True Albino Betta on Aquabid

[Kaosu]

neat fish....horrible price ...i have sides on this debate but ill just keep it simple and say i agree with Inka4040....


but still to the point the OP was making when opening this thread is yeas that is awesome you found such a rare fish for sale!!!...now if only the price was lower.
here and just to add to this thread

ill show you my very own mutant .. my long finned double tailed FEMALE bred her my self^_^

 

[Inka4040]

I will point out your sarcasm is unappreciated. We can conduct ourselves in a civil manner, no? Or are we still children incapable of polite debates? You're using sarcasm to prove your point, but you could prove it in other ways.

You are able to fix your eyesight and improve your living, be it with lazer eye surgery, glasses, or contacts. Blind humans have technology/seeing aid animals at their disposal. If you do/will/did involve yourself in the genepool, then your children would/do have bad eyesight. You can get them glasses, not a huge issue. Blind fish... what do they have or what can we give to them to help them? Nothing much really. We just have to try our best, stick them in small containers so they don't get lost in large tanks, feed them in the same spot at the same time of day so they learn how/where to get food, and keep their enviornment barren so they don't get caught in decor and die. Tell me you would breed any living creature at all knowing that might be the fate of their offspring.

Thank you very much for your genuine concern about my concern for the quality of the lives of my and other fish. It sounds like you think I am a hypocrite. Kudos to you, we are all hypocrites in one way or another . Yes, bettas have slight difficulties, but they are still able to carry out their lives in a healthy fashion. May I point out like hm bettas, obese people (I know this might border on politically incorrect, but it helps prove my point) have issues moving around too, they're still able to live good lives (unless they are so morbidly obese they are confined to a wheelchair their entire lives, in which case I could compare them to a halfmoon with way too much finnage).

As for

If you want to look at it this way, you can. But, you too are "posturing" over the heavy finnage and bright colors of bettas, all the while you are dismissing the issue of albinism.

It's clear to me from the last portion of your response, that you are simply not picking up what I am putting down. I'm not dismissing albinism while touting the dangers of long finnage, I'm just pointing out that both are detrimental, and you can't be ok with one and not the other without being a hypocrite. My "posturing" is because in essence, what you're saying is, that the fact that a fish is impaired for your aesthetic pleasure is not an issue, so much as how impaired it is. This is the essence of what I find hypocritical. Simply put, if you really had an issue with fish being bred in such a way that compromised their quality of life, then long finned forms are just as bad. Heck, any breeder who ever selected a more attractively colored/proportioned fish as a breeder over a more vigorous one (btw, it's generally the ones in the middle of the growth curve that show the most attractive proportions, etc) is just as unethical as someone who breeds balloon forms (i love fancy goldfish) or albino forms, or melanistic forms, or anything else. To disagree with this statement is to confirm that it's ok to trade the comfort of a fish for the aesthetic value to the owner. To live up to your standards, any deviation from the genetic diversity and vigor of the wild archetype would immediately be relegated to the unethical bin.

As for your postulation that I am a hypocrite, I don't deny that, but in this topic, I couch my words carefully and avoid telling people what they should and should not be ok with, so as to not find myself in that hypocrite's seat. I know what I'm ok with, and leave it up to you to decide what you're ok with. It's only when someone goes around telling others that their behavior is unethical that I point out what tenuous grounds their arguments are built upon. Sarcasm helps me in that respect. The internet is rife with sarcasm, and those that can't stand the heat, should stay out of the proverbial kitchen. Your arguments as per whether I would knowingly breed two animals with the possibility of a myriad of things happening; would you knowingly have kids if it were possible they'd one day go blind? Should anyone with a hereditary disease in their background refrain from breeding? If you don't like albinism, it's your prerogative not to support the breeding of albino fish. However, the second you tell someone they can't/shouldn't keep/breed them, then you're entering a different territory, and I will more than happily call you on it.

