Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

14 hours ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

I can't stand the nations favourite Christmas song.

I can't even bring myself to type it's name.

 

Stay Another Day?

[urban.spaceman]

16 hours ago, MattP said:

I wasn't allowed to do Rock n Roll Christmas on the karaoke last week, one of my favourite songs and you never hear it anymore.

 

I think society should separate the artist the from the art.

 

If we found out Shakespeare was a paedophile tomorrow would we really throw all his work from public view. 

1

About a billion and a half people hold up a Prophet as the "ideal man" who, according to his own books, took a 6 year old as his third wife and raped her when she was 9. He was 56.

[Countryfox]

16 hours ago, FIF said:

 possibly for farming and eating vegetables (which will be accepted as living beings at some date) ...

 

Some are nearly there ...   I took a quick snap a couple of weeks ago of this nasty looking carrot who apparently is the leader of the CLA (carrot liberation army).

 

 

[Free Falling Foxes]

2 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

Stay Another Day?

No. It's F........Fa.............Fai..........

It's no use, I canna type it.  

[Fox92]

11 hours ago, The Bear said:

We still play Michael Jackson stuff.

Because he didn't actually get done for anything did he?.

[Nalis]

14 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

No. It's F........Fa.............Fai..........

It's no use, I canna type it.  

 

You're right, that is an unpopular opinion 

[ozleicester]

Fishing is no different to hunting, lions and tigers and bears..(Oh my).. or whales.... seriously... people winge and moan about some yankee fvckwit standing next to a dead thing.. then go out and shove a lump of metal through a fishes head and stand next to it in all its 30cm glory

[Rogstanley]

25 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Fishing is no different to hunting, lions and tigers and bears..(Oh my).. or whales.... seriously... people winge and moan about some yankee fvckwit standing next to a dead thing.. then go out and shove a lump of metal through a fishes head and stand next to it in all its 30cm glory

Fish don't feel pain though, plus they have very short memories, so by the time they've swam off after being released, they have no comprehension of ever being caught.

[Buce]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

Fish don't feel pain though, plus they have very short memories, so by the time they've swam off after being released, they have no comprehension of ever being caught.

 

The first assertion is hotly debated by science, the second is a myth.

 

https://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/features/articles/do-fish-have-a-three-second-memory

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The first assertion is hotly debated by science, the second is a myth.

 

https://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/features/articles/do-fish-have-a-three-second-memory

Apparently they've done experiments with fish such as drilling a hole through their head and the fish have carried on behaving in precisely the same way as they did before. It's obviously not possible (yet) to know for sure what a fish feels but i think it's fair to say their experience of being caught by a fisherman is not going to be anything like what a human would experience going through the same event.

 

Humanising the experience of an animal that has a completely different brain structure is for me one of the main flaws of veganism/animal rights etc. I wouldn't want an animal to be subject of cruelty any more than anybody else, but if they're not able to feel or understand the concept of cruelty at all, then is it really even possible to be cruel to them? 

 

Quick example, as a human with a normal hearing range there are certain frequencies I can't hear. So if another species attempted to be cruel to me by playing those frequencies very loud, i would have no concept of them being cruel to me because i wouldn't be able to hear it.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

No. It's F........Fa.............Fai..........

It's no use, I canna type it.  

100% with you on that, I find pretty much all Gaelic music grating.  Weirdly though I love an Irish accent, just not when it's put against music.

[Samilktray]

Fairytale of New York is annoying and shit though tbf 

[The Doctor]

Fairytale of New York is fine. Better than most Christmas songs (which tend to be saccharin garbage), not fantastic 

[Buce]

 

Let's have no arguments over the best Xmas song:

 

 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Let's have no arguments over the best Xmas song:

 

 

I read somewhere the other week that Slade make over £500k a year out of that song, not bad for a record you made 45 years ago.

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I read somewhere the other week that Slade make over £500k a year out of that song, not bad for a record you made 45 years ago.

 

Yeah, I read an interview with Noddy Holder where he said something similar (mainly royalties from radio stations).

 

I saw Slade live a few times, and it was always the one to really get the crowd rocking.

[Slim Dog]

55 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Apparently they've done experiments with fish such as drilling a hole through their head and the fish have carried on behaving in precisely the same way as they did before. It's obviously not possible (yet) to know for sure what a fish feels but i think it's fair to say their experience of being caught by a fisherman is not going to be anything like what a human would experience going through the same event.

 

Humanising the experience of an animal that has a completely different brain structure is for me one of the main flaws of veganism/animal rights etc. I wouldn't want an animal to be subject of cruelty any more than anybody else, but if they're not able to feel or understand the concept of cruelty at all, then is it really even possible to be cruel to them? 

 

Quick example, as a human with a normal hearing range there are certain frequencies I can't hear. So if another species attempted to be cruel to me by playing those frequencies very loud, i would have no concept of them being cruel to me because i wouldn't be able to hear it.

