PDA

View Full Version : No more sleepless nights for fishermen


C'jais
02-10-2003, 04:48 PM
The fishies aint gonna feel a damn thing anyway. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725683181.html)

Surprising?

Reborn Outcast
02-10-2003, 05:19 PM
I've known this for quite a while. :) I don't know how, maybe a project was done a while back. But still... go and get some sleep little fishermen. :D

Breton
02-10-2003, 05:19 PM
Thought they knew that already.

BTW, what do you think about what the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said at the end? "We believe that fishing is barbaric. Of course animals can feel pain. They have sensitivity, if only to avoid predators.".
:rolleyes:

Eldritch
02-10-2003, 05:30 PM
They're the same people that'd have us all eating shrubs and lettuce. I don't know where they get the notion that it's any better - a plant is just as alive as any animal, and they have no problem eating the plants. They just want to be selective, I guess.

C'jais
02-10-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
BTW, what do you think about what the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said at the end?

"Nuh-Unh!! Fish have feelings!!!! It's not true!!!"

-But, seen in the light of this discovery, what's your take on it now?

"Nuh-Unhh!!!! FISH CAN FEEL PAIN!!!"

:rolleyes:

Immortalized by Kurt Cobain already: "It's ok to eat fish; cuz they don't have any feelings"

a plant is just as alive as any animal, and they have no problem eating the plants. They just want to be selective, I guess.

Which, coincidentally, is also the problem in a nutshell which anti-abortioners -"pro-lifers"- face. Oh, it's okay to kill innocent people in Iraq, because it's for the greater good. But to kill an innocent fetus? No way USA!!! Hypocrits.

Mandalorian54
02-10-2003, 06:04 PM
some fish don't even have a brain.

.:Silver:.
02-10-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Which, coincidentally, is also the problem in a nutshell which anti-abortioners -"pro-lifers"- face. Oh, it's okay to kill innocent people in Iraq, because it's for the greater good. But to kill an innocent fetus? No way USA!!! Hypocrits.

You know if you flip that argument it's just as valid.

Quote the bed wetting liberal "No war in Iraq, just as long as we get to keep killing fetuses."

Eldritch
02-10-2003, 08:00 PM
Ho-boy. Let's not make this an abortion or war thread. This is supposed to be about fish. :D

-s/<itzo-
02-10-2003, 08:46 PM
interesting...

C'jais
02-11-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by .:Silver:.
You know if you flip that argument it's just as valid.

Not really.

You cannot "kill" a fetus anymore than you can "kill" a virus or a plant.

Once you start seeing the world in shades of gray, you'll notice that killing things is not the absolute term you thought it was.

SmartDragon
02-11-2003, 01:43 PM
yay i can rest easy I have yet to psycologically scar a fish, well if they can't feel pain then that can't be a problem for them. Must apply for shellfish as well they have even smaller brains.

munik
02-11-2003, 02:14 PM
The study shows that fish brains aren't developed enough to sense pain and fear, not that they aren't large enough.

Humans are more similiar to fish then shellfish are to fish. Shellfish are in a totally different phyla, not at all similiar to fish. Fish are classified as Chordata, as well as humans, and shellfish are in the Crustaceamorpha or Mollusca phyla. Maybe some other classifications, but those two cover the most common. Then from there on down the differences start multiplying.

AutoCept
02-11-2003, 02:20 PM
Oddly enough fish are often called brain food........

.:Silver:.
02-12-2003, 07:12 PM
Lets say for the sake of argument that you are correct and a fetus is not considered "alive". Now at least 90% of the time, what will eventually happen to that fetus if no outside interference is made?

Pat yourself on the back if you guessed a new, functioning member of the human race.

So even if it ain't human yet, the very act of interupting the time it would take for that fetus to become human or "alive" can be interpreted as killing.

Yep folks, it's just that simple.

I suggest you lock this thread before this gets really ugly.

CagedCrado
02-12-2003, 10:07 PM
A fetus will eventually be a person, how would you like it if somebody would have killed you?

