Oh my, moral debate on b3ta?What will they think of next?!
Anyway, I do not condone this sort of behaviour and I'd hit anyone I'd catch electrocuting small animals in the head. I can't even kill a fly myself, or anything else larger than a mosquito(they buzz and sting, you know..) for that matter.
Still, I am fascinated by the resilience of the little fish shown in the experiment.
And also, it's a cocking goldfish. It's not like it has the self-consciousness to mind dying or being hurt, beyond the its instinct for survival...
(Anyway, I do not condone this sort of behaviour and I'd hit anyone I'd catch electrocuting small animals in the head. I can't even kill a fly myself, or anything else larger than a mosquito(they buzz and sting, you know..) for that matter.
Still, I am fascinated by the resilience of the little fish shown in the experiment.
And also, it's a cocking goldfish. It's not like it has the self-consciousness to mind dying or being hurt, beyond the its instinct for survival...
DaSchop gippie,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 0:37,
archived)
Oh come onJust because it isn't intelligent doesn't mean it can't feel pain. I'm fairly sure suffocating in mountain dew and then being electrocuted would be pretty painful to anything.
(
SugarSpunSister Yeah, whatever,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 0:50,
archived)
Well, sure, it can feel pain.Many animals can "feel" pain, in the sense that they have pain receptors in their skin or whatever part of their body they requier the sense of pain in order to survive. But if it doesn't consciously mind being in pain, what does it matter?
If I were to attach some sort of preasure sonsor to a computer and pricked it with a nail, sure it would register that "pain" but it wouldn't mind, seeing as that it's not conscious. A fish's nervous system is just an organic and more complex version of a computer with sensors attached to it, that is, unless you believe it has a soul and such, in which case there really is no point in arguing.
Now you could argue that a fish's brain is complex anough to give the animal a conscious perception of itself. This has never exactly been proven or disproven by my knowledge but come on, do you realy believe that fish are conscious beings?
(If I were to attach some sort of preasure sonsor to a computer and pricked it with a nail, sure it would register that "pain" but it wouldn't mind, seeing as that it's not conscious. A fish's nervous system is just an organic and more complex version of a computer with sensors attached to it, that is, unless you believe it has a soul and such, in which case there really is no point in arguing.
Now you could argue that a fish's brain is complex anough to give the animal a conscious perception of itself. This has never exactly been proven or disproven by my knowledge but come on, do you realy believe that fish are conscious beings?
DaSchop gippie,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 1:20,
archived)
Wether it feels pain or not is probably besides the point.Who the fuck would actually do that, and for what reason is what gets me. What do they stand to gain?
And of course theyre conscious, they're alive, they breathe, they eat, they reproduce. It might not have the capacity to understand what the pain is, but dying is NEVER a pleasant experience for any living thing, especially what is essentially murder.
(And of course theyre conscious, they're alive, they breathe, they eat, they reproduce. It might not have the capacity to understand what the pain is, but dying is NEVER a pleasant experience for any living thing, especially what is essentially murder.
SugarSpunSister Yeah, whatever,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 1:26,
archived)
Who the fuck would actually do what, exacly?all the stuff that is done to the fish in the clip? Artists, probably with an interest in biology, on some level.
And what do you mean, "of course" they're consciousness?! Plants are alive, breath, eat and reproduce, but I assume you wouldn't call a tree consciousness.
Dying is something all(proper functioning) living things try to avoid by definition, seeing as that they wouldn't have existed otherwise (due to evolution and such). Whether or not they experience pain(if at all) on a conscious level determines if it's cruel to do stuff to them.
(And what do you mean, "of course" they're consciousness?! Plants are alive, breath, eat and reproduce, but I assume you wouldn't call a tree consciousness.
Dying is something all(proper functioning) living things try to avoid by definition, seeing as that they wouldn't have existed otherwise (due to evolution and such). Whether or not they experience pain(if at all) on a conscious level determines if it's cruel to do stuff to them.
