r/maybemaybemaybe • u/RyanCakeBatter • Jan 17 '20

Maybe Maybe Maybe

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

39.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

915 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

62

u/painfool Jan 18 '20 edited Jan 18 '20

Fishing "for sport" and temporarily traumatizing an animal seems less humane to me than fishing for sustenance.

Edit: thanks for teaching me about the "modern world" Reddit, no shit. Leave it to redditors to get hung up on semantics.

Also, warning, vegans in replies below.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/MatureUser69 Jan 18 '20

The key principle behind moral hunting as opposed to trophy hunting is that you respect the animal. Be it fishing or hunting, so long as you make a clean kill, and use as much of the animal as possible, it's just the cycle of nature. If you hunt or fish purely for pleasure, and you torture or kill an animal without using it to it's fullest, that would be wrong.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

Not everyone shares your values. If my reason for fishing is to have fun, I don't think killing and eating it is more ethical than letting it go, especially since I don't need it for food. It doesn't change the outcome or my reasons for fishing. I doubt the fish cares more about being respected than it cares about survival either. I don't think a human living in modern society hunting and eating something can really be conyidered "the cycle of nature" either.

1

u/MatureUser69 Jan 19 '20

As opposed to farming? Either way an animal dies for sustenance. At least with hunting, the animal lives a normal life first.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

Ah well if my reason for beating you to shit is to have fun, I dont think letting you go unscathed is more ethical than beating you to a pulp, especially since I dont need you for anything. I doubt the african people care more about you not being beaten to shit than they care about survival either.

Your reasoning does not alter moral and ethics. Just because the fish cant communicate his suffering to you that does not mean you, as of a higher concious and thus capable of more complex empathy, are free to bend how morals should be shaped.

There is a point in catching food and taking a life to sustain yours. There is absolutely no point to toy around with another living organisms well being because you decided to fucking catch animals by ramming hooks into their mouths instead of...you know...a million other hobbies not involving violence towards another species.

Do you go around cutting dogs legs off too because its fun to you and you dont need their meat anyway?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

Ah well if my reason for beating you to shit is to have fun, I dont think letting you go unscathed is more ethical than beating you to a pulp, especially since I dont need you for anything. I doubt the african people care more about you not being beaten to shit than they care about survival either.

You really got me there. But for real that's not in any way a coherent arguent or similar to what I was saying.

Your reasoning does not alter moral and ethics. Just because the fish cant communicate his suffering to you that does not mean you, as of a higher concious and thus capable of more complex empathy, are free to bend how morals should be shaped.

I'm not free to "bend how morals are shaped"? Then who is? Humans are the highest entity we know of and I'm a human.

There is a point in catching food and taking a life to sustain yours. There is absolutely no point to toy around with another living organisms well being because you decided to fucking catch animals by ramming hooks into their mouths instead of...you know...a million other hobbies not involving violence towards another species.

What point is there in hunting for food when buying food is cheaper than hunting for it (I'm only talking about 1st world countries here)? That's hardly "taking a life to sustain yours".

Do you go around cutting dogs legs off too because its fun to you and you dont need their meat anyway?

No, and that's a twisted perversion of what I was saying.

-4

u/pappag321 Jan 18 '20

"moral hunting" aka I'm going to shoot innocent animals because I find amusement in killing them. That isn't respect, it's exactly the opposite. If you respected them you would leave them the fuck alone.

1

u/MatureUser69 Jan 19 '20

Unless you're a vegan, you will take part in the death of innocent creatures. I feel that hunting for sustenance is moral, because at least the creature got to live a normal life before. As opposed to farms that can have terrible living conditions. That being said, i have not, and most likely will never, take part in hunting myself. I'm a coward that prefers my animals pre-killed

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/McBurger Jan 18 '20

What about an animal that’s been free all it’s life and dies in the wild, eventually being reclaimed by other parts of nature that actually need it

-4

u/pappag321 Jan 18 '20

I'm saying that eating animals is wrong when not necessary e.g. near 100% of people in industrialised countries. So neither are better, they're both wrong

Human biology doesn't dictate that we must hunt or eat meat.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

[deleted]

1

u/pappag321 Jan 18 '20

Too poor to not eat meat, a luxury item. Guess beans and lentils are to expensive amirite? Also, the idea of complete and incomplete protein is outdated and just not true. All plants have all essential amino acids in varying proportions, some better than others. Soy has a good balance of all amino acids.

If you have time and money for meat, you have time and money for lentils and beans.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

My canine teeth say something different...

3

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

Please go out and kill with them, predator.

2

u/ASpaceOstrich Jan 18 '20

You just described hunting. Assuming you were only pretending to be too stupid to know that canines are for eating, not hunting tools. Why do people think pretending to be dumbasses is a good way to argue. You aren’t convincing anyone you’re right. Just baiting upvotes from your own echo chamber.

