Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 300

Thread: Vegans & fish

  1. #151
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Why would you not kill and eat a human (that couldn't feel pain) for food, but a fish? What is the difference?
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  2. #152
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    However, I am not happy about using the term suffering in the definition of veganism because IF in the future there was undeniable evidence that fish did not consciously experience pain, then vegans who are vegans in order to prevent suffering would then be allowed to eat fish.
    Wait... were you the one in here that said that you WOULD kill and eat fish if it was proven that they couldn't feel pain? Why would it bother you that vegans would be allowed to eat fish then? You are the only one that seems limit not using animals to situations where they 'suffer' or 'feel pain'....
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  3. #153
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default From an animal behavior science journal

    Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86 (2004) 225250
    Can fish suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress
    K.P. Chandroo, I.J.H. Duncan, R.D. Moccia∗Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., Canada N1G 2W1

    In contrast to other major forms of livestock agriculture, there is a paucity of scientific information on the welfare of fish raised under intensive aquacultural conditions. This reflects an adherence to the belief that these animals have not evolved the salient biological characteristics that are hypothesised to permit sentience. In this review, we evaluate the scientific evidence for the existence of sentience in fish, and in particular, their ability to experience pain, fear and psychological stress. Teleost fish are considered to have marked differences in some aspects of brain structure and organization as compared to tetrapods, yet they simultaneously demonstrate functional similarities and a level of cognitive development suggestive of sentience. Anatomical, pharmacological and behavioural data suggest that affective states of pain, fear and stress are likely to be experienced by fish in similar ways as in tetrapods. This implies that fish have the capacity to suffer, and that welfare consideration for farmed fish should take these states into account.We suggest that the concept of animal welfare can be
    applied legitimately to fish. It is therefore appropriate to recognize and study the welfare of farmed fish.

    Basically it is saying that yes, fish do feel pain on a level comparable to tetrapods (four legged creatures) and this has implications for the aquaculture industry in intensive farming.

    It seems, fortunately for fish everywhere, that vegans will not be eating them anytime soon...
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  4. #154
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Korn
    Wait... were you the one in here that said that you WOULD kill and eat fish if it was proven that they couldn't feel pain? Why would it bother you that vegans would be allowed to eat fish then? You are the only one that seems limit not using animals to situations where they 'suffer' or 'feel pain'....
    It bothers me that the definition of a vegan seems to focus on preventing suffering, than just saying that it is STRICTLY a choice not to eat fish and other animals.

  5. #155
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    It bothers me that the definition of a vegan seems to focus on preventing suffering, than just saying that it is STRICTLY a choice not to eat fish and other animals.
    Being vegan means both that you want to prevent suffering AND implies a choice not to eat fish and other animals. If the definition for some reason should be changed, into
    just saying that it is STRICTLY a choice not to eat fish and other animals
    it wouldn't be a definition of vegan anymore. It wouldn't even cover that vegans are known not to eat dairy products.

    Since the vegan view on animals is not only limited to killing/eating, but also all kinds of harming, vegans claim that they are against BOTH killing and harming animals, and that humans have no right to take their freedom to live away from them.

    Again, why would you not kill and eat a human (that couldn't feel pain) for food, but you would kill and eat a fish that couldn't feel pain? What is, in your opinion, the difference?
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  6. #156
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    Quote veganblue
    Basically it is saying that yes, fish do feel pain on a level comparable to tetrapods (four legged creatures) and this has implications for the aquaculture industry in intensive farming.
    Your statement does not factor in consciousness. Can a fish, even though it has nociceptive neurons like a leech, human, dog, etc., be consciously aware that it is experiencing pain?

  7. #157
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Who gave you or anyone else the right to kill animals, birds, fish or humans that are not 'consciously aware that it is experiencing pain?'
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  8. #158
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Korn
    Being vegans means both that you want to prevent suffering AND implies a choice not to eat fish and other animals. But since the vegan view on animals is not only limited to killing/eating, but also harming, vegans claim that they are against BOTH killing and harming animals, and have no right to take their freedom to live away from them.

    Again, why would you not kill and eat a human (that couldn't feel pain) for food, but you would kill and eat a fish that couldn't feel pain? What is, in your opinion, the difference?
    Why do vegans even debate the idea that fish have the conscious awareness to suffer if veganism is mainly a diet? You say that vegans are against harming animals, but does harming have to do with pain and suffering at all? Are they related? If fish were found not to experience pain would all the vegan websites start deleting their information that they do? Would the websites then just say that they don't like eating fish as a personal preference?

    I have never in my life wanted to eat or even thought about eating a human being. I know that ecstasy is supposed to be the greatest feeling in the world, but do I have a desire to try it... no... why? I just dont want to... Just like vegans dont want to eat fish for reasons not related to suffering.

  9. #159
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Korn
    Who gave you or anyone else the right to kill animals, birds, fish or humans that are not 'consciously aware that it is experiencing pain?'
    You and I support farmers that kill insects that may have nociceptive neurons, but do not consciously experience pain.

