From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Tue Feb 26 2002 - 03:43:23 MST
>[Jake] Hmmmm... This is a first for me. I have discussed this before many
times in different crowds with lots of people foaming at the mouth on both
sides and no one has >brought this up to me before.
I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply given earlier (worth
reprinting in full IMHO):
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> Of Dr Sebby
> Sent: 19 February 2001 12:07
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: Does this mean I can't have trout for Dinner? [No,
> it doesn't]
>
> .....ashamedly, i fully expect hermit to come up with the real
> data on this
> sort of stuff, but i am quite certain that pain is relative to the
> complexity of the central nervous system. i always suspected
> this..growing
> up on a farm environment, i repeatedly witnessed things that strongly
> suggested that simple animals really arent capable of feeling
> pain as humans
> are. e.g. cows who have broken their leg(severely) will continue
> to try and
> walk on it and become frustrated at its disfunction and not really care
> about 'favoring' it etc. my suspicion was finally confirmed during a
> psychology class which dealt with this issue...."do animals feel pain as
> intensely as humans do"? the answer was a resounding "NO"...there was a
> very clever experiment which revealed this with 100% certainty...sadly, i
> cannot recall the experiment....but i do recall being impressed with the
> cleverness of the method and that the results were absolute and
> unquestionable. as such, i hope hermit will know where to find
> this info.
> sorry, that's all i can really say.
>
> drsebby.
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Richard Ridge" <richard_ridge@tao-group.com>
> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Does this mean I can't have trout for Dinner? [No, it
> doesn't]
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:18:44 -0000
>
>
> > Well, it doesn't appear as if there will be ANY law banning angling in
> the
> > UK.
>
> Correct. There is no public demand for a ban on fishing; quite
> the contrary.
> What this nonsense is really about is animal rights activists trying to
> capitalise on the controversy created by the proposed ban on fox
> hunting. Is
> there much similarity between these two areas ? Let's see:
>
> The argument for banning fox hunting is as follows:
>
> 1. The sport is extremely cruel - it ends with the fox being
> dismembered by
> a pack of hounds. To quote the government report on hunting (which didn't
> even bother with fishing):
>
> "The evidence which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing
> of a fox by hounds above ground, death is not always effected by a single
> bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the
> dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. In a proportion of cases it results
> from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs, although
> insensibility
> and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is
> caught. There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the
> effect on the
> welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed
> above ground by
> hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously
> compromises the welfare of the fox."
>
> The argument for banning fishing is as follows:
>
> 1. It involves slipping a small hook through the mouth of the
> fish and then
> either throwing it back or eating it.
> 2. Errr.. that's it, actually.
>
> Incidentally, could someone enlighten me as to whether there are
> any grounds
> for suggesting that the fish can feel pain in the same way that
> humans can ?
The answer btw, was that with no nervous system they certainly can't,
although psychological stress probably does apply. But then, given that the
fish has a rather limited memory, it is unlikely to need counselling.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:43 MDT