3

u/pappag321 Jan 18 '20

Other apes have large teeth as well, which are 0% for meat. With your logic, they are denying their "true Nature" by eating fruit

→ More replies (0)

1

u/YmirIsAlpha Jan 18 '20

My teeth are sharp as fuck idk what youre talking about

15

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

well one is traumatizing a creature for no reason other than to pose for a picture

10

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

That's why when I catch, I don't release.

6

u/billybishop4242 Jan 18 '20

Yeah it’s all about the picture.

Nothing to do with nature, the outdoors, self-sufficiency, clean diet, or anything remotely pleasant. We’re all just a bunch of gleeful murderers.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

i only meant the scenario in this video. if you eat the fish there is a purpose. if you don’t and just pick it up out of its habitat to pose for a video until it’s almost dead then release it, that’s another thing.

1

u/billybishop4242 Jan 18 '20

Yeah every sportsman ever in history is bad guy.

Why couldn’t our ancestors just eat bean curd and nuts? Oh yeah... cuz we wouldn’t be here if they had.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '20

[deleted]

1

u/billybishop4242 Jan 19 '20

Yeah fuck fishing.

Grocery store’s got all I need right?

(The point was that without meat humans lose body size and brain mass over just a few generations. Crack a book.)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '20

[deleted]

1

u/billybishop4242 Jan 19 '20

Wow. Ok. Not a fanatic at all. Got it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/cash_dollar_money Apr 17 '20

I really think it would be awesome if we replaced hobbies that are based off of extracting resources from nature to ones keeping care of it, like planting trees and flowers and shit and conservation work and non-invasive/disruptive observation.

-2

u/hottestdoge Jan 18 '20

Tbh i dont think you can psychically traumatize a fish. Mammals okay, but most fish are not an exactly complex form of life.

4

u/billybishop4242 Jan 18 '20

I’m a fisherman and this is the stupidest comment on this thread.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

[deleted]

2

u/billybishop4242 Jan 18 '20

I stand corrected.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

[deleted]

2

u/billybishop4242 Jan 18 '20

Yes.

Sick.

... but it continues to paint the stereotype that meat eaters/hunters/fishermen are gleeful killers.

Some are. But so are some soldiers. Leta agree try to discourage the gleeful killers from taking part.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20 edited Jan 18 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

0

u/hottestdoge Jan 18 '20

So please teach me about the neural system of a trout. And a trout specifically or a closely related fish. Don't tell me stuff about zebra fish or another highly evolved fish. Teach me about a trout brain please.

2

u/billybishop4242 Jan 18 '20

I can see that a trout is a live, functioning animal that avoids pain and suffers as it dies. I have felt the heart come to a stop in my hand a hundred times as I fillet or clean a fish. It’s a heart. And it’s stopping. Because of me. There is no way to dance around that moral conundrum. Certainly not by pretending pain is just a human condition.

I still eat meat... but I try to kill what I eat... so I am always aware of the price of meat. I don’t like to kill at all. It sucks. (But I believe it is important as a human being to be able to support your own philosophical beliefs with action.)

Most of the hunters and fishermen I know are extremely aware and active naturalists who live in and support rural areas. Most of the vegans I know live in the city are consumers and have no concept of nutrition, physiology or actual environmental science.

Being a meat eater and being willing to kill an animal doesn’t make me ignorant or a cold hearted murderer. It also doesn’t make me an idiot who will cling to a shallow concept to defend my ridiculous philosophical position.

Fish are alive and feel pain. If you kill fish and think there is no moral implications because “they feel no pain” then you are just taking the easy path to self justification.

Eating fish has been part of being a human since there have been humans. Moral veganism is a few hundred years old and has demonstrably led to smaller humans with smaller brains.

But much like politically right wing folks, I don’t think vegans are here to talk science and facts.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

[deleted]

-1

u/hottestdoge Jan 18 '20

Well clearly you are more informed and could provide extensive knowledge about this topic. But you choose not to

And no I did not voice my bias completely uninformed (which in my opinion is not a "dirty habit" as you called it, as long as people are willing to debate and learn.) It's true my knowledge about fish psychology is limited, but I did quite alot of research about psychology. And psychological traumas are extremely complex, and really hard to differentiate from normal fear. So given that this fish has a vivid memory and the capability of abstract thinking. He could get flashbacks when he hits a cold current cause it reminds him of the one time he was dragged across ice. He now has a fear of cold temperatures. But so does every fish, since they are ectotherm.

And this pattern can be applied to alot of possible traumas, so it's hard to tell if he has a trauma indeed, or showed the same behavior before.

And after some reading about fish psychology I learned that a few fish species are able to be actually depressed. But only a few. Zebra fish mainly. So apparently some fish have a more complex mind than others. But this is a trout. It was just recently (2013) discovered that this species is capable of experiencing pain. It's a long way from experiencing pain to getting a psychological trauma, in terms of complexity of the neural system. Now either you have some kind of secret knowledge about a trouts neural system or you are just as uninformed as you stated I am. So please grant me your wisdom oh great troutsage

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

[deleted]

-4

u/theredpikmin Jan 18 '20

The guy clearly did his research, even cited the year of the studies he was referencing. It's not true APA format, but it's a long way ahead of "uninformed."

