poker 745

poker 745

"No hard feelings, I hope."
Of course not! You'd have to work alot harder than that to hurt my feelings!
I meant no offense, either, as I'm sure Michelle didn't. What many of us find absurd is this idea that, mainly in Europe, the full weight of the State is being brought to bear more and more in the area of animal rights or the environment, while abortion and euthanasia are being expanded.
So we have babies being ripped from the womb, the elderly and infirm being murdered, but, by golly, we have outlawed fish bowls!
What is being criticized, I think, is this almost schizophrenic hypocricy, not the genuine concern about humane treatment of animals.
You made a number of valid points. I enjoyed our exchange.

With a too-small habitat, what you're doing is stunting the critter's growth and making it suffer (grow on the inside) until it has no choice but to die prematurely.
You are however completely correct in saying that killing bugs, for example, is okay--haven't we a right to defend ourselves against potential disease and annoyances? Sure we do. That's totally different from issues I talked about.
I do kill mosquitoes and I try to keep ants out of my house. I don't torture the bugs, and I'm sure you don't either. I don't think it has to do with "what creatures are more important than others", though. In the case of some bugs, they are simply natural enemies. Killing them is justified. Even they have a purpose. We humans can't create a living bug; only God can. There's a certain awe about that.
Interesting point, and I'm glad you brought it up.
No hard feelings, I hope. I'm sorry I didn't make my points in the best way.

Lurker-
What I said, quite intentionally, was that I was not YET prepared to acknowledge that fishbowls are inherently inhumane. I have always tried to keep my mind open to the truth, which I'm sure is partly why I am now a Catholic.
We own a mini-dachsund that we resued from a puppy mill. She was in horrible shape, having been kept in a crowded kennel with a dirt floor and bred over and over. My wife and I are not fond of people who abuse animals.
While it should be OBVIOUS that keeping fish in a too-small fishbowl would be bad, I can see the possibility of using a properly kept fishbowl on a temporary basis. Gravel bottom, live plants, maybe one of those little snail-y critters to eat the algae, fresh water on a regular basis... surely a guppy wouldn't mind?
Which brings to mind another aspect of the debate that may be uncomfortable to talk about: not all animals are, or should be, treated the same.
I kill bugs. Regularly. Just last week I mercilessly wiped out a nest of red wasps that had taken up residence too close to our front door.
You can NOT therefore assume that I fail to appreciate creation. The fact that I did not mourn the wasps cannot be used to justify accusations that I am a bad Catholic or that in doing so I am somehow "correcting" the Creator of wasps.
On the big continuum from amoebas to horses, dogs and apes, fish would fall somewhere in the middle. That does NOT justify their being treated inhumanely, but it might mean that flushing a guppy is not exactly in the same category as starving a horse, or beating a dog.
I would not agree with giving fish as prizes at fairs, for the same reason that I hate to see people buying chicks and rabbits at Easter; they have no idea what they are doing. That doesn't mean that some suburbanites would not be fully capable of caring for a rabbit. Should selling rabbits at Easter be illegal? I'm not being facetious.
I reamain open to argument, but I still see the possibility that fish bowls can be humane if used properly, which means regular maintainence and a compatible breed of fish. I have known people who had very nice aquarium set-ups, but failed to maintain them properly, and that was an ugly mess. It all depends on the owner.

P.S. This is to Tim re: his jail comment:
And yes, if I were new to fishkeeping, and a business knowingly sold me the wrong fish, the wrong tank, and gave bad advice so I'd come back to buy more medicines and fish, you can BET I would want to be able to report them to a Better Business Bureau for robbing me and other customers. If the bad practices were kept up, I think such businesses should either get hut down, or face jail for very bad business practices. I've been new at fishkeeping and went through this predicament, and there are hundreds of dollars I'll never get back, and there was heartache I'd rather not have had.

