That cat didn't get the worst of it...

[Snooze]

Anyway i hope this has run its course and dose not stand as a platform for the more argumentative just to make some obscure points.

 

I've really enjoyed this thread - there's been some well thought-out posts on all sides with very limited resort to base arguing (which is rare on the internet these days) - and certainly provided some food for thought for me.

 

Sometimes I worry about the forum, but threads like this re-assure me that there are plenty of intelligent, communicative people here who are (sometimes ) able to discuss some controversial topics and still share a common love for Supras and the community.

 

:grouphug:

[Septic]

Big hug to you too pikachu!

 

(Edit) Your avatar isn't a pokemon. My bad

[Thorin]

Fairly clear here. I think most of my clothing is ethically produced. However, things like my laptop or mobile may have been made by workers who worked long hours for little pay. Again though, nothing to do with veg*nism or AR. You have a thing for Straw Men.

 

But I didn't mention anything about humans being exploited for little pay. What were you saying about straw men?

[Mike]

Murders! You're all murders I tell you!!

 

Nice thread... there might be some life left in the forum after all

[Matt H]

I've really enjoyed this thread - there's been some well thought-out posts on all sides with very limited resort to base arguing (which is rare on the internet these days) - and certainly provided some food for thought for me.

 

Sometimes I worry about the forum, but threads like this re-assure me that there are plenty of intelligent, communicative people here who are (sometimes ) able to discuss some controversial topics and still share a common love for Supras and the community.

 

:grouphug:

 

Personally, Snooze, I can't believe how this thread has developed. It's a video of extreme animal cruelty and would have found it hard (before the thread go going) to imagine how anyone could find a way of 'discussing it'.

[Snooze]

Personally, Snooze, I can't believe how this thread has developed. It's a video of extreme animal cruelty and would have found it hard (before the thread go going) to imagine how anyone could find a way of 'discussing it'.

 

Likewise. I have to admit to (perverse?) enjoyment of instigating discussion on controversial subjects - I hope I don't rile anyone too much - my intent is to get everyone (especially me!) thinking and chatting, not to just troll for arguments.

 

I think the animal cruelty portrayed in the clip was a bit of a red herring for the discussion. I don't think there was anyone claiming it wasn't horrible or painful to watch. I think it was more a discussion around what other forms of animal treatment should be classed as "cruel", and how responsible we are for them. I'd like to think we could have the same discussion at a meet, sharing a drink and a vegi/halal/beef burger!

[RedM]

(I won't include fish -that's another story)

 

Do tell us more, you big tease.

[Tannhauser]

Likewise. I have to admit to (perverse?) enjoyment of instigating discussion on controversial subjects - I hope I don't rile anyone too much - my intent is to get everyone (especially me!) thinking and chatting, not to just troll for arguments.

 

Absolutely. Discussion and debate -'tis what we have brains for.

 

Do tell us more, you big tease.

 

Well, I think we all have a personal 'species threshold' regarding harm to other creatures. Very few people won't harm anything at all for their own convenience. For example, most people kill bacteria rather than have their breath smell . Most people will kill flies.

 

I think there's a kind of mental hierachy we use when it comes to harming animals, based on all sorts of factors: rational self-interest (flies spread more disease than spiders), cultural background or aesthetics (butterflies are pretty, spiders are ugly), level of perceived intelligence (horses are relatively brainy, chickens are thick), similarity (e.g. rabbits are warm-blooded furry mammals, lizards are cold and scaly).

 

For me personally, brain power factors into the hierachy a lot. I think fish are pretty stupid things: their learning is at a very simple level, they don't have the capacity for worry or dread, they only interact with the world at a very simple level. They are the zombies of the vertebrate world, driven by much more primitive, basic drives than - say - cows.

 

I suppose I believe that capacity for suffering - as opposed to pain - is linked to intelligence. I don't think an ant can suffer as we understand it. It can only show avoidance responses to things it is programmed to get away from. A dog, by contrast, has behaviour which looks very similar to complex human emotions -like grieving, for example. For me, fish aren't sufficiently compos mentis for me to worry about them.

 

I think there is probably some dodgy logic in my argument, but that's my best shot.

[tbourner]

I think that's probably the basis most people use. But you always get some of those 'very few' you mention who complain to fishermen for hurting the poor fish with their hooks (and they reply that fish don't have pain receptors ).

 

But all animals are more stupider than us (well, some of us), so that means we can kill and eat them. Cliff agrees so it must be true.

[Tannhauser]

But all animals are more stupider than us

 

More stupid than us.

 

As for the rest, I can actually see a resonable argument on moral grounds for not eating fish. I'm by no means convinced that my argument is sound. If intelligence is the only criterion for whether its moral to eat something, it would imply that eating the newborn is OK.

[tbourner]

More stupid than us.

I'm offended that you would think that was anything other than a joke!

 

As for the rest, I can actually see a resonable argument on moral grounds for not eating fish. I'm by no means convinced that my argument is sound. If intelligence is the only criterion for whether its moral to eat something, it would imply that eating the newborn is OK.

