Thats cruel. Cruel doe not = cute.
So what if it cant remember, still is wrong William you are a tool.

It would be entertaining to watch a video of someone trying to pierce a cat's lip. Then the subsequent visit to the Emergency Room, the transfusion and the corneal transplant surgery.

the 30 second memory thing is debunked. And what does that have to do with inflicting pain? Fish do feel by the way. I've watched their eyes change from friendly curiosity to anguished terror when the spear hit them.

The 30 second memory thing is bunk. Goldfish form long term memories like most other vertebrates. you can train them into specific behaviors using pavlovian/skinnerian techniques just fine, and the training will stick as long as it's periodically reinforced.

I found it curious, which is why I posted it, but I agree that it's a nasty, unnecessary thing to do.

Weird. The whole piercings thing got going because, if I understand correctly, people want to be able to express their own individuality through their own bodies. I think piercings are gross myself, but if that's what people want to do, it's their bodies.

Now they need to express their individuality through the bodies of their pets?

It's been well-proven that goldfish have much more than a "30 second memory" guys. Please, let's stop proliferating that myth. Doesn't everyone at BB also watch Mythbusters?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_1)#Goldfish_Memory

And the Mythbusters experiment was replicated by a 15 year old in Australia and reported in February of this year.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/18/1203190696599.html

I'll leave the moral objections to others, but the first sentence of the quote is just dead wrong.

“A few hippies gave me flack,” says William, “but once the lure argument was brought up, they agreed it wasn’t any worse.”

So? The fact that it would hurt worse to trip me down the stairs doesn't absolve you of punching me in the arm.

And, of course, I'm a hippie for worrying about harm to other creatures based on shallow intentions. *rolls eyes*

Yes, #1, but perhaps not the sharpest one in the shed, eh?

At least this one had jewellery!” says William.

Uh, William, the fish doesn't care if it has jewelry, makeup, or Prada. Get over yourself and your attention-seeking ways.

And don't get any more "pets."

(At least the fish had a brain.)

#6 said: Now they need to express their individuality through the bodies of their pets?

Nothing new there, at least not in New York. It's remarkable to see how people map their "individuality" onto their dogs' outfits. Never mind the poor pug is unable to walk properly; look at those adorable mini-Wellingtons!

Maybe that poor goldfish should pierce his owner's penis and see how he likes it.

i put a decorative hole in the side of my pet cows head because it really doesn't feel any worse than the bolt gun.

Should I genetically modify my dog because it's artistically pleasing to me, all in the name of getting attention?
He really looooves his second tail ...

Is this the first step of 'custom pets' (or maybe 'customizing' is a better word)?
Nope, see all kinds of things. And we're gonna see more.

Remember the genetically-enhanced 'green pigs' that glowed in the dark from (I think) Japan?

The whole 30 second memory thing ranks right up with the whole "We only use 15% of our brains" tripe. It is sad to see this sort of thing repeated over and over again when it is flat out wrong.

Enough head trauma would give this guy a 30-second memory, too. Oliver Sacks has books full of stories like that. I guess it'd be kind of fun to beat this guy until he couldn't remember I'd beaten him, at which point it would be okay.

What? It's not the same thing? Oh, please, "William," don't give me your hippie jive. Man up.

@#14 People have been genetically modifying animals for years through selective breeding. You think any pugs, boxers, or pretty much any toy dog breed started off looking like that? Second tail, no, but bulging eyes, wider stance, smaller hips to the point where some bulldogs cant give natural birth. Its craziness. "Custom" pets have been around for generations.

To me, this ranks with ear cropping dogs. Is it unnecessary? Yea. Is it bad for the animal on a long term basis? Normally no.

Its a fish, people. A goldfish. This guy probably took better care of it than the thousands of fish taken away from carnivals and fish shops every year.

I think the only thing I would worry about is copycats who aren't professionals like this guy is, placing things in their fish that would mess up their ballast or poison them.

The 30 second thing. Ok, fish can learn through repeated training. Repeated training is not the same thing as a single event that didn't even last a minute. I don't think that there's any indication through experiment to imply that goldfish remember singular events. Given the situation I hardly think the fish suffered any trauma.

And to anyone who thinks that just keeping pets in general is immoral, in the words of my forefathers, screw you hippy.

