The ethics of quarantining and and prophylactically medicating (or not)

[Jubei2006]

Did you bother to read the other articles I posted. I don’t take a position as to whether or not I agree, I am just saying that this is an evolving concept. In France laws have changed, for example. If we think of rights as only free speech and such that is a very limited view.

Sentience as well. Some will debate plants are, and that information is also easy to find. However, plants do not have a brain and central nervous system, which is typically argued is required for sentience to be possible. And again, very basically responding to stimuli, and FEELING and intent are not exactly the same concepts.

The idea of philosophical discussions is that they are supposed to be mind opening and lead us to new thoughts and ideas that are debated together with respect. I don’t find this forum to be very open or conducive to that and over the past few days have decided it is not for me.

I have been reading articles like it for quite some time. Just stating that welfare the wellbeing and overall care of all animals is very important. Rights have a totally different meaning than welfare. And if we are going to say only higher animals with brains and central nervous systems, why are lobsters included? They have a rudimentary system closer to arachnids and not a true brain. They were given the recognition because a group of people feel angry when they are thrown into a pot live of boiling water. Were it not for that, people probably wouldn't care as much. In addition, where is the line drawn? If we go based on feelings, that would eliminate most animals on the planet. Most only show excitement and fear, nothing more. If we go by reaction to external stimuli you have to include most living things on the planet. If every living thing on the planet is now given rights, then they fall under much more stict laws. As I said, you could easily end up in jail for eating a ribeye. I know it seems rediculous and implausible now, but it is still possible.

 

[Lyss]

I have been reading articles like it for quite some time. Just stating that welfare the wellbeing and overall care of all animals is very important. Rights have a totally different meaning than welfare. And if we are going to say only higher animals with brains and central nervous systems, why are lobsters included? They have a rudimentary system closer to arachnids and not a true brain. They were given the recognition because a group of people feel angry when they are thrown into a pot live of boiling water. Were it not for that, people probably wouldn't care as much. In addition, where is the line drawn? If we go based on feelings, that would eliminate most animals on the planet. Most only show excitement and fear, nothing more. If we go by reaction to external stimuli you have to include most living things on the planet. If every living thing on the planet is now given rights, then they fall under much more stict laws. As I said, you could easily end up in jail for eating a ribeye. I know it seems rediculous and implausible now, but it is still possible.

Sigh. I am merely sharing what is debated and the fact that views are evolving. I am not taking a position that I agree (or disagree for that matter — I have not taken a position). Maybe take this up with the French and UK governments and animal rights activists.

All the UK classification does is make it illegal to boil a lobster alive, which aligns with typical animal welfare laws. There are humane ways to kill a lobster immediately before cooking it, and most chefs seem to be quite fine with that. “If we do this, then [insert wildly crazy outcome/consequence] is a slippery slope argument. You may in fact be correct depending on how laws would be defined and enacted, but there can very well be gray area. The French classification as sentient beings provides an opportunity for gray area between no rights and human rights. So far all that seems to have come from it are stronger animal welfare laws.

maybe I am taking it the wrong way but you seem to be out to prove me wrong — that you are right I am wrong — in a somewhat close-minded way. I have not shared wild misinformation, so that is not really my vibe in having these discussions. Hence why I’ve decided this forum is probably not for me.

 

[Marine Collectors]

People get upset about prophylactic treatment of fish and question the ethics of it, but also will get their children vaccinated to prevent them from getting diseases that may prove to be fatal to them and/or to those around them. It's an easy decision for me. I won't buy anything from any tank and put it into my quarantined tanks unless I know it's free and clear. My first tank is up and running still and I know it has had ich outbreaks in the past and other diseases/pests, but I haven't had any disease related deaths in years. When I break the tank down and upgrade to my next build, I'm going to treat them even though they're healthy because I know the other fish that I'll put in might not survive the herd immunity gauntlet. That's why I only buy fish from @tsmaquatics, @Dr. Reef, @Marine Collectors, and fishotel.com. When I buy live rock rubble to seed my tanks, it'll be from @AquaBiomics. It's possible to run a sweet reef tank and be able to sell/trade/give away corals from your tank and know they won't wipe out your buddies $1000 fish.

Appreciate the shoutout! We are happy you're satisfied!