PETA Attempts To Make Fish More Adorable
- Thread starter ryguyfi
- Start date
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,282
lmfao ry :-D :lol:
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,282
LMFAO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZJuuuSg3bE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARPbCUNQydM
^is my favorite one 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsAKONBbxVM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZJuuuSg3bE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARPbCUNQydM
^is my favorite one 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsAKONBbxVM&feature=related
wetnet
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,412
You're running for Congress next term aren't you? Geez Louise!
It's hard for some people to distinguish what's in the tank behind them and what is natures way of providing food. If you want to show her a picture show her one of an obese Eagle! Tell them we are doing the American Bald Eagle a Favor. If the PETA people do their job there should be so many trout, salmon and steelhead our poor fat eagles won't be able to fly and mate. Which they do ..do.. in the air.
Thanks it reminded me I need to feed the fish! Oscar is about 6 inches long. Won't be long now!!!
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,257
Huh?
Animal rights?
I hope you don't mean exactly what you said. If so, you need to be deprogrammed.
Humans have rights. Animals don't.
Humans don't hae the right to abuse animals 9at least in this country), but the only right animals have is right next to their left.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,282
Daves got a point there.
Dave has no point, he is just plain wrong. I have veal calfed as a kid and volunteered in an SPCA as an adult, so I have been on both ends of this discussion. My family raised beef and veal, as well as, pigs when I was growing up, I even asked for and recieved a veal calf for my eighth birthday. I have seen what morons in our society do to animals through both neglect and for their own amusement (see Michael Vick). Animals do have the right to not be abused or neglected and that goes for farm animals as well. I was raised in a family where the livestock was fed and watered before we ate as kids, that was the responsibility that came with owning animals. That being said I in no way support PETA's opinion on this or most other topics. There have been several studies done showing that fish lack the equipment to feel pain. But, to say animals have no rights is as backwards and uneducated as saying that fishing is torture.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,395
Animals that are not human have only the "rights" that humans accord them. At least in the USA, they cannot be citizens, cannot sue in court, cannot own property, enter into binding contracts, marry, or divorce, among other things. They can however, be bought and sold, be euthanized legally, murdered for sport or consumption, and conscripted into involuntary servitude. So, before declaring that Dave "is just plain wrong," you might let us know what rights non-human animals have.
Don't get me wrong, I love for anyone to declare Farmer Dave to be "just plain wrong," but would like it to be an accurate statement, rather than one that is nearly absurd.
Don't get me wrong, I love for anyone to declare Farmer Dave to be "just plain wrong," but would like it to be an accurate statement, rather than one that is nearly absurd.
pcray1231
Well-known member
reds,
I'm pretty confident that fish can feel pain. They certainly react similarly to other animals when they encounter stimuli that would cause pain in other animals. And medically, fish have a very advanced nervous system and they have nerves similar to ours. Now, where they feel pain is questionable and probably varies by species. On some fish the lip is kind of like extended fingernails on people, no nerves or blood, etc. On others, there are nerves and blood in the lips.
I'm also pretty sure fish, as well as other animals, are smarter than we give them credit for, at least in some things. Animals are only intelligent in ways that help them survive or breed. Fish have pretty good memories, they'll recognize a green drake weeks after they've seen the last one, and a fish will move into "its" individual feeding lie in anticipation BEFORE a hatch begins. And we all know in places with high fishing pressure, the fish are more difficult to catch because they inspect their prey a little better. Call it fear, skittishness, or whatever, it does absolutely indicate some sort of memory of a bad experience.
So memory and responding to stimuli, yes. Learning, yes, but its probably just experience based. Actual reasoning is doubtful, but I wouldn't absolutely say its impossible on a limited scale.
I believe all of this to be true. However, I also agree mostly with FarmerDave regarding animal rights. Animals don't have rights, but humans have societal responsibilities. If you choose to own a dog, you do so for your or your family's enjoyment, and it is your responsibility to keep the dog happy enough so that it isn't a danger to other people, not abandon it as to create a feral animal, and not put the burden of it onto others (like taking it to a shelter when you no longer want it). Anything beyond that is not a responsibility but can be worthwhile, a healthy and friendly animal is more enjoyable, and we take them to vets and such for that reason. For livestock, an animal is an investment, and taking care of the animal helps you get the maximum out of your investment, its part of making a living.
IMO, there was nothing morally wrong with Mike Vick fighting dogs. He was, however, rearing and keeping animals that were dangerous to other PEOPLE, and creating offspring which were bred to be mean, some of which will enter the pet trade, which makes more dogs dangerous to other people. Thats why the laws against dogfighting exist.
Humans are animals, and the ONLY reason even we have rights, is that our society has correctly decided that more of us will live happy lives if we all abide by these rules. Wildlife management, like the fisheries people PETA is lobbying with this campaign, are not governed by what's best for the animals, they're governed by whats best for people in the long run. It's nature, and we're ensuring our survival, the same as the bear eating the salmon. Fishing, hunting, etc. are necessary for our survival, or at the very least not harmful. Overfishing and overhunting, however, endanger our long term survival.
I'm pretty confident that fish can feel pain. They certainly react similarly to other animals when they encounter stimuli that would cause pain in other animals. And medically, fish have a very advanced nervous system and they have nerves similar to ours. Now, where they feel pain is questionable and probably varies by species. On some fish the lip is kind of like extended fingernails on people, no nerves or blood, etc. On others, there are nerves and blood in the lips.
I'm also pretty sure fish, as well as other animals, are smarter than we give them credit for, at least in some things. Animals are only intelligent in ways that help them survive or breed. Fish have pretty good memories, they'll recognize a green drake weeks after they've seen the last one, and a fish will move into "its" individual feeding lie in anticipation BEFORE a hatch begins. And we all know in places with high fishing pressure, the fish are more difficult to catch because they inspect their prey a little better. Call it fear, skittishness, or whatever, it does absolutely indicate some sort of memory of a bad experience.
So memory and responding to stimuli, yes. Learning, yes, but its probably just experience based. Actual reasoning is doubtful, but I wouldn't absolutely say its impossible on a limited scale.
I believe all of this to be true. However, I also agree mostly with FarmerDave regarding animal rights. Animals don't have rights, but humans have societal responsibilities. If you choose to own a dog, you do so for your or your family's enjoyment, and it is your responsibility to keep the dog happy enough so that it isn't a danger to other people, not abandon it as to create a feral animal, and not put the burden of it onto others (like taking it to a shelter when you no longer want it). Anything beyond that is not a responsibility but can be worthwhile, a healthy and friendly animal is more enjoyable, and we take them to vets and such for that reason. For livestock, an animal is an investment, and taking care of the animal helps you get the maximum out of your investment, its part of making a living.
IMO, there was nothing morally wrong with Mike Vick fighting dogs. He was, however, rearing and keeping animals that were dangerous to other PEOPLE, and creating offspring which were bred to be mean, some of which will enter the pet trade, which makes more dogs dangerous to other people. Thats why the laws against dogfighting exist.
Humans are animals, and the ONLY reason even we have rights, is that our society has correctly decided that more of us will live happy lives if we all abide by these rules. Wildlife management, like the fisheries people PETA is lobbying with this campaign, are not governed by what's best for the animals, they're governed by whats best for people in the long run. It's nature, and we're ensuring our survival, the same as the bear eating the salmon. Fishing, hunting, etc. are necessary for our survival, or at the very least not harmful. Overfishing and overhunting, however, endanger our long term survival.
The question of whether animals have "rights" is dependent, I guess upon whether rights are inherent or granted and whether the existence of a right requires the cognizance of the grantee. People are all over the map on these questions. Which is one of the reasons we have outfits like PETA.
I prefer to think of it not so much as a matter of animals having rights as humans having responsibilities.
I prefer to think of it not so much as a matter of animals having rights as humans having responsibilities.
jayL
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 9,947
I've heard a good bit of evidence that fish don't feel pain, primarily due to an underdeveloped nervous system.
Also, while it may not be valid due to their lack of reasoning ability, I am unconvinced that they feel pain because they freaking pull hard when you hook them. If you hook me in the cheek, I'd follow you through hell.
Keep in mind, of course, that I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Also, while it may not be valid due to their lack of reasoning ability, I am unconvinced that they feel pain because they freaking pull hard when you hook them. If you hook me in the cheek, I'd follow you through hell.
Keep in mind, of course, that I have no idea what I'm talking about.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,257
Reds, it’s OK if you address me directly. Afterall, I can read your remarks. You are just plain wrong, and I take exception to your last sentence. Uneducated? Yea, right. IMO, your last sentence is backwards and demonstrates ignorance on the subject. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you just misunderstood what I meant.
What I said was animals have no rights. I also said humans have no right to abuse animals. Did you stop reading after the first part? It is the way it works. This country was founded on the concept of equal rights for all humans, not equal rights for all creatures.
The E in PETA is supposed to stand for Ethical, but somewhere along the line the organization was hijacked by a bunch of Hollywood left-wing nuts who think the E is for Equal. Animals are not our equals. Anyone who says that animals have rights has simply drank the PETA punch.
Allow me to explain. “Animal rights” is a misuse of terms, at least in this country (IMHO). You might think it is semantics, but it isn’t to me. Animals can be owned, therefore they have no rights. They have some protection under the law but to say that is the right of the animal is a big stretch (IMO). Maybe they have rights in India where cattle are placed above a large percentage of the population. Afterall, India is where cattle are better protected than their women, and where women wipe cattle urine on their face as a blessing. I don’t know. I haven’t read their constitution, but I believe they treat animals as theirequals. But this is not India.
I figured I have someone jump on that and assume I am some kind of maniac that tortures animals. Quite the contrary. That is what I get for keeping my answer short. I believe in treating animals with respect. You mentioned veal. I don’t even eat veal because of the way it is raised. It is true that I haven’t been on both sides on this. I’m just not on the side that you thought I was on. Let me ask you something. Do you eat those cheap store-bought white eggs? Do you have any idea how they are raised? But this next question is way more important. Do you eat farm raised shrimp from Thailand? Do you have any idea how those processing factories are run. They resemble prison camps complete with armed guards. My chickens are treated better than the workers in those factories.
I raise my own chickens for the eggs and the meat. Cage free of course. I only buy all natural feed with no animal proteins and supplement from the garden. I know what they have been eating, and how they have been treated. I certainly don’t raise them to save money. And my dogs are treated better than a lot of people’s children. But none of them have “rights.” My wife and I have ALL the rights on this farm. On the other hand, I have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat the animals well. I do not have the right to abuse them. To say that is the “right” of the animal is a misuse of terms at best (IMO). I own the animals: therefore, they have no rights. If I decide to kill them all (in a humane manner of course) and dispose of them as I see fit, I have that right. ASPCA would have absolutely no problem with me or my farm. The game commission might, but not ASPCA.;-)
Fishing is a privilege, not a right.
PETA wants animals to have equal rights with humans. If they had their way, we would all be vegans. I have a few beehives on the farm. PETA thinks I am exploiting the bees. Shame on me. :roll: What do you think?
I don’t think I can make that any clearer. I think it is safe to say that you were attacking an ally, and doing it third party for some strange reason.:-D
If you still disagree with me, we will have to just agree to disagree and realize we are on the same side.
What I said was animals have no rights. I also said humans have no right to abuse animals. Did you stop reading after the first part? It is the way it works. This country was founded on the concept of equal rights for all humans, not equal rights for all creatures.
The E in PETA is supposed to stand for Ethical, but somewhere along the line the organization was hijacked by a bunch of Hollywood left-wing nuts who think the E is for Equal. Animals are not our equals. Anyone who says that animals have rights has simply drank the PETA punch.
Allow me to explain. “Animal rights” is a misuse of terms, at least in this country (IMHO). You might think it is semantics, but it isn’t to me. Animals can be owned, therefore they have no rights. They have some protection under the law but to say that is the right of the animal is a big stretch (IMO). Maybe they have rights in India where cattle are placed above a large percentage of the population. Afterall, India is where cattle are better protected than their women, and where women wipe cattle urine on their face as a blessing. I don’t know. I haven’t read their constitution, but I believe they treat animals as theirequals. But this is not India.
I figured I have someone jump on that and assume I am some kind of maniac that tortures animals. Quite the contrary. That is what I get for keeping my answer short. I believe in treating animals with respect. You mentioned veal. I don’t even eat veal because of the way it is raised. It is true that I haven’t been on both sides on this. I’m just not on the side that you thought I was on. Let me ask you something. Do you eat those cheap store-bought white eggs? Do you have any idea how they are raised? But this next question is way more important. Do you eat farm raised shrimp from Thailand? Do you have any idea how those processing factories are run. They resemble prison camps complete with armed guards. My chickens are treated better than the workers in those factories.
I raise my own chickens for the eggs and the meat. Cage free of course. I only buy all natural feed with no animal proteins and supplement from the garden. I know what they have been eating, and how they have been treated. I certainly don’t raise them to save money. And my dogs are treated better than a lot of people’s children. But none of them have “rights.” My wife and I have ALL the rights on this farm. On the other hand, I have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat the animals well. I do not have the right to abuse them. To say that is the “right” of the animal is a misuse of terms at best (IMO). I own the animals: therefore, they have no rights. If I decide to kill them all (in a humane manner of course) and dispose of them as I see fit, I have that right. ASPCA would have absolutely no problem with me or my farm. The game commission might, but not ASPCA.;-)
Fishing is a privilege, not a right.
PETA wants animals to have equal rights with humans. If they had their way, we would all be vegans. I have a few beehives on the farm. PETA thinks I am exploiting the bees. Shame on me. :roll: What do you think?
I don’t think I can make that any clearer. I think it is safe to say that you were attacking an ally, and doing it third party for some strange reason.:-D
If you still disagree with me, we will have to just agree to disagree and realize we are on the same side.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,257
Jack, I should have read your response first. You explained it so well.
Thanks.
Thanks.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,257
I'm having bamby stew for lunch, but since I harvested it myself, this is only a privelege, not a right. :-D
