So you're not against him eating the goldfish alive?
What you're looking at could be the end of a particularly terrifying nightmare. It isn't. It's the beginning. Introducing Mr. John Valentine, air traveler. His destination: the Twilight Zone...
Plague1503 Croatia. April 26 2012 18:39. Posts 432
On April 26 2012 18:37 Thylacine wrote: So you're not against him eating the goldfish alive?
My reaction is pretty much "meh" to the whole situation (i.e. I couldn't care less). I wouldn't condemn him, but I also don't know why the fuck he does stuff like that, other than being an obvious attention whore.
Drawing the line at self-awareness instead of the ability to feel and suffer from pain is a pretty damn thin line.
If your definition of what is okay and what is not is "If it isn't able to be self-aware it can be eaten alive" you just successfully legalized eating dogs or human babies alive. u srs?
Last edit: 2012-04-26 18:41:26
"We don't make mistakes here, we call it happy little accidents." ~Bob Ross
Plague1503 Croatia. April 26 2012 18:44. Posts 432
On April 26 2012 18:41 r.Evo wrote: Drawing the line at self-awareness instead of the ability to feel and suffer from pain is a pretty damn thin line.
If your definition of what is okay and what is not is "If it isn't able to be self-aware it can be eaten alive" you just successfully legalized eating dogs or human babies alive. u srs?
Dogs HAVE a developed frontal lobe. Self-awareness doesn't necessarily mean "capable of philosophical thinking". But I'm doing the same thing I said I wouldn't 3 posts ago (arguing about what self-aware means), so consider myself recused from further discussion, because the whole "issue" of the OP is honestly not important whatsoever (IMHO). There's also a whole other discussion about what "feeling pain" means as well. (for example, you could say that a tapeworm "feels pain" because it has a nervous system, yet to say that they actually feel PAIN would be stupid to say, considering how underdeveloped it is in comparison to even birds, let alone mammals).
On April 26 2012 18:41 r.Evo wrote: Drawing the line at self-awareness instead of the ability to feel and suffer from pain is a pretty damn thin line.
If your definition of what is okay and what is not is "If it isn't able to be self-aware it can be eaten alive" you just successfully legalized eating dogs or human babies alive. u srs?
Dogs HAVE a developed frontal lobe. Self-awareness doesn't necessarily mean "capable of philosophical thinking". But I'm doing the same thing I said I wouldn't 3 posts ago (arguing about what self-aware means), so consider myself recused from further discussion, because the whole "issue" of the OP is honestly not important whatsoever (IMHO). There's also a whole other discussion about what "feeling pain" means as well. (for example, you could say that a tapeworm "feels pain" because it has a nervous system, yet to say that they actually feel PAIN would be stupid to say, considering how underdeveloped it is in comparison to even birds, let alone mammals).
There is not much arguing to do if you want the current point of science which would be what some theoretical law you're suggesting would use.
If it passes the mirror test it's self aware. Plain and simple. You just said "developed frontal lobe" = "self-aware". To my knowledge no scientifical background exists on that thesis. ---> If you take what's currently accepted as the basis for what is self-aware and what is not, you suggest that eating babies and dogs alive is fine.
"We don't make mistakes here, we call it happy little accidents." ~Bob Ross
Zerg.Zilla Hungary. April 26 2012 18:52. Posts 2249
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
What you're looking at could be the end of a particularly terrifying nightmare. It isn't. It's the beginning. Introducing Mr. John Valentine, air traveler. His destination: the Twilight Zone...
Zerg.Zilla Hungary. April 26 2012 19:02. Posts 2249
Seriously...? May as well sue millions of asians, since there is a live fish dish there..
Also, gold fish are considered to be one of the stupidest pets you can get your hands on. Going by this logic you could sue people for trampling on ants. At which size of animal does it become possible to sue someone, lol?
So I m not quite sure theres multiple videos on youtube of people actually eating their goldfish, a gold fish, those tiny fish you keep in ponds (guppies i think?) - why aren't they all being arrested or hassled? :|
On April 24 2012 13:23 sigma_x wrote: As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:
9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include— (a)its need for a suitable environment, (b)its need for a suitable diet, (c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, (d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and (e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular— (a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and (b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal. (4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
4 Unnecessary suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c)the animal is a protected animal, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he is responsible for an animal, (b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include— (a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment; (c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as— (i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:
32 Imprisonment or fine
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,or to both.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under section 9, 13(6) or 34(9) shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,or to both.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13 shall be liable on summary conviction to such penalty by way of imprisonment or fine as may be provided by regulations under that section. (4)A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,or to both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (4)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
thank you for this post. tired of pages of kneejerks
On April 24 2012 13:23 sigma_x wrote: As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:
9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include— (a)its need for a suitable environment, (b)its need for a suitable diet, (c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, (d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and (e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular— (a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and (b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal. (4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
4 Unnecessary suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c)the animal is a protected animal, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he is responsible for an animal, (b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include— (a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment; (c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as— (i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:
32 Imprisonment or fine
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,or to both.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under section 9, 13(6) or 34(9) shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,or to both.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13 shall be liable on summary conviction to such penalty by way of imprisonment or fine as may be provided by regulations under that section. (4)A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,or to both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (4)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
But say you catch a crab or something. You have to keep it alive until you cook/eat it so wouldn't boiling it alive be considered mistreatment by the owner?
