aren't stupid and recognize me each and every time I approach their tanks. When I clean their tanks they permit me to pet them and touch them with my hand. When I feed them, they swim up, look at me and eat. They will eat from my fingertips if I hold the food in the water.Originally Posted by kpickell
It matters to me. But so far all debates seems to suggest fish do feel pain and are sentient beings.
The whole "goldfish memory" thing is a myth. It was disproved on "Mythbusters" as well.
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
jeezycreezy asks "Why did you ask this question in the third person?"
The only thing I would like to add is that "overfishing is a threat to biodiversity", "angling is bloodsport", and "ghoti".
The only thing I would like to add is that "overfishing is a threat to biodiversity", "angling is bloodsport", and "ghoti".
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Join the discussion
