"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

repeating it over and over will not magically transform
opinion into fact.

It IS a fact, not my opinion.

No, still not working. Try stamping your feet, see if that helps.


Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and
can't have a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very
clear that the conversation is over.

Why are you suddenly interested in having a rational converstaion?
You've been making extreme and irrational statments all along. For
example "Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
the right to drive a car, or buy a house" and "you can always deliver
'last rights' after it expire". And let us not forget the bizarre
discussion of your mother's lingering death.

As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me want
to throw up" ring a bell?

That you're unwilling or unable to comprehend what I've been saying is
entirely your own problem. But if you want to declare the conversation
over, well, go ahead. Frankly, you should have bailed a long time ago.

I understand completely what you are saying. You are saying that you really
don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because it makes you
feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

repeating it over and over will not magically transform
opinion into fact.

It IS a fact, not my opinion.

No, still not working. Try stamping your feet, see if that helps.


Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and
can't have a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very
clear that the conversation is over.

Why are you suddenly interested in having a rational converstaion?
You've been making extreme and irrational statments all along. For
example "Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
the right to drive a car, or buy a house" and "you can always deliver
'last rights' after it expire". And let us not forget the bizarre
discussion of your mother's lingering death.

As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me want
to throw up" ring a bell?

That you're unwilling or unable to comprehend what I've been saying is
entirely your own problem. But if you want to declare the conversation
over, well, go ahead. Frankly, you should have bailed a long time ago.

I understand completely what you are saying. You are saying that you really
don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because it makes you
feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.

Fish may not feel pain by your definition of pain, but they feel discomfort,
which is one of my definitions of pain. If you don't believe it, look at
the actions of a fish with parasites, trying to scape them off, or jumping
out of the water to loosen them. They react to a tummy ache or head ache or
whatever by going and laying off by themselves, rather than swimming with
the other fish and coming to eat. When taken out of water, they do a lot of
flopping around trying to get back into the water, and I would say that was
a reaction to the discomfort of being out of water.

Specific wording with specific definitions doesn't change what the
respondents on this thread have been trying to say. Personnally I use the
clove oil, because it is used for other treatments, such as abrasion
treatments with iodine, parasite scrapings, and injections when needed. It
may not be needed for pain, but it makes the fish much easier to handle
during these procedures, and I "assume" much less "painful" for the fish.
Seeing a fish out of water is painful for me, if not them.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html

"george" wrote in message
news:nXMvd.500557$wV.107640@attbi_s54...

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

repeating it over and over will not magically transform
opinion into fact.

It IS a fact, not my opinion.

No, still not working. Try stamping your feet, see if that helps.


Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and
can't have a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very
clear that the conversation is over.

Why are you suddenly interested in having a rational converstaion?
You've been making extreme and irrational statments all along. For
example "Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
the right to drive a car, or buy a house" and "you can always deliver
'last rights' after it expire". And let us not forget the bizarre
discussion of your mother's lingering death.

As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me want
to throw up" ring a bell?

That you're unwilling or unable to comprehend what I've been saying is
entirely your own problem. But if you want to declare the conversation
over, well, go ahead. Frankly, you should have bailed a long time ago.

I understand completely what you are saying. You are saying that you
really don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because
it makes you feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.

"george" wrote in message
news:x5Kvd.655563$mD.524018@attbi_s02...

"kc" wrote in message
...
Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
only
things you own.
The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how
a
living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
Kirsten

I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can
set
aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to
read
this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
snip

Aside from the political aspects of that site, I am troubled by the article
from the first paragraph. Why is it that when this topic arises, the jump to
comparing fish and humans is always made. If a fish feels pain, the fish is
like a human. That is not accurate logic. Just because a person believes a
fish feels pain, does not mean that they think fish are like humans.

This article starts off with a great big dose of anthropomorphication (sp?).

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:x5Kvd.655563$mD.524018@attbi_s02...

"kc" wrote in message
...
Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
only
things you own.
The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how
a
living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
Kirsten

I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can
set
aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to
read
this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
snip

Aside from the political aspects of that site, I am troubled by the article
from the first paragraph. Why is it that when this topic arises, the jump to
comparing fish and humans is always made. If a fish feels pain, the fish is
like a human. That is not accurate logic. Just because a person believes a
fish feels pain, does not mean that they think fish are like humans.

This article starts off with a great big dose of anthropomorphication (sp?).

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:4IJvd.655387$mD.411580@attbi_s02...
snip
You keep making the comparison of fish to humans. Nobody but you is
suggesting fish are on par with humans from a nervous system standpoint.
That does not change the fact that they may and probably do feel pain.
That
does not change the fact that anything we can do as fish owners to
minimize
this suffering is a good idea.

Using your own faulted logic, and the story of your mother ailing from
old
age. Would you use a slow method of euthanasia on a loved one, simply
because they are "in so dire shape...that it is unlikely to feel much"?

BV.


I certainly would not put her in a bag and smash her with a hammer. How's
that
for an answer?

I certainly hope not. LOL.