  10. #160
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    Why do vegans even debate the idea that fish have the conscious awareness to suffer if veganism is mainly a diet?
    Veganism isn't mainly a diet. And conscious awareness isn't an issue the way you present it. If it were, it would potentially OK for you sister to steal money from you if you were not consciously aware that she did. It would be OK for a doctor to rape a patient in a coma ('she didn't notice anything! she didn't feel any pain').


    If fish were found not to experience pain would all the vegan websites start deleting their information that they do?
    You need to reread older posts in this thread. And you need to answer the questions asked to you. The only issue isn't if someone feels pain.

    Would the websites then just say that they don't like eating fish as a personal preference?
    If fish feel pain or not, is not the issue. Vegans respect the rights of other living beings. A fish may not be important for you, and you might not be important for the fish. But does it give the fish the right to kill and eat you? If the fish doesn't feel pain, it doesn't even know what pain is, so why would it even give your possible pain (when being eaten by it) a thought?

    I have never in my life wanted to eat or even thought about eating a human being.
    The question isn't if you wanted it, the questions is if you think it would be morally OK if someone wanted it. I think the a main difference between a vegan view and a 'normal' view, is that if a non-vegan kills and eats someone/something because he 'want to' (that's the term you just used), a vegan also takes into consideration of the other one wants to be killed and eaten. Just to 'want to' eat fish isn't a valid reason to kill and eat it. Likewise, if a cannibal 'wants to' kill and eat you, that's not good enough either.

    Btw, I asked you WHY you wanted to kill fish, you haven't replied. I guess the answer would be 'I like fish'?
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  11. #161
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    You and I support farmers that kill insects that may have nociceptive neurons, but do not consciously experience pain.
    If you ever have walked on a street, let alone been in a car, you might have killed insects. If you really mean that we should live our lives in a way that ensures that we never, unintentionally, kills any insects, let me know, and I'll see if I can find the location of a group of people I have read about that tries to live that way.

    And by the way, we can't start every aspect of this discussion from scratch every time a new post crops up. We have already discussed the 'as much as possible'-issue earlier.

    Do you think it's ethically OK to kill fish, birds, humans, or other animals if it can be proven that the 'object' in question cannot feel pain? Yes or no?
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  12. #162
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Korn
    Do you think it's ethically OK to kill fish, birds, humans, or other animals if it can be proven that the 'object' in question cannot feel pain? Yes or no?
    IF it were proven that fish, birds, humans or other animals couldn't suffer, then I wouldn't feel as bad killing it, since my reasons for being a vegan are to prevent animal suffering. However, I do not go around just killing everything in my sight for no reason. In a more realistic situation, pretty much all mammals have a cerebral cortex, which allows them to consciously feel pain; therefore, I would not want to kill and eat these beings for that reason.

    What is the difference between killing a fish and killing an insect with nociceptive neurons?


    Do you think it's ethically OK to kill an insect that could possibly feel pain the way a fish can?

  13. #163
    Useless Dork Tofu Monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    250

    Default

    you're like a broken record man! and you're not listening to a word anyone says are you? are you sure you've got a cerebral cortex??

  14. #164
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Korn
    Btw, I asked you WHY you wanted to kill fish, you haven't replied. I guess the answer would be 'I like fish'?
    I don't want to kill anything unnecessarily. I kill plants to eat them for nutrients that I need to sustain my living, and if I wanted to sustain my normal functioning in a more natural way as opposed to taking supplements, then I would kill a fish to eat, IF the fish doesn't suffer.

  15. #165
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Tofu Monster
    you're like a broken record man! and you're not listening to a word anyone says are you? are you sure you've got a cerebral cortex??
    I know I sound like a broken record, its because I keep getting the same questions that I have answered previously. I don't know what you expect me to say. I think Korn wants me to say something like "I like eating and killing everything, even people," but the truth is is that I don't like killing anything, but I do what I have to to live as healthy as I can and to prevent as much suffering as I can at the same time. I don't think taking B12 supplements is a natural way of living.

  16. #166
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Tofu Monster
    are you sure you've got a cerebral cortex??
    Thanks again for bringing the conversation down to an elementary school level.

  17. #167
    julieruble
    Guest

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    Your statement does not factor in consciousness. Can a fish, even though it has nociceptive neurons like a leech, human, dog, etc., be consciously aware that it is experiencing pain?
    This is a ridiculous question from a biological perspective. Have neurons that are able to send pain "signals" IS being aware that you are experiencing pain, by definition, since the brain receives and processes those signals into a reaction. The fish might not be able to sit around and think "Oh, my, this hurts..." but it does experience pain, period.

    You are repeatedly ignoring (A) Korn's attempts to question your logic, by not answering, and (B) the ACTUAL definition of veganism, by pretending it's limited to reducing (reducing, by the way, is not the same as "preventing ALL") suffering, when you've repeatedly been told that it has to do also with non-exploitation.

    If you don't respond to these two issues, you're just repeating yourself and everyone here (including the nonvegan...cough) thinks that it's been demonstrated that you're wrong.

  18. #168
    julieruble
    Guest

    Default

    PS, the point of Korn's questioning about "is it okay to rape someone in a coma, since they will not 'consciously experience pain'?" is intended to get you to understand that your definition of veganism is wrong, plain and simple. This is what you were trying to do -- test your beliefs to see if they were consistent -- and now you're finding out that no, with your definition of veganism, they were not. But, that's okay, because your definition was incorrect.

