george wrote:

you have provided no evidence at all on which to base
your argument that "fish suffer". Well? What about it? Where's the
beef?

I explained it already, but in your zeal I'm not surprised you missed
it.

I don't *know* if fish do or do not feel pain. Despite your enthusiasm
for one specific paper, which for reasons that are unclear equates pain
with emotion, the scientific community has been unable to conclusively
prove one way or another.

I do know that fish react to negative stimulus. I certainly don't
equate that with human perception of pain, but it is nevertheless clear
that fish experience distress of some sort.

Given the lack of objective scientific certainty, and my own
observations of fish responses, I choose to err on the side of caution.
When I decide that an ill or injured fish cannot be saved, I take the
responsibility to end the suffering (or misery, pain, distress,
biological response - call it what you will) as quickly as possible.

The logic is quite simple. Faced with a seriously ill fish, I have two
choices - let it die slowly on its own, or kill it quickly. One choice
may result in prolonged suffering, the other certainly does not.

Does that make sense to you?

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"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.

The article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And the article was written for consumption by the
general public, not for scientists. The best way to get people to understand
this issue, and indeed many other issues about animals, is often by making such
comparisons, because that is what the most people can relate to. For instance,
many animals have a sense of sight. So do we, but our sense of sight is
different from most animals, as has been clearly demonstrated for many many
years. But even today, many people think other animals see things like we do.
So the best way to demostrate this is by comparing and contrasting traits of
other animals with those of people, and even among other animals. Some animals
(chimps, mice, even pigs) make great research anmimals for the very reason that
they share so many anatomical and physiological characteristics with us. In the
case of fish, pain and suffering are not one of them. In this sense (no pun
intended), fish are poor models for humans.

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.

If a fish felt pain like people do, researchers would jump at the chance to
study it because so many people are in so much pain, and it would make a good
animal model for human pain. What Dr. Rose suggested is that many people make
an unfounded assumption that fish feel pain. The key here is the many people
"believe" that a fish feels pain. His contention, and that of most scientists
working in the field, is that that belief can lead people to think of fish in
anthropomorphic terms. This attitude has increased as fish ponding and the
aqaurium hobby has grown. It is understandable because we as a society cherish
pets, and have an emotional need for them. And many fish enthusiasts are also
dog and cat owners. We all like to think of our fish as these cute, attractive
little harmless creatures, and even become emotionally attached to them (which
is true of most pet owners) when the fact is that in their world, they are top
predators. The top dogs. And viscious ones at that. They eat their own young,
and those of any other fish or animal they can get in their mouths without a
second thought about it. Many species being sold today are only a few
generations away from the wild streams, lakes, or the ocean from which they
came. They are not true domesticates. Some of the newer species being sold are
truly wild species. Hence, African cichlids, which have only been avaliable in
pet shops for a couple of decades are much more agressive than South American
cichids, which are relatively more docile and have been available (and bred) for
many years. In the wild, the difference nearly disappears.

Even cats are not fully domesticated and they've been with us for a couple of
thousand years. You have noticed how independant cats are, haven't you? They
are like that because they still have a lot of wild cat in them. Much of that
independance and agressiveness hasn't been bred out of them. Much recent
evidence has shown conclusively that dogs have been around human campfires for
many thousands of years, possibly since we first started building camp fires.
They have adapted to us, and us to them. By and large, the agressiveness of the
wolf has been bred out of them through thousands of years of selective breeding.

Ok, I went off on a tangent. Sorry. Back to the issue. Since people
experience pain and suffering, people tend to believe (or would like to believe)
that other animals share that experience. He is saying that a lot of scientific
evidence shows that, at least with respect to fish, this is not the case. Even
with the few receptors that were found in the Roslin study, the fact is that
those receptors are tied into the midbrain of the animal, a part of the brain
that only handles autonomic (or automatic, if you like) bodily functions, is a
clear indicator that they do not experience stimulus from those receptors as
"pain". A fish has no neocortex, which is where all pain in higher animals,
including humans, is registered. The receptors in the mouth of a fish trigger
the flight or fight response in fish, just like similar cels do in everything
from humans down to an amoeba. The difference is that higher organisms, like
humans, have a cerebral hemisphere, and enbedded in it is a neocortex. The
neocortex is where pain is assimilated and experienced in all mammals. Cut it
out of a person, and he/she could no more feel pain than could an amoeba.
Likewise, if you cut the spinal chord of a human, sensation stops below where it
is cut, even pain.

