What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

tattooed fish, thoughts?

  • Thread starter Zero
  • Start date
  • #41
Rattler you know full well that Prairie dogs crop the vegetation around their burrows to create a clear line of sight for predators. Hardly call that destroying. But we people modify our habitat too.

The argument that animals do/do not feel pain is irrelevant in the end. We as human beings inflict pain on eachother, and know what we are doing. We know we feel pain and are traumatized about it. Hell, we say so. From simply saying hurtful petty things to someone else to all out warfare between groups, we as a people do cause pain. Much pain. And many do not care. Should we care if, say a criminal or terrorist is in pain? Or if civilians die in a conflict? The reviews and results are mixed. Some care some do not. Animals, especially ones that are'nt bright-eyed or furry haven't a chance.

ESPECIALLY if there is profit to be had.
 
  • #42
Rattler you know full well that Prairie dogs crop the vegetation around their burrows to create a clear line of sight for predators. Hardly call that destroying. But we people modify our habitat too.

yes they do.....and in good years it improves the grazing for other wildlife......ever seen what happens in a bad years? aint anything left for the dirt rats to eat let alone anything else.....killer whales have been shown to play with injured seals when they arent really hungry........hitting them with their tails and sending them sailing through the air just to swim over and do it again all the while the seal is still alive....when game is plentiful wolves will kill deer/elk/livestock, eat the best bits suchas the liver ad tender chuncks of muscle, leave the rest to rot and go kill another to once again just eat the best bits.....nature can be just as cruel as ppl
 
  • #43
seen what happens in a bad years? aint anything left for the dirt rats to eat let alone anything else.
Those other animals would just move assuming there was not a fence in the way.
killer whales have been shown to play with injured seals when they arent really hungry........hitting them with their tails and sending them sailing through the air just to swim over and do it again all the while the seal is still alive....when game is plentiful wolves will kill deer/elk/livestock, eat the best bits suchas the liver ad tender chuncks of muscle, leave the rest to rot and go kill another to once again just eat the best bits.....nature can be just as cruel as ppl

Of course it can. The deaths of the insects our plants consume is a bad way to go. Sundews in particular.

But just because something happens does not justify it. Animals are animals, but with people its different. Especially when it can be avoided. ****, murder, torture of innocents. It all happens, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated. I have heard people suggest that.

"Thats life" - Its a truth, but never a justification.
 
  • #45
as i said.....my issue is who gets to decide where the line gets drawn........everyone here seems to more or less agree that our congress is filled with some of the dumbest ppl this country can produce...i aint happy where they like to draw the lines 95% of the time now......sure in the hell dont want them drawing more....dont like something like tattooed fish or line bred dogs with smashed faces....boycott them with your wallets.....think chickens grown in metal cages are cruel, buy free range......buy organic field raised beef........

was watching a thing this week about some Hindu's over in India.....some of them sacrifice animals, particularly chickens and goats to a certain god on certain days.....they go to the temple.....bring the goat in front of the alter, an individual that does nothing but the actual cutting cuts its throat, severing arteries, animal bleeds out onto thee alter, is dead in 30 seconds or less.......the person that brought that animal, carries it 50 feet presents it to a butcher who slices up all the meat which the family takes home and makes a ceremonial meal.....the show was condemning it and from what i saw nothing different was happening from when i put a bullet in the heart of a deer, take it home and fry up the backstraps......takes the same amount of time for my heart shot deer to die, same amount of suffering......ive got no problem with those Hindus sacrificing that goat to their god.....but lots of folks seem to think its horrible cause is in the name of religion....practically, its no different from my hunting or on the farm slaughtering
 
  • #46
My mother has a bunch of german shepard dogs that have ID number tattoos. The tats are done when they are puppies and they yelp when the pins go in but are fine the second it's over.

My previous wire Jonah was tattooed. It took about 15 seconds and done. He was fine...never made a peep and was thrilled with his dog treat afterwards. He was tattooed with my social sec. number and state. I considered it invaluable. I would have tattooed Ollie but I never saw any tat clinics. However, I do have Ollie microchipped. But a tat is something anyone can see...you don't need a special machine to find it. Mainly I did it because it is illegal to for a research facility to take a tattooed dog. I'd still recommend it for any dog owner.

I too do not like dogs/cats bred for flat faces. They can't breathe.
 
