Just Got 7 NEW DEFORMED Angels !!! Help

[Mystix212]

They dont even appear to have pectoral fins! And on a side note, many alngels develop bad gill covers due to too much agitation/aeration when in the egg stage. Eg, an air stone pumping to much past them.
Sell them ASAP. Apart from having bad fin structure, they arent that bad off? I mean, look at some of the fancy goldfish these days.

 

[KRUNNCH540]

People inbreed angels to the point that they throw of tons of these deformed fish. They produce hundreds of fry. You should be culling for the best of the traits you are looking for when breeding the fish and culling the rest. Just because a fish produces five hundred fry in two months doesn't mean you have to raise five hundred babies. How is that like retarded children again? Do you raise all 500 fry until they pass...no. If you keep the ones that are predisposed to a genetic issue and breed them again, you help lock in those bad traits.

The mortality rate for fry and already fully-grown Angels are unfortunately two different topics. Therefore, you are saying if you raise a "large" quantity of fry, you dispose of the remaining fry that have genetic imperfections. So lets compare this to the Arian race. Only breeding for blonde hair and blue eyes and disposing of the rest. Sounds familiar in some respects? Now how was that outcome again?

Regardless of how you cut the cake, you are deciding whether living creatures die. If you are going to compare mortality rates, then lets compare African/Mexican infant mortality rates and fry. If you want to compare mostly grown Angels, then you compare them to children. These are seven grown creatures; don't kill them because you cannot "stand" their sight. Is it mandated that when you receive a creature you breed it? No. Are their "defective" traits going to leak outside of the aquarium and infect the rest of population? No. Keep them isolated to their own tank and give them a good life until they die.

Lets apply it another way. You and nine other children were just born, you happen to look like a "retard." Now most would consider a birth of 10 children as a lot. I would consider a colony of 500 fry a lot. Apply the same thought process of weeding out the imperfections. Should we "euthanize" you? No, we give you the chance at life that all things deserve.

Remember, when you get to this point that you and I are having a discussion. No offense is to be conveyed. I am just very passionate about the life/death and care of all living things.

 

[frasertheking]

you cannot compare humans to fish . these fish should never have lived . the reason they exist is because humans bred them . you payed for them so you own them its up to you what to do with them


should we kill retarded children ? no but as a race would mankind be better off if we did ? yes prob

 

[ddyerfamily]

I agree with all of you to different degrees.

I am a kind person and hate the thought of killing them.

I am waiting on a friend to come look at them.

I hope he takes them.
He keeps fish for display only,that works fine for deformed fish.

I feel we should not compare fish to people.

I also feel like we should respect all life till nature ends it.
(but, nature didn't produce these fish...Hmmmmmm)

I will give them away to their Fate..........

Interesting thread to read FOR SURE !...........

 

[sandtiger]

If a child is deformed and "retarded" do we kill them to prevent their likes from infecting our systems and lives? No. Simple as that. They are living creatures who keep getting passed on because of other people's incapacity to nurture them until they finally pass. You can flame me for my response, but it isn't meant to convey offense. I am simply stating that if we applied this thought process to children of the likes, then this would be a very very shallow world. If I lived close, I would purchase a tank just for them and give them a good home until they passed. However, I don't think that is possible.

The world would be shallow? No, it would be healthier. Humans undergo no natural selection and we keep everyone alive. Though it is the nice thing to do it may hurt us un the long run. I'm not saying will kill all our defected peoples but they certainly should not be breeding and honestly, I have met some that might be better off dead. It is a difficult thing to grasp, I don't even like thinking about it but it is the cold, hard truth. Natural selection is a good thing.
At any rate, these are anglefish. Not humans. I don't like the idea of killing them either but it isen't always about the individual, you need to look at the bigger picture.

 

[sandtiger]

Double Post, sorry.

 

[KRUNNCH540]

The world would be shallow? No, it would be healthier. Humans undergo no natural selection and we keep everyone alive. Though it is the nice thing to do it may hurt us un the long run. I'm not saying will kill all our defected peoples but they certainly should not be breeding and honestly, I have met some that might be better off dead. It is a difficult thing to grasp, I don't even like thinking about it but it is the cold, hard truth. Natural selection is a good thing.
At any rate, these are anglefish. Not humans. I don't like the idea of killing them either but it isen't always about the individual, you need to look at the bigger picture.

If I were to apply a utilitarian thought process, then yes, I would agree with your statement. I however, don't necessarily fully agree with the thought process associated with utilitarianism. In an effort to what is best for the most, consequentially sacrifices the individual (in this case the fish). I also agree that natural selection is a good thing, when it is applied correctly.

Natural selection is determined by nature, not by how we see fit to apply natural selection. It takes generations for natural selection to implement itself into a certain situation. If a certain creature is not genetically fit for its environment, then slowly through an evolutionary process the creature either will adapt or be naturally eliminated from the system. However, to bestow it upon our selves to determine where and when natural selection need be applied, I think is outside of our human grasp. This I also agree with you. I think we as humans try to hard to keep people alive. We should let the process run its course without interfering. This is why our populations continue to grow.

However, just because we create the animals does not mean we are empowered to perform natural selection. If they are genetically weak and predisposed to death, then they will die off naturally. Much like a 500 count fry….500 will hatch, but by the next day, only 350 are remaining. They died off because they could not adapt to their environment and nature saw it fit to eliminate them from the population. The aforementioned angels survived and are still attempting to grasp hold of life. If nature saw it fit, then they would have died already.

Then again, the true application of natural selection to this situation would not apply because we are not truly in a naturalistic situation. If these Angelfish were in the middle of a river, then no one here can for sure say they would have died. What it all really boils down to is how each one of us keeps our fish. To each their own. Peace.

 

[Rakie]

So lets compare this to the Arian race. Only breeding for blonde hair and blue eyes and disposing of the rest. Sounds familiar in some respects? Now how was that outcome again?



Remember, when you get to this point that you and I are having a discussion. No offense is to be conveyed. I am just very passionate about the life/death and care of all living things.

SO... you just called everybody that raises fish Hitler, or... A Nazi at least. And, after calling everybody here a nazi, I wouldn't say you're having a discussion, you're being (honestly) extremely rude, close minded and a bit of an arse.


In short... Culling is part of breeding in most cases. Get over it ?

 

[ddyerfamily]

The world would be shallow? No, it would be healthier. Humans undergo no natural selection and we keep everyone alive. Though it is the nice thing to do it may hurt us un the long run. I'm not saying will kill all our defected peoples but they certainly should not be breeding and honestly, I have met some that might be better off dead. It is a difficult thing to grasp, I don't even like thinking about it but it is the cold, hard truth. Natural selection is a good thing.
At any rate, these are anglefish. Not humans. I don't like the idea of killing them either but it isen't always about the individual, you need to look at the bigger picture.

I Agree Again

I have seen many people being saved / kept alive that would be better off dead. I would not want to live like that.
Now If we could say to what degree of deformities "cross the line" then
we would be able to deal / or pick who lives & who dies...


This is getting deap ...................................

You all make good aguements to both sides.

 

[KRUNNCH540]

If you cannot determine the difference between an analogy and actually calling someone a Nazi, then you yourself are not educated. Pulling something out of context and then inferring what you think I was saying also is not how a discussion works. If I wanted to call everyone a Nazi or "Hitler", then I would have come out and said it. Instead, I used an analogy. By definition, "drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect." I was over the topic before it began, but I felt I wanted to express my opinion. Unless of course I am not allowed to do so? Interesting.