So fish, in this respect, are like someone who's had severe cortex damage and
can no longer feel pain. But their midbrain registers the signals, and triggers
the fight or flight response. But if a fish is near death, and you can reach
down and pick it up and it can't run away from your because it is so sick, it
certainly cannot sit in your hand and worry about any forthcoming pain it may
receive at your hands, since it has no cerebrum with which to form such though
processes. Certainly, it may twitch, and try to flip out of your hand, but that
is certainly the last gasp of a tiny dying nervous system. Is that pain? I
think not at all.

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

BV.


Again, the article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And he is writing an article for consumption by the
general public. The best way to get people to understand this issue, and indeed
many other issues about animals, is often by making such comparisons, because
that is what the most people can relate to.

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"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.

The article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And the article was written for consumption by the
general public, not for scientists. The best way to get people to understand
this issue, and indeed many other issues about animals, is often by making such
comparisons, because that is what the most people can relate to. For instance,
many animals have a sense of sight. So do we, but our sense of sight is
different from most animals, as has been clearly demonstrated for many many
years. But even today, many people think other animals see things like we do.
So the best way to demostrate this is by comparing and contrasting traits of
other animals with those of people, and even among other animals. Some animals
(chimps, mice, even pigs) make great research anmimals for the very reason that
they share so many anatomical and physiological characteristics with us. In the
case of fish, pain and suffering are not one of them. In this sense (no pun
intended), fish are poor models for humans.

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.

If a fish felt pain like people do, researchers would jump at the chance to
study it because so many people are in so much pain, and it would make a good
animal model for human pain. What Dr. Rose suggested is that many people make
an unfounded assumption that fish feel pain. The key here is the many people
"believe" that a fish feels pain. His contention, and that of most scientists
working in the field, is that that belief can lead people to think of fish in
anthropomorphic terms. This attitude has increased as fish ponding and the
aqaurium hobby has grown. It is understandable because we as a society cherish
pets, and have an emotional need for them. And many fish enthusiasts are also
dog and cat owners. We all like to think of our fish as these cute, attractive
little harmless creatures, and even become emotionally attached to them (which
is true of most pet owners) when the fact is that in their world, they are top
predators. The top dogs. And viscious ones at that. They eat their own young,
and those of any other fish or animal they can get in their mouths without a
second thought about it. Many species being sold today are only a few
generations away from the wild streams, lakes, or the ocean from which they
came. They are not true domesticates. Some of the newer species being sold are
truly wild species. Hence, African cichlids, which have only been avaliable in
pet shops for a couple of decades are much more agressive than South American
cichids, which are relatively more docile and have been available (and bred) for
many years. In the wild, the difference nearly disappears.

Even cats are not fully domesticated and they've been with us for a couple of
thousand years. You have noticed how independant cats are, haven't you? They
are like that because they still have a lot of wild cat in them. Much of that
independance and agressiveness hasn't been bred out of them. Much recent
evidence has shown conclusively that dogs have been around human campfires for
many thousands of years, possibly since we first started building camp fires.
They have adapted to us, and us to them. By and large, the agressiveness of the
wolf has been bred out of them through thousands of years of selective breeding.