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:0PJvd.234897$HA.24792@attbi_s01...
snip
It is you that has repeatedly stated in this thread that "fish are not
as
complex as humans", and "fish don't feel like humans do". You are the
one
anthropomorphizing this conversation. Nobody else is making this
comparison.

That is not anthropomorphizing. Do you even understand the meaning of the
word?

anthropomorphize - to attribute human form or personality to things not
human.

Your assumption that fish "suffer" is an anthropomorphization.

So are you saying only people can suffer? Do we need to step on your dogs
tail again? Me thinks it is YOU that does not understand the term. I will
admit, I do have trouble spelling it though.

My analogy using the dog was simply intended to point out the error in
your
logic. A less advanced creature does not by virtue of being less
advanced
deserve less respect, or lack of compassion. Human, Dog, fish, etc.

I never said anything about not respecting other living creatures. That
you
would think that I would do otherwise is disrespectful of me.

Saying you can just toss a fish on the ground because it doesn't feel pain
like a human is IMHO not respecting that creature.

The original thread was simply about minimizing the suffering of an
ailing
fish. You contend that fish are so less advanced then us, that simply
tossing it on the ground is adequate. I contend that any living being
should
be treated as important and as a pond owner I take that philosphy to a
degree whereby I do what I can to minize the suffering of every living
creature around me.

I take it then, that you've never been fishing, or when you do, you have
someone
else bait the hook. Am I close?

I fished once when I was child. Since then, I think maybe I have fished once
more after that. No bait. I am not comfortable with the practice, but don't
get me wrong, I am not saying no-one should fish, so don't go there.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as we clearly have different
philosophies on the importance of lesser species.

BV.

P.S. I don't believe you can treate anything but humans, humanely.


Whatever that means.

It's a joke to try and lighten the mood.

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:0PJvd.234897$HA.24792@attbi_s01...
snip
It is you that has repeatedly stated in this thread that "fish are not
as
complex as humans", and "fish don't feel like humans do". You are the
one
anthropomorphizing this conversation. Nobody else is making this
comparison.

That is not anthropomorphizing. Do you even understand the meaning of the
word?

anthropomorphize - to attribute human form or personality to things not
human.

Your assumption that fish "suffer" is an anthropomorphization.

So are you saying only people can suffer? Do we need to step on your dogs
tail again? Me thinks it is YOU that does not understand the term. I will
admit, I do have trouble spelling it though.

My analogy using the dog was simply intended to point out the error in
your
logic. A less advanced creature does not by virtue of being less
advanced
deserve less respect, or lack of compassion. Human, Dog, fish, etc.

I never said anything about not respecting other living creatures. That
you
would think that I would do otherwise is disrespectful of me.

Saying you can just toss a fish on the ground because it doesn't feel pain
like a human is IMHO not respecting that creature.

The original thread was simply about minimizing the suffering of an
ailing
fish. You contend that fish are so less advanced then us, that simply
tossing it on the ground is adequate. I contend that any living being
should
be treated as important and as a pond owner I take that philosphy to a
degree whereby I do what I can to minize the suffering of every living
creature around me.

I take it then, that you've never been fishing, or when you do, you have
someone
else bait the hook. Am I close?

I fished once when I was child. Since then, I think maybe I have fished once
more after that. No bait. I am not comfortable with the practice, but don't
get me wrong, I am not saying no-one should fish, so don't go there.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as we clearly have different
philosophies on the importance of lesser species.

BV.

P.S. I don't believe you can treate anything but humans, humanely.


Whatever that means.

It's a joke to try and lighten the mood.

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:qgKvd.235012$HA.29767@attbi_s01...
snip
This is not about whether one animal has more value than another, or
whether one
animal deserves more consideration than another. And frankly, I am quite
offended by your suggestion that I don't have consideration for other
animals.
I've been raising fish for 35 years of my life: you cannot have such a
hobby
for so long a time and not have emotional attachment to your animals. It
is
about whether fish experience the human emotion of pain and suffering,
which, if
certain people had paid attention in the science classes (or even taken
one)
that some criticise me for taking, you would have discovered that they
don't.

There you go again making this connection between humans and fish. Nobody is
making this claim but you. Do you realize it is you making the
anthropomorphications (sp?) here?

And my point is that we do know that they don't experience pain and
suffering.
I've already posted the complete text, but I will, for your benefit, post
a link
to an article, which talks in detail about whether fish can experience
pain and
suffering:

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm


We know? WE KNOW? This article ends with, "The facts about the neurological
processes that generate pain make it highly unlikely that fish experience
the emotional distress and suffering of pain."

WE KNOW?!?!?!?!?

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:qgKvd.235012$HA.29767@attbi_s01...
snip
This is not about whether one animal has more value than another, or
whether one
animal deserves more consideration than another. And frankly, I am quite
offended by your suggestion that I don't have consideration for other
animals.
I've been raising fish for 35 years of my life: you cannot have such a
hobby
for so long a time and not have emotional attachment to your animals. It
is
about whether fish experience the human emotion of pain and suffering,
which, if
certain people had paid attention in the science classes (or even taken
one)
that some criticise me for taking, you would have discovered that they
don't.