Maybe it's potential intelligence? A chicken will never grow up to be clevererer than a person (even a stupid person) so we can eat them.

Maybe stupid people shouldn't be allowed to eat some meat then.

[AndrewOW]

Maybe some 'stupid' people could be culled and chopped up for food for the less 'stupid'. That could solve the population explosion.

[nevins]

Maybe some 'stupid' people could be culled and chopped up for food for the less 'stupid'. That could solve the population explosion.

 

I seem to remember a film called Soilent Green lol

[AndrewOW]

I seem to remember a film called Soilent Green lol

 

Yes, indeed. Soylent Green. Supposedly being remade for 2012. I might have to watch that again.

 

Forget 'normal' meats, long pig is the order of the day.

[RedM]

I think fish are pretty stupid things: their learning is at a very simple level, they don't have the capacity for worry or dread, they only interact with the world at a very simple level. They are the zombies of the vertebrate world, driven by much more primitive, basic drives than - say - cows.

 

Of course, you are aware that you'll never know that for sure. They could be hugely intelligent and capable of incredible acts of memory or logic or whatever but until we can speak 'fish' we'll only be able to judge them on how we perceive them.

 

FWIW sharks can be taught things and have shown a capacity for long-term memory. Which is a bit scary should one piss one off ever.

 

I suppose I believe that capacity for suffering - as opposed to pain - is linked to intelligence. I don't think an ant can suffer as we understand it. It can only show avoidance responses to things it is programmed to get away from. A dog, by contrast, has behaviour which looks very similar to complex human emotions -like grieving, for example. For me, fish aren't sufficiently compos mentis for me to worry about them.

 

Unfortunately that kind of reasoning added to them being out of sight to a greater extent than pretty much any other creature that is used for food means that we turn a blind(er) eye to the methods used in catching them and the HUUUGE numbers they are caught in.

 

Over-fishing is a very real problem. In some areas fisherman can no longer catch the fish that were their livelihood and now have to travel much further afield. Some species of fish (and shark) are now at about 90% down on what they were twenty years ago. That's frightening because, while most people assume that they are so numerous 'down there' that their populations will just bounce back, the likelihood is that fishing won't stop in time for that to be possible.

 

Extinction is forever.

[Attero]

I hate to tell you all but... I revived the intelligence in you all and upped the mkiv reputation!

 

Win win win!

 

Now for a nice big lamb saag.

[Tannhauser]

I'm offended that you would think that was anything other than a joke!

 

 

Sorry- irony-detector was undergoing maintenance.

[Tannhauser]

Of course, you are aware that you'll never know that for sure. They could be hugely intelligent and capable of incredible acts of memory or logic or whatever but until we can speak 'fish' we'll only be able to judge them on how we perceive them.

 

That's possible, and there are plenty of examples of various animals having greater capabilities than were once thought. However, it's not like we've got nothing to go on. There's a reasonable correlation between relative brain size, or maybe brain surface area, and what we think of as intelligence.

 

Animals like elephants, chimps, humans, dolphins etc all show complex communication, social organisation, social learning and so on and have big brains. Spiders, wasps etc don't have those abilities and have small brains. There is 100 years of science behind matching areas of the brain and various intellectual abilities (and there is still a lot to be learned, of course).

 

I think its a reasonable inference that with very small brains, relative to body mass and lacking any equivalents to big frontal lobe (I'm floundering here, ha ha, because my brain science is a bit rusty), fish are likely to be thick.

 

 

FWIW sharks can be taught things and have shown a capacity for long-term memory. Which is a bit scary should one piss one off ever.

 

I'm sure they can, but long term memory is only a way of saying that an animal has learned something over a period of time. It's the type of learning that's crucial. For example, flatworms can learn by classical conditoning, and they don't really have brains at all. so learning and LTM by themselves are no guarantor of brain power.

 

 

 

Unfortunately that kind of reasoning added to them being out of sight to a greater extent than pretty much any other creature that is used for food means that we turn a blind(er) eye to the methods used in catching them and the HUUUGE numbers they are caught in.

 

Over-fishing is a very real problem. In some areas fisherman can no longer catch the fish that were their livelihood and now have to travel much further afield. Some species of fish (and shark) are now at about 90% down on what they were twenty years ago. That's frightening because, while most people assume that they are so numerous 'down there' that their populations will just bounce back, the likelihood is that fishing won't stop in time for that to be possible.

 

Extinction is forever.

 

In principle,there shouldn't be any link between:

 

A Thinking it's morally OK to eat fish and

B It's OK not to give a flying f*** (fish?) how they are caught, or in what numbers.

 

However, I'm sure that in practice - as you say - my sort of reasoning does lead to overfishing.

 

For the record, I think the decline in fish numbers is absolutely alarming, and that it's an issue to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

[RedM]

For the record, I think the decline in fish numbers is absolutely alarming, and that it's an issue to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

 

In a scary kind of full circle moment I read recently that approx. 40% of fish caught is fed to livestock that go on to become our food.