GonkH8er
02-13-2003, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by CagedCrado
A fetus will eventually be a person, how would you like it if somebody would have killed you?


You'd never have known.... you wouldnt have felt it, as you weren't technically alive.


Do you eat eggs? Eggs are foetuses..... as you said, if left alone, foetuses will probably turn into something alive.......


You get all whiney and protective about a woman wanting to abort a child she does not wish to have, yet you fry up a good old chicken foetus every morning. When you crack open an egg, it's clearly at a stage where it is NOT alive.... and has not deveoped any chickenlike features. Most abortions take place when the foetus is nothing more than a clump of cells, very much like the egg, not resembling its future form at all...


When abortions occur, foetuses are NOT alive.... it doesnt matter that they have the potential to be alive. It's as simple as that.


How did we go from fish to abortions by the way? :)

AutoCept
02-13-2003, 03:11 PM
Chickens are not people.

How did we go from fish to abortions by the way?
Good question, back on topic.
Although, talking about fisherman's sleepless nights is kind of boring.

GonkH8er
02-13-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by AutoCept
Chickens are not people.


Neither are human foetuses.

.:Silver:.
02-13-2003, 07:24 PM
That argument holds no water.

A. Chickens are not people.

B. Chicken fetuses will never develop into people. Human fetuses will.

My statement was idiot proof in my previous post, and now it's uber-idiot proof.

I'm not flaming anyone. I'm simply making it more difficult to disagree with me.:D

GonkH8er
02-14-2003, 09:40 AM
It's not killing. It's simply stopping a process that would in time result in a human being being born. You can't kill something that's not alive, and we established by scientific and moral means in the abortion thread that at the time of 98% of most abortions, the foetus is NOT alive....


It's quite easy to argue with someone who states that the abortion of a non-living foetus is killing :)

It's not killing. It's preventing. Preventing an unwanted child being brought into the world. That's all it is.

.:Silver:.
02-14-2003, 10:24 PM
The very act of preventing something that without interference would result in someones son, daughter, mother, father, brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle, grandfather, grandmother is wrong, no matter how you spin it.

Just like the theory: If there is no proof that God isn't real, then He must exist.

There is "currently" no proof that a fetus is not living, therefore, it must be alive.

A fetus has a heartbeat and brain activity. So if we are not sure it's not alive, why kill it?

GonkH8er
02-15-2003, 09:56 AM
That's like saying "There's no proof I'm not a god, so I am". It's quite rediculous. You can't possibly believe that just because something isn't proven to be correct, that the opposite must be true.

There's no proof god isn't real, so he must exist.

Couldn't then the opposite be said also?

There's no proof god IS real, so he must not exist

Then you get people going "There is proof he exists! Look at the magic of life around you! It's proof god exists!"

gimme a break....


We don't live in a binary world.


And there IS proof by scientific means that a foetus is not alive before early 3rd trimester, at which point abortions are illegal. brain activity does not commence until late in the pregnancy

ZBomber
02-15-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er
That's like saying "There's no proof I'm not a god, so I am". It's quite rediculous. You can't possibly believe that just because something isn't proven to be correct, that the opposite must be true.

There's no proof god isn't real, so he must exist.

Couldn't then the opposite be said also?

There's no proof god IS real, so he must not exist

Then you get people going "There is proof he exists! Look at the magic of life around you! It's proof god exists!"

gimme a break....


We don't live in a binary world.


And there IS proof by scientific means that a foetus is not alive before early 3rd trimester, at which point abortions are illegal. brain activity does not commence until late in the pregnancy

I thought we were talking about fish. :p

.:Silver:.
02-15-2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by GonkH8er
And there IS proof by scientific means that a foetus is not alive before early 3rd trimester, at which point abortions are illegal. brain activity does not commence until late in the pregnancy

Wrong.

There is recordable brain wave activity in the first trimester. Look it up.

Hey Z I'm with you. I've asked for this post to be locked.

There are some people you just can't convince. Even when you beat them senseless with the "mallet of truth".