    A better definition is what a few folks here have posited: A vegan avoids the use and consumption of animal products as much as is practically possible for the purpose of (A) reducing suffering as much as possible AND (B) to move towards a position of non-dependence and non-exploitation on animals. Without (B), you have a pretty weak idea veganism, albeit compassionate, IMO.

  19. #169
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    I don't want to kill anything unnecessarily.
    Many vegans survive well by taking supplements, many are not taking supplements at all. Some are trying to figure out what our B12 levels would have been if it wouldn't have been for all the chemicals and other life style issues we are exposed to. Some are even trying to change their lives - or even the world around them. But you find it necessary to kill a fish (or would, IF it couldn't feel the pain) instead of cultivating B12 in a vegan manner if you won't find enough in your food?

    I kill plants
    Not only are you not killing plants, but I'm not going even to discuss this with you. If you really are interested in the 'plants have feelings too'-discussion, please search around on our site or use some search engine.

    .... if I wanted to sustain my normal functioning in a more natural way as opposed to taking supplements, then I would kill a fish to eat, IF the fish doesn't suffer.
    So... it's natural for a human to kill a fish? Is it 'natural' for a fish to be killed to? Is it just 'natural' for the killer? Please explain what it is that makes it natural for humans to catch and kill fish.

    Is cultivation of a bacteria culture unnatural, and a less good option than killing a fish?

    Is it natural to wear clothes?

    If you want to discuss B12 levels in plants, how low/high they are, what it is that makes them high/low, what it is that happens when true B12 is converted to B12 analogues, if humans can distinguish between true B12 and analogs, how many plants we know the levels of and how many that haven't even been tested, how they have been tested and what elements in your life that will influence your homocysteine and B12 levels, I have A LOT of questions to you.

    Before we start this, I suggest that you read the posts in our four subforums related to B12 first, and let's do it in another thread. You have been mentioning Jack Norris' site, I hope that your philosophy about questioning and challenging others' opinions also applies to your visits at his site, if he is your main source of B12 information.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  20. #170
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    I think Korn wants me to say something like "I like eating and killing everything, even people,"
    Not at all. Far from it. If you would like to 'kill everything', you wouldn't admit it in here. What I want you to reply to, is if you think it's OK, from an ethical point of view, to kill an animal or human that doesn't feel pain. You still haven't replied.

    If the reply is no, then killing fish isn't an option for you nutrient needs.
    If the reply is yes, you are a potentially very dangerous person, because you could potentially give any rich old grandma an overdose of something so she would fall asleep forever, and run away with her money. You could teach dictators 'ethical' ways of killing thousands of people.

    What do you know about emotional bonds between fish? How do you know that other fishes will not suffer if you kill one of them? What about all the people that had a life before internet, scientific studies and - books? How would they know if a certain species would feel pain or not? Are you basing your moral decisions on - Google?
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  21. #171
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    IF it were proven that fish, birds, humans or other animals couldn't suffer, then I wouldn't feel as bad killing it
    The question wasn't about if you would feel less bad about it. THere are people who might feel good about doing something they think is wrong. There are people who feel bad about things that doesn't even have anything to do with ethics. I wonder if you feel that you have the right to end the life of another being, if that other being won't suffer? If yes, *what* does the word suffering mean to you? To make it more real, does anyone have the right to end your life by giving you something that will make you just fall asleep and never wake up? If an fish or an insects enjoys it's life, and you kill it, then you end it's freedom to feel pleasure. I'm not talking about physical pain or pleasure, neither about emotional bonds between living beings, but about appreciation being alive - as such. If I would be able to fly around like a bird or insect, I, for one, would have enjoyed it a lot! If you wanted to have a three week holiday in Hawaii, and were forced to go back to continental America after 3 three days, would that be 'suffering'? What is the relationship between 'removing pleasure' and 'suffering' to you?

    What is the difference between killing a fish and killing an insect with nociceptive neurons?
    This has been responded to already. Did you understand what gertvegan meant when he said that the death of one living creature doesn't justify killing of another?

    Look at post # 17 in this thread again. You wrote '...if it wouldn't cause any more harm to kill a fish than it would to kill an insect, then why should we not eat fish?'. Gert responded something like 'If I accept an action that cause unintended deaths, this doesn't mean that I accept actions that lead to intentional deaths.' It doesn't help the fish that you're eating that you already have killed an insect, does it?

    Look at your sentence again. I'll replace a few words this time: If it wouldn't cause any more harm to kill a German than it would to kill an Norwegian, then why should we not kill a German (....in addition the the Norwegian)?

    If you, unlike vegans, would kill fish to get B12, and you would eat plants as well (insects may have died when growing/harvesting the plants); then you kill BOTH fish and insects. But you want to kill as little as possible, don't you?

    Would the German be less dead if the Norwegian also was dead? (You want to kill and harm as little as possible, right?) Would his family mourn less if the family of the other dead guy was mourning? If you want to kill and harm as little as possible, what is better - killing insects andfish, or only kill insects?