That is cruel. As discussed fish have a much longer memory than 30 seconds, plus their jaws are not built to have that extra weight. Not only was it painful for the fish but I am sure that it effects all aspects of its life now, like eating and equilibrium.

dignity and consent.

Speaking as someone who guiltlessly eats a lot of fish:

I don't care.

Are there really so many people living Jainist-level lives of compassion and nonviolence that can really claim honest indignation over this?

On the scale of cruelty, it's way *WAY* down there. Which of course doesn't make it not cruel. But we are all just being critical of this because there's a face on it and a story, not because it's even really worth paying attention to.

#18, your forefathers probably didn't say that, because they probably predated hippies.

#22 I expected that the tongue-in-cheek nature of that last line could go without saying. Guess I was wrong.

And maybe the vernacular was different, but considering geography and occupations of my grandparents and further back, I think the sentiment is accurate enough.

#19 Didn't read the article, did you?

Fish physiologist here. Yes, the 30 second thing is false. On the other hand, like Chris L says, it's not clear what kind of memory a goldfish has for single events. It's unlikely that the weight of the ring posed any problem; as long as the fish could close its mouth, as it appears from the picture it could, the fish was fine. Based on their nervous systems, it's very unlikely that fish experience pain in the same way, subjectively, that we (or any other mammals) do.

As long as this fish could eat, it wasn't suffering. And I certainly wouldn't worry about its dignity.

Before everyone dies of compassion, try reading the article first. It brings up some valid points (as well as those in this thread so far about the mutilation we already perform on our animals).

How many of you have neutered or spayed your animal? Both of mine are. They didn't consent. How about ear clipping, tail docking, selective breeding, declawing (the worst, IMO). Our cattle are pierced with their ID tags in their ears. Many of our animals have microchip ID tags now. Those probably hurt just as much to insert as this piercing.

What gives us the right to do this? I ask myself all the time. But surely this is not the worst sin a human has committed against an animal.

BTW: Shannon is, unfortunately, no longer affiliated with BME, though this photo is attributed to the site. Due to a costly and ugly legal battle he no longer owns/operates the site.

Why?
That's my only question, really. Disregarding the whole cruel/not cruel arguments entirely.

If the answer is "because I thought it would look cool and show what a great piercer I am," then yeah...owner of said (now deceased) animal is a prat. Same goes for cropping tails and ears of other critters. People who fight dogs and thus have the canine's ears cropped for that reason are prats as well, but at least have the dubious distinction of an actual reason for it (the dog's ears will get torn off otherwise).

Putting jewelry (pierced, nonetheless) on an animal serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever; real or imagined. The worth lies solely in the ego of the person doing it. Better to keep photos or an album of the humans one has adorned thusly and leave it at that, as they at least had freedom of choice in the matter.

It's not about trauma or lack thereof, to me. It's about the person who chose to take responsibility for another living thing's life as a pet, deciding to forcibly exploit that responsibility for no legitimate reason.

spay and neuter results in far less animal suffering. Ornament, whether by mechanical means or evil trait-breeding programs is not defensible.

why wouldn't you worry about its dignity?

Putting jewelry (pierced, nonetheless) on an animal serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever; real or imagined. The worth lies solely in the ego of the person doing it.

Are you implying that there can be any non-selfish reason for keeping a pet at all?

Well, I've been pierced and it sure smarts for more than 30 seconds. I have 10 goldfish here on my desk - a long story - and I would feel cruel yanking any of them out of there and poking a hole in them for my entertainment.
On the other hand I kill 4 earthworms every day to feed my two turtles. Turtles gotta eat live food. These won't eat anything else. I don't feel bad about the worms for that reason. When I had a Tegu lizard that would only eat live mice, that I felt bad about.
I think I'd probably find this piercing artist someone I wouldn't want to associate with for a variety of reasons.

Every last one of mine found ME. I didn't seek them out. They showed up on my doorstep, or came over the back of the fence and decided that they wanted to stay. I just agreed. So, yeah. One could call me the one being exploited, I suppose.

non-selfish pet keeping.... I guess it's like jazz

How about the fact that it is just really stupid looking?

Ross, keeping those goldfish on your desk and not in a fishbowl full of water where they belong is inhumane.

