Fish

[brimstoneSalad]

Just because we know it as an unpleasant experience the fish may not experience it the same way.

See solipsism.

[EquALLity]

Humans wiggle around when they're being water boarded. They don't exactly make a conscious decision to do so, it's reflex from the panic; that doesn't mean it's not an unpleasant experience.

Well are fish humans? Just because we know it as an unpleasant experience the fish may not experience it the same way. Now I didn't see them talking about other emotions just the main focus was on the fact of them feeling or not feeling pain.

If we're not sure if they feel pain, it's our moral obligation to act as if they do.

If they don't feel pain and we don't eat them, all we're losing out on is momentary pleasure.
If they do feel pain and we don't eat them, we are saving them from torture.

[brimstoneSalad]

If we're not sure if they feel pain, it's our moral obligation to act as if they do.

I would say it comes down more to probability, but pain is irrelevant, and in the technical sense (as it is discussed scientifically) refers only to a very specific kind of negative experience (not all negative experience generally).

Pain is a distressing feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli, such as stubbing a toe, burning a finger, putting alcohol on a cut, and bumping the "funny bone".[1] Because it is a complex, subjective phenomenon, defining pain has been a challenge. The International Association for the Study of Pain's widely used definition states: "Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage."[2] In medical diagnosis, pain is a symptom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

This is why I mentioned water boarding, which is not causing tissue damage, and isn't painful: it stimulates panic, which is a state we certainly see in fish.

There are many unpleasant things in life -- fear, panic, stress of confinement -- that are not in themselves painful.

A more important question in evaluating the presence of subjective experience is sentience, and that's something we know most fish have due to their ability to learn and engage in operant conditioning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsonPCR6EZg

Any negative stimuli that can be used to disincentivize behavior is one that the fish don't like; one that results in an unpleasant subjective experience for the fish.

An easier response to a carnist might be: "Is it OK to kill and eat people who have congenital analgesia?"
We had a forum member who couldn't feel pain due to medical reasons. IIRC, he seemed to agree that despite that lack of pain sensation, he would prefer not to be killed.

[EquALLity]

I would say it comes down more to probability, but pain is irrelevant, and in the technical sense (as it is discussed scientifically) refers only to a very specific kind of negative experience (not all negative experience generally).

Well, yes, I guess we don't really know anything empirical in nature. I meant that if there is a significant chance that they feel pain that it's our moral obligation to treat them as if they do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

This is why I mentioned water boarding, which is not causing tissue damage, and isn't painful: it stimulates panic, which is a state we certainly see in fish.

There are many unpleasant things in life -- fear, panic, stress of confinement -- that are not in themselves painful.

A more important question in evaluating the presence of subjective experience is sentience, and that's something we know most fish have due to their ability to learn and engage in operant conditioning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsonPCR6EZg

Any negative stimuli that can be used to disincentivize behavior is one that the fish don't like; one that results in an unpleasant subjective experience for the fish.

An easier response to a carnist might be: "Is it OK to kill and eat people who have congenital analgesia?"
We had a forum member who couldn't feel pain due to medical reasons. IIRC, he seemed to agree that despite that lack of pain sensation, he would prefer not to be killed.

I see, yeah.

What exactly is sentience? I've been using it to mean experiencing emotions, but people seem to use it differently.

[_Doc]

Just because we know it as an unpleasant experience the fish may not experience it the same way.

See solipsism.

Interesting.

Humans wiggle around when they're being water boarded. They don't exactly make a conscious decision to do so, it's reflex from the panic; that doesn't mean it's not an unpleasant experience.

Well are fish humans? Just because we know it as an unpleasant experience the fish may not experience it the same way. Now I didn't see them talking about other emotions just the main focus was on the fact of them feeling or not feeling pain.

If we're not sure if they feel pain, it's our moral obligation to act as if they do.

If they don't feel pain and we don't eat them, all we're losing out on is momentary pleasure.
If they do feel pain and we don't eat them, we are saving them from torture.

I agree.

An easier response to a carnist might be: "Is it OK to kill and eat people who have congenital analgesia?"
We had a forum member who couldn't feel pain due to medical reasons. IIRC, he seemed to agree that despite that lack of pain sensation, he would prefer not to be killed.

I just want to make sure you know that I wasn't trying to say it is ok to eat things that don't feel pain. I just wanted to state the evidence I had found on why fish don't feel pain.

[brimstoneSalad]

What exactly is sentience? I've been using it to mean experiencing emotions, but people seem to use it differently.

Sentience means a lot of things; and I don't mean has different definitions, but that by being sentient, there are a lot of conclusions we can draw about that being.
It means true learning, which means having interests, which means an emotion (that which moves a being), and subjective experience, which means it has to have a rudimentary concept of itself in respect to its environment and goals. There are a lot of things which are all kind of rolled in together, because they're interrelated and imply each other.

[TheoDutch]

Is there also a health argument against fish? For example if the fish has already been bought and is otherwise trown away, would there still be a reason to not eat the fish? (other than being disgust you eat a dead animal)

[brimstoneSalad]

Is there also a health argument against fish?

Not an epidemiological one, as far as I know, at least for low amounts of certain kinds of fish.

There are arguments against it based on substances it may contain and their effects.

Depending on the source, fish can be a rich source heavy metals like lead and mercury (not desirable); government and NGO health recommendations tend to suggest limiting fish intake because of this, and avoiding predatory and large fish (like shark) completely.
Some sources of fish may also contain toxins linked to neurological problems (from toxic algae that the fish ate).

Regardless of the source, fish are also high in methionine (but some plant products, like sesame seeds and brazil nuts are too). This would also suggest limiting intake.

Fish is also a source of heme-iron, which may cause cancer through promoting formation of free radicals which damage DNA. As far as I know, no plant products contain any meaningful amount of this damaging form of Iron.

For example if the fish has already been bought and is otherwise trown away, would there still be a reason to not eat the fish? (other than being disgust you eat a dead animal)

There are still health reasons not to, but they are much weaker arguments than can be made against pork, beef, chicken, etc. Land animal meat is the most unhealthy.