 

[JK_Fish]

It's clear to me from the last portion of your response, that you are simply not picking up what I am putting down. I'm not dismissing albinism while touting the dangers of long finnage, I'm just pointing out that both are detrimental, and you can't be ok with one and not the other without being a hypocrite. My "posturing" is because in essence, what you're saying is, that the fact that a fish is impaired for your aesthetic pleasure is not an issue, so much as how impaired it is. This is the essence of what I find hypocritical. Simply put, if you really had an issue with fish being bred in such a way that compromised their quality of life, then long finned forms are just as bad. Heck, any breeder who ever selected a more attractively colored/proportioned fish as a breeder over a more vigorous one (btw, it's generally the ones in the middle of the growth curve that show the most attractive proportions, etc) is just as unethical as someone who breeds balloon forms (i love fancy goldfish) or albino forms, or melanistic forms, or anything else. To disagree with this statement is to confirm that it's ok to trade the comfort of a fish for the aesthetic value to the owner. To live up to your standards, any deviation from the genetic diversity and vigor of the wild archetype would immediately be relegated to the unethical bin.

As for your postulation that I am a hypocrite, I don't deny that, but in this topic, I couch my words carefully and avoid telling people what they should and should not be ok with, so as to not find myself in that hypocrite's seat. I know what I'm ok with, and leave it up to you to decide what you're ok with. It's only when someone goes around telling others that their behavior is unethical that I point out what tenuous grounds their arguments are built upon. Sarcasm helps me in that respect. The internet is rife with sarcasm, and those that can't stand the heat, should stay out of the proverbial kitchen. Your arguments as per whether I would knowingly breed two animals with the possibility of a myriad of things happening; would you knowingly have kids if it were possible they'd one day go blind? Should anyone with a hereditary disease in their background refrain from breeding? If you don't like albinism, it's your prerogative not to support the breeding of albino fish. However, the second you tell someone they can't/shouldn't keep/breed them, then you're entering a different territory, and I will more than happily call you on it.

I stand corrected. For some reason (I might have read too quickly) I was under the assumption you were only against the long fins and such and were dismissing breeding albinism as unethical. I was trying to say that in my opinion albinism would be the greater of the two evils. "what you're saying is, that the fact that a fish is impaired for your aesthetic pleasure is not an issue, so much as how impaired it is." I never said that the fact that the fish is impared is not an issue. It is, I was simply stating how restricted it via extent of the hindrence is is also a big issue, seeing as it is already hindered to begin with.

And no, I wasn't saying "any deviation from the genetic diversity and vigor of the wild archetype would immediately be relegated to the unethical bin. " there are too many instances in history where something, be it by accident or purposefully where a difference has occured in something or another. The neolific revolution was a long period of time animals and plantes were changed from "standard" to something completely different, sometimes for better sometimes for worse. To answer your question if I would knowingly have children knowing they might become blind, I don't know, it would depend on what other issues came along with it, and several other factors.

As for telling people their actions are unethical, I was simply stating that breeding for and exploiting albinism was unethical. I was not stating everything about bettas and their breeding is fine and dandy. There are lots of examples I could have given on how something or another has become unethical. If I had listed them all I'd end up with a long, long post, seeing as there are lots of reasons how something could be considered unethical, seeing as it is a matter of opinion and mindset.

If sarcasm helps you, so be it. I don't mind sarcasm, in fact I can be extremely sarcastic in the right situations. It might be a tool to you, which I respect, but I feel a person has other ways to prove a point during discussions like this. In my honest opinion, sarcasm can be rather juvenile. And yes, I realize that by admiting that I am sarcastic and that I feel sarcasm is juvenile that I am calling myself childish.

It is my decision not to support albinsim, and I was stating such in my original post. Maybe I went a bit out of line saying that it is extremely unethical and that one shouldn't breed for albinism seeing as it decreases the quality of the fish's life (though it was only me voicing my opinion). Maybe I should have gone on and elaborated, saying what else I feel is unethical just to make sure there are no misconceptions, but, that's my mistake.

 

[Inka4040]

I was trying to say that in my opinion albinism would be the greater of the two evils. "what you're saying is, that the fact that a fish is impaired for your aesthetic pleasure is not an issue, so much as how impaired it is." I never said that the fact that the fish is impared is not an issue. It is, I was simply stating how restricted it via extent of the hindrence is is also a big issue, seeing as it is already hindered to begin with.

I didn't mean that you literally said that, only that this is the logical conclusion of of arguing against the ethics of albino fish, but still keeping domesticated bettas yourself. If it's not ok to alter the looks of a fish in a way that is detrimental to it, then it's not ok, period. Whether the changes come at the cost of their eyesight, or the need to expend far more energy to complete the same tasks, is sort of a pointless question. It's like maiming someone, and saying, "oh, but I only crippled you a little bit." At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. You still made the fish trade off something of itself for perceived aesthetic gain.

