Rant: Why ask for help if you're not looking for any? - Page 6
Tropical Fish

Tropical Fish Keeping - Aquarium fish care and resources » The Tropical Fish Keeping Community » Off Topic Discussions » Rant: Why ask for help if you're not looking for any?

Rant: Why ask for help if you're not looking for any?

This is a discussion on Rant: Why ask for help if you're not looking for any? within the Off Topic Discussions forums, part of the The Tropical Fish Keeping Community category; --> Originally Posted by Stormfish She just bought a tank because "[she] doesn't have time for a real pet."...

Like Tree85Likes

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools vBmenu Seperating Image Search this Thread vBmenu Seperating Image
Rant: Why ask for help if you're not looking for any?
Old 01-03-2013, 08:48 AM   #51
 
SeaHorse's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormfish View Post
She just bought a tank because "[she] doesn't have time for a real pet."
SeaHorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 09:10 AM   #52
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Hmmm... please define your idea of sentient as it pertains to fish... I'm extremely curious.

Jeff.
They experience fear and pleasure and behave accordingly. Moreover, they each have distinct personalities and character traits.

Let's take Mollies, for example. They're usually very social and gregarious fish that once they get to know their 'person' will respond to their presence near their tank. Some retain their shyness, while others can be quite aggressive and dominant. Sure, the same species, but they each portray personalities and appropriate emotive responses to certain stimulus.

Most of my Corydora take off and hide when I'm gravel vacuuming their tank. Fear is represented, they behave accordingly. There is always a fearless, curious one, though. One who wants to know what I'm doing. When the five of them get together, they snuffle each other in affection. They are aware of themselves and others.

Now if you're going to go on some philosophical debate on me about this, consider yourself warned I'm a PhD Candidate in Sociology and can debate with the best. :P
Stormfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 09:56 AM   #53
 
Granberry's Avatar
 
Oy, this thread has taken a turn.

The OP was discussing people who ASK for advice then discount it.

In my state, goldfish are sold as bait, hooked to a hook and thrown out to catch a bigger fish which is then filleted alive so we can eat it. The Department of Wildlife actively promote said activity, even getting the Department of Tourism involved. It's good for our state. It pays for my kids' school. The idea of expecting the "minnow bucket" to be a certain size is laughable.

In my state, the foster care system is so overwhelmed that dozens of children in foster care die annually because their caseworker was underfunded and underpaid and did not have the time to physically go check on said child's environment. The idea of testing a goldfish's tank parameters is laughable.

In my state, we have not yet banned goldfish to protect them nor have we banned the pit bulls who just last year pulled a 3-year-old's arm off at the elbow when he put his little fingers through his own fence and have, over the past few years, killed several people, from children to elderly. The idea of protecting goldfish is, again, laughable when you look at a mauled child's face. We're going to demand legislation to protect goldfish, but said education is the key to protecting children?

To the OP, I hear you.

To the folks demanding government interaction and the protection of "sentient" goldfish...there are better causes out there to throw your passion into. There are better causes to demand governmental interference into. Dozens of them.

Last edited by Granberry; 01-03-2013 at 10:06 AM.. Reason: added some passion
Granberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 10:10 AM   #54
 
Talk about going off on a tangent, Granberry. Where did I say that fish require "protection"? Want to point that out for us?

I was asked to explain why fish are sentient. I did in a very quick manner. You haven't disputed it, so what's your point, exactly?

And don't get me started on your Pitbull BS. You've completely consumed all the media paranoia. What the media says must be true, eh? There have been more cases of Labrador Retrievers mauling and killing children than Pitties. Even in the Canada Post statistics for the last 10 years of mail carrier attacks by breed, one ONE was bitten by a Pittie. The vast majority of the attacks were small dogs, as well as several Boxers and some mixed breeds. Pitbulls consistently exceed expectations in temperament testing. The reason why they're used to fight isn't because they're innately 'vicious' but because they will do anything — ANYTHING — for their humans. Even the majority of Michael Vick's dogs were rehabilitated and several are now certified therapy dogs.
Stormfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 10:30 AM   #55
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormfish View Post
Talk about going off on a tangent, Granberry. Where did I say that fish require "protection"? Want to point that out for us?

I was asked to explain why fish are sentient. I did in a very quick manner. You haven't disputed it, so what's your point, exactly?

And don't get me started on your Pitbull BS. You've completely consumed all the media paranoia. What the media says must be true, eh? There have been more cases of Labrador Retrievers mauling and killing children than Pitties. Even in the Canada Post statistics for the last 10 years of mail carrier attacks by breed, one ONE was bitten by a Pittie. The vast majority of the attacks were small dogs, as well as several Boxers and some mixed breeds. Pitbulls consistently exceed expectations in temperament testing. The reason why they're used to fight isn't because they're innately 'vicious' but because they will do anything ANYTHING for their humans. Even the majority of Michael Vick's dogs were rehabilitated and several are now certified therapy dogs.
No where did I see your name come up in the Post previous to yours. That Poster said OP.
I suggest we ease back into the original conversation here. Please refrain from the arguementative comments.
Thanks
dramaqueen likes this.
Reefing Madness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 10:37 AM   #56
JDM
 
JDM's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormfish View Post
Now if you're going to go on some philosophical debate on me about this, consider yourself warned — I'm a PhD Candidate in Sociology and can debate with the best. :P
Heh, I considered it... you shouldn't have warned me though, that makes the initial posturing much less interesting as we lose the whole negotiating of each other's strength's and weaknesses on the topic.

It's too much of a slippery argument to really sink my teeth into though, too many "proofs" can be argued both ways.