God created those fish. Some are beautiful, some provide us with food, some are even quite smart (look up clown loaches particularly). God thinks these animals, who have done *nothing* to deserve the treatment they sometimes get, are good. But feel free to correct Him.
I guess that's some people's idea of "Catholicism", then?
No, there is not *legitimate* disagreement over the tank size requirements if you expect to keep a healthy fish which will not suffer, which will not become very stressed and ill (and STRESS is what causes illness 99% of the time--before you know it, you have an epidemic wiping out your tank).
No, it's not legitimate to blithely ignore what is becoming common fishkeeping knowledge about tank size, compatible stocking, pH, water temperatures, and the nitrogen cycle, just because being stubborn and snarky is more fun.
It's not legitimate, out of willful ignorance, to waste good money on medicines that won't solve the problem, and on new fish every few months. People who do this are upset at their fish loss, but often won't listen to the knowledgable fishkeepers who know what is causing their problems.
The fishbowl idea is quite rightfully dying out. Many old-fashioned, ridiculous ideas have slow, hard deaths. But that's what it is, a very old-fashioned idea about fishkeeping from a time when _people_didn't_know_any_better. If you really take time to learn how to "keep" fish, as opposed to simply "having" them, you will no longer see the fishbowl as a legitimate option to house a goldfish, and you will see the ridiculousness of this. I really doubt you ever looked into it.
But if you were to get a tank, I can predict exactly what would happen in a few months, and then you'd go crawling to a fishkeeping board asking what is wrong with your fish, and you will get the same advice.
You've GOT to read this for an all-too-typical situation:
http://www.aquahobby.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=258...
I can see hanging onto an idea if one _doesn't_know_any_better, but I don't respect willful ignorance, and that's what I see here. Willful ignorance and unappreciativeness of creation.
Unappreciativeness of creation cannot *possibly* be good for the soul. I don't know why it's being rationalized away.
I don't even see the waste of money being addressed either.
The Party? There seems to be an unofficial branch of the right wing. "The Party Where We Form Our Wacky Stubborn Ideas In Direct Correlation To, And In Response To, How Wacky Some Leftists Are."
But don't let sound Catholic teaching about animals get in the way of a chance to write something snarky.
Come on. So goldfish bowls are banned. That means stores can't sell you goldfish and bowls, and fairgrounds cannot offer goldfish as prizes. All this does is protect God's creatures, and protect the customer's wallet by preventing bad choices from being made. And you guys make it out to be a bad thing?
If I would post this article in a proper fishkeeping board, it would frustrate and aggravate many people, and give Catholicism a very bad name to the non-Catholics.
I have many kinds of fish in my three tanks, and I will tell you that they do have character. Just because they're not furry and I can't take them out and cuddle them doesn't mean they're not one of many little delights in my life, and that I see them as reflecting God's glory in their own small way. I have read, and have my own, quite funny stories about the amazing antics some fish can get up to. I am a fishkeeper, not a fish-"haver".

Good grief! Because someone says "stinkin' fish" does not mean that they don't agree with Catholicism!
I'm just about 90% sure that everybody AGREES that inhumane practices should not be used in raising or killing animals.
There can be, however, legitimate disagreement about what is humane and what is not. I'm not yet prepared to acknowledge that fish bowls are inherently inhumane and worthy of sending people to JAIL over.
What "party lines" did Michelle fall for, exactly? Which party are we talkin' about, here? I'm lost.

Gene Branaman: That sounded like an attempted barb aimed at someone who thinks eating meat or fish is inherently cruel, and who does not eat meat and fish. Try again.
Pha, it sounds like you didn't see that I _already_ acknowledge the abortion problem and how much worse it is, OR the hypocrisy of some prominent animal rights activists. I did acknowledge these things.
There's the "Stinkin' fish" comment, as well as Michelle's falling for party lines and refusing to acknowledge where lines should really be drawn as to how we treat God's creatures--emphasis on "God's". Not our creatures, God's. And we're the stewards.
That means not keeping pets in substandard conditions, even if it's for educational purposes for one's brat, in witnessing the cycle of life first-hand. It means spaying and neutering your cats and dogs where overpopulation is a problem and it's irresponsible not to do so. It means YOU CAN EAT MEAT, and kill animals humanely for their meat, but that inhumane conditions used in farming animals is wrong. It means that Catholicism is right, and that some here don't seem to agree with _Catholicism_.
Wake up call, people. Just because there are wackos from groups like PETA throwing chicken blood on fur coats (or whatever), doesn't mean your attitudes don't need adjusting.

Of course people ought to take the trouble to think things through before they bring a pet home.
I definitely agree. People who get their kids a dalmatian because they've enjoyed 101 Dalmatians, or (worse) an owl because they've enjoyed Harry Potter, are among those who need to choose pets more responsibly. Dalmatians require a lot of care, and owls are not really domestic animals (though it's legal to own one in Britain).
Does that mean that the elderly and infirm can't own dogs
Maybe they're trying to reinforce the "crazy cat lady" stereotype ;)

I don't think anybody here is advocating cruelty to animals, or condoning it or anything else.
But, by gum, abortion is just a whole 'nother category.
Of course people ought to take the trouble to think things through before they bring a pet home. I don't think banning goldfish bowls will help things much, though.
And how do you enforce this dog-walking law? Does that mean that the elderly and infirm can't own dogs, because they can't walk them? Or will they have to pay someone to walk their pets?

Who here was promoting animal cruelty? Certainly not me. I was pointing out the inconsistency of being kind to fish while allowing human children to be legally destroyed. Others did the same.