    Everybody who is sitting in a car, train or airplane is potentially harming others. The vehicle might crash and hurt innocent people. If I am a traveler, I am already taking risks with other peoples lives. According to the logic you present, since I'm already taking risks with other peoples lives, I seem to have no reason to limit actions that can potentially hurt others, because when I sit in a plane that might fall down and kill someone, I have already crossed an ethical border. I'm a potential murder, so it doesn't matter how many I kill, sort of. That's what you are telling us. Some insects are kill during harvesting, we are already killers, so just go ahead and kill more insects and more fish (if none of them feel pain). I don't know what an insect feels, but I'm all with you wrote that killing an insects frustrates you, because it doesn't seem to want to die. But when you in another post write that 'I don't know if an insect says "hey kill me and thousands of my family members so you can have vegetables to eat"', you seem confused. I have tried to kill both flies and mosquitos in my life, and have never come across one that didn't try to escape. Are you sure you know what you feel and think about insects?

    Do you think it's ethically OK to kill an insect that could possibly feel pain the way a fish can?
    I don't think it's ethically OK to kill any animals, birds, insects, humans or fish who can feel pain. I don't think it's ethically OK to kill any animals, birds, insects, humans or fish who suffer from familial dysautonomia or for some other reason are not able to feel pain either.

    Do you really think that if you have killed one living being, you can kill other as well, because 'you have already killed'?
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  22. #172
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    Ok this is going to be my last comment for a little while because I need to focus on school, work, etc...

    When talking about morals, we begin to talk about beliefs of groups of people have agreed upon. A group of people may believe its OK to eat anything, but humans, because they believe that humans have some sort of spirit, level of consciousness or that God chose up to be a higher level of species, and its not fair to the human to take away its spirit or life. For me, I feel that anything with a conscious awareness of pain should not be harmed or killed, and anything that I feel has a spirit. So then your question was, "would you rape an unconscious person" or "would you kill a person and eat them." My answer is "no" because I BELIEVE that people have a spirit.
    Maybe you all feel that everything has a spirit even fish, and I am completely accepting of that and I respect tdhat, but on't try to say that its just wrong for someone who wants to prevent suffering to eat fish, if fish are found not to suffer. Saying that would just be forcing your own belief that fish have a spirit on someone. If you all feel like I am forcing you to believe that fish don't have a spirit, then I am sorry for offending you all. My intention was to bring up pain and suffering and the importance of that for vegans. Now, I know that veganism, in your opinions, is more based on your belief that fish have a spirit, not on the fact that they can suffer or not.
    As of now, I am going to follow the guidelines of not eating fish because I really do not know if fish can experience pain and suffering yet. However, this is where I feel conflicted... If I do not know that fish can suffer even with nociceptors, then do I really know that insects with nociceptors (that are killed for vegetables) do not suffer. I am pretty sure that insects do not suffer or have spirits. How do I know this? I don't know, but I think I am doing the best I can to prevent suffering of what I believe to be spiritless organisms.
    Although, I have different reasons for being a vegan than you all who responded, I completely respect your views and beliefs. Also, I'm sorry for not being clearer with my thoughts, but thanks to you all I feel more at ease with my beliefs and opinions regarding this topic.

    Thanks and take care,
    Miki
    I feel that I have learned a lot through this experience; therefore, I really appreciate you guys talking to me about it.

  23. #173
    mikdez
    Guest

    Default

    I just thought of this while I was looking at a PETA sticker on my door that says "Fishing Hurts" and has a fish with a sad face. I wonder if PETA is making a sticker with an insect on it that says "I Die for Vegetables, and It Hurts."

    Just a thought.

  24. #174
    boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Essex/UK
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    I just thought of this while I was looking at a PETA sticker on my door that says "Fishing Hurts" and has a fish with a sad face. I wonder if PETA is making a sticker with an insect on it that says "I Die for Vegetables, and It Hurts."

    Just a thought.

    As the E is for Ethical maybe they and other vegans consider the death of a fish for consumption unethical and the accidental deaths of insects just that. Most Vegans will not willingly hurt and kill insects it tends to be avoided.

  25. #175
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    I do not believe that all living things have 'spirit', not even humans; but if I did then I would apply that spirit to all living things.

    I believe in a graduated level of awareness; and I am not entirely convinced that humans are at the top of that tree either, but for me it certainly makes me responsible for my actions and the impact on beings around me.

    Entirely aside from the capacity to feel pain; there is the capacity for joy, pleasure and satisfaction which is a long term thing and entirely removed when that organism is killed. Painful death or not, what right do I have to take future enjoyment away from an organism; certainly not from a misguided need to eat it's flesh for nutritional reasons.

    Even if the death were painless it would not make it right. If you wre abole to prove that fish don't feel (which is not true) and then that because it doesn't feel it's death then it is okay to feast on its flesh, then you are opening the gate to eating any animal so long as it's death was painless.

    There is so much more to being vegan.

