Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:54:33 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:


I'm absolutely not looking for people who are aligned with my point of
view. At this point, I'm looking for civilized experts, by any sane
standard (no name calling, no unreasoned insults, etc.)

You're new to ROFF and Usenet, aren't you?
Chuck Vance


This is one of the most restrained and civilized threads / responses
I've ever seen on the 'Net to a blatant troll. I suspect we've only
been kind to Sally / Barry because he / she can spell and form
complete sentences.

And we're just settling into the start of cabin fever. Toward spring,
there's no telling how those of us in the frozen north would respond
to him / her.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:51:11 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"riverman" wrote in message
oups.com...

...You go ahead and pretend to want to learn anything, and I'll let
others here pretend to try and illuminate you....

Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!

Wolfgang
aw, c'mon coach......put me in......i can DO it!



Goferit. Light up her / his life.

May I watch?

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

riverman wrote:

I can see that this is going nowhere, and will certainly continue to do
so.

Don't pile up the incorrect statements so high and everything will be
fine.

I looked through some of the article. The first thing I noticed was the
emphasis that fish are highly evolved and different kinds of fish
differ greatly from each other and "Human-centered perspectives on
fishes are inappropriate because the evolutionary histories of fishes
and mammals have been separate for about 400 million years." Later, the
article compares fish brains with human brains, and despite several "as
humans do" qualifications, comes to a fairly strong conclusion that
fish don't suffer, though it leaves the possibility open and suggests
what would be needed by a future study in order to demonstrate that
fish could suffer. One or two informal reviews of the article seem to
agree that fish probably don't suffer, despite a stress response. I
haven't searched for any formally published rebuttal or new studies.

Some things that come to mind are comments I've heard on how little we
know about the brain, the discovery a few years ago of a new bone found
in the human face that we never knew about due to an unusual autopsy
technique being used (wouldn't you have figured x-rays or something
would catch that?), and of course, the extraordinarily immature
response of the fishing community (judging by this thread and the other
pain thread I linked to) and outright refusal to consider that fish
might feel pain (except for those who said they don't care) without
knowing of anything to support that belief (despite this study, which
was finally referred to 100+ posts later).

So, can we now say that fish don't experience any unpleasant feelings?
I wouldn't assume that, and I'd use practical methods of anesthetizing
any fish I caught, unless I was releasing it, though I wouldn't fish
for sport at all. I certainly wouldn't skin or gut it when it was
alive. But now you can all point to that study and the argument that
fish feel pain is weaker, and in the future, people like me might think
you're all merely rude rather than have thoughts of the days when it
was debated whether black people were human and when the methods of
medieval punishment were considered appropriate. You should all be
proud.

Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

wrote:
mindless ramble snipped
, and in the future, people like me might
think you're all merely rude rather than have thoughts of the days
when it was debated whether black people were human and when the
methods of medieval punishment were considered appropriate. You
should all be proud.

Wow. People poke fun at your posts because of the lack of content, and you
compare them to racists and torturers? Right there you lost any chance of
convincing anybody that you're worth reading. At least you didn't bring up
the Nazis.

--
Stan Gula
http://gula.org/roffswaps
(wondering if his head hurts all the time, or just when he's thinking)

Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

Stan Gula wrote:
wrote:
mindless ramble snipped

The vast majority of that "mindless ramble" was either a direct quote
or summary of information published in peer reviewed journals, and of
webpages that SUPPORT the conclusions in the study that fish probably
don't feel pain. Part was:

"the extraordinarily immature
response of the fishing community (judging by this thread and the other

pain thread I linked to) and outright refusal to consider that fish
might feel pain (except for those who said they don't care) without
knowing of anything to support that belief (despite this study, which
was finally referred to 100+ posts later)."

Feel free to refute it.


Wow. People poke fun at your posts because of the lack of content, and you
compare them to racists and torturers? Right there you lost any chance of
convincing anybody that you're worth reading. At least you didn't bring up
the Nazis.

The reason people here remind me of racists who argued that blacks
weren't human is because they have no consideration for the possible
pain that can be caused by words or actions, and they're basing their
ideas on bad science (in the case of the racists) or even no science
that they could quote (in the case of this newsgroup). In the case of
fish, it's people's actions that matter, but the words matter because
they influence others to act (treat fish) like them.

They're like torturers because the possibility of suffering isn't
important to them.

Nazis--same thing.

Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

typed:
Stan Gula wrote:
wrote:
mindless ramble snipped

The vast majority of that "mindless ramble" was either a direct quote
or summary of information published in peer reviewed journals, and of
webpages that SUPPORT the conclusions in the study that fish probably
don't feel pain. Part was:

"the extraordinarily immature
response of the fishing community (judging by this thread and the
other

pain thread I linked to) and outright refusal to consider that fish
might feel pain (except for those who said they don't care) without
knowing of anything to support that belief (despite this study, which
was finally referred to 100+ posts later)."