DaSchop gippie,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 1:33,
archived)
Just because they're artists doesn't give them the right to go electrocuting goldfish for gods sakes.It's a creature. A living thing that has just as much a place on this earth as we do. Maybe it doesn't have consciousness, maybe it doesnt have a link between pain and bad, but does that really honestly make it ok? It's still taking a life from something who cant save itself.
Much akin to putting you in a box, sucking all the oxygen out, replacing it with helium and then giving you ECT.
Sound fun?
(Much akin to putting you in a box, sucking all the oxygen out, replacing it with helium and then giving you ECT.
Sound fun?
SugarSpunSister Yeah, whatever,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 1:41,
archived)
First of all,I'm not saying it's ok to kill stuff.
But you see, I am a conscious being. I mind dying and pain and such.
Fish don't.
That's my whole point.
Whether or not fish have the right to live is really a whole different issue that really has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. "rights" are a human invention that is part of the human ability to go beyond simple animal instincts and create things such as laws, culture, society and yes, rights. If a society agrees that X has the right to Y, that is not a given, it's an agreement. Goldfish do not nescesarily have the right to live, we just feel they do because we have decided that they do. But that's not even completely true. Many animals such as cows, chickens, many fish, pigs but also flies and spiders are killed for various reasons every day, which can hardly be considered wrong.
(But you see, I am a conscious being. I mind dying and pain and such.
Fish don't.
That's my whole point.
Whether or not fish have the right to live is really a whole different issue that really has nothing to do with the argument I'm making. "rights" are a human invention that is part of the human ability to go beyond simple animal instincts and create things such as laws, culture, society and yes, rights. If a society agrees that X has the right to Y, that is not a given, it's an agreement. Goldfish do not nescesarily have the right to live, we just feel they do because we have decided that they do. But that's not even completely true. Many animals such as cows, chickens, many fish, pigs but also flies and spiders are killed for various reasons every day, which can hardly be considered wrong.
DaSchop gippie,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 1:57,
archived)
AppreciatedBut we kill livestock to eat. Thats survival. Theres a big difference between that and killing a goldfish in the name of art.
And watch the video. You can clearly see that the goldfish is distressed, as soon as the water level begins to drop its movements are jerky and panicky. It doesn't exactly look overjoyed, does it?
I just dont see who would be so very depraved as to kill something and call it art.
(And watch the video. You can clearly see that the goldfish is distressed, as soon as the water level begins to drop its movements are jerky and panicky. It doesn't exactly look overjoyed, does it?
I just dont see who would be so very depraved as to kill something and call it art.
SugarSpunSister Yeah, whatever,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 2:03,
archived)
well,that's a bit of an anthropomorphism.
Flapping about is just the fish's instinctive response to not being in water. I suppose it's evolutionary cause is to move it from dry land into any nearby water.
But it doesn't mean the fish is in pain or emotional distress.
Whether or not it is a ad thing to kill and torture a goldfish, that is a matter of opinion. You obviously think it is and I, well, I do too really but I really can't support that with any scientifically reasonable arguments.
(Flapping about is just the fish's instinctive response to not being in water. I suppose it's evolutionary cause is to move it from dry land into any nearby water.
But it doesn't mean the fish is in pain or emotional distress.
Whether or not it is a ad thing to kill and torture a goldfish, that is a matter of opinion. You obviously think it is and I, well, I do too really but I really can't support that with any scientifically reasonable arguments.
DaSchop gippie,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 2:15,
archived)
Pfffft.Who needs science when you've got a conscience?
( SugarSpunSister Yeah, whatever,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 2:19,
archived)
pfft, if it weren't for science,goldfish wouldn't have existed in the first place!*
*may not be exactly, or at all, true
(*may not be exactly, or at all, true
DaSchop gippie,
Fri 11 Aug 2006, 2:25,
archived)