An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.

Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
their published findings.

Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
nociception, as well as misinterpretations of responses of fish to
stimuli. He also noted that Sneddon, et al, misused statistical analysis
in their findings. Among Dr Rose's conclusions is that "Rather than
proving a capacity for pain, *THESE RESULTS SHOW A REMARKABLE RESISTANCE
TO ORAL TRAUMA BY THE TROUT* [my emphasis]. It comes as no surprise,
then, that many anglers have had the experience of catching the same
fish repeatedly within a span of a few minutes."

From his critique, which is available at the link below, here is Dr
Rose's case that Sneddon, et al, misinterpreted results.

The behavioral results allegedly showing evidence of pain were
misinterpreted.

1. The behavioral studies were done by injecting large
volumes of one of three solutions: bee venom, acetic acid
solution or saline, into the jaw of rather small trout. For the
sizes of the fish used, these injections of liquid would have
been equivalent to injecting 100 milliliters (more that 3
ounces) of solution into the lip of a human. Bee venom contains
a great variety of toxins that affect the nervous system and
cause a hormonal stress response in addition to stimulating
receptors signaling tissue injury. In spite of the large dose
of venom or acid, the activity level of these fish was not
affected, they did not hide under a shelter in the tank and they
resumed feeding in less than three hours. Furthermore, fish
that received no injection at all or fish that received a saline
injection did not feed, on average, for an hour and 20 minutes,
showing that a large saline injection produced no more effect
than just handling. The acid and venom-injected fish also
showed an infrequent rocking behavior that may have reflected a
difficulty by the fish in maintaining an upright posture, given
the magnitude of the toxic chemical trauma created by the
injection. But, even if the infrequent rocking was a response
to nociceptive stimulation of the mouth, there is no reason to
believe that it is any more than an unconscious nociceptive ]
response, rather than an indication of “pain”.

2. Sneddon and associates also state that the acid-injected
fish rubbed their mouths against the gravel (they don’t say how
often), but the venom-injected fish did not. They concluded
that mouth rubbing was an indication of pain because mammals,
including humans, rub injured tissues to alleviate nociceptive
input. If so, why did the venom-injected fish, that were also
supposed to be in pain, not perform this behavior? In addition,
injections of irritants into skin tissues is known to cause
hyperalgesia, where skin becomes hypersensitive, like the effect
of a sunburn. Who rubs sunburned skin against gravel to
alleviate the pain? At one point in the paper, Sneddon and
associates say that feeding was suppressed because the fish were
avoiding mouth stimulation, which would cause “pain.” But
later, they say that mouth rubbing was a way of reducing “pain.”
These are contradictory interpretations and you can’t have it
both ways. Their interpretations of the mouth-rubbing behaviors
don’t make sense nor do they show conscious experience of pain.

3. One of the few effects actually produced by the acid or
venom injections was an elevated opercular beat rate
(breathing). This response could have resulted directly from
gill irritation due to leakage or blood borne spread of the acid
or venom injections, but even if increased opercular beat rate
was due to nociceptive stimulation of the mouth, this
unconscious movement proves nothing about conscious pain.

4. One caveat regarding the behavioral data described above
is the fact that some of the statistical analyses were not done
correctly. Data for opercular beat rate and for time to resume
feeding were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, but
conclusions were made about specific group differences in these
measures. With this type analysis, it is not legitimate to
conclude that one group (e.g. acid or venom injected differed
from any other group (e.g. handeled or saline injected), but the
authors made such conclusions, nonetheless. Given the sizes of
the standard errors of the means for these data, however, the
group differences reported by the authors would probably have
been substantiated following proper statistical analysis.

To summarize, the most impressive thing about the acid and venom
injections was the relative absence of behavioral effects, given
the magnitude of the toxic injections. How many humans would
show little change in behavior or be ready to eat less than
three hours after getting a lemon-sized bolus of bee venom or
acid solution in their lip? Rather than proving a capacity for
pain, these results show a remarkable resistance to oral trauma
by the trout. It comes as no surprise, then, that many anglers
have had the experience of catching the same fish repeatedly
within a span of a few minutes. Of course predatory fishes,
including trout, feed avidly on potentially injurious prey like
crayfish, crabs and fish that have sharp spines in their fins –
which further indicates that these fish are not highly reactive
to noxious oral stimuli.

In addition, Sneddon and associates claim to have presented the
first evidence for nociceptive sensory receptors in fish, but
their results were neither wholly original nor unexpected. In
my 2002 Reviews paper, I cited a 1971 study by Whitear that
showed the presence of C-fibers in fish. C-fibers are a
principal type of nociceptive receptor, so there was very good
reason to assume that trout would have nociceptive receptors.
Another technical issue arises in the authors’ description of
their procedure for decerebration of trout in order to make them
“insentient.” The term sentience is vague and has no standard
scientific meaning, but apparently Sneddon, et al. were
performing this decerebration in order to eliminate any
potential pain that they assumed was within the capacity of the
trout. The usual means of producing a decerebration is to
remove all brain tissue above the midbrain. According to
Sneddon, et. al, however, they removed the “…olfactory and optic
lobes and cerebellum…” This is peculiar and counterproductive
because the entire pathway for nociceptive information from the
periphery through the brainstem to the cerebral hemispheres
would have remained intact in these fish, since the “ofactory
lobes” but not entire cerebral hemispheres would have been
removed according to this description. If fish could feel pain,
as the authors contend (and I dispute), these fish probably
would have.