Any fisherman knows (especially with carp) that they most certainly remember what a hook and line is. Larger fish that have been caught multiple times are more wary. It can't be a very pleasant experience for them if they remember what happened before. 

 

Edit: I do agree though that it isn't that bad for them. Barbless hooks and a quick release won't do much harm.

Edited 22 December 2017 by Slim Dog

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

Apparently they've done experiments with fish such as drilling a hole through their head and the fish have carried on behaving in precisely the same way as they did before. It's obviously not possible (yet) to know for sure what a fish feels but i think it's fair to say their experience of being caught by a fisherman is not going to be anything like what a human would experience going through the same event.

 

Humanising the experience of an animal that has a completely different brain structure is for me one of the main flaws of veganism/animal rights etc. I wouldn't want an animal to be subject of cruelty any more than anybody else, but if they're not able to feel or understand the concept of cruelty at all, then is it really even possible to be cruel to them? 

 

Quick example, as a human with a normal hearing range there are certain frequencies I can't hear. So if another species attempted to be cruel to me by playing those frequencies very loud, i would have no concept of them being cruel to me because i wouldn't be able to hear it.

If the alien was doing it to be cruel, then whether you felt it or not the action is cruel. Back to the sentient animal thing though https://www.sciencealert.com/do-fish-have-feelings-what-science-says-about-animal-sentience

 

plants can "hear" themselves being eaten:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-can-hear-themselves-being-eaten-researchers-have-discovered

 

 

Edited 22 December 2017 by Guest

[Great Boos Up]

8 hours ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

No. It's F........Fa.............Fai..........

It's no use, I canna type it.  

No I still can't guess it. Is it Free Falling Faixes ??

[Carl the Llama]

7 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Apparently they've done experiments with fish such as drilling a hole through their head and the fish have carried on behaving in precisely the same way as they did before. It's obviously not possible (yet) to know for sure what a fish feels but i think it's fair to say their experience of being caught by a fisherman is not going to be anything like what a human would experience going through the same event.

 

Humanising the experience of an animal that has a completely different brain structure is for me one of the main flaws of veganism/animal rights etc. I wouldn't want an animal to be subject of cruelty any more than anybody else, but if they're not able to feel or understand the concept of cruelty at all, then is it really even possible to be cruel to them? 

 

Quick example, as a human with a normal hearing range there are certain frequencies I can't hear. So if another species attempted to be cruel to me by playing those frequencies very loud, i would have no concept of them being cruel to me because i wouldn't be able to hear it.

Very interesting question.

 

This article seems to suggest that their brains receive information about personal (pisceal?) injury that our brains would flag up with pain (when conscious) without necessarily triggering the pain sensation.

 

 

Quote

 

Fish do not feel pain the way humans do. That is the conclusion drawn by an international team of researchers consisting of neurobiologists, behavioural ecologists and fishery scientists. One contributor to the landmark study was Prof. Dr. Robert Arlinghaus of the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries and of the Humboldt University in Berlin.

advertisement

---

On July 13^th a revised animal protection act has come into effect in Germany. But anyone who expects it to contain concrete statements regarding the handling of fish will be disappointed. Legislators seemingly had already found their answer to the fish issue. Accordingly, fish are sentient vertebrates who must be protected against cruel acts performed by humans against animals. Anyone in Germany who, without due cause, kills vertebrates or inflicts severe pain or suffering on them has to face penal consequences as well as severe fines or even prison sentences. Now, the question of whether or not fish are really able to feel pain or suffer in human terms is once again on the agenda.

A final decision would have far-reaching consequences for millions of anglers, fishers, aquarists, fish farmers and fish scientists. To this end, a research team consisting of seven people has examined all significant studies on the subject of fish pain. During their research the scientists from Europe, Canada, Australia and the USA have discovered many deficiencies. These are the authors’ main points of criticism: Fish do not have the neuro-physiological capacity for a conscious awareness of pain. In addition, behavioural reactions by fish to seemingly painful impulses were evaluated according to human criteria and were thus misinterpreted. There is still no final proof that fish can feel pain.

This is how it works for humans

To be able to understand the researchers’ criticism you first have to comprehend how pain perception works for humans. Injuries stimulate what is known as nociceptors. These receptors send electrical signals through nerve-lines and the spinal cord to the cerebral cortex (neocortex). With full awareness, this is where they are processed into a sensation of pain. However, even severe injuries do not necessarily have to result in an experience of pain. As an emotional state, pain can for example be intensified through engendering fear and it can also be mentally constructed without any tissue damage. Conversely, any stimulation of the nociceptors can be unconsciously processed without the organism having an experience of pain. This principle is used in cases such as anaesthesia. It is for this reason that pain research distinguishes between a conscious awareness of pain and an unconscious processing of impulses through nociception, the latter of which can also lead to complex hormonal reactions, behavioural responses as well as to learning avoidance reactions. Therefore, nociceptive reactions can never be equated with pain, and are thus, strictly speaking, no prerequisite for pain.

