It’s possible that some would try a nibble, but not really to the extent of exfoliating.
You can look at wikipedia’s page, that references Peta’s website (footnote 16), which mentions starvation as well as other bad points such as horrible transportation conditions and unhygienic results.
And I mean, all of that just to remove some dead skin? I don’t really see the point.
Yeah I don’t see the point either but I’m just saying fish will eat weird shit sometimes I don’t think that proves they were starving. When it happened to me they were going at it pretty hard it wasn’t just one or two nibbles. That said, I doubt it was the same species so it could be true for that one. But your link seems to be an unsourced statement by PETA which doesn’t seem too credible.
Yeah the problem with animal abuse is that no one cares as long as it’s not scientifically proven, and no one proves it scientifically as long as no one cares. That’s why insects have been considered for ages to not feel pain, even though no studies were done, and now studies say the opposite.
You might not find sources that prove that it’s abuse, but even websites that talk about taking care of them as domestic fishes mention that spas starve them.
And considering that the starvation would only be one of the abuses, I think it is reasonable to assume that starvation isn’t a crazy assumption to make.
Morals cannot be unmoored from reality. Without knowledge of what’s happening, we cannot effectively apply our principles. In fact, we would often, though perhaps not in this particular case, risk acting in ways counter to our values without realizing it. So I believe a clear understanding of what’s happening is a prerequisite for taking moral action.
However, our moral principles might motivate us to investigate and try to clarify an uncertain situation if another course of action isn’t clearly justified. I think that might apply here.
It’s possible that some would try a nibble, but not really to the extent of exfoliating.
You can look at wikipedia’s page, that references Peta’s website (footnote 16), which mentions starvation as well as other bad points such as horrible transportation conditions and unhygienic results.
And I mean, all of that just to remove some dead skin? I don’t really see the point.
Yeah I don’t see the point either but I’m just saying fish will eat weird shit sometimes I don’t think that proves they were starving. When it happened to me they were going at it pretty hard it wasn’t just one or two nibbles. That said, I doubt it was the same species so it could be true for that one. But your link seems to be an unsourced statement by PETA which doesn’t seem too credible.
Yeah the problem with animal abuse is that no one cares as long as it’s not scientifically proven, and no one proves it scientifically as long as no one cares. That’s why insects have been considered for ages to not feel pain, even though no studies were done, and now studies say the opposite.
You might not find sources that prove that it’s abuse, but even websites that talk about taking care of them as domestic fishes mention that spas starve them.
And considering that the starvation would only be one of the abuses, I think it is reasonable to assume that starvation isn’t a crazy assumption to make.
Fair points but without real evidence one way or the other I can’t just choose to believe something. At best we can say it may be true.
Yeah, that’s a stance that only works for science though, not for morals.
Morals cannot be unmoored from reality. Without knowledge of what’s happening, we cannot effectively apply our principles. In fact, we would often, though perhaps not in this particular case, risk acting in ways counter to our values without realizing it. So I believe a clear understanding of what’s happening is a prerequisite for taking moral action.
However, our moral principles might motivate us to investigate and try to clarify an uncertain situation if another course of action isn’t clearly justified. I think that might apply here.