Ok, I went off on a tangent. Sorry. Back to the issue. Since people
experience pain and suffering, people tend to believe (or would like to believe)
that other animals share that experience. He is saying that a lot of scientific
evidence shows that, at least with respect to fish, this is not the case. Even
with the few receptors that were found in the Roslin study, the fact is that
those receptors are tied into the midbrain of the animal, a part of the brain
that only handles autonomic (or automatic, if you like) bodily functions, is a
clear indicator that they do not experience stimulus from those receptors as
"pain". A fish has no neocortex, which is where all pain in higher animals,
including humans, is registered. The receptors in the mouth of a fish trigger
the flight or fight response in fish, just like similar cels do in everything
from humans down to an amoeba. The difference is that higher organisms, like
humans, have a cerebral hemisphere, and enbedded in it is a neocortex. The
neocortex is where pain is assimilated and experienced in all mammals. Cut it
out of a person, and he/she could no more feel pain than could an amoeba.
Likewise, if you cut the spinal chord of a human, sensation stops below where it
is cut, even pain.

So fish, in this respect, are like someone who's had severe cortex damage and
can no longer feel pain. But their midbrain registers the signals, and triggers
the fight or flight response. But if a fish is near death, and you can reach
down and pick it up and it can't run away from your because it is so sick, it
certainly cannot sit in your hand and worry about any forthcoming pain it may
receive at your hands, since it has no cerebrum with which to form such though
processes. Certainly, it may twitch, and try to flip out of your hand, but that
is certainly the last gasp of a tiny dying nervous system. Is that pain? I
think not at all.

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

BV.


Again, the article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And he is writing an article for consumption by the
general public. The best way to get people to understand this issue, and indeed
many other issues about animals, is often by making such comparisons, because
that is what the most people can relate to.

"RichToyBox" wrote in message
...
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.

Fight or flight response. Sorry. That is not pain. That is a midbrain
function, an involuntary response. Humans can express laughter and sadness.
Two very different emotional responses. The physiological process involved is
exactly the same. The difference is how your brain interprets the stimulus. It
is a very complex interaction between the nerves and senses of our bodies and
the higher functions of our brain, specifically the neocortex portion of the
cerebral hemisphere. Pain is nearly the exact same physiological response. The
difference between these emotions is in how our neocortex interpretes the
signals. We have it hardwired in our bodies to have those physiological
responses, and to distinguish between what the stimulus means (ever wonder why
people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do other animals,
particularly mammalian predators. The difference in that how we experience
those sensations depend on how our our neocortex interprets the stimulus. We
can make the distinctions between laughter, sadness, and pain because we have
the hardware (and to an extent, the software) to make the distinction. Fish
have no such hardware. They have no neocortex, and very little memory. Our
existence is dominated by our cerebral hemispheres. The life of a fish is
dominated by its brainstem, which exlusively processes and sends out autonomic,
or involuntary responses to stimulus.

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.

Ah, that is the real issue, isn't it? How it makes us feel. Am I Right?
Again, anthropomorphization. It makes us feel bad at least in part, because we
sympathize with it and think that we wouldn't want to "feel" like what we think
the fish is feeling. No offense, but how we feel about the issue has no bearing
on what a fish is or is not feeling.

"RichToyBox" wrote in message
...
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.

Fight or flight response. Sorry. That is not pain. That is a midbrain
function, an involuntary response. Humans can express laughter and sadness.
Two very different emotional responses. The physiological process involved is
exactly the same. The difference is how your brain interprets the stimulus. It
is a very complex interaction between the nerves and senses of our bodies and
the higher functions of our brain, specifically the neocortex portion of the
cerebral hemisphere. Pain is nearly the exact same physiological response. The
difference between these emotions is in how our neocortex interpretes the
signals. We have it hardwired in our bodies to have those physiological
responses, and to distinguish between what the stimulus means (ever wonder why
people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do other animals,
particularly mammalian predators. The difference in that how we experience
those sensations depend on how our our neocortex interprets the stimulus. We
can make the distinctions between laughter, sadness, and pain because we have
the hardware (and to an extent, the software) to make the distinction. Fish
have no such hardware. They have no neocortex, and very little memory. Our
existence is dominated by our cerebral hemispheres. The life of a fish is
dominated by its brainstem, which exlusively processes and sends out autonomic,
or involuntary responses to stimulus.

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.

