Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
only things you own.
The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how a
living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
Kirsten
"george" wrote in message
news:LWEvd.569192$D%.88482@attbi_s51...

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

fish simply haven't got the biology for feeling the kind
of pain that we experience.

While that is certainly a possibility, it hasn't been conclusively
shown as yet. And even if the suffering a fish experiences if of a
different order, that hardly justifies extending that suffering any
longer than necessary.

Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors, and
do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to experience what we
would experience as pain. They exhibit fright/flight reactions, as most
all higher organisms do. If a fish is in such dire straights that it has
to be "taken down", the chances that it will "suffer" by removing it from
water and allowing it to die are highly unlikely. And again, your concept
of "suffering" is highly anthropomorhic.

perhaps the question to be asked here is why it was allowed
to get in the such bad shape in the first place.

This looks like a distraction tactic, as it isn't particularly
relevant. Fish get injured, diseased, or grow old, just like any animal.

Sure they do. If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish.
I've stated as much already. My point is that most fish diseases (other
than toxic shock or poisoning) do not result in a fish dying or being in
dire straights over night. There are symptoms. Swim bladder disease has
specific symptoms that are easily recognizable in the early stages, as is
the case for many fish diseases. The point here is that if a fish is not
behaving normally, then the time to act is when that behavior is first
noticed, not when it is too late to do anything about it. Then the
argument over how to put the fish down becomes moot.

I have another question for you. How do you think most pet shops deal with
dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable treatements? Ask
you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will be surprised at the
answer, if he/she will even give it to you.

most of it's systems have already shut down, and so it likely
will feel very little, if anything at all by allowing it to
suffocate.

Personally, I'm not willing to take such a cavalier position based on
your idea of what is 'likely'.

Again, that certainly is your choice. You do what you have to do.

I find it to be much preferable to smashing it or cutting
it's head off, as some have suggested.

Why? Are you squeamish?


Me? You've got to be kidding. I dissected an Orangutan in Primatology
class, and studied autopsy cases in Forensic Anthropology class in
college. And I've taken Human anatomy and comparative vertebrate anatomy.
I just don't like making unnecessary messes and then have to clean them
up. Call me lazy, if you like.

Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours?

This comparison is highly disingenuous given your repeated comments
about anthropomorphizing.


Not at all. It has to do with the concept of "suffering", and how one
defines it. I am under no illusion that a fish experiences pain at any
level comparible to what a dying person experiences, and so I have no
problem at all with ending the life of a near-death fish in the way I
described.