Gnads wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2017 at 9:26am:


Nobody has to eat meat.

In fact, avoiding the consumption of decaying animal carcasses is widely accepted as the healthier option.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2017 at 9:27am:


And of course you're an expert on this subject too 

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2017 at 9:29am:


You bloody hypocrite ... you do exactly the same.

Poor poor pitiful you 

Animal Emotions: Exploring Passionate Natures: Current interdisciplinary research provides compelling evidence that many animals experience such emotions as joy, fear, love, despair, and grief—we are not alone

Do elephants feel joy, chimpanzees grief and depression, and dogs happiness and dejection? People disagree about the nature of emotions in nonhuman animal beings (hereafter animals), especially concerning the question of whether any animals other than humans can feel emotions (Ekman 1998). Pythagoreans long ago believed that animals experience the same range of emotions as humans (Coates 1998), and current research provides compelling evidence that at least some animals likely feel a full range of emotions, including fear, joy, happiness, shame, embarrassment, resentment, jealousy, rage, anger, love, pleasure, compassion, respect, relief, disgust, sadness, despair, and grief (Skutch 1996, Poole 1996, 1998, Panksepp 1998, Archer 1999, Cabanac 1999, Bekoff 2000).

The expression of emotions in animals raises a number of stimulating and challenging questions to which relatively little systematic empirical research has been devoted, especially among free-ranging animals. Popular accounts (e.g., Masson and McCarthy's When Elephants Weep, 1995) have raised awareness of animal emotions, especially among nonscientists, and provided scientists with much useful information for further systematic research. Such books have also raised hackles among many scientists for being “too soft”—that is, too anecdotal, misleading, or sloppy (Fraser 1996). However, Burghardt (1997a), despite finding some areas of concern in Masson and McCarthy's book, wrote: “I predict that in a few years the phenomena described here will be confirmed, qualified, and extended” (p. 23). Fraser (1996) also noted that the book could serve as a useful source for motivating future systematic empirical research.

Researchers interested in exploring animal passions ask such questions as: Do animals experience emotions? What, if anything, do they feel? Is there a line that clearly separates those species that experience emotions from those that do not? Much current research follows Charles Darwin's (1872; see also Ekman 1998) lead, set forth in his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Darwin argued that there is continuity between the emotional lives of humans and those of other animals, and that the differences among many animals are in degree rather than in kind. In The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin claimed that “the lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery” (p. 448).


https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/50/10/861/233998

Moths, you are just not the fun element at Ozpol ...

Traditional hunting societies understood intuitively that animals feel pain, have emotions, are sentient and have souls even.

Fish deserve better treatment based on data on their emotional lives.

I always love it when scientific researchers provide solid empirical data on the cognitive and emotional lives of nonhuman animals (animals) that some take to be a "surprise" because in their (uninformed) opinion "this just can't be so." I recently wrote about this sort of surprise in an essay called "The Emotional Lives of Crayfish: Stress and Anxiety." And, now, Culum Brown (link is external), a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, has published a review paper in the journal Animal Cognition titled "Fish intelligence, sentience and ethics (link is external)" that clearly shows that fish are sentient and emotional beings and clearly feel pain in much the same way that humans do. The abstract of this significant essay available only to subscribers reads as follows:

Fish are one of the most highly utilised vertebrate taxa by humans; they are harvested from wild stocks as part of global fishing industries, grown under intensive aquaculture conditions, are the most common pet and are widely used for scientific research. But fish are seldom afforded the same level of compassion or welfare as warm-blooded vertebrates. Part of the problem is the large gap between people’s perception of fish intelligence and the scientific reality. This is an important issue because public perception guides government policy. The perception of an animal’s intelligence often drives our decision whether or not to include them in our moral circle. From a welfare perspective, most researchers would suggest that if an animal is sentient, then it can most likely suffer and should therefore be offered some form of formal protection. There has been a debate about fish welfare for decades which centres on the question of whether they are sentient or conscious. The implications for affording the same level of protection to fish as other vertebrates are great, not least because of fishing-related industries. Here, I review the current state of knowledge of fish cognition starting with their sensory perception and moving on to cognition. The review reveals that fish perception and cognitive abilities often match or exceed other vertebrates. A review of the evidence for pain perception strongly suggests that fish experience pain in a manner similar to the rest of the vertebrates. Although scientists cannot provide a definitive answer on the level of consciousness for any non-human vertebrate, the extensive evidence of fish behavioural and cognitive sophistication and pain perception suggests that best practice would be to lend fish the same level of protection as any other vertebrate.

Professor Brown's findings, consistent with the excellent research of Victoria Braithwaite (see this and this) are reviewed all over the web and this essay called "Fish have feelings too: Expert claims creatures experience pain in the same way humans do - and should be treated better (link is external)" nicely captures the essence of his review. Some snippets that should entice you to read the full essay include:

They [fish] develop cultural traditions and can even recognize themselves and others
They also show signs of Machiavellian intelligence, such as cooperation and reconciliation
Professor Brown said the primary senses of the fish are "just as good" and in some cases better than that of humans.
The level of mental complexity that fish display is on a par with most other vertebrates, while there is mounting evidence that they can feel pain in a manner similar to humans.
Fish should be included in our moral circle

Professor Brown also noted that, "Although scientists cannot provide a definitive answer on the level of consciousness for any non-human vertebrate, the extensive evidence of fish behavioural and cognitive sophistication and pain perception suggests that best practice would be to lend fish the same level of protection as any other vertebrate ... We should therefore include fish in our "moral circle" and afford them the protection they deserve."

In her very interesting book called Do Fish Feel Pain? (link is external) Dr. Braithwaite concluded, "I have argued that there is as much evidence that fish feel pain and suffer as there is for birds and mammals — and more than there is for human neonates and preterm babies." (page 153).

It's high time that use what we know on behalf of fish and other animals who are used and abused in the countless billions. Fish clearly are not things nor disposable objects, but rather sentient and feeling beings, a point stressed in Farm Sanctuary's “Someone, Not Something (link is external)” project.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201406/fish-are-sentient-an...

AiA wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2017 at 9:41am:



thats true.
life is harsh.

very soft people (and they dont come any softer then the inner city female green intellectual) cant confront this very basic FACT.

life is faaaarking harsh.
life is faaaarking unfair.

you can wring your hands and virtue signal and throw a hissy fit and be a drama queen and its wont change this FACT.

you are literally wasting the trajectory of your life by being so dammed stupid.

accept that it is harsh and cruel and rough and then go try to make it better for the sentient beings in your own "circle of concerns".

if you just want to rant on an obscure political forum so you can look in the mirror and say to yourself "i'm a better person than the others", well, NO you bloody well arent