The bottom line of this critique is that any attempt to show
pain in fish must use valid criteria, including proof of
conscious awareness, particularly a kind of awareness that is
meaningfully like ours. This is not something that can be taken
for granted, because on neurological and behavioral grounds it
is so improbable that fish could be conscious and feel pain.
Furthermore, the behavioral results of this study show that in
spite of very large injections of acid solution or venom, the
fish showed little adverse effect, hardly supporting the claim
that they were in pain.

I wish to emphasize that the improbability that fish can
experience pain in no way diminishes our responsibility for
concern about their welfare. Fish are capable of robust,
unconscious, behavioral, physiological and hormonal responses to
stressors, which if sufficiently intense or sustained, can be
detrimental to their health.

James D. Rose, Ph.D.
Department of Zoology and Physiology
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071
USA
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/Zoology/faculty/rose/
Full critique: http://tinyurl.com/6ucz

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:41:23 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>
>Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
>refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
>critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
>definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
>their published findings.
>
>Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
>nociception,

Which he failed to point out. He merely asserted that there had
been a confusion between nociception and genuine pain, but
evidence shows there was no confusion between the two at all.
The tests were made to establish;

(i) whether fish possess the necessary neuro-anatomy
for pain perception,
(ii) if these receptors were present whether they reacted
to noxious stimulation
(iii) whether noxious stimulation generated behavioural
responses that were more than simple reflexive reactions
to the stimulus.

And concludes;

By determining that fish have the same types of nociceptors
as other vertebrates (A-delta and C fibres), that these respond
to noxious stimulation, and that the motivation and general
behaviour of fish are adversely affected by such stimulation
would appear to provide compelling evidence that fish can
perceive and react to noxious stimuli. Whether this is evidence
that fish have the capacity to experience pain and suffering is
a harder question to resolve because to determine this it is
necessary to understand the cognitive capacities of fish. Work
is now being directed at this, and the results to date suggest that
some species of fish are capable of quite complex cognitive
processing. However, it is important to appreciate that the
simpler brain structure and the lack of a neocortex indicates that
the form pain perception and suffering experienced by fish will
be very different to that perceived by humans.

>as well as misinterpretations of responses of fish to
>stimuli. He also noted that Sneddon, et al, misused statistical analysis
>in their findings. Among Dr Rose's conclusions is that "Rather than
>proving a capacity for pain, *THESE RESULTS SHOW A REMARKABLE RESISTANCE
>TO ORAL TRAUMA BY THE TROUT* [my emphasis]. It comes as no surprise,
>then, that many anglers have had the experience of catching the same
>fish repeatedly within a span of a few minutes."

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If hooked fish feel no pain, then they will be caught again within a few minutes.
2) they are caught again within a few minutes
therefore
3) hooked fish feel no pain

> From his critique, which is available at the link below, here is Dr
>Rose's case that Sneddon, et al, misinterpreted results.
>
> The behavioral results allegedly showing evidence of pain were
> misinterpreted.
>
> 1. The behavioral studies were done by injecting large
> volumes of one of three solutions: bee venom, acetic acid
> solution or saline, into the jaw of rather small trout. For the
> sizes of the fish used, these injections of liquid would have
> been equivalent to injecting 100 milliliters (more that 3
> ounces) of solution into the lip of a human. Bee venom contains
> a great variety of toxins that affect the nervous system and
> cause a hormonal stress response in addition to stimulating
> receptors signaling tissue injury. In spite of the large dose
> of venom or acid, the activity level of these fish was not
> affected, they did not hide under a shelter in the tank and they
> resumed feeding in less than three hours.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the tested fish felt no pain, then their activity would not be affected.
2) Their activity was not affected
therefore
3) the tested fish felt no pain.

> Furthermore, fish
> that received no injection at all or fish that received a saline
> injection did not feed, on average, for an hour and 20 minutes,
> showing that a large saline injection produced no more effect
> than just handling. The acid and venom-injected fish also
> showed an infrequent rocking behavior that may have reflected a
> difficulty by the fish in maintaining an upright posture, given
> the magnitude of the toxic chemical trauma created by the
> injection.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain,
then they would exhibit an infrequent rocking behaviour.
2) They exhibited an infrequent rocking behaviour
therefore
3) the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain.

> But, even if the infrequent rocking was a response
> to nociceptive stimulation of the mouth, there is no reason to
> believe that it is any more than an unconscious nociceptive ]
> response, rather than an indication of “pain”.

And, likewise, there's no reason to believe that it isn't an
unconscious nociceptive response, but pain instead, so their
conclusion remains an ipse dixt.

Are you going to claim that certain mammals caught in
steel-jawed traps suffer no pain when chewing through
their limbs to get free, Tex?

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:41:23 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>
>Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
>refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
>critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
>definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
>their published findings.
>
>Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
>nociception,

Which he failed to point out. He merely asserted that there had
been a confusion between nociception and genuine pain, but
evidence shows there was no confusion between the two at all.
The tests were made to establish;

(i) whether fish possess the necessary neuro-anatomy
for pain perception,
(ii) if these receptors were present whether they reacted
to noxious stimulation
(iii) whether noxious stimulation generated behavioural
responses that were more than simple reflexive reactions
to the stimulus.