advertisement

---

Fish are not comparable to humans in terms of anatomy and physiology

Unlike humans fish do not possess a neocortex, which is the first indicator of doubt regarding the pain awareness of fish. Furthermore, certain nerve fibres in mammals (known as c-nociceptors) have been shown to be involved in the sensation of intense experiences of pain. All primitive cartilaginous fish subject to the study, such as sharks and rays, show a complete lack of these fibres and all bony fish – which includes all common types of fish such as carp and trout – very rarely have them. In this respect, the physiological prerequisites for a conscious experience of pain are hardly developed in fish. However, bony fish certainly possess simple nociceptors and they do of course show reactions to injuries and other interventions. But it is not known whether this is perceived as pain.

advertisement

---

There is often a lack of distinction between conscious pain and unconscious nociception

The current overview-study raises the complaint that a great majority of all published studies evaluate a fish’s reaction to a seemingly painful impulse - such as rubbing the injured body part against an object or the discontinuation of the feed intake - as an indication of pain. However, this methodology does not prove verifiably whether the reaction was due to a conscious sensation of pain or an unconscious impulse perception by means of nociception, or a combination of the two. Basically, it is very difficult to deduct underlying emotional states based on behavioural responses. Moreover, fish often show only minor or no reactions at all to interventions which would be extremely painful to us and to other mammals. Pain killers such as morphine that are effective for humans were either ineffective in fish or were only effective in astronomically high doses that, for small mammals, would have meant immediate death from shock. These findings suggest that fish either have absolutely no awareness of pain in human terms or they react completely different to pain. By and large, it is absolutely not advisable to interpret the behaviour of fish from a human perspective.

What does all this mean for those who use fish?

In legal terms it is forbidden to inflict pain, suffering or harm on animals without due cause according to §1 of the German Animal Protection Act. However, the criteria for when such acts are punishable are exclusively tied to the animal’s ability to feel pain and suffering in accordance with § 17 of the very same Act. The new study severely doubts that fish are aware of pain as defined by human terms. Therefore, it should actually no longer constitute a criminal offence if, for example, an angler releases a harvestable fish at his own discretion instead of eating it. However, at a legal and moral level, the recently published doubts regarding the awareness of pain in fish do not release anybody from their responsibility of having to justify all uses of fishes in a socially acceptable way and to minimise any form of stress and damage to the fish when interacting with it.

 

 

Edited 22 December 2017 by Carl the Llama

[Durnerz]

He may be a paedo but Gary Glitters 'rock and roll Christmas' is a decent track.

[Alf Bentley]

7 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Let's have no arguments over the best Xmas song:

 

 

 

I got that for Xmas the year it came out (1973), plus the Wizzard song - but Slade's is better.

Their music has aged quite well generally - they did some good blues/boogie-rock and Noddy has a great voice.

 

So, you're failing to hold unpopular opinions there, Buce!

[The Bear]

He may be a paedo but Gary Glitters 'rock and roll Christmas' is a decent track.

Agreed.

My personal favourite is Shakin' Stevens, Merry Christmas Everyone.

[Captain...]

On 21/12/2017 at 18:28, Nalis said:

Some Gary Glitter songs are actually pretty good and shouldnt be banned from the radio just because of his awful actions.

 

The music and the person should be treated as two different things.

It really depends, for something like rock n roll Christmas it is just a Christmas song, and is bubble gum pop with no real substance.

 

When he's singing, "Do you want to touch me" or about being in his "gang" it is difficult not to make unpleasant connections with his crimes.

 

Art can be layered with meaning and subtext and expose the soul of an artist, or it can just be a pretty picture or a nice tune. When it comes to actors, I don't see an issue with watching a film with a disgraced actor in because it is not their message not their words, they are just a conduit for someone else's message. With musicians there is a lot more of their soul in the music they write and specifically the words they write. It's a fine line and it depends on the type of song the offence of the artist and whether you can disassociate the 2. For Gary Glitter and Lost Prophets I can't for Michael Jackson I can.

[bovril]

8 hours ago, Captain... said:

It really depends, for something like rock n roll Christmas it is just a Christmas song, and is bubble gum pop with no real substance.

 

When he's singing, "Do you want to touch me" or about being in his "gang" it is difficult not to make unpleasant connections with his crimes.

 

Art can be layered with meaning and subtext and expose the soul of an artist, or it can just be a pretty picture or a nice tune. When it comes to actors, I don't see an issue with watching a film with a disgraced actor in because it is not their message not their words, they are just a conduit for someone else's message. With musicians there is a lot more of their soul in the music they write and specifically the words they write. It's a fine line and it depends on the type of song the offence of the artist and whether you can disassociate the 2. For Gary Glitter and Lost Prophets I can't for Michael Jackson I can.

I suppose it helps that their music is absolutely awful, you don't feel so torn.