And no, I wasn't saying "any deviation from the genetic diversity and vigor of the wild archetype would immediately be relegated to the unethical bin. " there are too many instances in history where something, be it by accident or purposefully where a difference has occured in something or another.

As for telling people their actions are unethical, I was simply stating that breeding for and exploiting albinism was unethical. I was not stating everything about bettas and their breeding is fine and dandy. There are lots of examples I could have given on how something or another has become unethical. If I had listed them all I'd end up with a long, long post, seeing as there are lots of reasons how something could be considered unethical, seeing as it is a matter of opinion and mindset.

Again, this goes back to the logical conclusion of your argument. At what point is the mutation gained at an acceptable sacrifice, and at what point is it too much? Is it even really fair to ask that question? Any form of selective breeding comes at a trade-off to the wild stock. Yes, some selectively bred forms are more vigorous than their wild counterparts, but after a few generations, this too passes. By bringing ethics into the discussion, you really have to evaluate how ethical any part of fishkeeping really is, and it seems a valid argument can be made against the ethical viability of many aspects of the hobby. Is it really ethical that I took some fish out of the wild, and forced it through no choice of it's own to live out the rest of its life in a glass box of my design? I don't really want to know the answer to that...

It is my decision not to support albinsim, and I was stating such in my original post. Maybe I went a bit out of line saying that it is extremely unethical and that one shouldn't breed for albinism seeing as it decreases the quality of the fish's life (though it was only me voicing my opinion). Maybe I should have gone on and elaborated, saying what else I feel is unethical just to make sure there are no misconceptions, but, that's my mistake.

Somehow, I don't think this would have helped. What one feels is and isn't ethical is entirely a personal concern, and your conceptualization of the matter is entirely different from mine, and every single member on this forum probably draws that line in a different spot. The problem with saying, "oh, that's unethical, you shouldn't do it" is that, like I said before, much of what fishkeeping is all about, you can apply that same statement to. You can't rule it all in, and you can't rule it all out, so decide for yourself, and don't try to tell others what's right or wrong. This is not quite as cut and dried an area as, perhaps acceptable stocking levels, or proper maintenance procedures, and even these topics are far more complex and open to interpretation than they seem.



Treefork, sorry for the hardcore derail, but I couldn't help myself. These sorts of debates add a lot to the forum experience IMO. Wish you didn't decide to refrain from the discussion though. It'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps in another thread, lol. In any case, that female is truly gorgeous, but IDK if I'd spend 2 grand on any single fish.


Kaosu, that's a really interesting female! I've never seen a dt female with such long finnage.

 

[platytudes]

Ok, I'm kind of on a different train of thought here...

If albinism (I believe I spelled that correctly, I don't think "albanism" is accepted usage) is really so detrimental to the fish's health and longevity, wouldn't we have heard about it by now?

There are countless albino strains, in some cases the albino version is more common than not, or just as common - such as albino bristlenose plecos, albino African clawed frogs, albino oscars and possibly others.

Albino cories (C. aeneus), albino rainbow sharks, albino Buenos Aires tetras, albino dojo loaches - wouldn't I have heard about these fish going blind? When a fish can't see, you can usually tell, and I would think it would be a sort of mini conspiracy if most albino fish eventually became blind.

I realize there are leucistic versions (without the red eyes), but even the red eyed species...I have not heard this before, that they almost all eventually become blind, and I'd really like some more information and discussion on that particular aspect of this topic.

 

[Khemul]

Not sure about all albinos, probably depends on the fish, but from what I understand blindness is rather common. Think it has something to do with the lack of pigment or some other protections for the eyes.

I know every time I see a albino Bichir at a store the employees feel the need for some odd reason to point out "yeah, neat fish. usually totally blind". May be more of a Bichir thing though.

 

[JK_Fish]

Ok, I'm kind of on a different train of thought here...

If albinism (I believe I spelled that correctly, I don't think "albanism" is accepted usage) is really so detrimental to the fish's health and longevity, wouldn't we have heard about it by now?

There are countless albino strains, in some cases the albino version is more common than not, or just as common - such as albino bristlenose plecos, albino African clawed frogs, albino oscars and possibly others.

Albino cories (C. aeneus), albino rainbow sharks, albino Buenos Aires tetras, albino dojo loaches - wouldn't I have heard about these fish going blind? When a fish can't see, you can usually tell, and I would think it would be a sort of mini conspiracy if most albino fish eventually became blind.