Suffice it to say that I take the well being of creatures in my care seriously enough that whether I consider them sentient or not is secondary.

EDIT - then we get off onto dogs, kids and posties between me starting a response and getting around to sending it due to work stuff... HUH?

Jeff.

Last edited by JDM; 01-03-2013 at 10:43 AM..
JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 10:38 AM   #57
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Heh, I considered it... you shouldn't have warned me though, that makes the initial posturing much less interesting as we lose the whole negotiating of each other's strength's and weaknesses on the topic.

It's too much of a slippery argument to really sink my teeth into though, too many "proofs" can be argued both ways.

Suffice it to say that I take the well being of creatures in my care seriously enough that whether I consider them sentient or not is secondary.

Jeff.
Now this is how you argue with someone!!
Granberry and charlie1881 like this.
Reefing Madness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 11:02 AM   #58
 
Granberry's Avatar
 
Quote:
Jakiebabie - I can never decide if I want to cry or scream. I'm seriously considering looking in to some sort of government interference. This sort of thing is intolerable with dogs, cats, and most other pets (rats, mice, and hamsters are also often subject to poor conditions, but they have been getting a lot more sympathy lately), but people just look the other way when it's fish. I know that there was a city that finally banned the selling of pet fish, but I can't remember which one. I wouldn't go that far, but I wish that pet stores were regulated and forced to have more information available.

Read more: Rant: Why ask for help if you're not looking for any?
Storm, this is the comment I was replying to. I don't really care if goldfish are "sentient beings" or not. I'm not presently a Ph.D. candidate, but I am an attorney, and I don't remember any legislation where that was relevant. Even Roe and Webster focused on whether something was viable, not sentient.

Y'know, I have discussed pit bull legislation with pit bull owners before, and there just isn't any common ground. I say, "if you are raising a large animal, such as a tiger or pit bull or shark, that is capable of hurting someone, you have to have the proper enclosure for it with locks and it can't be allowed in dog parks", and those people say, "pitties and tiggers are just big cuddlebugs; every attack was anecdotal only; pomeranians hurt people too, and education is the answer." It does tickle me when they then say, "but we need governmental interference to make sure fish are in habitats appropriate to their nature and to make sure little fish aren't bullied by big fish". But I don't argue it because even in "off topic" threads, it's useless. That's why legislation gets passed more often than not...because there just isn't any common ground and more people feel the way I do than don't.

BTW, RM, please don't feel like you need to moderate anyone on my behalf. I enjoy these conversations. But if you want us to restrain ourselves, I can happily do that too. I get new fish in the mail tomorrow, and I have plenty of other things to talk about too. :)

Last edited by Granberry; 01-03-2013 at 11:05 AM..
Granberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 12:05 PM   #59
JDM
 
JDM's Avatar
 
This is not so much an argument as a statement of fact... of course subject to interpretation.

The whole problem with anything potentially unsafe (even going as far as cars, guns, and ladders, not just animals here) is the owner/user's impressions that it is their right to own/operate whatever in any way that they please and be damned the consequences.

If everyone who ever owned a ________ (insert animal/object here) took a reasonable care and control approach to that responsibility, heck even just took responsibility in the first place, I would be willing to bet that, barring unforeseen accidents, there would be very few injuries and cause for governmentally imposed restrictive measures in the first place.

It has nothing to do with the implicit danger of the item, it has everything to do with the person who should have taken the care, control and responsibility at the outset. Their lack and the almost inevitable results makes it a public matter which becomes everyone's business very quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granberry View Post
That's why legislation gets passed more often than not...because there just isn't any common ground and more people feel the way I do than don't.
Afterall, there are fewer owners/operators than there are interested public members who see that their right to safety overrides any right that the owner/operator has to have the ________ in the first place.

This is where it gets nasty... my rights vs your rights and everyone thinks that they are more right than everyone else.

I was bitten on the face by a dog when I was a kid, by a Spaniel of all things. It was my fault, but I was a kid and I was not seriously hurt... luckily. I didn't know better, the dog didn't know better, the owners did.

Jeff.
jentralala and charlie1881 like this.
JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 01:01 PM   #60
 
Granberry's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormfish View Post
You've completely consumed all the media paranoia. What the media says must be true, eh?...

There have been more cases of Labrador Retrievers mauling and killing children than Pitties....

Pitbulls consistently exceed expectations in temperament testing...

The reason why they're used to fight isn't because they're innately 'vicious' but because they will do anything — ANYTHING — for their humans....
Citation please for the study on labradors versus pit bull attacks and deaths or the other "non-media-hyped" statements there. You said you were a Ph.D. candidate, so having completed your doctoral work in sociology (necessary to advance to candidacy status) I am sure you could tell me a thing or two about the importance of evaluating the studies themselves instead of just pulling these conclusions out of whatever studies you had read.

I don't know whose expectations pit bulls currently exceed in temperament testing (or how someone's expectations were tested), but I do know that the AKC standard for pit bulls states that they are "expected" to be animal aggressive. It certainly says nothing about their willingness to do "anything" for their humans, i.e., pull off another animal if called. It says they're animal aggressive, and that's okay, and as long as the breed clubs don't change it, they always will be bred to be such. That's why I'm concerned about the danger they pose to the public.

Your point seemed to be about the danger humans pose to goldfish, probably a little bit less scary to parents and the world at large, but hey, it's your point to make.

Last edited by Granberry; 01-03-2013 at 01:03 PM..
Granberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I just need to rant. jentralala Off Topic Discussions 3 12-01-2012 06:03 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 PM.