And concludes;

By determining that fish have the same types of nociceptors
as other vertebrates (A-delta and C fibres), that these respond
to noxious stimulation, and that the motivation and general
behaviour of fish are adversely affected by such stimulation
would appear to provide compelling evidence that fish can
perceive and react to noxious stimuli. Whether this is evidence
that fish have the capacity to experience pain and suffering is
a harder question to resolve because to determine this it is
necessary to understand the cognitive capacities of fish. Work
is now being directed at this, and the results to date suggest that
some species of fish are capable of quite complex cognitive
processing. However, it is important to appreciate that the
simpler brain structure and the lack of a neocortex indicates that
the form pain perception and suffering experienced by fish will
be very different to that perceived by humans.

>as well as misinterpretations of responses of fish to
>stimuli. He also noted that Sneddon, et al, misused statistical analysis
>in their findings. Among Dr Rose's conclusions is that "Rather than
>proving a capacity for pain, *THESE RESULTS SHOW A REMARKABLE RESISTANCE
>TO ORAL TRAUMA BY THE TROUT* [my emphasis]. It comes as no surprise,
>then, that many anglers have had the experience of catching the same
>fish repeatedly within a span of a few minutes."

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If hooked fish feel no pain, then they will be caught again within a few minutes.
2) they are caught again within a few minutes
therefore
3) hooked fish feel no pain

> From his critique, which is available at the link below, here is Dr
>Rose's case that Sneddon, et al, misinterpreted results.
>
> The behavioral results allegedly showing evidence of pain were
> misinterpreted.
>
> 1. The behavioral studies were done by injecting large
> volumes of one of three solutions: bee venom, acetic acid
> solution or saline, into the jaw of rather small trout. For the
> sizes of the fish used, these injections of liquid would have
> been equivalent to injecting 100 milliliters (more that 3
> ounces) of solution into the lip of a human. Bee venom contains
> a great variety of toxins that affect the nervous system and
> cause a hormonal stress response in addition to stimulating
> receptors signaling tissue injury. In spite of the large dose
> of venom or acid, the activity level of these fish was not
> affected, they did not hide under a shelter in the tank and they
> resumed feeding in less than three hours.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the tested fish felt no pain, then their activity would not be affected.
2) Their activity was not affected
therefore
3) the tested fish felt no pain.

> Furthermore, fish
> that received no injection at all or fish that received a saline
> injection did not feed, on average, for an hour and 20 minutes,
> showing that a large saline injection produced no more effect
> than just handling. The acid and venom-injected fish also
> showed an infrequent rocking behavior that may have reflected a
> difficulty by the fish in maintaining an upright posture, given
> the magnitude of the toxic chemical trauma created by the
> injection.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain,
then they would exhibit an infrequent rocking behaviour.
2) They exhibited an infrequent rocking behaviour
therefore
3) the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain.

> But, even if the infrequent rocking was a response
> to nociceptive stimulation of the mouth, there is no reason to
> believe that it is any more than an unconscious nociceptive ]
> response, rather than an indication of “pain”.

And, likewise, there's no reason to believe that it isn't an
unconscious nociceptive response, but pain instead, so their
conclusion remains an ipse dixt.

Are you going to claim that certain mammals caught in
steel-jawed traps suffer no pain when chewing through
their limbs to get free, Tex?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
wrote his usual sack of crap.

<Snip>

A bag of shit from the biggest shitbag on 'Usenet' - Jon Ball, aka 'useless
object'

Go and blow it out of your arse ~~Jonnie~~.

Claire's morbidly obese, self-crippled Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>
>>Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
>>refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
>>critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
>>definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
>>their published findings.
>>
>>Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
>>nociception,
>
> Which he

POINTED OUT. Sneddon, et al, did *not* prove fish feel pain:
Rather than proving a capacity for pain, these results show a
remarkable resistance to oral trauma by the trout. It comes as
no surprise, then, that many anglers have had the experience of
catching the same fish repeatedly within a span of a few
minutes. Of course predatory fishes, including trout, feed
avidly on potentially injurious prey like crayfish, crabs and
fish that have sharp spines in their fins – which further
indicates that these fish are not highly reactive to noxious
oral stimuli.... [T]he behavioral results of [Sneddon's] study
show that in spite of very large injections of acid solution or
venom, the fish showed little adverse effect, hardly supporting
the claim that they were in pain.

You've proven yet again that you're a misinformed charlatan. Please
write Dr Rose if you have any constructive criticism of his research
and/or conclusions. I'm sure he'd appreciate the views of an unemployed,
self-crippled ex-greasemonkey with a certificate in woodworking. No
doubt your experience has taught you more about fish than his thirty
years of research in the field ever will.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:33:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Claire's morbidly obese, self-crippled Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>>
>>>Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
>>>refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
>>>critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
>>>definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
>>>their published findings.
>>>
>>>Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
>>>nociception,
>>
>> Which he
>
........ failed to point out. He merely asserted that there had
been a confusion between nociception and genuine pain, but
evidence shows there was no confusion between the two at all.
The tests were made to establish;

(i) whether fish possess the necessary neuro-anatomy
for pain perception,
(ii) if these receptors were present whether they reacted
to noxious stimulation
(iii) whether noxious stimulation generated behavioural
responses that were more than simple reflexive reactions
to the stimulus.

And concludes;

By determining that fish have the same types of nociceptors
as other vertebrates (A-delta and C fibres), that these respond
to noxious stimulation, and that the motivation and general
behaviour of fish are adversely affected by such stimulation
would appear to provide compelling evidence that fish can
perceive and react to noxious stimuli. Whether this is evidence
that fish have the capacity to experience pain and suffering is
a harder question to resolve because to determine this it is
necessary to understand the cognitive capacities of fish. Work
is now being directed at this, and the results to date suggest that
some species of fish are capable of quite complex cognitive
processing. However, it is important to appreciate that the
simpler brain structure and the lack of a neocortex indicates that
the form pain perception and suffering experienced by fish will
be very different to that perceived by humans.