"A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state"
not domesticated, is wild. is fair game for eating, as is not explicitly protected (endangered, yada yada)
-
this is an important law for snake keepers to consider in the uk. feeder mice must be properly cared for etc, and mature live mice are only to be used if 'necessary'
In addition, the crab is not a vertebrate. But most importantly:
59 Fishing
Nothing in this Act applies in relation to anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing.
Last edit: 2012-04-26 22:03:25
BritWrangler United Kingdom. April 26 2012 22:17. Posts 119
Half of this thread just makes me sick. People are getting upset about a dude eating a fish? Thousands of people around the globe are starving to death, getting blown up, raped, and sold into slavery, and this happens every day, but people are really, legitimately angry and disgusted about the eating of a STUPID GOLDFISH? really? This is what makes you outraged?
this is stupid. steve-o did this years ago. well, he did much more. but that was stupid too. people complaining about these childish attention-stunts, well, i think in some case they are stupid too.
The interestign question here is where do you draw the line for which animals it's okay to hurt and which it's not. For instance, plenty of people have been toying with ants, litterally setting them on fire with the use of a magnifying glass. I've never heard of snybody recieving punishment for that. On the other hand, if you set a dog on fire, most would agree that you deserve som kind of punishment for severe animal cruelty and murder.
Ants and dogs are probably on the extreme ends of the spectrum, but in which camp does the goldfish go?
Edit: Also, the fact that this is his goldfish adds another layer to the discussion. It's his responsibility to keep the fish alive, yet on the other hand it's possession so can he then do as he pleases? Oh, and what about those who have plenty of fish and "let" some of them die by simply forgetting/neglecting them. Punishable?
On April 26 2012 18:37 Thylacine wrote: So you're not against him eating the goldfish alive?
My reaction is pretty much "meh" to the whole situation (i.e. I couldn't care less). I wouldn't condemn him, but I also don't know why the fuck he does stuff like that, other than being an obvious attention whore.
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
There are many cultures that eat LIVE fish, sehng-nakji is a traditional korean dish that is live octopus.
I really can't comprehend why this incident has been singled out. I don't condone the eating of live goldfish, I think it'd be rather painful, and unpleasant, but I think it's a double standard when we all eat meat that comes from animals that are factory farmed and put in no better condition than that fish.
On April 26 2012 22:30 LaughingTulkas wrote: Half of this thread just makes me sick. People are getting upset about a dude eating a fish? Thousands of people around the globe are starving to death, getting blown up, raped, and sold into slavery, and this happens every day, but people are really, legitimately angry and disgusted about the eating of a STUPID GOLDFISH? really? This is what makes you outraged?
Do people have any priorities at all?
1) People are upset about a dude eating a live fish.
2) Do you say that eating a live cat is fine? Eating a live cow? If no, why not? A live mouse?
As it stands, the law about animal cruelty comes into place as soon as we're dealing with vertebrates. It probably would make sense to educate yourself on the story behind this before you come in here and bitching about how stupid people must be in your world who consider this an actual reason to get angry.
As for the what & why the law draws the line at vertebrates, please refer to this post:
(@OP: Mind adding this one somewhere in the OP? It's probably one of the best posts in this thread and people keep charging in here without an understanding as to WHY the line is drawn there.)
On April 24 2012 10:31 Chairman Ray wrote: A lot of replies have compared eating a goldfish to eating live octopus or eating live scorpions and spiders. I'd like to point out a clear distinction on why a goldfish is not allowed to be eaten this way.
The animal cruelty law that the man is charged for is focused on the animal group of vertebrates, which are creatures with spines. A creature's ability to feel the pain stimulus rests in the spinal column. The evolutionary purpose of it is to give certain creatures a faster reaction time to immediate danger, since there is less neural distance between your spine and your nerves. Creatures without spines are not able to feel the same pain stimulus, instead they have different mechanics of stimulus. These different mechanics of stimulus, as far as scientists can tell, do not cause any suffering to the creature. For example, when you eat a live octopus, the octopus knows it's being eaten, but it does not suffer from physical pain, nor does it have the mental capacity for emotional suffering either, so legally we are allowed to eat an octopus alive. A goldfish does have a spine, and therefore is able to suffer from the pain of being eaten, so that's why there's a law in place against animal cruelty for vertebrates.
Just make it clear, I do not support the charges laid against this man for eating a goldish, I just needed to clarify that there is a clear distinction between eating a goldfish, and eating other things alive.
"We don't make mistakes here, we call it happy little accidents." ~Bob Ross
Store
Thylacine Sweden. April 26 2012 18:37. Posts 882
