In this day and age, any moron should know that all living creatures with a brain and a central nervous system feel pain. And, yes, they experience many emotions similar to those of humans...
I look forward to the day when more humans recognize that we are animals just like every other animal on this planet, and we do not corner the market on suffering...
People who say fish don't feel pain are either mentally disemboweled or morally dishonest.
Perhaps the fish would prefer being ripped apart and eaten alive by another fish, a swooping pelican, a bear...?
It seems the grievance is with Nature's God? Oh, wait, that's just a fiction, an opiate to keep the masses in check. Besides, when you're a feel-gooder, you can rationalize the food chain by visualizing anthropomorphic Disney cartoon animals and humming a few bars from "The Circle of Life"...
It's only when humans do it that it's bad.
These folks would ban fishing if it were in their power to do so. They'd also ban hunting (all you "sportsman" types take note).
Not meaning to start an off-guns-topic debate here, but how many of the letter writers worried about fish pain do you suppose would get equally worked up about the agony suffered by unborn humans as they're torn apart in the womb...?
Oh, wait, that's just a fiction too, the experts tell us. You know, the same experts who tell us guns are bad... mmkay?
6 comments:
of course fish feel pain. what else do they have such an advanced nervous system for? to claim they don't is just silly - but so is claiming that, for that reason alone, we shouldn't ever kill them.
personally, i agree with that line of reasoning far enough to oppose catch-and-release fishing. if you pull it out of the water, and it turns out to be of a legal size and species to keep, you should kill it and eat it (or give it to somebody else to eat) - to do otherwise is inflicting pain for no sufficiently good reason, in my arrogant opinion. but fishing for actual use of the fish - yes, even if you could technically afford to just buy the fish from the grocery store - is good enough cause by me.
however, conflating this with the abortion "debate" is just shooting yourself in the foot, Dave. that's equating humans and non-human animals way too far. if you go down that lane, you'll have to seriously read Peter Singer's work and actually _think_ about how you'd refute his points, unless you'd rather agree with them. judging by what i've seen of your opinions on this website, i believe you might want to avoid that land mine - just as a piece of friendly advice.
Did I come across as equating the two? If so, poor writing on my part.
Yes, I've read enough by and about Singer to consider him a latter-day Mengele.
I think David was pointing out how hypocritical the animal rights wackos are, because they wouldn't give a damn about the pain an aborted baby suffered.
Don't worry, David. I got the satire. And I got your back.
on closer reading, i probably *did* misunderstand David's point about abortion and animal rights; i apologize profusely. i'll have to read with more care in the future.
that said, the situations of animal rights versus abortion righta are not comparable, so calling people hypocrites for supporting both is not necessarily valid. non-human animals are not necessarily comparable to humans, for one thing, no matter what professor Singer argues - not even if they *should* have (some) rights. also, comparing adult individuals (of any species) to dependent fetuses/larvae/whatever (of any species) is clearly suspect on its face. the process of development matters _a lot_ in biology, so why shouldn't it also matter in ethics?
I dunno - it seems to me that many of the "animal rights" folks who talk about animals having rights and that we shouldn't inflict pain on them don't give a rat's patooty whether an unborn human feels pain.
For my part, I don’t believe in inflicting pain on any living creature if I can help it. But I’m a carnivore, and I eat meat. Because of that, I’m actually willing to do some of the “dirty work” myself. I hunt and fish, and consume the flesh.
For the record, in most “catch and release” areas, the hooks have to be de-barbed to inflict as little damage on the fish as possible. Catch and release is a viable management tool. For instance, many species of fish have to be immediately returned to the water if they are within a certain size due to the fact that they are within prime spawning size. So while these fish are used as food, the ones that are the most capable of procreating are returned to the water with as little damage as possible.
But perhaps many of the “animal rights” people are correct. After all, while we are allegedly a “sentient“ species, we have people trying to protect the great horned suck toad, and protecting it and all other species from human-inflicted pain, who then run down to the abortionist to get some “unfeeling protoplasm” sucked out of their innards, even though there are several means to prevent oneself from pregnancy.
I won’t address the fact that most carnivorous predators don’t negotiate with the animals that they intend to eat, or that the deaths that they inflict on other animals might be “cruel.”
Maybe the animal rights people are right. Hell – from what I see, many of the folks out there would have to step up several rungs on the evolutionary ladder to qualify as sheep…
All this talk about "animal rights" is sheer nonsense. Animals don't have "rights". Period. All they have are instincts and the "biological imperative".
When an animal has the physical capability of conceiving and articulating the concept of "rights", then they can have them, and not before.
Post a Comment