>as well as misinterpretations of responses of fish to
>stimuli. He also noted that Sneddon, et al, misused statistical analysis
>in their findings. Among Dr Rose's conclusions is that "Rather than
>proving a capacity for pain, *THESE RESULTS SHOW A REMARKABLE RESISTANCE
>TO ORAL TRAUMA BY THE TROUT* [my emphasis]. It comes as no surprise,
>then, that many anglers have had the experience of catching the same
>fish repeatedly within a span of a few minutes."

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If hooked fish feel no pain, then they will be caught again within a few minutes.
2) they are caught again within a few minutes
therefore
3) hooked fish feel no pain

> From his critique, which is available at the link below, here is Dr
>Rose's case that Sneddon, et al, misinterpreted results.
>
> The behavioral results allegedly showing evidence of pain were
> misinterpreted.
>
> 1. The behavioral studies were done by injecting large
> volumes of one of three solutions: bee venom, acetic acid
> solution or saline, into the jaw of rather small trout. For the
> sizes of the fish used, these injections of liquid would have
> been equivalent to injecting 100 milliliters (more that 3
> ounces) of solution into the lip of a human. Bee venom contains
> a great variety of toxins that affect the nervous system and
> cause a hormonal stress response in addition to stimulating
> receptors signaling tissue injury. In spite of the large dose
> of venom or acid, the activity level of these fish was not
> affected, they did not hide under a shelter in the tank and they
> resumed feeding in less than three hours.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the tested fish felt no pain, then their activity would not be affected.
2) Their activity was not affected
therefore
3) the tested fish felt no pain.

> Furthermore, fish
> that received no injection at all or fish that received a saline
> injection did not feed, on average, for an hour and 20 minutes,
> showing that a large saline injection produced no more effect
> than just handling. The acid and venom-injected fish also
> showed an infrequent rocking behavior that may have reflected a
> difficulty by the fish in maintaining an upright posture, given
> the magnitude of the toxic chemical trauma created by the
> injection.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain,
then they would exhibit an infrequent rocking behaviour.
2) They exhibited an infrequent rocking behaviour
therefore
3) the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain.

> But, even if the infrequent rocking was a response
> to nociceptive stimulation of the mouth, there is no reason to
> believe that it is any more than an unconscious nociceptive ]
> response, rather than an indication of “pain”.

And, likewise, there's no reason to believe that it isn't an
unconscious nociceptive response, but pain instead, so their
conclusion remains an ipse dixt.

Are you going to claim that certain mammals caught in
steel-jawed traps suffer no pain when chewing through
their limbs to get free, Tex?

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:33:57 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Claire's morbidly obese, self-crippled Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>>
>>>Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
>>>refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
>>>critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
>>>definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
>>>their published findings.
>>>
>>>Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
>>>nociception,
>>
>> Which he
>
........ failed to point out. He merely asserted that there had
been a confusion between nociception and genuine pain, but
evidence shows there was no confusion between the two at all.
The tests were made to establish;

(i) whether fish possess the necessary neuro-anatomy
for pain perception,
(ii) if these receptors were present whether they reacted
to noxious stimulation
(iii) whether noxious stimulation generated behavioural
responses that were more than simple reflexive reactions
to the stimulus.

And concludes;

By determining that fish have the same types of nociceptors
as other vertebrates (A-delta and C fibres), that these respond
to noxious stimulation, and that the motivation and general
behaviour of fish are adversely affected by such stimulation
would appear to provide compelling evidence that fish can
perceive and react to noxious stimuli. Whether this is evidence
that fish have the capacity to experience pain and suffering is
a harder question to resolve because to determine this it is
necessary to understand the cognitive capacities of fish. Work
is now being directed at this, and the results to date suggest that
some species of fish are capable of quite complex cognitive
processing. However, it is important to appreciate that the
simpler brain structure and the lack of a neocortex indicates that
the form pain perception and suffering experienced by fish will
be very different to that perceived by humans.

>as well as misinterpretations of responses of fish to
>stimuli. He also noted that Sneddon, et al, misused statistical analysis
>in their findings. Among Dr Rose's conclusions is that "Rather than
>proving a capacity for pain, *THESE RESULTS SHOW A REMARKABLE RESISTANCE
>TO ORAL TRAUMA BY THE TROUT* [my emphasis]. It comes as no surprise,
>then, that many anglers have had the experience of catching the same
>fish repeatedly within a span of a few minutes."

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If hooked fish feel no pain, then they will be caught again within a few minutes.
2) they are caught again within a few minutes
therefore
3) hooked fish feel no pain

> From his critique, which is available at the link below, here is Dr
>Rose's case that Sneddon, et al, misinterpreted results.
>
> The behavioral results allegedly showing evidence of pain were
> misinterpreted.
>
> 1. The behavioral studies were done by injecting large
> volumes of one of three solutions: bee venom, acetic acid
> solution or saline, into the jaw of rather small trout. For the
> sizes of the fish used, these injections of liquid would have
> been equivalent to injecting 100 milliliters (more that 3
> ounces) of solution into the lip of a human. Bee venom contains
> a great variety of toxins that affect the nervous system and
> cause a hormonal stress response in addition to stimulating
> receptors signaling tissue injury. In spite of the large dose
> of venom or acid, the activity level of these fish was not
> affected, they did not hide under a shelter in the tank and they
> resumed feeding in less than three hours.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the tested fish felt no pain, then their activity would not be affected.
2) Their activity was not affected
therefore
3) the tested fish felt no pain.