Ah, that is the real issue, isn't it? How it makes us feel. Am I Right?
Again, anthropomorphization. It makes us feel bad at least in part, because we
sympathize with it and think that we wouldn't want to "feel" like what we think
the fish is feeling. No offense, but how we feel about the issue has no bearing
on what a fish is or is not feeling.

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"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.


BV, please understand, you guys called me to task on the issue. I've provided
the information to back up what I've said. I can provide more, if you like.
You responded earlier to it, and I responded back with answers. I would have
thought that since you are raising fish, that you would be more interested in
learning how they are actually put together, and how the parts all work
together. It certainly makes for a more enlightened pet owner. Hence my
earlier frustration. Having said all of that, it's my turn to ask you to
provide the evidence for your belief that fish experience pain and suffering,
and exactly how they are able to do it. You expect me to see it your way, but I
require objective proof, the same kind of proof that you expected of me. It's
only fair.

george wrote:

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 there we get to the heart and soul of the problem. The truth need
not be cold or hard, nor facts brutal.

Ruth Kazez
kazez.com

george wrote:

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 there we get to the heart and soul of the problem. The truth need
not be cold or hard, nor facts brutal.

Ruth Kazez
kazez.com

"george" wrote in message
news:teQvd.656190$mD.522271@attbi_s02...
snip
On the other hand, I'm have nothing to lose by saying what I have no doubt
is
true.

Well then I guess we just need to agree to disagree.

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:teQvd.656190$mD.522271@attbi_s02...
snip
On the other hand, I'm have nothing to lose by saying what I have no doubt
is
true.

Well then I guess we just need to agree to disagree.

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:BZRvd.656324$mD.54017@attbi_s02...
snip
BV, please understand, you guys called me to task on the issue. I've
provided
the information to back up what I've said. I can provide more, if you
like.
You responded earlier to it, and I responded back with answers. I would
have
thought that since you are raising fish, that you would be more interested
in
learning how they are actually put together, and how the parts all work
together. It certainly makes for a more enlightened pet owner. Hence my
earlier frustration. Having said all of that, it's my turn to ask you to
provide the evidence for your belief that fish experience pain and
suffering,
and exactly how they are able to do it. You expect me to see it your way,
but I
require objective proof, the same kind of proof that you expected of me.
It's
only fair.

You have a valid point with one exception. I am not argueing that fish feel
pain, I am argueing that I do not know if they do or do not. So erroring on
the side of compassion, I feel it is safer to assume they feel pain, and as
such treat them with compassion. So you see I can't provide data to support
my claim, because my claim is I don't know.

As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am going to
run off now and start some new threads...

BV.

"george" wrote in message
news:BZRvd.656324$mD.54017@attbi_s02...
snip
BV, please understand, you guys called me to task on the issue. I've
provided
the information to back up what I've said. I can provide more, if you
like.
You responded earlier to it, and I responded back with answers. I would
have
thought that since you are raising fish, that you would be more interested
in
learning how they are actually put together, and how the parts all work
together. It certainly makes for a more enlightened pet owner. Hence my
earlier frustration. Having said all of that, it's my turn to ask you to
provide the evidence for your belief that fish experience pain and
suffering,
and exactly how they are able to do it. You expect me to see it your way,
but I
require objective proof, the same kind of proof that you expected of me.
It's
only fair.

You have a valid point with one exception. I am not argueing that fish feel
pain, I am argueing that I do not know if they do or do not. So erroring on
the side of compassion, I feel it is safer to assume they feel pain, and as
such treat them with compassion. So you see I can't provide data to support
my claim, because my claim is I don't know.

As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am going to
run off now and start some new threads...

BV.

"rtk" wrote in message ...


george wrote:

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 there we get to the heart and soul of the problem. The truth need not be
cold or hard, nor facts brutal.

Ruth Kazez
kazez.com


Well, if you want to get philosophical, I must tell you I believe that the world
we live in is a wonderous, beautiful place, full of mystery. Yet within that
awesome beauty is a cold, stark truth, and that is that the universe is ever
moving towards chaos and absolute zero. The laws of thermodynamics demand it.
We see this fact in the mountains that rise up, only to erode onto the plains,
and eventually back into the sea, in the sun which is ever burning towards
extinction, and in an ever expanding universe that will eventually reach
absolute zero temperature because of its sheer expansiveness and ultimate
dispersion of energy.