    Whatever your reasons for eating a vegetable diet, there are large parts of the vegan philosophy that have escaped your notice. Whether any of us believe animals have spirit or not is irrelevant and capacity for suffering is only a part of the bigger vegan picture. Getting bogged down on one small part will not assist you in understanding and I suggest that even though you feel that you have understood some of what you have been presented here, your assessment indicates otherwise.

    I only hope that you will take time to read through some of the archives and you may get a broader understanding of what is involved in being vegan.

  26. #176

    Default

    haha. Quit checking out the trolls' package, John.
    utopiankitchen.wordpress.com

  27. #177

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    People kill insects that supposedly dont feel pain to eat (vegetables).

    I think it's something like 75% of all field grown crops are used to feed livestock animals. So, by becoming vegan and not consuming any animal products, you are not supporting the factory farming industry and in turn are lessening the impact made to insects through harvesting.

    Veganism to me is about change, and I think as time goes on and hopefully more people become aware of how big of an impact our eating habits make, things will begin change. Nobody likes the idea of killing insects when food is harvested, and hopefully we can find a way around this in the future. Change takes time.
    "Can't Fly, Can't Fight, Can't Crow"
    -Rufeo

  28. #178
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    *Ok this is going to be my last comment for a little while because I need to focus on school, work, etc...
    That's what they all say when the questions are becoming too difficult

    A group of people may believe its OK to eat anything but humans, because they believe that humans have some sort of spirit, level of consciousness or that God chose us to be a higher level of species, and its not fair to the human to take away its spirit or life.
    I don't think that's relevant to veganism, because vegans have decided that all the parameters that you, for example, have introduced, one by one, doesn't really count when making the decision not to eat other living beings. You worry if fish can feel pain, because if it doesn't, you would kill it for B12, even if you would like to avoid killing as much as possible. When it looks like fish may feel pain, you worry if it is consciously aware that it feels pain. After my response (the brutal example about raping someone who is not consciously aware of it or feels pain), you introduce a new element - maybe that don't have a spirit? The last thing is some sort of division, higher / lower levels, where God chose us to be a higher level of species, where you indicate that it's 'fair' to kill and eat beings lower on that scale. I think there are even humans with higher and lower consciousness, and I don't want to eat any of them.

    For me, I feel that anything with a conscious awareness of pain should not be harmed or killed, and anything that I feel has a spirit. So then your question was, "would you rape an unconscious person" or "would you kill a person and eat them", my answer is "no" because I BELIEVE that people have a spirit.
    This explains a lot. Initially you said you wanted to strengthen your vegan 'beliefs', and I think I see where the confusion comes from: you have other beliefs as well, and they crash with each other. Maybe they don't have to, but they seem to.


    Maybe you all feel that everything has a spirit even fish
    The fish might have a spirit, it may not, we might not even use the word spirit in the same way. Do I need to relate to your use of spirit in order to decide not to eat fish? No. The fish doesn't want to be eaten, it looks to most people as it feels pain, I don't want to kill animals (I have only killed insects in the past, and don't even 'like' that), and I don't need to eat fish. It's simple, isn't it? Your pain/conscious awareness/spirit/lower level beings-beliefs aren't needed in order to make a decision at all.

    Don't try to say that its just wrong for someone who wants to prevent suffering to eat fish, if fish are found not to suffer.
    This is where the communication stops, because I asked you if you considered removing the ability of a living being to live and enjoy life as 'suffering', and you didn't respond. I asked what if other fish suffer if one of them is killed - you didn't respond. I asked why you wanted to kill it - and I don't think your B12-response is valid at all. When I compare that fish with a person in coma, you introduce your beliefs, and I can't discuss with beliefs. If you believe something, and want to follow your beliefs instead of your intuition, feelings, observations and thoughts, why wasting your time on theories?

    Saying that, would just be forcing your own belief that fish have a spirit on someone.
    With all due respect, that is nonsense. If you enter a vegan forum, have questions, and get honest replies, nobody is forcing anything upon you. What is 'force'? Is killing someone (a fish) because you 'believe' that it doesn't have a spirit or is a lower being.. is that forcing your beliefs on someone? To me, it is. Replying to your questions isn't.

    Now, I know that veganism, in your opinions, is more based on your belief that fish have a spirit, not on the fact that they can suffer or not.
    Life is a lot less complicated if we stop assuming things. 'Believing' can either be 'assuming', or it can be trust. You have many assumptions, the latest one is that 'we' believe that fish have a spirit. This is wrong in many ways. First, there is no 'we' with one common opinion - we are 800-900 people with different views on many things. Secondly, there is no reason even to think that we are using the same two-step scale as you do (animals/bird/fish//humans with or without spirit). Thirdly, I don't know your definition of spirit. Finally, my choice not to kill anyone who doesn't want to be killed (nobody wants) doesn't even need the parameter 'spirit', because I wouldn't kill it even if it doesn't have what you call spirit. A little warning here... please don't make more assumptions, for example that I don't think there is such a thing as spirit, or assume anything about my vision about who has got a spirit and who hasn't.

    If I do not know that fish can suffer even with nociceptors, then do I really know that insects with nociceptors (that are killed for vegetables) do not suffer.
    Kill as few insects as possible, avoid plants with pesticides as much as possible, worry less. Trust more. Assume less.