In the words of Kurt Cobain:
"It's okay to eat fish
'Cos they don't have any feelings"

:-)
Here we go:
"Treatment of animals
Although not a vegetarian, the new Pope has spoken about the exploitation of all beings, particularly of farmed animals. When he was asked about cruelty to animals in a 2002 interview, he said, "That is a very serious question. At any rate, we can see that they are given into our care, that we cannot just do whatever we want with them. Animals, too, are God's creatures... Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible." Cardinal Ratzinger was echoing official church teachings laid out in the Catholic Catechism, which states clearly that “Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. . . . It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.”[13]"
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Pope_Bene...
This is our pope, not a lunatic talking. But there's a difference from harvesting meat humanely and eating meat, and thinking that avoidable cruelty is ever okay. That's the difference few people seem to want to acknowledge, but Benedict is man enough to do so.

I'm not saying "Go vegan!" or any of that.
Good, because if God didn't want us to eat animals then he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Guys, do you know that some types of goldfish can outlive humans? Most get very large, though they grow slowly, and live decades.
People still believe--though this is false--that fish only grow as big as their tank/bowl, so it's okay to crowd them in, because they'll stay small. That's about as untrue as "cats suck the breath out of babies".
What actually happens, is a fish who should have grown large and lived for years, has their lifespan cut short to about only 1-5%. Imagine trying to keep a great dane in a small walk-in closet for all of its life.
They waste money putting four angelfish, which grow to 10" in a few months and incur an enormous bioload, in a 10-gallon tank chock full of ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, growth hormone, etc.--and wonder why their fish are always diseased and dying.
Not only are people wasting vast amounts of money due to fish turnover, but come on--as creatures of God, pets that YOU tame and who DEPEND on you as their STEWARD, deserve a certain respect, and cruelty should not be taken lightly. I'm disgusted when it's taken lightly.
I'm not saying "Go vegan!" or any of that. I'm saying, treat creation with respect, because it is God's, (how dare you not respect what God has made) and also, read what Benedict 16 personally has to say about the treatment animals, as well as your catechism. I'm sure that B16 eats meat, and I'm sure he doesn't equate them to humans in importance, but geesh, people, there's more than just black and white, polar opposite lines of thought here.
It is against HUMAN dignity, no less, to be cruel to other creatures of God. If you don't believe me, look up what B16 has to say about it. I always thought that, and then I read that Benedict also articulated this. "What does it do to a human's soul, who would allow cruelty to needlessly happen to an innocent creature of God, even IF the human is considered more important?", I would think. This apathetic attitude towards God's creatures cannot POSSIBLY foster a sense of respect for God and creation; don't even try rationalizing it. Respecting the least of God's creatures, as well as the greatest, is surely pleasing to God. If you don't believe that creation is good, and that animals have been endowed by God with the ability to feel pain, suffer, or that it does you no spiritual harm to be cruel in some circumstances "because it's just a fish, just a kitten, just a dog", etc., then you will have a something to reckon with when you face your Maker.
We are stewards. Good stewards of God's money do not squander it away. Good stewards of animals respect that they feel pain and/or have certain health requirements--especially if it is a pet who through no fault of their own, ended up in your incompetent hands.
Now evidence is starting to form, that fish which are stunted by an undersized tank actually may continue to grow on the *inside*--which must be extremely uncomfortable for the fish.
Then *boom* - an angelfish who should have lived for 10+ years is dead in two months. A goldfish who should have lived for 50 years is dead in a few weeks. And you get to waste another load of money stocking your tank back up--or futiley buying medicines--to have the same thing happen again.
Come on, I know people are frustrated about abortion, and we all know abortion is wrong, but I just don't see why that means all other sin is acceptable until the whole abortion issue is sorted out. The scoffing about animal cruelty makes me think you're too intellectually lazy to admit that animal cruelty is also a problem. I could bang my head against a wall sometimes, the way people let themselves become so polarized that they cannot see truth anymore. It's like South Park.
Fight for human rights and against abortion as much as you want. Be mad at organizations who are pro-abortion but against animal cruelty, sure. That's justifiable.
But be consistent about your respect for creatures of God, and don't be hypocrites. For shame.

Amen, Robert.
The whole "Save the Whales, Abort the Fetuses" thing has always struck me as tragically funny.

Gosh, too bad we can't reclassify A fetus as goldfish, so that they could then get the same level of sympathy and legal protection AS A STINKIN' FISH!

"'The civilization of a city can also be measured by this,' she told Rome daily Il Messaggero."
When I was little visiting my cousin's in Rome, I remember having to be very careful when playing outside because there were syringes lying all over the place.

Apropos of fish and Christianity, I just put up a post on the "Fish Wars" on the Mazurland Blog.
Marty - Sometime lurker at jimmyakin.Org.

"'The civilization of a city can also be measured by this,' she told Rome daily Il Messaggero."
Mohandas Gandhi is supposed to have said "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
But Gandhi also wrote "It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime." Does Rome abide by that?