A recent memoir by my paleontology professor contains a passage that, in my
opinion sums up what I'm trying to say. His name is Dr. James E. Conkin,
Professor Emeritus in the Geology department (now folded into the Geography
Department) at the University of Louiville. In his memoir, "A Geologist's
Ramblings Through The Labyrinths of Time", He states the following:

"These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background
"noise" to which nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or
punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear", for were it not so, Nature
itself would be destroyed by these same laws which it had ordained "in the
beginning" (if there were one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if
time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be an ending to the
cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never
returning to cosmos." The one constant that can not be doubted is the
inevidability of change. So all in all, death is an inescapable part of our
world, our universe. It is part of the very fabric, part of the engine that
drives the universe. But never fear. I'm not completely without a positive
outlook, for I am often reminded of Omar Khayyam's wish (he was a Persian
mathematician, philosopher, and astronomer in 1048 C.E.), that "my tomb shall be
in a spot where the north wind may scatter roses over it". It's something to
think about when you're sitting out by the pond throwing food at the fish. :-))

George

"rtk" wrote in message ...


george wrote:

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 there we get to the heart and soul of the problem. The truth need not be
cold or hard, nor facts brutal.

Ruth Kazez
kazez.com


Well, if you want to get philosophical, I must tell you I believe that the world
we live in is a wonderous, beautiful place, full of mystery. Yet within that
awesome beauty is a cold, stark truth, and that is that the universe is ever
moving towards chaos and absolute zero. The laws of thermodynamics demand it.
We see this fact in the mountains that rise up, only to erode onto the plains,
and eventually back into the sea, in the sun which is ever burning towards
extinction, and in an ever expanding universe that will eventually reach
absolute zero temperature because of its sheer expansiveness and ultimate
dispersion of energy.

A recent memoir by my paleontology professor contains a passage that, in my
opinion sums up what I'm trying to say. His name is Dr. James E. Conkin,
Professor Emeritus in the Geology department (now folded into the Geography
Department) at the University of Louiville. In his memoir, "A Geologist's
Ramblings Through The Labyrinths of Time", He states the following:

"These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background
"noise" to which nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or
punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear", for were it not so, Nature
itself would be destroyed by these same laws which it had ordained "in the
beginning" (if there were one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if
time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be an ending to the
cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never
returning to cosmos." The one constant that can not be doubted is the
inevidability of change. So all in all, death is an inescapable part of our
world, our universe. It is part of the very fabric, part of the engine that
drives the universe. But never fear. I'm not completely without a positive
outlook, for I am often reminded of Omar Khayyam's wish (he was a Persian
mathematician, philosopher, and astronomer in 1048 C.E.), that "my tomb shall be
in a spot where the north wind may scatter roses over it". It's something to
think about when you're sitting out by the pond throwing food at the fish. :-))

George

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:BZRvd.656324$mD.54017@attbi_s02...
snip
BV, please understand, you guys called me to task on the issue. I've
provided
the information to back up what I've said. I can provide more, if you
like.
You responded earlier to it, and I responded back with answers. I would
have
thought that since you are raising fish, that you would be more interested
in
learning how they are actually put together, and how the parts all work
together. It certainly makes for a more enlightened pet owner. Hence my
earlier frustration. Having said all of that, it's my turn to ask you to
provide the evidence for your belief that fish experience pain and
suffering,
and exactly how they are able to do it. You expect me to see it your way,
but I
require objective proof, the same kind of proof that you expected of me.
It's
only fair.

You have a valid point with one exception. I am not argueing that fish feel
pain, I am argueing that I do not know if they do or do not. So erroring on
the side of compassion, I feel it is safer to assume they feel pain, and as
such treat them with compassion. So you see I can't provide data to support
my claim, because my claim is I don't know.

As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am going to
run off now and start some new threads...

BV.


Probably a good idea. I can be tiresome sometimes.