    I am pretty sure that insects do not suffer or have spirits. How do I know this? I don't know [...]
    OK; more assumptions...

    I think I am doing the best I can to prevent suffering of what I believe to be spiritless organisms.
    Maybe; you would do even better if you spent all this energy on helping animals, fish and insects not to be killed - after all, you are not sure, what if you find out that they have what you called a spirit? Your 54 posts promoting your assumptions might cause some visitors to kill more of these spirits than they would have if you rather have used your energy and intelligence to defend ALL living beings' right to live, instead of introducing four different possible ''excuses' for killing others.

    I hope that there is nothing in your beliefs that tells you that you SHOULD kill them if they are low on the conscious scale.

    Sometimes decision making is very simple: A and B is in a room. B doesn't want to die, A doesn't want to kill, and doesn't need to. Should A kill B?
    Can it be simpler?


    Your *only* reason to kill fish seem to be B12. Make sure your B12 info isn't based on assumptions as well. Your quoted source for 'vegan ethics' (veganoutreach) IS basing it's conclusions on assumptions, ignoring a lot of facts, and their conclusions are potentially dangerous even if their assumptions were right.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  29. #179
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    I think everything with a face has a spirit.

    You might come back as a Fly!

    But that is not the point - as said elsewhere, insects are, unfortunately, killed for crops fed to animals, so being Vegan does least harm.

    And if anyone has any doubt about fishes and their sensibilities, please come and visit the ones who live in my house!

  30. #180
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    I don't think taking B12 supplements is a natural way of living.

    I agree that taking B12 supplements is not part of a pure/natural way of living (but B12 supplements can be made without harming animals). See the B12-forums about what the B12 levels in food, soil and water would have been in a 'natural world.

    I don't think eating fish is natural either; and the mercury and other toxins they contain aren't particularly natural, are they? Most of all, I don't think it's 'natural' to live in a society where even the water we drink contains elements that destroy B12, and I don't think killing other living beings is a solution to that problem.

    Look at this: there are 4 kinds of possible B12 advice for people who eat animal products, including fish:

    1) By eating animal products, like fish, you never need to take B12 supplements. Nobody is supporting this theory.

    2) 30% (the percentage varies, but seem to be increasing by every decade) of all people (independent of age) who eat animal products, like fish, are either B12 deficient or in the low and potentially risky B12 level area. Try a search engine and type Tuft University + B12 for more info.

    3) Pregnant and lactating women, people above 50-60 years, and all the people who are victims of the many non-dietary harmful and sometimes very effective B12 'troublemakers' need to take B12 supplements even if they eat fish and other animal products. Using some twisted logic and ignoring tons of other facts, it wouldn't be natural to live longer than 50-60 years, or to be pregnant/lactating.

    4) According to this pdf ( http://www.hsu.com/newsletters/spring03.pdf ), The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported in June 2002 that most adults do not receive sufficient levels of vitamins (specifically C, A, B6, B12, and E) and concluded that it would be prudent of adults to take a vitamin supplement to help prevent disease. AS we know, 'most adults' eats eat fish and animal products. (I haven't seen the June 2002 issue myself, and therefore don't know if the source they quote are quoted correctly or if they have added their own opinions into JAMA's statement).

    I'm all for 'natural', but wanting a natural life doesn't justify killing.

    Quote mikdez
    then there is no reason not to eat fish because it is healthier to receive vitamins from food as a opposed to supplements.
    Is fish food now?
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  31. #181
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote mikdez
    However, recently I have been taking B12 supplements to prevent deficiency, and I thought to myself that it just didn't seem natural to depend on supplements to live normally.
    Allright, so we agree, MikDez, you fear a B12 deficiency even if you come from a background of eating animal products....

    I looked for non-animal foods that have B12, which is pretty much nothing
    They may contain inactive analogues, or a combination of inactive analogues and active B12. What about all the plants listed in our B12 forums: do they contain true B12 or inactive B12?

    unless it has been fortified
    It has been found that 'a significant percentage of the activity in 'B-12 enriched' foods are inactive analogs.' I agree, eating fortified food = taking supplements.

    And according to Dr. Victor Herbert, 'a typical 'VA lunch'* consisting of potato soup, cottage cheese, lettuce, peaches, crackers, butter and milk was analyzed and found to contain 40% inactive analogs. Why is inactive analogs a problem in plants and not in fortified foods, which veganoutreach recommends, or in an animal based diet? (According to Kanazawa 1983;Herbert 1982), 'B12 analogs is not a problem for normal people, as it has been established that inactive B-12 analogs exist in human liver, red blood cells, brain and mineral and vitamin supplements.' 'Normal humans are able to discriminate between the active and non-active forms as both have always been in nature and in foods. For example, the role of the plasma transport proteins transcobalamins I and III are to deliver non-functional B-12 analogs to the liver for discard in the bile (Burger, 1975, Jacob 1980, and Kanazawa 1983b). Moreover, an effective enterohepatic circulation recycles the vitamin from bile and other intestinal secretions accounting for its long biological half-life. During this process, vitamin B-12 analogues are preferentially excreted while human-active cobalamins are largely resorbed (Kanazawa 1983).

