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


"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:den319$r21$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "H Duffy" <Hester_Duffy_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3n3okkF19grdiU2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> That's right, Dave.
>> We're talking about fish, and about cvellular damage.
>> You're really having enormous problems understanding this conversation,
>> arne't you?
> No but I would have though venom, and acetic acid could cause
> cellular damage if enough of it were present.

Yes, that's right, it could. But it could probably not cause muscular
damage, unless it was very concentrated and in huge quantities; far bigger
than were used here.
So we're talking about _cellular_ damage, and not muscular damage. All
clear?

>> Who has said that cellular disruption is evidence of pain?
>> Come to that, what do you mean when you say "cellular disruption"? It
>> sounds
>> to me as though you've been watching too much Star Trek .
> It's not possible to watch to much star trek.

You haven't answered either of my two questions; who said that cellular
disruption is evidence of pain? And what do you mean by "cellular
disruption"?

>>(well, duh) and
>> have, once again, picked up a word which you think sounds clever but
>> which
>> you don't really understand.
> You may disrupt things without actually causing damage you do understand
> that.

I do, but "cellular disruption" doesn't actually mean much. In generally,
one disrupts a process rather than an object.

>> As for the second part of that, I have repeatedly said that fish probably
>> don't sense things the same way we do.
> Then perhaps they don;'t sense pain in the same way we do.

That's right, they don't; I've been saying that repeatedly too.
But that doesn't mean that they don't experience pain at all.

>> Why don't you just go and have a look at the evidence which I have
>> already
>> cited more than once, and tell me precisely what your objections are to
>> it,
>> and I'll explain why they're wrong. OK?
>
> I have done, regarding the quantities of venom assumptions that
> the actions are not just unconscious reactions to the stimili.

But you don't actually know what the quantities _were_, do you?
And actually, there is no assumption that the actions are not unconscious
reactions; in fact, the site I cited specifically says that it doesn't prove
conscious awareness of pain; that implies that the reactions may well be
unconscious.

No-one, Dave, no-one at all has, at any point, tried to suggest that fish
are conscious. No-one is trying to prove that they are conscious, or that
they have conscious awareness of anything.
Do you understand that?

H


.

Relevant Pages