That would explain all the flopping. Thanks for the tip.

Two words: Fancy Goldfish.

Antinous,

It would be pretty weird to own a goldfish that constantly appeared to be holding it's breath.

..or something....

First I really gotta say this looks like a photoshop fake.

If real I put this below a fishing lure injury. I am vegetarian and miss the fishing I did as a kid but even catch and release seems worse than fishing to feed yourself, which has a purpose, which I never did. So, injuring a fish so the owner can look cool seems below even catch and release fishing.

Even if I grant that fish are bioautomatons, thereby canceling the cruelty objection, this can only be evaluated as the work of a bored, and complete, moron.

I agree that it's a crappy thing to do to a pet. All the arguments I see in favor of it keep comparing this indulgent, elective procedure to utilitarian procedures. You are illogical.

"It's just a fish," you say. Well, unless you're doing something useful with your life, you're basically filling the same companion role as a pet. So maybe it would be okay to use your ass as a pincushion for quilting needles. You're just a naked ape, after all; what does it matter?

Sounds like an asshole to me. I've never seen a fish and thought, "You know what that fish needs? A little rockabilly makeover!" When he puts some Day of the Dead tattoos on a kitten, people will really get upset.

i put an earing on my cat once. the hole was already in his ear from a fight and had healed years before. it was just the perfect little hole, i felt i had to. i took some pictures and took it right back out, in case it got snagged on anything.

The possibility of snagging alone should dissuade pet owners from this. But I should confess to having pierced the lip of many an albacore; a few got away with just a piercing, but most soon became tuna salad. Yummy!

So it's not ok to starve a dog in an art gallery, but it's ok to handle a fish - thus adding enough stress on its body to cause mortality issues - and then stick a piece of metal in its body for a good laugh.

Whoever did this should be shot into space without a suit the next time they want a piercing. I'd like to see them laugh then.

all this discussion about the dignity of fish reminded me of the recent debate in the Swiss biomedical community concerning the "dignity of plants."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/09/plant_dignity/

novachild,

FYI - the dog thing was a hoax by the artist and the gallery to highlight the plight of strays. The dog was fed and watered at night when the gallery was closed.

People who fight dogs and thus have the canine's ears cropped for that reason are prats as well, but at least have the dubious distinction of an actual reason for it (the dog's ears will get torn off otherwise).

Okay, so it is not okay to pierce a goldfish's lip, but it is okay to crop a dog's ears so they can participate in dogfights?

If the fish had fingers it would remove that atrocity. At least.

Ugh... I'd rather live in a world of Mengeles and Tuskegees than one where people stroke their pompous self-righteousness with discussions of "plant dignity" (which smacks of Laputa to me).

Somewhere between George Carlin's "Save the Planet" comedy and Stanislaw Lem's weltschmerz about our capacity to truly fathom an alien intelligence lies the truth of this discourse on the ethics of scientific/medical experimentation.

But at the end of the day I find I agree more with Pro-Test. I'll also swallow live goldfish or eat fried worms. I'm all for animal welfare, but the animal rights movement tends to be a bit nutty, IMHO. (I guess puppies are cute, but humans rotting in jail aren't.)

oooh, some said "Carlin" and "If fish had fingers...": I'm first!: "If fish had fingers...they'd masturbate! OK,OK,now you go !

and Zuzu, c'mon, you know the Swiss aren't that looney. It's probably a translation issue about general respect for the genome as found. Though, which DO you think is the most dignified vegetable?
Definitely not the cucumber.

My dwarf gourami died today, killed by the stress caused by the constant harassment of my other dwarf gourami who was only slightly bigger than him. Cruel? Maybe. Natural? Definitely. The "might make right" attitude of nature has been superseded by the just attitude of human beings, but few people seem to grasp the difference and that there is a line that we as human beings mustn't any longer cross if we are to continue to call ourselves that.

splendid,an opportunity to extend the discussion of non-consensual fish jewelry into the putative biological roots of altruism. Your serve.

So...the Holocaust is preferable to flaky but harmless philosophy? Wow.

and Antinous rallies with a magnificent, left-handed Back Door Godwin! Zuzu backpeddles and shakes it off (oh look folks, he's scrabbling in his trunks! Looks like he's got something.....)