    I'm sure a lot of vegans get cravings or urges once in a while (we are all human), but can easily suppress it by thinking about the suffering of the animal, which is what I have done.
    I never crave animal foods, I know of many vegans who never do - and haven't done for years. Once the habits are dropped, they are dropped. The craving and thought patterns are changed. Since we are all humans, we are in the lucky position of being able to grow and develop and improve our lives. It's actually very interesting, exciting and great fun.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  32. #182
    l337_v3g4n_1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    A land of Ice and snow. ICELAND!
    Posts
    144

    Default

    sorry, too lazy to use the quote tags
    "I never crave animal foods, I know of many vegans who never do"

    I don't!

    About 'natural': Is the computer you are using natural? is the language we are writing natural? noooo
    processed/cooked food isn't 'natural'. So why worry?
    People once thought my mother is a nut, but I once thought a nut was my mother! :D

  33. #183
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Thumbs up fishes

    "Far from being instinct-driven dunces with a three-second memory, researchers from Edinburgh and Oxford universities claim fish are great lateral thinkers." Read more at "The Age" http://www.theage.com.au/news/Scienc...251741266.html
    Eve

  34. #184

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    9

    Default What's the deal with Fish again???

    I am having a hard time giving up the fish... why shouldn't I eat fish?? Please someone remind me!! I get the meat thing, the dairy thing.... I just can't put my arms around this one yet....

  35. #185
    cedartree cedarblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,964

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    at the very least because it can contain mercury and that is a poison!!

  36. #186

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    824

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Okay, how about the fact that we are overfishing the oceans? We are destroying coral reefs? The new trawlers go farther and deeper into the ocean than ever before. Your consumption of fish adds to the destruction of the ocean and also depletes the food source of other fish. The only reason that some fish are now considered "endangered" is because of overfishing. And don't believe that farmed fish is a better choice. Those fish are cramped, diseased, fed so much food that their muscle mass gets too big for their frames (North Atlantic farmed salmon). Some southeast Asian countries have destroyed their shorelines in order to farm shrimp.

    The ocean will not recover unless we stop fishing it for a number of years. Period. And if our population continues to grow as the fish population continues to shrink, where do you think the fish will come from to feed those people?

    It takes months to grow plant protein. It takes years to grow fish protein. How much more convincing do you need?

    Hope that helped.
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

  37. #187

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    259

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Fish are made of meat!

  38. #188
    Seaside
    Guest

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Animals are not food!

  39. #189
    Happiness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    in the surf of the oregon coast
    Posts
    53

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Dianecrna - Perfect! You said just what I was going to say.

    Being vegan isn't just about avoiding this or that. Its about dynamic harmlessness. A fish is an animal just as a cow, chicken or pig is an animal. Somehow people seem to forget this. In my eyes to be vegan is to bring yourself to the level of all things (cow, fish, tree, paperclip ) and realize that we are a part of all things just as they are a part of us. So Dianecrna is right, eating fish does come back to haunt us. By partaking in the eating of fish we are harming our oceans beyond repair.

    Here are a few more tidbits on ocean awareness:

    Farmed fish is a dreadful thing. Not only is the rivers down stream for the farms pretty much unlivable to increased nitrogen content but here on the Pacific Coast they bring in Atlantic Salmon (shorter growth period) for these farms. These fish can and do escape. They then out compete the Pacific Salmon in their own rivers, leading to even more declining numbers of native fish. They also breed with the native Pacific Salmon. This results in a weakened gene pool for the native fish. Ugh. Dreadful.

    There is a wonderful study that everyone should take a look at...but I'm completely blanking on its name. I'll find it and let everyone know. But in my opinion it is one of the more complete studies done on the state of the pacific ocean.
    "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"
    Irina Dunn :D
    "We are not human-beings, we are human-becomings"
    Roger Ames :D

  40. #190
    Happiness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    in the surf of the oregon coast
    Posts
    53

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    The Pew Report!! Wow, I knew college would pay off.

    Summary:
    http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew...rt_summary.pdf
    Full Report:
    http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew...nal_report.pdf
    "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"
    Irina Dunn :D
    "We are not human-beings, we are human-becomings"
    Roger Ames :D

  41. #191
    ♥♥♥ Tigerlily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Atlantic Canada
    Posts
    3,920

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    I just found this good link in a PETA newsletter:

    http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat/sal...t=weekly_enews

  42. #192

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Thanks for all of you who had some helpful feedback... much appreciate it!! I realize that fish is meat...I realize that fish are animals....after all it's not rocket science. It is harder to make an emotional attachment with them for me...and for the same reasons some people watch horrible footage to remind themselves of why they don't eat meat, I needed this info to remind me of why not to eat seafood.

    The info about what we are doing to the ocean was very helpful, as was the info about the fisheries...

    Thanks to all who gave me the hard facts I was looking for.

  43. #193
    Seaside
    Guest

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Posted by cinchybell:
    I realize that fish is meat...I realize that fish are animals....after all it's not rocket science.
    Obviously.
    To me the hardest fact of all is the fact that flesh is not food for human beings. Knowing that this simple fact is true makes torturing myself with videos on animal cruelty completely unecessary.