> Furthermore, fish
> that received no injection at all or fish that received a saline
> injection did not feed, on average, for an hour and 20 minutes,
> showing that a large saline injection produced no more effect
> than just handling. The acid and venom-injected fish also
> showed an infrequent rocking behavior that may have reflected a
> difficulty by the fish in maintaining an upright posture, given
> the magnitude of the toxic chemical trauma created by the
> injection.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain,
then they would exhibit an infrequent rocking behaviour.
2) They exhibited an infrequent rocking behaviour
therefore
3) the injected fish suffered toxic chemical trauma rather than pain.

> But, even if the infrequent rocking was a response
> to nociceptive stimulation of the mouth, there is no reason to
> believe that it is any more than an unconscious nociceptive ]
> response, rather than an indication of “pain”.

And, likewise, there's no reason to believe that it isn't an
unconscious nociceptive response, but pain instead, so their
conclusion remains an ipse dixt.

Are you going to claim that certain mammals caught in
steel-jawed traps suffer no pain when chewing through
their limbs to get free, Tex?

Claire's morbidly obese, self-crippled Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>>>
>>>>Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
>>>>refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
>>>>critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
>>>>definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
>>>>their published findings.
>>>>
>>>>Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
>>>>nociception,
>>>
>>>Which he

POINTED OUT. Sneddon, et al, did *not* prove fish feel pain:
Rather than proving a capacity for pain, these results show a
remarkable resistance to oral trauma by the trout. It comes as
no surprise, then, that many anglers have had the experience of
catching the same fish repeatedly within a span of a few
minutes. Of course predatory fishes, including trout, feed
avidly on potentially injurious prey like crayfish, crabs and
fish that have sharp spines in their fins – which further
indicates that these fish are not highly reactive to noxious
oral stimuli.... [T]he behavioral results of [Sneddon's] study
show that in spite of very large injections of acid solution or
venom, the fish showed little adverse effect, hardly supporting
the claim that they were in pain.

You've proven yet again that you're a misinformed charlatan. Please
write Dr Rose if you have any constructive criticism of his research
and/or conclusions. I'm sure he'd appreciate the views of an unemployed,
self-crippled ex-greasemonkey with a certificate in woodworking. No
doubt your experience has taught you more about fish than his thirty
years of research in the field ever will.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:09:04 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Claire's morbidly obese, self-crippled Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>>>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>>>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>>>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>>>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>>>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
>>>>>refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
>>>>>critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
>>>>>definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
>>>>>their published findings.
>>>>>
>>>>>Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
>>>>>nociception,
>>>>
>>>>Which he
>
>POINTED OUT. Sneddon, et al, did *not* prove fish feel pain:
> Rather than proving a capacity for pain, these results show a
> remarkable resistance to oral trauma by the trout. It comes as
> no surprise, then, that many anglers have had the experience of
> catching the same fish repeatedly within a span of a few
> minutes.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If hooked fish feel no pain, then they will be caught again within a few minutes.
2) They are caught again within a few minutes
therefore
3) hooked fish feel no pain.

Are you going to claim that certain mammals caught in
steel-jawed traps suffer no pain when chewing through
their limbs to get free, Tex?

Claire's morbidly obese, self-crippled Uncle Dreck wrote:
>>>>>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>>>>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>>>>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>>>>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>>>>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>>>>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dr James Rose, who's studied animal neurology for thirty years, has
>>>>>>refuted the conclusions of Sneddon, Braithwaite, and Gentle. In his
>>>>>>critique of their conclusions, Dr Rose pointed to specific flawed
>>>>>>definitions and specific flawed interpretations of the researchers in
>>>>>>their published findings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Among the flaws were an *improper* distinction between pain and
>>>>>>nociception,
>>>>>
>>>>>Which he
>>
>>POINTED OUT. Sneddon, et al, did *not* prove fish feel pain:
>> Rather than proving a capacity for pain, these results show a
>> remarkable resistance to oral trauma by the trout. It comes as
>> no surprise, then, that many anglers have had the experience of
>> catching the same fish repeatedly within a span of a few
>> minutes.
>
> Affirmation

You should affirm the findings of experts in piscine neurology rather
than engaging in the kind of sophistry one would expect from a
self-crippled ex-greasemonkey with a certificate in woodwork.

> Are you going to claim that certain mammals caught in
> steel-jawed traps suffer no pain

Stop trying to change the subject, fat ****. Fish are not mammals. The
issue at hand is that fish DON'T feel pain:
Rather than proving a capacity for pain, these results show a
remarkable resistance to oral trauma by the trout. It comes as
no surprise, then, that many anglers have had the experience of
catching the same fish repeatedly within a span of a few
minutes. Of course predatory fishes, including trout, feed
avidly on potentially injurious prey like crayfish, crabs and
fish that have sharp spines in their fins – which further
indicates that these fish are not highly reactive to noxious
oral stimuli.... [T]he behavioral results of [Sneddon's] study
show that in spite of very large injections of acid solution or
venom, the fish showed little adverse effect, hardly supporting
the claim that they were in pain.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
> infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the scientific
> method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that fish
> experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to accept
> any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al, trumps every
> other one in the history of scientific research.

Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't feel
much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel pain at
all, they wouldn't live very long.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
> infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the scientific
> method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that fish
> experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to accept
> any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al, trumps every
> other one in the history of scientific research.

Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't feel
much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel pain at
all, they wouldn't live very long.

Rubystars wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> news >
>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the scientific
>>method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that fish
>>experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to accept
>>any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al, trumps every
>>other one in the history of scientific research.
>
>
> Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't feel
> much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel pain at
> all, they wouldn't live very long.

Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
own mothers prey upon them.

Rubystars wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> news >
>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the scientific
>>method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that fish
>>experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to accept
>>any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al, trumps every
>>other one in the history of scientific research.
>
>
> Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't feel
> much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel pain at
> all, they wouldn't live very long.

Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
own mothers prey upon them.

"Ron" > wrote in message
<snip>
> My experience of psychology offers very differing ideas on pain and
> cognitive aspects of pain. Thanks for the clarification of your point.
<snip>

You're welcome. Although psychological experiments have at times involved
animals, (Pavlov's dogs salivating, pigeons trained to hit a button for a
food reward, etc.) psychology is mainly focused on human beings. To
understand animals it's best to look at what abilities and limitations they
have, what needs they have in life, and what brings the animals optimal
health.

I remember taking a psychology course in which they told us that psychology
teaches that humans have no animal instincts. The example they gave us was
asking whether a human mother had "maternal instincts." The "correct" answer
was no, because supposedly humans don't have instincts at all. I completely
and totally disagree with this. We are animals and we share a lot of
instinctive urges with animals, and many things are driven by animalistic
things rather than a logical thinking mind. For example tests have been done
showing various subconcious things affecting mate selection (one example
being that apparently people pick up information on each other's immune
systems through smell, and this affects how attractive they find a person,
even though they never think about this consciously), and cross cultural
studies showing similarities between different human beings in how they deal
with certain problems, and even similarities in social structure and
behaviors with the other great apes, and to a lesser degree, other primates
and other mammals.

I think that pain is a physical process rather than a psychological
response, although how each human being deals with pain may depend on their
psychology. Some individuals have a higher threshold than others as to what
they, personally, can tolerate. For example, an adult usually doesn't scream
and cry when they get a shot at the doctor's office, and therefore can
tolerate it much better psychologically than a baby or young child, but they
still feel pain. When it comes to animals who can not speak for themselves,
I think it's safest morally to assume that most animals can feel pain and to
avoid causing it if it's at all practical to do so.

-Rubystars

"Ron" > wrote in message
<snip>
> My experience of psychology offers very differing ideas on pain and
> cognitive aspects of pain. Thanks for the clarification of your point.
<snip>

You're welcome. Although psychological experiments have at times involved
animals, (Pavlov's dogs salivating, pigeons trained to hit a button for a
food reward, etc.) psychology is mainly focused on human beings. To
understand animals it's best to look at what abilities and limitations they
have, what needs they have in life, and what brings the animals optimal
health.

I remember taking a psychology course in which they told us that psychology
teaches that humans have no animal instincts. The example they gave us was
asking whether a human mother had "maternal instincts." The "correct" answer
was no, because supposedly humans don't have instincts at all. I completely
and totally disagree with this. We are animals and we share a lot of
instinctive urges with animals, and many things are driven by animalistic
things rather than a logical thinking mind. For example tests have been done
showing various subconcious things affecting mate selection (one example
being that apparently people pick up information on each other's immune
systems through smell, and this affects how attractive they find a person,
even though they never think about this consciously), and cross cultural
studies showing similarities between different human beings in how they deal
with certain problems, and even similarities in social structure and
behaviors with the other great apes, and to a lesser degree, other primates
and other mammals.

I think that pain is a physical process rather than a psychological
response, although how each human being deals with pain may depend on their
psychology. Some individuals have a higher threshold than others as to what
they, personally, can tolerate. For example, an adult usually doesn't scream
and cry when they get a shot at the doctor's office, and therefore can
tolerate it much better psychologically than a baby or young child, but they
still feel pain. When it comes to animals who can not speak for themselves,
I think it's safest morally to assume that most animals can feel pain and to
avoid causing it if it's at all practical to do so.

-Rubystars

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Rubystars wrote:
>> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
>> news >>
>>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>
>>
>> Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't
>> feel much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel
>> pain at all, they wouldn't live very long.
>
> Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
> own mothers prey upon them.

I guess mom fish love fry-ed food.

-Rubystars

In article > ,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > My experience of psychology offers very differing ideas on pain and
> > cognitive aspects of pain. Thanks for the clarification of your point.
> <snip>
>
> You're welcome. Although psychological experiments have at times involved
> animals, (Pavlov's dogs salivating, pigeons trained to hit a button for a
> food reward, etc.) psychology is mainly focused on human beings. To
> understand animals it's best to look at what abilities and limitations they
> have, what needs they have in life, and what brings the animals optimal
> health.
>
> I remember taking a psychology course in which they told us that psychology
> teaches that humans have no animal instincts. The example they gave us was
> asking whether a human mother had "maternal instincts." The "correct" answer
> was no, because supposedly humans don't have instincts at all. I completely
> and totally disagree with this. We are animals and we share a lot of
> instinctive urges with animals, and many things are driven by animalistic
> things rather than a logical thinking mind. For example tests have been done
> showing various subconcious things affecting mate selection (one example
> being that apparently people pick up information on each other's immune
> systems through smell, and this affects how attractive they find a person,
> even though they never think about this consciously), and cross cultural
> studies showing similarities between different human beings in how they deal
> with certain problems, and even similarities in social structure and
> behaviors with the other great apes, and to a lesser degree, other primates
> and other mammals.
>
> I think that pain is a physical process rather than a psychological
> response, although how each human being deals with pain may depend on their
> psychology. Some individuals have a higher threshold than others as to what
> they, personally, can tolerate. For example, an adult usually doesn't scream
> and cry when they get a shot at the doctor's office, and therefore can
> tolerate it much better psychologically than a baby or young child, but they
> still feel pain. When it comes to animals who can not speak for themselves,
> I think it's safest morally to assume that most animals can feel pain and to
> avoid causing it if it's at all practical to do so.
>
> -Rubystars

Sorry for being rude, but can we clarify the issue that you want to
discuss with me here. Based on your comments above, there are a dozen or
so routes that I can pursue.