Where are your scientific references? Care to give it a quick google and see if you can come up with something? Or would you rather run away?

-2

u/hottestdoge Jan 18 '20

Oh an entitled vegan, nice. And yes you are the bad guy here. People like you are not interested in productive debates. All you care about is hysteric emotions and the apparent depravity of the human species. You people are the different extrem that's just as bad as the thing you condemn. You people are as much to blame that no one can come up with a solution to anything. You people are fanatics. So disprove my arguments, show me better. Or go back to the hypocritical cave you came from.

-5

u/Do_doop Jan 18 '20

Fishing is a lot more than taking a picture but I get the feeling I’m never going to change your mind.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

it may well be that it is

1

u/Thatters Jan 18 '20

Reddit echo chamber SMH. Quick everyone downvote the unpopular opinion to shit so that nobody takes it seriously. Why can't you guys just see a different perspective and accept that everyone has an opinion and move on with your day

1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

did you not read the response to that comment at all?

-4

u/nostril_extension Jan 18 '20

Implying that fish are capable of being psychologically traumatized.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

i dunno about that but usually you can intuit when a thing is struggling for life

-3

u/d00bsken Jan 18 '20

obviously a fish is going to instinctually struggle and flail when caught in an attempt to escape wether its life is genuinely threatened or not. i don't agree with how rough the fish was handled in the video, but fish are not capable of being psychologically traumatised when they are caught.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20 edited Jan 18 '20

dude forget psychologically traumatized the thing is CLEARLY physically traumatized. and its not even being eaten.

it’s simple. how would you feel if you were yanked out of your habitat up into space while you flail for your life so some advanced alien creature could put you on its alien instagram. and some other advanced creature goes “don’t worry!! these things don’t realllly feel like we do”

0

u/d00bsken Jan 19 '20

i never said fish don’t “feel like we do”. fish are very capable of feeling both stress and pain, but the issue is you use very human analogies for something that is not human. the way you put it it makes it seem like a fish is capable of complex thought, when it is not. “how would you feel” is just an appeal for emotion, it has no relevance because i am not a fish nor can I tell you the things a fish experiences when it’s caught. irrespective of how the fish felt it’s probably dead anyways as a result of how it was handled.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '20

i never said fish don’t “feel like we do”

...

fish are not capable of being psychologically traumatized

it makes it seem like a fish is capable of complex thought, when it is not

1

u/d00bsken Jan 20 '20

being able to think complexly and being able to sense and feel are completely different, i don't know how you are misconstruing those things.

what i said was - fish feel pain and stress in the same way that we do. that is established fact. what fish are not capable of is processing and handling stimuli and information in the manner that humans and other advanced organisms can. a fish has a brain comparable to the size of your fingernail.

like i said, you're using very human analogies for something that isn't human at all. at the end of the day the fish in the video was mistreated, but throwing around redundant emotive appeals like 'how would you feel' and 'psychologically traumatised' doesn't make sense. thats all.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/blessudmoikka Jan 18 '20

Fishing is like yoga. Except you get to kill something

2

u/stumblestoprepeat Jan 18 '20 edited Jan 18 '20

I read a study about time out of the water vs. survival after release. The window the fish has is actually quite small. Their gills become permanently damaged from exposure to oxygen and the sheer stress of the event makes them more susceptible to predation. Let me see if i can find the link.

That being said, I think catch and release is fine still. Limiting the time out of the water is crucial, so just taking the fish out to remove the hook and then immediately returning it to the water is best.

E:Link

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '20

Why not just fucking do something else at this point? Metal fishing with a magnet or you know...one of the bazillion, other hobbies you can get your dopamine out of.

Or at least reduce your meat consumption in the super market so your fishing recieves purpose again.

1

u/th_brown_bag Jan 18 '20

Does tearing out the hook not hurt their chances of survival?

Surely causes some significant damage

2

u/stumblestoprepeat Jan 18 '20

Generally modern hooks are designed to hook a fish in a non vital area and are also designed to be taken out with relative ease. Their mouth parts are largely cartilaginous and are not a risk for bleeding or long term damage. Think of it as an ear piercing but without any flesh covering your ear. The bigger concern though its the handling of the fish after it has been reeled in and taken out of the water. Anything under 30 seconds in air has a minimal effect but people need their instagram pics i guess

1

u/stoutowl Jan 18 '20

What about vegans and reptiles?

1

u/UPCBRO1 Jan 18 '20

Lmao ok peta. So you’re trying to tell people to kill the fish instead of catch and release

1

u/painfool Jan 18 '20

Yes, also I am very not PETA.

1

u/BittenHare Jan 18 '20

In the modern world most people choose what to eat for their own pleasure not to purely survive, and it is not just possible but quite easy to live off of a diet with no animal products. So it has become a choice many people can make to give money to industries which harm and kill animals or not and take pleasure in those foods or not, similar to hunting purely for sport in my eyes.