  • #48
but lots of folks seem to think its horrible cause is in the name of religion....practically, its no different from my hunting or on the farm slaughtering
That's their own fundamentalist worldview though. Those people think any and all other religions are "pagan" while only ours is "pure" cos we only kill people who disagree with us instead of sacrificing animals. "Our religion is more civilized" they like to say. In Christianity for example, Christ was supposed to be the "ultimate sacrifice", thus no more need of the bloody animal sacrifices in the manner of "consecrating David's temple" as described in the old testament. So, it's people of opposing faiths dying now as the "sacrifices" to the glory of this or that god, seems the idea is the more deaths a "mainstream religion" (Christians, Jews and Muslims) piles up decides the winningest religion...
But anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the ceremonial use of creatures when they are extinguished quickly and then consumed, there is, as you mention, not much difference in that than other forms of slaughter. I myself don't wish to participate in the act of killing anything (man or beast) but that's just me.
 
  • #49
I hate fish that look unnatural and are hurt during the porcess, but I love glofish! They are zebra danios that have ancestors that were given a color gene from coral. All current glofish were breed from their parents and retained the color. I think they come in red, yellow-orange, and green. Though I don't want to start an argument on genetic engineering...
 
  • #50
see.....you and i do not see an issue with it even if you choose not to do anything similar yourself....bet we can find a good many of those that make the laws that say its a horrible thing that should be outlawed.....

i dont see line breeding as an evil thing.....cant say that i can find true harm in the way pugs have been bred.....on the list of things wrong with this world thats pretty near the bottom.....parrot cichlids? no big deal....not my thing so i wont financially support it but i take no true issue with those that do.....even with the tattooed fish, i put a hook through the head of a minnow just right so it stays alive and try and get another fish to chew on it......and hope it takes it good enough so i can set the hook.......most the time i just get nibbles which by some definitions could me im submitting that minnow to torture cause it can live over an hour getting nibbled on here and there every 5-15 minutes......had the hook not been in his head he would likely get swallowed and killed quick......least the tattooed fish get cared for when someone buys them.......

other than for extream cases i really dont like drawing that line.....breeding flat faced dogs and tattooing fish is pretty far from extream in my book.....
 
  • #51
Red glofish have the gene for the Red Florescent Protein (RFP) from coral, the green ones have the gene for the Green Florescent Protein (GFP) from a species of jellyfish. These genes are so much fun to play with (transforming bacteria and such).
 
  • #52
tatooing is stupid, wasteful and dumb. On fish that is haha.

Messing with geneitcs to me is more humane and looks/works/feels better for the fish.
 
  • #54
It's called cultural relativism , it doesn't need to "make sense" to someone living outside the culture or outside academia who wants to learn why certain people do these things. Worldviews (reality-tunnels) often develop quite differently when one is raised in a completely different context (environment) and using a language other than the subject/predicate based system of western European languages. The Vatican is horrified by this relativism and calls it the "creeping evil" of our time! lol! IIRC the adornments are simply ways of identifying members of your tribe, and ritually initiating the members as part of the tribe at certain life-stages. I think it's interesting even if I sure don't wanna go through some of it. I believe the disk lip people are actually Indians from South America, I just can't recall what tribe it is this many years after school! lol!

Yeah, I know. I just think it's ugly and dumb. Couldn't they have just use nametags and post-its or different colored uniforms, like on Star Trek? Those aren't permanent demarcations.
 
  • #55
Relativism basically excuses anything and everything. It isn't moral or immoral; it's amoral. Pragmatism is a better word. Not the way political hacks use it - paying lip service to someone else's ideas or giving up just enough to get the votes they need to do what they want - but the way ethicists use it, meaning a search for common ground and relying on diverse ideas in identifying what is right. The fact that a prairie dog damages the environment or a killer whale tortures weaker creatures doesn't justify us doing the same. People can do better.
 
  • #56
Yeah, I know. I just think it's ugly and dumb. Couldn't they have just use nametags and post-its or different colored uniforms, like on Star Trek? Those aren't permanent demarcations.