So...the Holocaust is preferable to flaky but harmless philosophy? Wow.

My point was more that I'd prefer people err on the side of recklessness in the pursuit of knowledge rather than "playing it safe" and agonizing over metaphysics. (Not to mention the rather Wittgenstein-esque conundrum of ascribing the human concept of "dignity" to plant life, which requires remarkable hubris on behalf of humanity to even consider taking seriously.)

Back Door Godwin!

And Zuzu's waving around a razor-edged philosophical qualification! Looks like its clean, folks,but some of those German Logic maces do carry venom! Lets see what Antinous does with this one!

Back Door Godwin. Why does that make me think of Max Mosley?

I watched the tapes. All I can say is if I had as much money as Mosley, the whole scene would have been more memorable. Why are so many of the wealthy so damned talentless? Cripes, he didn't even have a bloody Dachshund or any French bread involved.

You guys are too much! We've got a million years of omnivorous history behind us. Show some respect for our ancestors: have a hamburger for lunch. With lettuce.

second frame
http://www.ryoheihase.com/top.html

meant the tigger and bunny

Jeez guys, its a fish. I eat one at least once a week (its good for your brainzzz) but also lots of meat as well, all from animals with higher cognitive ability than a fish. I don't shed a tear for them too.

Now if you excuse me, I have a slice of minke whale in my fridge that I need to decide how to cook (yes I bought it in the store, it's marinated).

My opinion is that this is not right. To kill another creature, or have one killed, so you can enjoy tasty treats is one thing, but to mutilate another creature for nothing but your own amusement seems to be minor cruelty to me. Takuan said it all really with 'dignity and consent' - although perhaps dignity OR consent' would be more accurate for my beliefs.

These comments remind me of that Calvin and Hobbes strip...

Calvin's mom is crying whilst chopping an onion. Calvin wanders off confused, stating 'It must be hard to cook when you anthropomorphize your vegetables'.

It must be equally hard to get through life when you anthropomorphize the animal kingdom. The notion of a Goldfish with the power of consent does amuse me though.

I mean...screw it...if you're gonna endow creatures with traits they don't have...why not give them a rebellious attitude and a desire to stand out from the pack?

'I was...like...swimming around...like...in the opposite direction to all the other fish...and so...like...I realised...we're all freakin' gold! How unoriginal is that?! So I...like...totally got my lip pierced.'

Peirce a fish's lip and you better eat the thing, or throw it back in the river.

Not this.

ETAWAT is my hero, and I want some whale.

Also that fish is such a fucking poser.

Buttsie! Where you been?

LaurenO:
"Okay, so it is not okay to pierce a goldfish's lip, but it is okay to crop a dog's ears so they can participate in dogfights?"

I NEVER said it was ok. Not remotely. If you actually read what you quoted, I distinctly said they were prats, too. Rather more than that, but the language I would wish to use isn't allowed here. The entire point was that if one really really wanted to, they could at least claim a reason - no matter how cruddy - for it. There is no reason, cruddy or otherwise, for piercing a fish's lip with body jewelry.

@ #25, Nursegracer:

"BTW: Shannon is, unfortunately, no longer affiliated with BME, though this photo is attributed to the site. Due to a costly and ugly legal battle he no longer owns/operates the site."

More's the pity.

Speaking as a Modblog lurker that had my doubts about a lot of what Shannon said - I sincerely, almost personally miss him. Since his departure, the relative difference in quality is very noticeable. That applies to both the subjects picked for posts and the level of analysis. And I say that with the greatest of respect to Roo, who certainly used to be a friend of Shannon's and seems to have his heart(s) in the right place - he's still posting several times a day.

Assuming that you're still reading the thread, do you understand any of the legal details? I only ask because I got the impression that he'd agreed to never even think about body mods in the future, let alone write about them in exchange for money.

Oh, and everyone should read Zentastic instead. As I understand them, this post neatly sums up the attitudes displayed by either side in the BME dispute.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Cragsavage,

There's always something bigger and smarter than you that views you as a consumable resource. Hubris kills.

People for the
Ethical
Treatment of
Humans

don't hurt animals you MORON.
Has anyone alerted the authorities like the SPCA?
mutilate or decorate or express yourself (read:play 'dressup') but for christs sake what were you thinking?