If fish acted like our other domesticated animals like dogs and cried when a barbed hook was in their mouth, would we still inflict pain towards them? Victoria Braithwaite, a behavioral biologist, says that fish are more complex than we first expected. In her article, “Hooked On a Myth,” she explains how fish have nociceptors in their bodies that make them act differently when they are in stress and pain. She reinforces her ideas through her writing with the uses of reasoning, tone, and deduction. The use of rhetoric convinces readers the ethicality of how we treat fish. Braithwaite uses reasoning to comparisons to allow the reader to visualize fish’s pain. She states, “Determining whether any type of animal really suffers is difficult. A good starting place might be to consider how people feel pain.” She continues how “nociceptors alert us to damage”. Her appeal to reason helps the reader understand that there is scientific evidence that fish feel pain and compares that both humans and fish have pain receptors. Continuing, she provides proof that with alertness to damage, stating that fish also have …show more content…
“If you’ve ever felt the nip of vinegar on an open cut? Well, fish find these naturally irritating chemicals unpleasant too,” showing empathy in how poorly we treat fish, it is a reminder in how fish on barbed hooks feel as much pain as if humans were to be on barbed hooks. Empathy is also shown through the debate of consciousness, whether or not fish can process emotion, memory, and complex cognitive abilities. Braithwaite explains how that fish brains are not as different from humans as we once thought, testing that they have “very similar mammalian amygdala and hippocampus” that have to do with emotion, learning, and memory. The author shows her ability to help people understand and share the feelings of the fish’s