Ironically the whole reason the lip plates in Africa developed is because Westerners found them ugly and grotesque and individuals with the plates for the slave trade, so blame Europeans and Americans for that one. Many of these body modifications are status symbols and proofs of completion of rites of passage. People in modern society often adorn themselves, their homes, their cars, etc. in gold or other objects we consider desirable or as a marker of social status. How are their symbols any different. The whole purpose of those types of symbols in any culture is to at a glance give your rank and position in society and to tell others who you are. Heck look how picky Americans are about their clothing, which because we have so many options is seen as saying something about who you are. How many brands of clothing merely plaster their name across the front or back of shirts and pants to show that you have their brand. These brand names then take on a cultural significance because not everyone can afford them or has them. Its the same thing when you examine the beauty of lip plates and the fact that larger is more desirable in that culture. They would think much of what we Americans do for social identification stupid and ugly as well. Its just a matter of what your culture finds attractive and acceptable ways of expressing your social status and identity.
 
  • #57
The reason people fear relativism is because they think that since someones beliefs are "stupid" (doesn't make sense to them) that must mean everyone's beliefs are stupid. "So this makes my own sacred cows just as stupid to someone outside my culture!?" Yup, if you're a pessimist and like to think that way, it sure does. However, if we respect others beliefs it doesn't matter a whit whether we actually believe them or not. Myself however, I like to know why people believe the weird things they do, which leads me to asking a lot of questions and answering a lot of questions on my own weird beliefs. lol! :D

As I understand relativism, it merely indicates that we don't denigrate people for their beliefs. I fail to see the "creeping evil" or the idea of "giving up" by according mutual respect (i.e. rules of the forums here). I believe Mutual Respect = Communication or the idea that "information only flows between equals". Finally, I don't believe there are any (cultural) "truths" or "realities" which are metaphysical or equally applicable to all on earth. If there were metaphysical absolutes, cultures and subcultures the world over wouldn't have such divergent faiths, philosophies and practices. Before anyone jumps off on a "what about European fascism?" tangent let me say that my "amoral relativism" is a personal philosophical belief. You can say it's my very own sacred cow, and not one which could / should be put into political practice without the consequences similar to Philip K D!cks "World that Jones Built" (I think that's the one).

Pragmatism is certainly a rightwing buzz word these days (at least at election time), actual pragmatic practice seems to come from the "lefter" rightwing (the democrats). There's certainly not nearly enough Pragmatism in the practice of politics.
 
  • #58
The problem with relativism is that some beliefs are just plain wrong. When all is said and done, it doesn't matter that their culture justifies the Taliban withholding opportunities from those born female or that our culture justifies us doing it from those born poor. It's wrong.
 
  • #59
Complete cultural relativism does have its dangers I agree. If taken to an extreme cultural relativism can be used to justify horrendous crimes against humanity like the Holocaust, however I dont think this is how the majority of people see relativism. At the same time you have to consider that every culture has its own beliefs and to sit and say they are wrong when your own culture has enough of its own problems is hypocritical. I think its wrong our government funds ethnic cleansing in the name of God, other see it as a work of God who is right? Is one wrong more or less wrong than the other and who determines this? You are trying to apply this universal belief of right and wrong yet when and where was this established? I am not advocating anything one way or the other but I am just asking who gets to decided what is right and wrong?
 
  • #60
I can agree with ya Bruce on the extremities. However, I attempted earlier to separate cultural relativism (mutual respect for different cultures) from political relativism. Which I guess amounts to the idea of complete "hands off" non-intervention in human rights abuses, which is what most people try and force the relativism issue to. But this thinking is a distortion, when people are being abused, they are not being treated with mutual respect. There's no relativism (mutual respect) in the internment camps, whether the camps are across Europe or across the US in the 1940s. Thus the term is not really applicable to political interests in any fashion.The reason why I say relativism is a philosophical viewpoint and not a political viewpoint is that there's no economic stimulation to be gained in the idea of relativism. This makes it an apolitical as well as amoral viewpoint.

However, if we wanna grab at semantic straws we can certainly call the same attention to claims that something was the only "rational" decision or when a country justifies it's preemptive (i.e. offensive) bombing strikes as the only means of "defense". These two terms are most always used in pretty nefarious ways by governments when you look into the economic situations which cause these types of actions. German fascists honestly believed the idea that they were " rationally defending the fatherland from Jewish (economic) influence". Given enough time and ingenuity, anyone can use any word / concept to justify anything. So long as they are using the correct terms that fit the current propaganda model for that economy (political system): rationalism, defense, will of the people, spreading democracy, preserving freedom, etc. Though I find it doubtful that anyone attempting to enforce their will on others would be claiming to be relativists (being that enforcing your will upon someone is not exactly seen as according them mutual respect). But then again, nearly every time I imagine some scenario that "probably wouldn't happen" I turn on the news and... lol!
 
Back
Top