From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them. If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.

In article > ,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > My experience of psychology offers very differing ideas on pain and
> > cognitive aspects of pain. Thanks for the clarification of your point.
> <snip>
>
> You're welcome. Although psychological experiments have at times involved
> animals, (Pavlov's dogs salivating, pigeons trained to hit a button for a
> food reward, etc.) psychology is mainly focused on human beings. To
> understand animals it's best to look at what abilities and limitations they
> have, what needs they have in life, and what brings the animals optimal
> health.
>
> I remember taking a psychology course in which they told us that psychology
> teaches that humans have no animal instincts. The example they gave us was
> asking whether a human mother had "maternal instincts." The "correct" answer
> was no, because supposedly humans don't have instincts at all. I completely
> and totally disagree with this. We are animals and we share a lot of
> instinctive urges with animals, and many things are driven by animalistic
> things rather than a logical thinking mind. For example tests have been done
> showing various subconcious things affecting mate selection (one example
> being that apparently people pick up information on each other's immune
> systems through smell, and this affects how attractive they find a person,
> even though they never think about this consciously), and cross cultural
> studies showing similarities between different human beings in how they deal
> with certain problems, and even similarities in social structure and
> behaviors with the other great apes, and to a lesser degree, other primates
> and other mammals.
>
> I think that pain is a physical process rather than a psychological
> response, although how each human being deals with pain may depend on their
> psychology. Some individuals have a higher threshold than others as to what
> they, personally, can tolerate. For example, an adult usually doesn't scream
> and cry when they get a shot at the doctor's office, and therefore can
> tolerate it much better psychologically than a baby or young child, but they
> still feel pain. When it comes to animals who can not speak for themselves,
> I think it's safest morally to assume that most animals can feel pain and to
> avoid causing it if it's at all practical to do so.
>
> -Rubystars

Sorry for being rude, but can we clarify the issue that you want to
discuss with me here. Based on your comments above, there are a dozen or
so routes that I can pursue.

From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
obligation to protect them. If you've been following my conversation
with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
(animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.

Rubystars wrote:
>>>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>>
>>>Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't
>>>feel much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel
>>>pain at all, they wouldn't live very long.
>>
>>Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
>>own mothers prey upon them.
>
> I guess mom fish love fry-ed food.

That's finny.

Rubystars wrote:
>>>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>>
>>>Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't
>>>feel much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel
>>>pain at all, they wouldn't live very long.
>>
>>Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
>>own mothers prey upon them.
>
> I guess mom fish love fry-ed food.

That's finny.

Rubystars wrote:
>>>>An unemployed, self-crippled ex-greasemonkey and a reflexologist who
>>>>infect these newsgroups with their ignorance of science and the
>>>>scientific method claim on the basis of a study by Sneddon, et al, that
>>>>fish experience pain. These two misinformed charlatans have refused to
>>>>accept any other study, suggesting that the study of Sneddon, et al,
>>>>trumps every other one in the history of scientific research.
>>>
>>>Fish are vertebrates and have a vertebrate nervous system. They don't
>>>feel much pain in their mouths, this is true, but if they didn't feel
>>>pain at all, they wouldn't live very long.
>>
>>Lifespans are pretty relative, but most fish don't live very long. Their
>>own mothers prey upon them.
>
> I guess mom fish love fry-ed food.

That's finny.

"Ron" > wrote in message
<snip>
> From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
> others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> obligation to protect them.

It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

>If you've been following my conversation
> with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.

I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
for no good reason.

-Rubystars

"Ron" > wrote in message
<snip>
> From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
> others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> obligation to protect them.

It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

>If you've been following my conversation
> with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.

I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
for no good reason.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message om...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> > obligation to protect them.
>
> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

So why do you continue to eat meat?

> >If you've been following my conversation
> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
>
> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
> for no good reason.

So why do you continue to eat meat?

"Rubystars" > wrote in message om...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> > obligation to protect them.
>
> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.

So why do you continue to eat meat?

> >If you've been following my conversation
> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
>
> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
> for no good reason.

So why do you continue to eat meat?

In article >,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> > obligation to protect them.
>
> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
>
> >If you've been following my conversation
> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
>
> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
> for no good reason.

This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.

The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
the behaviour.

My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?

In article >,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that when
> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> > obligation to protect them.
>
> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
>
> >If you've been following my conversation
> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
>
> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to animals
> for no good reason.

This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.

The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
the behaviour.

My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?

"Ron" > wrote
> "Rubystars" > wrote:

> > <snip>
> > > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
when
> > > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> > > obligation to protect them.
> >
> > It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
> >
> > >If you've been following my conversation
> > > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> > > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> > > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
> >
> > I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
animals
> > for no good reason.
>
> This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
> more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
> condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
>
> The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
> acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
> to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
> would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
> argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
> the behaviour.