There you go again making this connection between humans and fish. Nobody is
making this claim but you. Do you realize it is you making the
anthropomorphications (sp?) here?

And my point is that we do know that they don't experience pain and
suffering.
I've already posted the complete text, but I will, for your benefit, post
a link
to an article, which talks in detail about whether fish can experience
pain and
suffering:

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm


We know? WE KNOW? This article ends with, "The facts about the neurological
processes that generate pain make it highly unlikely that fish experience
the emotional distress and suffering of pain."

WE KNOW?!?!?!?!?

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:%iKvd.235018$HA.74721@attbi_s01...
snip

This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. Thanks Ruth.

BV.


My point is that we do know. And to suggest that I don't have compassion
for
other creatures is quite insulting and untrue. I would have thought that
you
two would have more sense that this. Please read the article at the
following
link:

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm


Yet the author sums up the article by saying, "The facts about the
neurological processes that generate pain make it highly unlikely that fish
experience the emotional distress and suffering of pain." So he KNOWS, yet
he only believes it to be unlikely. Can you say cop out boys and girls?

It's your opinion that fish don't feel pain and can be treated properly by
being tossed on the ground. It's the opinion of others that this is
insensitive. If you are troubled by that, that's in you, not us.

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:%iKvd.235018$HA.74721@attbi_s01...
snip

This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. Thanks Ruth.

BV.


My point is that we do know. And to suggest that I don't have compassion
for
other creatures is quite insulting and untrue. I would have thought that
you
two would have more sense that this. Please read the article at the
following
link:

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm


Yet the author sums up the article by saying, "The facts about the
neurological processes that generate pain make it highly unlikely that fish
experience the emotional distress and suffering of pain." So he KNOWS, yet
he only believes it to be unlikely. Can you say cop out boys and girls?

It's your opinion that fish don't feel pain and can be treated properly by
being tossed on the ground. It's the opinion of others that this is
insensitive. If you are troubled by that, that's in you, not us.

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:ysKvd.186848$5K2.24832@attbi_s03...

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors,
and do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to
experience what we would experience as pain.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with work done at the Roslin Institute in
Scotland last year that demonstrated fish have a neurological response
that is remarkably similar to the pain response in humans.


Yes I am familiar with their work, and it has some major flaws. To quote
from
their web site:

"They carried out two types of experiment. In the first they anaesthetised
trout
and used fine electrodes and sensitive recording equipment to capture the
electrical signals that were passing from the lips to the brain. When bee
venom
was placed on the fish's lips, the pattern of the electrical recordings
was
typical of those from pain receptors in humans, strongly suggesting that
the
lips of fish also contain pain receptors. Bee venom was used as a
convenient
experimental test noxious stimulus.

The second set of experiments was conducted on free swimming, hungry
trout. When
food was provided the fish rapidly ate it up. If bee venom was applied to
their
lips beforehand, the fish failed to eat the food and showed behaviours
indicative of discomfort. These behaviours provided further evidence that
the
fish found the venom painful."


Now, read the article at the link below, and see if you can figure out
where the
Roslin institute went wrong with their experiment.

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm


After you've read it, come back, and we'll discuss some more about why the
Roslin experiments are so flawed.
snip

Oh yes, we get more and more Troll like with each post...now you want us to
do research to prove your point.

I eagerly await the name calling that usually follows in a thread like this.

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:nXMvd.500557$wV.107640@attbi_s54...

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

repeating it over and over will not magically transform
opinion into fact.

It IS a fact, not my opinion.

No, still not working. Try stamping your feet, see if that helps.


Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and
can't have a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very
clear that the conversation is over.

Why are you suddenly interested in having a rational converstaion?
You've been making extreme and irrational statments all along. For
example "Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
the right to drive a car, or buy a house" and "you can always deliver
'last rights' after it expire". And let us not forget the bizarre
discussion of your mother's lingering death.

As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me want
to throw up" ring a bell?

That you're unwilling or unable to comprehend what I've been saying is
entirely your own problem. But if you want to declare the conversation
over, well, go ahead. Frankly, you should have bailed a long time ago.

I understand completely what you are saying. You are saying that you
really
don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because it
makes you
feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.

And the insults begin to fly...Here trolly trolly, here trolly trolly.

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:nXMvd.500557$wV.107640@attbi_s54...

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

repeating it over and over will not magically transform
opinion into fact.

It IS a fact, not my opinion.

No, still not working. Try stamping your feet, see if that helps.


Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and
can't have a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very
clear that the conversation is over.

Why are you suddenly interested in having a rational converstaion?
You've been making extreme and irrational statments all along. For
example "Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
the right to drive a car, or buy a house" and "you can always deliver
'last rights' after it expire". And let us not forget the bizarre
discussion of your mother's lingering death.

As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me want
to throw up" ring a bell?

That you're unwilling or unable to comprehend what I've been saying is
entirely your own problem. But if you want to declare the conversation
over, well, go ahead. Frankly, you should have bailed a long time ago.

I understand completely what you are saying. You are saying that you
really
don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because it
makes you
feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.

And the insults begin to fly...Here trolly trolly, here trolly trolly.

BV.