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:3jfltqFpsg6fU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dau1jq$q6v$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3jf73rFplkgbU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Please be specific rather than just giving vague descriptions.
>> You want me to narrow it down to one individual ?
>> would the Pope do.
>
> Does the Pope know anything about fish?
Would that matter, surely he could ask God, or maybe the 'church' could
ask.
> one individual is more specific than we need,
For me one persons views might not be enough to base a conclusion
or an opinion, I'd need a littel more than a POV.


>but for example, would you want evidence from a marine biologist?
I would accept evidence from anyone that understood the objective.

>Or from a comparative psychologist? Or a neurologist?
That'slike asking if a VET could do a human liver transplant isn't it.

> or a chap who works at an aquarium? Or an assistant at the local tropical
> fish shop?
I know a few of them and the one that's about 70 started fishing at
the age of around 10, kept fish for something like 40 years and has won
trophies
for fuishing and breeding a keeping fish, yes I might listen to his POV a
bit more
intently than a student that's just passed their degree in fish studies.

> Or a fisherman? What sort of person? Are you looking for scientific
> studies, or first-hand experience, or what?
I'm looking for evidence to prove it one way or another, I'm not
worried whether the person is male, female, black or white, the only thing
I'm intrested in is their evidence, not their sex life or the colour of
thier car,
and the more evidence preferably from more than ONE person the better
I will be 'equipped' I am to form a judgement on whether fish feel pain.
I doubt it'll change me when I do find out one way or another, it's not like
I go
around poking fish with sharp sticks.

>
>>> *sigh* I've given you a couple of examples of possible evidence; raised
>>> heart rate and pressing the injured area against something. You don't
>>> accept that those would show evidence of pain;
>> Raised heart rate is the fishes way of responding to hanges in
>> temperature.
>> So you rub your head against rocks when you have a head ache do you ?
>> When people break their fracture/legs the fist thing they do is press
>> them up against walls is that true.
>
> *sigh* OK, you've said you won't accept those two. Can you come up with
> any examples that you _would_ accept?

The same way you'd know that someone was in pain,
by looking at them of course.
Now how would you know someone was in pain if they could speak
or use any form of written or spoken conversation.
That would be the sort of evidence I could accept, but it would also
have to be proved that it was not discomfort.
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.



>> Increased heart rate is not a good method of detecting pain in fish.
>
> So what _would_ be a good way of detecting pain in fish?
By observing the way they react to certain physical and/or mental stimuli


>>> So, can you think of any forms of evidence which you would consider
>>> _valid_?
>>
>> A repeatable experiment that would eliminate other effects that mich look
>> like pain
>> such as discomfort, if a fish opens it's mouth regualry it's doesn't mean
>> it'sdying of thirst,
>> which might be the case for a human so don't assume the same acts mean
>> the same thing.
>
> I'm not asking you to describe reliability, Dave. i'm asking you to
> provide an actual example of something that _would_ constitute evidence
> that fish feel pain, in your view.
> Do you understand what I'm asking for here?

Theer's isn't any one thing you're asking the impossible,
it's liek askign how you'd prove humans feel pain,
how could you tell from tests that humans feel pain
a not just discomfort or sadness or any other emotion.



>>> Depends what sort of aliens.
>>> If we find fossilised bacteria in rocks from somewhere other than earth,
>> but you'd need to know every form of bacterai on earth and cross
>> reference
>> before you could claim it as alien. Or you'd have to find something
>> uniquie
>> that nothing else on earth is a match for.
>
> No you wouldn't; if the fossils came from somewhere other than earth, the
> bacteria much be non-terrestrial, even if it's the same sort that we have
> here.
And how would you know they were non-terrestrial, would they have
a made on mars logo, or an ET sticker. How would you be able to
tell a non-terrestrial animal from a terrestrial one, it's language !


>> Well it wouldn't but you might claim it does if the bacteria was to be
>> seen
>> 'rubbing' itself against a rock or something, because you see anything
>> that is
>> rubbing as being in pain.
>
> No Dave, I don't see all rubbing as pain. I used that as an example of a
> behaviour which often accompanies painful stimulus. Yoyu really have
> trouble separating specific examples and universal statements, don't you?
No, you just don't see the assumption errors you make.
You have claimed two things that you think proves fish feel pain
both are WRONG rapid breathing and rubbing against rocks
is not a sign of pain.


>> No you tell me the difference from being in pain to being in discomfort,
>> work out a way you'd tell the two apart and try it on a fish.
>
> Pain is more acute discomfort, basically. It's almost impossible to tell
> the two apart in humans (some people have a higher pain tolerance than
> others), so all we can go on in non-humans is behaviour.

And that's how I'd tell from behavour, and well done some humans
have a higher pain tolerence and I;'m guessing there's an even wider
tolerance maybe as wide as the number of species remmebr all
humans are pretty much the same 4 limbs two eyes.
Fish come in a much wider viarity, some lay eggs other give birth to
live young, they come in a vast range of colours and sizes
far more vared than humans. Some can live at depths that
humans can only just reach with the most advanced equipment
we can develop, they just live their without external artificial
life support. Humans pretty much breath the same air, whereas
most fish are either freshwater or marine. But as with humans
some are vegitarian but I doubt it;'s for the same reasons
of cruelty to other fish. But that could be true if you say
that if fish don't each each other it's because they believe in freedom,
how could I prove you wrong.




.

Relevant Pages
Loading