That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos against
using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
universal.

> My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
> very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
> if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
> animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
> requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?

Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert it,
see www.grandin.com

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
> > > > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
> when
> > > > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> > > > obligation to protect them.
> > >
> > > It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
> > >
> > > >If you've been following my conversation
> > > > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
> > > > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
> > > > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
> > >
> > > I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
> animals
> > > for no good reason.
> >
> > This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
> > more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
> > condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
> >
> > The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
> > acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
> > to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
> > would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
> > argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
> > the behaviour.
>
> That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
> killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
> self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos against
> using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
> universal.

Subjective morals. Finally, we are in agreement.

> > My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
> > very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
> > if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
> > animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
> > requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?
>
> Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert it,
> see www.grandin.com

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> om...
>>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> <snip>
>> > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
>> > when
>> > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
>> > obligation to protect them.
>>
>> It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is practical.
>
> So why do you continue to eat meat?
==================
Why do you continue to post your idiocy to usenet? Afterall, there is no
survival need. At least meat provides nutrition, you're just killing for
entertainment.


>
>> >If you've been following my conversation
>> > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule operationalized
>> > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat others
>> > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
>>
>> I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
>> animals
>> for no good reason.
>
> So why do you continue to eat meat?
==================
Why do you continue to post your idiocy to usenet?



>
>
>

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
>>
>> > > <snip>
>> > > > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
>> when
>> > > > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
>> > > > obligation to protect them.
>> > >
>> > > It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is
>> > > practical.
>> > >
>> > > >If you've been following my conversation
>> > > > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule
>> > > > operationalized
>> > > > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat
>> > > > others
>> > > > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
>> > >
>> > > I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
>> animals
>> > > for no good reason.
>> >
>> > This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
>> > more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
>> > condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
>> >
>> > The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
>> > acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
>> > to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
>> > would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
>> > argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
>> > the behaviour.
>>
>> That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
>> killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
>> self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos
>> against
>> using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
>> universal.
>
> Subjective morals. Finally, we are in agreement.

My position has not changed. There is a large subjective component to
morality.

>> > My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
>> > very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
>> > if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
>> > animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
>> > requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?
>>
>> Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert
>> it,
>> see www.grandin.com

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > > <snip>
> >> > > > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
> >> when
> >> > > > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
> >> > > > obligation to protect them.
> >> > >
> >> > > It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is
> >> > > practical.
> >> > >
> >> > > >If you've been following my conversation
> >> > > > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule
> >> > > > operationalized
> >> > > > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat
> >> > > > others
> >> > > > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
> >> animals
> >> > > for no good reason.
> >> >
> >> > This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
> >> > more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
> >> > condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
> >> >
> >> > The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
> >> > acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
> >> > to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
> >> > would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
> >> > argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
> >> > the behaviour.
> >>
> >> That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
> >> killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
> >> self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos
> >> against
> >> using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
> >> universal.
> >
> > Subjective morals. Finally, we are in agreement.
>
> My position has not changed. There is a large subjective component to
> morality.

Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

> >> > My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
> >> > very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
> >> > if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
> >> > animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
> >> > requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?
> >>
> >> Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert
> >> it,
> >> see www.grandin.com

"Ron" > wrote

>> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
> vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
> animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it is
> acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan hypocrisy
is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to kill
animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of cheap
food.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
> > vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
> > animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it is
> > acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>
> That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan hypocrisy
> is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to kill
> animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
> people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of cheap
> food.

Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?

Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"
>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > >> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing
simultaneously. The
> > > vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill
some
> > > animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to
believe_ it is
> > > acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
> >
> > That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
hypocrisy
> > is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable
to kill
> > animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans
pay
> > people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply
of cheap
> > food.
>
> Name the vegan and the person they paid
No. That is not a serious or legitimate demand.

Stupid leaking homo.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
>> > vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
>> > animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
>> > is
>> > acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>>
>> That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
>> hypocrisy
>> is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
>> kill
>> animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
>> people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
>> cheap
>> food.
>
> Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
> tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?

The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
>> > vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
>> > animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
>> > is
>> > acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
>>
>> That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
>> hypocrisy
>> is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
>> kill
>> animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
>> people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
>> cheap
>> food.
>
> Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
> tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?

The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.

Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
> >> > vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
> >> > animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
> >> > is
> >> > acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
> >>
> >> That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
> >> hypocrisy
> >> is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
> >> kill
> >> animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
> >> people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
> >> cheap
> >> food.
> >
> > Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
> > tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
>
> The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
> Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
>
> Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?

Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
reasonable to me.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
> >> > vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
> >> > animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it
> >> > is
> >> > acceptable to kill some animals for their food.
> >>
> >> That would be fine if that were the case, but it isn't. The vegan
> >> hypocrisy
> >> is that although they *profess* to believe that it is unacceptable to
> >> kill
> >> animals for their food, their actions invalidate this claim. Vegans pay
> >> people to kill animals willy-nilly to preserve their steady supply of
> >> cheap
> >> food.
> >
> > Name the vegan and the person they paid to kill what animal? I bought
> > tomatoes last week, who did I pay and what did they kill?
>
> The vegan's name was Dolores, she paid Pedro the farmer and the animal was
> Ferdinand the mouse. You paid Juan to kill a lizard.
>
> Just as suspected, nonsense is not very interesting, why do it?

Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
reasonable to me.