I realize there are leucistic versions (without the red eyes), but even the red eyed species...I have not heard this before, that they almost all eventually become blind, and I'd really like some more information and discussion on that particular aspect of this topic.

www.bettysplendens.com "Albinism in bettas is rare, so few albino bettas [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]have been reported. Of all the ones that have been reported, most were very weak and died before they were able to be spawned..."[/FONT]

There is probably an article on albinism in www.ibcbettas.org
(the international betta congress is an organization dedicated to showing and breeding healthy betta fish). However, because I am not yet a member, I am unable to access the articles I'll have to ask a breeder who is a member to look that up for me, but seeing as he isn't online at another forum ATM, that'll have to wait.

I do not run around spewing possibly incorrect facts. When I say a fact, it is indeed a fact.

 

[Inka4040]

Yeah, but your "facts" are based on anecdotes printed elsewhere, and also without supplemental material, or anything that can actually be checked or referenced against. Platytudes, albinism causing eye issues is one of those things that is passed around the hobby as common knowledge, and honestly, I've referenced that tidbit in other threads myself. Trying to find some concrete evidence last night though, I failed horribly in locating anything from a peer reviewed journal that suggested as much in a concrete manner, or anything that explained the mechanism by which the two were connected. Food for thought...

 

[JK_Fish]

Yeah, but your "facts" are based on anecdotes printed elsewhere, and also without supplemental material, or anything that can actually be checked or referenced against. Platytudes, albinism causing eye issues is one of those things that is passed around the hobby as common knowledge, and honestly, I've referenced that tidbit in other threads myself. Trying to find some concrete evidence last night though, I failed horribly in locating anything from a peer reviewed journal that suggested as much in a concrete manner, or anything that explained the mechanism by which the two were connected. Food for thought...

Would you care to give the definition of a "fact" . Chances are you'll come up with something like so:

fact

   https://secure.reference.com/sso/register_pop.html?source=favorites/fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt] Show IPA
–noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

If that is the case, then my "facts" are indeed facts. They are ancedotes from many other people, to the point where it is "common knowledge" as you put it, no? "Concrete evidence" is based on what exactly? Scientists proving something with their experiments no? well, technically, wouldn't that just be personal experiences from their own works?

I didn't mean that you literally said that, only that this is the logical conclusion of of arguing against the ethics of albino fish, but still keeping domesticated bettas yourself.

Please Inka, have faith in my intelligence. I understood you never meant that I literally said that, and I understood you were summerizing what I was saying into your own words. However, if I didn't make what I was saying clear enough, I apologize.

While I'm on the topic of possibly not making what I was saying clear enough, let me continue with the following: I know that the other parts of bettas and their genetics is unethical. In my previous posts, I was merely stating that it is bad, but by making something that is already 'broken' worse, then that is even more unethical.

I could argue that techincally keeping betta fish in aquariums is ethical, seeing as I am providing them the right enclosure where their limitations are not longer limitations because I am meeting their needs. In the correct aquarium, their long fins and such are techincally no longer unethical seeing as they don't limit them. In the wild, where their bright colors, over agressive nature and long fins would mean they would be dead in a day, then yes, their problems created by man was indeed unethical. I am using that as an example to prove that... Ethics are opinions. Ethics vary from situation to situation. I'm not saying that their long fins and such are acceptable as ethical or not, that was just a random example.

In your post, you were pretty much admitting that fishkeeping as a hobby is riddled with questions of ethics and such, and a lot of fish keeping is about opinion and educated thoughts, so they are "open to interpretation".

 

[Inka4040]

Ah, so I guess you couldn't find any concrete source to back up your "fact" either then?


Also, I could totally use some summerizing right now. It's cold out! Btw, you just regurgitated exactly what I've been saying since my first post in this thread. If making up for the discomfort caused by their long fins makes it ok, how come making up for the potential and as yet unverified discomfort of albinism not an acceptable solution?

"Concrete evidence" is based on what exactly? Scientists proving something with their experiments no? well, technically, wouldn't that just be personal experiences from their own works?

:laugh::rofl::laugh::rofl::thud:

When your personal experience comes with codified data and repeatable experiments, and maybe, Idk, some semblance of an understanding of cause and effect, we can talk about your personal experiences with some gravity. Too much to ask?