"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:qgKvd.235012$HA.29767@attbi_s01...
snip
This is not about whether one animal has more value than another, or
whether one
animal deserves more consideration than another. And frankly, I am quite
offended by your suggestion that I don't have consideration for other
animals.
I've been raising fish for 35 years of my life: you cannot have such a
hobby
for so long a time and not have emotional attachment to your animals. It
is
about whether fish experience the human emotion of pain and suffering,
which, if
certain people had paid attention in the science classes (or even taken
one)
that some criticise me for taking, you would have discovered that they
don't.

There you go again making this connection between humans and fish. Nobody is
making this claim but you.

No, actually you are. I just haven't convinced you that you are.

Do you realize it is you making the
anthropomorphications (sp?) here?

You guys say I'm insenstive to the "pain and suffering" of dying fish. I'm
saying believing that fish (not dogs) experience pain and suffering is attaching
human emotions to a non-human entity. That is an anthropomorphic attitude,
since it is abundantly clear from scientific research that they are
physiologically incapable of experiencing pain and suffering.

And my point is that we do know that they don't experience pain and
suffering.
I've already posted the complete text, but I will, for your benefit, post
a link
to an article, which talks in detail about whether fish can experience
pain and
suffering:

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm


We know? WE KNOW? This article ends with, "The facts about the neurological
processes that generate pain make it highly unlikely that fish experience
the emotional distress and suffering of pain."

WE KNOW?!?!?!?!?

BV.

Let me explain something about how scientists work. Science these days is
(unfortunately) as much about politics as it is science (even more so, some
would say). I am quite certain that he used the phrase "highly unlikely" simply
because PETA has been after him because they disagree with his work, and he
wants to keep them off his back. If you talk to him in private (and guarantee
that you are not from PETA) he would no tell you that he that research leaves no
doubt that fish do not experience pain and suffering. When the Roslin study was
published, they used it as ammunition to go after a whole lot of people,
including him. They even attacked people at sport fishing events. In recent
months, Dr. Rose has publically and in peer-reviewed work, refuted quite nicely
the Roslin study conclusions. I can provide more information if you care to
read it.

On the other hand, I'm have nothing to lose by saying what I have no doubt is
true.