And it's a well established fact that plants respond to light and
temperature. So they too appear have some sensory response akin to
pain. Why should we be concerned about fish but not plants.

Have you ever considered how difficult it must be to live the life of a

carrot? Living your early solitary life 6 inches beneath the ground
you are summarily yanked from the ground, your curly green hair is torn

off and you are thrown into a scrubber. As a carrot your ultimate fate

is to be either peeled, chewed, boiled or frozen. Not a pretty picture

for carrots is it...

Pretty soon we won't be eating anything....


bpnjensen wrote:
Michael lawson wrote:

Documentation of abuse by PETA is, by nature, suspect.
They are not a reputable organization because for every
legitimate thing they document, they ruin their reputation
by guerilla tactics and dubious assertions, such as beer
is better for you than milk. (I may prefer beer to milk, but
milk has much more calcium and other nutrients that I
could use as opposed to beer, which has pretty much
a good amount of B6.) Their current fish campaign
echoing Finding Nemo assigns characteristics to fish
found in higher level vertebrates or humans, not accepting
fish for what they are.

Fish are creatures that feel pain, as do you and I. When it comes to
compassion and the inherent existence of "rights" as we human call
them, that is the only factor that matters.

If we as humans did not feel pain or could not be harmed, there would
be no reason for the concept of rights. No matter what anyone did,
we
could not be hurt.

You may not like PETA, and I may not support everything they do, but
the concept of treating every other living thing with as much
kindness
and as little cruelty as possible is both (1) a very human thing to
do,
and (2) a just and ethical thing to do. To purposely make life
miserable for fish, or any other animal, in the name of profit and
for
the purpose of the luxury of meat, is neither human (humane) nor
ethical.

Bruce Jensen