Feel free to refute it.


Wow. People poke fun at your posts because of the lack of content,
and you compare them to racists and torturers? Right there you lost
any chance of convincing anybody that you're worth reading. At
least you didn't bring up the Nazis.

The reason people here remind me of racists who argued that blacks
weren't human is because they have no consideration for the possible
pain that can be caused by words or actions, and they're basing their
ideas on bad science (in the case of the racists) or even no science
that they could quote (in the case of this newsgroup). In the case of
fish, it's people's actions that matter, but the words matter because
they influence others to act (treat fish) like them.

They're like torturers because the possibility of suffering isn't
important to them.

Nazis--same thing.

Tweeeeeet! Time out! We'll need a ruling from the Rules Committee on this
one, 'cause it's fairly tangential. Does this envoke Godwin's Law?
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

Tim J. wrote:

Tweeeeeet! Time out! We'll need a ruling from the Rules Committee on this
one, 'cause it's fairly tangential. Does this envoke Godwin's Law?

That's a cool law. I can't say that I disagree with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Anyway, I wanted to clarify that I don't see someone as evil just
because they fish before doing science research. I can picture some guy
who's been fishing since he was a kid, and now he fishes with his
family and they all have a good time, and now for the first time some
guy (me--yes, I'm a guy) mentions something horrible that he might be
responsible for. He knows he's not a horrible person, so he gets
defensive or maybe feels guilty or whatever. If it never crossed your
mind that your doing something bad, or if you heard somewhere that it's
not bad, then that's not enough for me to get on your case (hmmm...how
badly did I get on anyone's case anyway?). But if someone (me) says, "I
heard this, and it seems true, or it might be true, so I think we
should do things this way to possibly prevent something horrible" and
then he gets crap from just about everyone, I'd like to hear something
that justifies the crap.

Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
Tim J. wrote:

Tweeeeeet! Time out! We'll need a ruling from the Rules Committee on this
one, 'cause it's fairly tangential. Does this envoke Godwin's Law?

That's a cool law. I can't say that I disagree with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Really? It's not all that difficult if you approach it the right way. Try
this: write it out on a sheet of paper and then simply read the words aloud.
Voila! Works every time.

Anyway, I wanted to clarify that I don't see someone as evil just
because they fish before doing science research.

Well, that's mighty generous of you. You have just singlehandedly saved
literally billions of people from being evil.

I can picture some guy
who's been fishing since he was a kid, and now he fishes with his
family and they all have a good time,

Yeah, I can picture that too. It's actually kinda pretty. Hey! Wouldn't
it be cool if we could have that blown up and posted in public places all
over the world.....sort of a reminder of what life COULD be?

and now for the first time some
guy (me--yes, I'm a guy)

Um......o.k.,......we'll take that on faith.....for now.

mentions something horrible that he might be
responsible for.

Dang! I KNEW it was too good to be true! O.k., maybe we'd better hold off
on the posters till we get this all sorted out. :(

He knows he's not a horrible person, so he gets
defensive or maybe feels guilty or whatever.

Much as we'd like to believe that he's not a horrible person, I'm afraid
that there's just no getting around it. We have it from an unimpeachable
source that he is in fact inherently evil. If you think about it, this is
also made obvious by the fact that he feels guilty and gets defensive.
After all, these reactions make no sense whatsoever if he's
innocent.......right?

If it never crossed your
mind that your doing something bad,

Never is a long time....but, DO go on.

or if you heard somewhere that it's not bad,

There HAVE been rumors to that effect.

then that's not enough for me to get on your case

Um.......I think we'll reserve judgment on that one for just now.

(hmmm...how
badly did I get on anyone's case anyway?).

Oh, you DEFINITELY need to work on that. Sensitive as we all are, I don't
think you've quite brought anyone to tears yet.

But if someone

Who?

(me)

Oh.

says, "I
heard this, and it seems true, or it might be true, so I think we
should do things this way to possibly prevent something horrible" and
then he gets crap from just about everyone, I'd like to hear something
that justifies the crap.

I see. Well, we're going to have to think about that for a while. We'll
get back to you just as soon as we can. Um......how long can you hold your
breath?

Oh, and by the way, if simply finding someone who appears to agree with an a
priori assumption qualifies as "doing science research" I've got some
colleagues who are going to be VERY disappointed to learn that they have
expended so much time and effort for so many years in doing it the hard way.

Wolfgang

Most Humane Way to Clean Fish
 

"Cyli" wrote in message
...
...Light up her / his life.

May I watch?

Kinky. :)

Yeah, go ahead.

Wolfgang