  44. #194

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,689

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    To be honest, I am not into the whole thing whether humans are natural omnivores or not - the fact of the matter is, that humans exploit animals to the maximum capacity - we even sell their shit (manure for gardening)! Fish are fishnapped from their natural environment and virtually suffocated in cramped uncomfortable conditions, just so we can batter them and serve them with chips! I can understand the 'being unable to be emotional' about fish - coz I don't like fish much either - they are a bit alien from the mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibions (and insects) that we are used to. In fact I gave up fish last too.

    Well done - you are obviously full of compassion. keep going and you will get there

  45. #195
    Seaside
    Guest

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    To me the simple idea that animals are not food for humans hasn't got much to do with whether humans are omnivores or whether people are capable of making emotional connections to certain species. I am not emotionally connected to snails and slugs, and yet their lives are of as much value as any other's.
    If a person never comes to the point of not being able to consider animals as a food source the potential for exploitation will always exist. To believe "fish is food, and I'm suffering terrible cravings from the dietary sacrifice I'm making, but I'm trying not to eat it because it is considered unhealthy, bad for the environment, etc." is not recognizing the fact that the fish is a living being with its own right to exist unmolested, regardless of whether it inspires a warm, fuzzy emotional feeling in humans or not. Yes, animal exploitation has many disastrous facets for the animals involved and the environment. If people recognized the fact that animals do not exist to provide humans with the opportunity to make dietary choices for or against using them, we wouldn't have all the environmental problems we have right now.

    Posted by cinchybell:
    I have cut out red meat and chicken so far...next is seafood then dairy
    it used to be all about the animals...know it is more about my health and my families health
    The idea that animals do not exist to be viewed by humans as food is a very fundamental idea in the vegan ethic and should not be dismissed lightly, especially by someone who is not yet a vegan.

  46. #196
    tails4wagging
    Guest

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Fish is a living breathing creature that has a face, a brain and lives their own lives without hurting us. Leave them alone to live their life and live yours cruelty free!!

  47. #197
    Ratbag Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    A Land Down Under
    Posts
    175

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Quote cinchybell
    Thanks for all of you who had some helpful feedback...I needed this info to remind me of why not to eat seafood.
    I think a first step is to stop calling fishes "seafood".

    I love to watch fishes swimming, they are the most amazing creatures with their complicated, underwater lives that I know so little about. I have no desire to harm them and therefore I could never eat them.
    A bit rattled

  48. #198
    Seaside
    Guest

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Posted by tails4wagging:
    Leave them alone to live their life and live yours cruelty free!!
    Thank you Tails! That's saying it all!

    Posted by Cal:
    I think a first step is to stop calling fishes "seafood".
    You have summed it up perfectly, Cal!

  49. #199
    spo
    Guest

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Quote Seaside
    To me the simple idea that animals are not food for humans hasn't got much to do with whether humans are omnivores or whether people are capable of making emotional connections to certain species.....
    ....is not recognizing the fact that the fish is a living being with its own right to exist unmolested, regardless of whether it inspires a warm, fuzzy emotional feeling in humans or not.
    If people recognized the fact that animals do not exist to provide humans with the opportunity to make dietary choices for or against using them, we wouldn't have all the environmental problems we have right now......
    The idea that animals do not exist to be viewed by humans as food is a very fundamental idea in the vegan ethic and should not be dismissed lightly, especially by someone who is not yet a vegan.
    Thank you, Seaside, for putting the vegan ethic so well. I am not saying this lightly, but I think that these great and compassionate vegetarian thinkers would be pleased by what you said......
    "Nonviolence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being."
    -Mahatma Gandhi
    "The soul is the same in all living creatures, although the body of each is different."
    ---Hippocrates (Greek Physician & Philosopher)
    If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
    ---St. Francis of Assisi
    Even in the worm that crawls in the earth there glows a divine spark. When you slaughter a creature, you slaughter God.
    ---Isaac Bashevis Singer (Nobel Laureate 1978)
    For my part, I did not become a vegan because of concern for my health, or concern that humans would suffer because of the destruction of the environment. I became a vegan because I recognized that all creatures are the same as me; and that I would not want done to me what my fellow humans are doing to my fellow creatures. The best way to stop this abuse of the earth's creatures is to practice compassion for them. Exploitation is not compassionate.
    spo

  50. #200
    Seaside
    Guest

    Default Re: What's the deal with Fish again???

    Thank you, spo! I always appreciate the trouble you must take to find these quotes in your wonderful library and share them with us. It is good to be reminded of the thoughts of so many highly respected people past and present.

Similar Threads

  1. Omega-3: Not Enough Fish In The Sea
    By Korn in forum Human evolution and environmental issues
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: Dec 15th, 2012, 06:32 AM
  2. 'Fish' in batter.
    By vegcurry in forum VEGAN FOOD
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Jun 5th, 2008, 08:39 AM
  3. Multivitamins that don't contain fish
    By Eclipse in forum VEGAN HEALTH
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 8th, 2008, 03:42 AM

Tags for this thread (If you see one or more tags below, click on them if you're looking for similar threads!)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •