Re: Fish don't have ethical feet it doesn't mean they can't move- was Re: Ethical feet


"H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3jie18Fq7ttkU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:db0q0c$m5u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3jhogpFpeqltU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> And how would you determine whether they understood the objective?
>>
>> Ask then, or see if theirn test could prove what they say it did.
>
> OK, so you're not going to be content with evidence which has already been
> written; the only way you can be convinced is by actually having a
> conversation with someone who has proved this?
No just show me the evidence.

Saying that fish breathing rapidly is a sign of pain is not evidence,
saying fish eithe rub themselves up against or leabn against glass
or anything else is not evidence, saying fish open their mouths
because they're screaming in pain is not evidence.

If you have any evidence REAL evidence not just cluessless
thoughts then show it. As I said I don't actually know whether they feel
pain as pain can be said to be psychological because it doesn't actually
exists at the point of damage. It's like looking at a house with lights on
you may well assume someone's home but that is not evidence that someone is
home.
There's a difference do you understand that.


>> Liek I said hammering a NiN into a hoof is not proof that
>> horses hooves feel pain.
>
> But talking to someone is?
No where did you get that idea from ?

>>> OK, so academic study isn't important, from your point of view?
>> I never said that, but an academic wopuld have to prove that they
>> understood
>> what pain is and where it is located in the brain and what exactly causes
>> this 'pain' and then show me that the same things exist in fish and that
>> the
>> messages are send/recived in the same way and produce the same effects.
>
> But someone who worked in a fish shop wouldn't have to prove that they
> knew those things?

They can believe what they like just like you, but if they want to prove it
to me
they'll need evidence. You've said that fish breathing rapidily is a sign of
pain
now if you go to any reasonable site about fish and how they live you'll see
that this is how they regulate their body temperatures so you're evidence
that it is because of pain is false or in error.Same as if you'd said they
are
shouting out in pain look at their mouths move. But those thast know more
about fish than yopu could prove it's not pain and that they aren't telling
jokes either
or exchanging fashion advice but you believe what you want or what the
evidence you
see proves what you say it does, it doesn't prove it to me though.


> Also, you said before that you would accept behavioural evidence of pain;
> you're now suggesting that you would _only_ accept nuerological evidence;
> is that correct?
No because both should be connected, it's a two way message thing.
If a fishes body is damaged the fish will be differnt to that of another
which isn't damaged, so it may perform differently to a fish without damage,
as a human with one leg missing would walk differently from one with two
legs,
it does not mean his missing leg is in pain if he's hopping or using a
walking stick does it.

>>> Do you think a fish shop assistant would have checked and rechecked
>>> their evidence in the way you require?
>> Someone that has been in the business 50 years might have more experiece
>> than someone that had just passed their exams.
>
> They'd have a lot of experience of selling fish; do you think they'd know
> a lot about fish brains, necessarily?
No not necessarilty but they may know more about the behavoiur of real fish
rather
than farmed or kept fish wish maywell behave differently in captivity.

>See, someone who's just studied marine biology may well have dissected fish
>and examined their brains very closely; they may well have looked at their
>behaviour in a number of different conditions, and watched it closely over
>periods of hours.
Wow hours rather than years.

> Someone who sells fish may never have done any of these things, and may
> well feel that an injured fish is of no use, and should be flushed or
> bashed on a brick; there's no point feeding something you can't sell, and
> you can't sell injured fish.
You can't sell a dissected dead fish either and dissected dead fish
aren't normally an ideal way to demonstrate the existance of pain.
What you need to do is show how a fish behaves to a stimili then show
how that may be transmited in the fish both how and maybe even why.
See pain isn't real a lot of use unless you can do something about it.

> So is a fish-shop owner _really_ the best person to ask about this?
I'd prefer to 'ask' more than one person but I think all my local
fish 'dealer's know more than you do, or more than you've shown you
do at least.


>> No idea, is it like asking what evidence you look for to prove rape,
>> and you say well sex has taken place so it must be rape.
>
> No, it isn't at all like that. It's not at all hard to imagine some
> evidence which would conclusively prove a particular theory; that's how an
> awful lot of academic research works. You figure out what would prove your
> theory,a nd then you look for that evidence.

You've done that, you said they feel pain because of thier rapid breathing.
You are wrong, so try something else to prove it.


>>> Except that actually, you can't tell, by looking at someone, whether
>>> they're in pain; you have to ask them.
>> You can tell without asking.
>
> Ok, good. How? Say someone's writhing around on the floor; are they in
> pain? Or discomfort? Or just laughing really hard? Or pretending to be in
> pain? How do you tell?

Observing expressions, why do you think asking someone would get you
the truth, you can't ask a fish so you really shouldn't use that as your
means
for detecting pain, NO fish has ever told me they are in pain,
but I'm not stupid enough be believe that doesn't mean they are in pain or
just feel discomfort. I don't ask my fish if they are hungrey either,
because
they have never told me they were, but they always tend to eat when given
food.
I don't know whether their stomachs roll or they have dreams of
differnign flakes served with a side salad either, I just assume they eat
because
evolution has told them that if there's food about then eat.
I don't think they have toilet control either, I think they piss and ***
when they need
to theyv don't have an idea of saving it up until it's convenient to drop
waste.


>>> With difficulty. You'd look at their heart-rate and breathing, you'd
>>> look at whether they were pressing their hands over a wound, and you'd
>>> look at the physical damage, but you'vce rejected all of those as signs
>>> of pain already, so they're no help, are they?
>>
>> No they aren't peole cover tjhioer wounds to protect them not because
>> they are painful.
>
> That's not true, actually; there's an instinctive reaction, to press or
> rub an mild injury, because it makes it feel better. Kids "rub it better"
> all the time, and actually adults do the same.
It doesn't solve the problem though does it, it's a false remedy,
all it dies is divert attention of the brain. Rubbing a cut does heal it.

> Have you never had a stitch in your side from running, and pressed your
> hand against it until it went away?
Not bloody likely !
Anyway peole but thier hands all over their bodies and other peoples
it need not be a sign of pain.
Saying that if you touch any area of the body is a sign or pain in falty
evidence.
try again.


> or banged your head on something and immediately put your hand up to press
> against the bit you hurt?
Tell someone a bad joke and they may well do the same, they may even knock
their head against a wall while talking to you now that may well be evidence
of pain.

Footballers put their heads in their hands when they miss a shot,
some do the same when thinking is that a sign of pain too.
I suppose you'll tell me that if a stone moves in anyway then that is
a sign it feels pain, well it could be gravity that moves it or a strong
wind,
jsut because you don't understand the mechanism don't assume it's pain
related.


>>>> Yu see if you see someone remove chewing gum from the heel of their
>>>> pointy boot it's not because they feel pain, peole don't feel pain
>>>> in their shoes but for you I guess that would be evidence enough
>>>> to prove that boots hurt.
>>>
>>> No Dave, of course it wouldn't. Why do you keep doing that?
>> Because you do.
>
> I do what?
Saying things that are known to be false evidence as if another would be
stupid enough to believe it.


>>> No, I'm not. i'm asking for hypothetical examples of a way in which a
>>> fish could demonstrate, to your satisfaction, that it was feeling pain.
>>> If there are no ways in which it could do that, then just say so.
>>
>> They don't have to demonstrate it to me, any more than a beagle
>> has to demomstarte that smoking is a health hazard.
>
> I didn't say they would demonstrate it to you; I'm asking what behaviours
> they could show which would convince you that they feel pain. Are there
> any?
Yes as I said a test and a retest wityh the ability to prove no other
mechenisum
is likely to cause the effect witnessed.
i.e rapid breathing is NOT a sign of pain in fish.

>>> Yes, it is a bit like that. Now, I feel satisfied that other humans do
>>> feel pain, based on the sort of evidence to which we have access. Do you
>>> think other humans feel pain, or do you think it's impossible to tell if
>>> _any_ animal is in pain?
>>
>> You can run certain tests.
>
> What tests?
See the one about cutting students legs.


>>> They _could_ be a sign of pain. By the way, i didn't say "rubbing
>>> against rocks"; Jenny pointed out that, just as humans will press their
>>> hands over an injury site when in pain, fish will press an injury site
>>> up against something such as the side of their tank. That's not quite
>>> the same thing.
>>
>> Well not having observed this I wouldn't comment.
>
> *heh* You have been doing so...
Nom I have not, I've given you the reason for this same as you'd
rub a pointy boot up agianst the curb if you had dog *** on the soul.
I doubt you'd rub you're hands on it to remove the dog ***.

>>> OK, excellent. What sort of behaviour would fish exhibit when in pain,
>>> if they could feel pain?
>>
>> Erratic behavour which can not be put down to anything else.
>
> How would you know it couldn't be put down to anything else?
Think about what else it could prove.
As I said putting a nail in a hoof may not prove a horse fills pain
and visa versa.


> For example, if a fish was injured, how could you know their erratic
> behaviour was due to pain rather than to distress, or to damage?
I've had fish that have lost fins due to damage, you are even advised
to cut off certain growths from fins. If a fish looses part of it's tail
I've never
seen them swim erratically, they tend to swim differently in the same way
a man with one leg walks differently from a man with two legs,
walking differently is not a sign of pain.




.

Loading