That's what you call a false analogy.

In our culture a fish is not the same thing as a dog. People kill and eat fish all the time. At least in the US they do not do this with dogs.

Comparing Smokey to a Koi is a false analogy.

But do people eat koi? (I dislike all fish, so I don't know.)

I'm sure you could. You cook and clean most fish the same way.

I suppose you could eat a koi if you really wanted some awful fish. Koi are part of the carp family, (basically overgrown goldfish to put it in the simplest of terms.) so they would not be good to eat, though I have been told that the Filet o fish at McDs is basically a filet o carp, but I digress. But to answer the question, can you eat a koi, sure you can, but it won't probably taste all that great. Do people normally eat koi, not in my experience. They are more for looks and having in ponds.

BTW, apparently they can cost a little more than $300, some going for $1000, and more! (check out the site http://www.coloradokoi.com ) I mean the fish was 15 years old, and these things can live 30-40 years...along those lines, who would eat an old cow? The meat would be tough and probably not as good.

I disagree. Goldie wasn't just a fish, she was a pet. People do eat fish, but they do not eat pets. I eat fish. I also have two fish as pets. I am quite attatched to them and I would be very, very upset if someone stole, cooked, and ate them.

I'm inclined to agree with GreekyPenguin that the wierdness issue got this more press.

Well said KKC!

Do you attach the same importance to fish that you do cats or dogs?

Yes, if they're pets.

Thank you for catching the point!

I do.. I have 3 fish as pets, and I feed them, take care of them, and will even treat them if they get sick, just as I would if I had a cat or dog as pets.

KillarneyRose, you are right. Once you give an animal a name, you can't kill it or it would be very hard to it. It is very poor taste and judgement to do just that!

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmili.../pinkieone.gif http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/monalisa.gif http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmili...ur/twinkle.gif

How can you say it isn't a big deal? You say comparing a pet fish to a dog is like comapring apples to oranges. It's not like these two idiots went fishing and caught something to cook up for supper. They deliberatly went to go get this fish and then ate it?! This was a fish that people enjoyed and loved, and had some sort of importance to the campus because it had been there for 15 years - and his life was taken by two idiot guys.

If they wanted a fish, they could have gone to the supermarket - they obviously did this to be jerks and hurt some people who cared for the fish. Dog, fish, cat, cockroach - if something is of importance to other people, it is cruel!

Now - I do find disappointment in what someone else posted about the death of someone made a little blurb, but the fish got front page. It is said how they hold human life in a lower reguard than a fish.

I'm not saying it was right and I'm not defending the behavior of the guys that did this.

What I'm saying is the same thing many of you are saying.

While bad, this event is being blown far out of proportion. I'd be more likely to think they should have destruction of public property charges against them rather than animal cruelty though.

I'm not defending the newspaper (or whatever source it was) that put the fish on the front page, but I don't think it meant in any way that the death of a fish was more important than a human life that was lost...that is just the way the newpaper was laid out. Editors & layout people probably don't expect people to 'analyze' why they assembled the stories on the paper the way that they did.. but that's just my .02. If the fish story was controversial at the time (which it seems it is.. esp. in that area it happened in), of course they are going to put it in a place everyone can see so they can read about it.