NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep...our friends at PETA are at it again. They are now refering to fish as "sea kittens" in a move targeted at young children. Their goal is to make kids feel bad about eating fish sticks and the like by making them think about a cute cuddly little animal.

"Knowing that the fish sticks in the school cafeteria are really made out of tortured sea kittens makes most kids want to lose their lunch."

Personally, I think cats should become "land fish".

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1173188

God they're stupid.

PETA! I missed you!

Really, I did. There's no comic relief like PETA.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/PETA.jpg

I've heard about this. Kind of funny.

I honest to God thought that was an Onion story the first time I saw a link for it.

Our cats like fish. Does this mean they're cannibals?

While I find PETA tedious, fishing is an appalling industry.

We would never allow an industry to trawl the land with vast nets to capture animals the way we allow the fishing industry to trawl the sea. We work hard to stop poachers cutting the tusks from live elephants but do little to stop shark-finning.

We're depleting the sea, there's few real laws to stop it and even less policing, even where it's applicable.

I'm not sure this is the greatest idea for a campaign but, as much as I care little for PETA, at least they're trying.

I have an aunt who's a PETA supporter. I've been meaning to have a word with her about it sometime.

They also give money to the Animal Liberation Front (you know, the terrorists). We should be careful not to let the superficial hillarity blind us to the underlying malevolence.

Is it just me or does this picture they have look like a cat eating a fish?

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.canada.com/topics/news/national/1173189.bin?size=l

While I find PETA tedious, fishing is an appalling industry.

We would never allow an industry to trawl the land with vast nets to capture animals the way we allow the fishing industry to trawl the sea. We work hard to stop poachers cutting the tusks from live elephants but do little to stop shark-finning.

We're depleting the sea, there's few real laws to stop it and even less policing, even where it's applicable.

I'm not sure this is the greatest idea for a campaign but, as much as I care little for PETA, at least they're trying.

Put the resources towards education, research, and policy. Not telling little kids that a fish is just like Fluffy to make them sick when they eat.

Yep...our friends at PETA are at it again. They are now refering to fish as "sea kittens" in a move targeted at young children. Their goal is to make kids feel bad about eating fish sticks and the like by making them think about a cute cuddly little animal.
They do that in Japan (Er, make fish cute and cuddly that is, and PETA isn't doing it) and I haven't noticed any Japanese kids NOT eating fish because of that. I think it has the opposite effect actually.

They do that in Japan (Er, make fish cute and cuddly that is, and PETA isn't doing it) and I haven't noticed any Japanese kids NOT eating fish because of that. I think it has the opposite effect actually.

Yeah, I don't know of anyone who ever stopped eating fish because of the varied "The Little Mermaid" media and merchandise made available by Disney during the nineties either...

Wow, this took a long time to hit NS.

They do that in Japan (Er, make fish cute and cuddly that is, and PETA isn't doing it) and I haven't noticed any Japanese kids NOT eating fish because of that. I think it has the opposite effect actually.

Maybe, but I bet when PETA goes about it, they'll make the "sea kitten" anything but cute and cuddly. PETA is to cute and cuddly what Jason with a chainsaw is to unsuspecting teenagers.

God PETA is retarded. And this is coming from a pretty hardcore environmentalist.

imagine the irony if it backfires and kids start wanting to eat cats as well as fishsticks!

While I find PETA tedious, fishing is an appalling industry.

We would never allow an industry to trawl the land with vast nets to capture animals the way we allow the fishing industry to trawl the sea. We work hard to stop poachers cutting the tusks from live elephants but do little to stop shark-finning.

We're depleting the sea, there's few real laws to stop it and even less policing, even where it's applicable.


At the same time, farming of fish is becoming increasingly common as it is less costly in the long term and guarantees a far more uniform quality and certainty of harvest than ocean fishing.

imagine the irony if it backfires and kids start wanting to eat cats as well as fishsticks!

I hope for this.

Put the resources towards education, research, and policy. Not telling little kids that a fish is just like Fluffy to make them sick when they eat.

At some point, the consumption of fish needs to be curtailed, fact is that we simply dredge them up from the ocean because any laws that are around are practically unenforceable for the same reason there's difficulty curtailing Somalia pirates.

1. Waters are international
2. Waters are vast and unpatrollable - if such a word exists.

So any policy is ineffective at best even if taken seriously.

So the only real recourse is to convince the public to slow down consumption, much as the only real solution to ivory poaching is to stop people buying ivory.

The problem is; fish are not cute.

Christ this is stupid.

At some point, the consumption of fish needs to be curtailed, fact is that we simply dredge them up from the ocean because any laws that are around are practically unenforceable for the same reason there's difficulty curtailing Somalia pirates.

1. Waters are international
2. Waters are vast and unpatrollable - if such a word exists.

So any policy is ineffective at best even if taken seriously.

So the only real recourse is to convince the public to slow down consumption, much as the only real solution to ivory poaching is to stop people buying ivory.

The problem is; fish are not cute.
Which is why I mentioned education. Teach kids about the impact. Don't try to push the "Look! Your fishstick is just like Cuddles!"

So the only real recourse is to convince the public to slow down consumption, much as the only real solution to ivory poaching is to stop people buying ivory.

The problem is; fish are not cute.

Or maybe you know, encourage fisheries and aquatic farms. Ivory is mostly a luxury good. Fish isn't. It's a staple in some countries. You would have about as much luck telling them to stop eating fish as you would telling the Eskimo tribes to stop eating seals.

The problem isn't consumption. The problem is that for the most part, it's harvesting, not production. Increase controlled production with fisheries, with higher output, lower risk and more uniform quality than trawlers, lower barriers to entry and the problem is solved.

What an absolutely useless bunch of idiots, those PETA asses. Seriously, how does that organization manage to exist? They prey on ignorance, that's what they do. They really disgust me.

Everyone should be against PETA. Maybe I'll eat some fish tomorrow.

Everyone should be against PETA. Maybe I'll eat some fish tomorrow.

You mean "sea kitten".

Wow, just wow.

Every time you masturbate, God kills a sea kitten. Please, think of the sea kittens.

Also lolz.

http://www.2flashgames.com/2fgkjn134kjlh1cfn81vc34/flash/f-Shark-Cat-3136.jpg

You mean "sea kitten".

Oh, right, I forgot. I'll order me some sea kitten tomorrow; hopefully I don't end up in a mental institution for saying something so insane.

Damn, I just realized there isn't a decent fish place for miles. That sucks. Guess I'll settle for Long John Silver's...:(

Every time you masturbate, God kills a sea kitten. Please, think of the sea kittens.

Also lolz.

http://www.2flashgames.com/2fgkjn134kjlh1cfn81vc34/flash/f-Shark-Cat-3136.jpg

lol, good pic.

Oh, right, I forgot. I'll order me some sea kitten tomorrow; hopefully I don't end up in a mental institution for saying something so insane.

Damn, I just realized there isn't a decent fish place for miles. That sucks. Guess I'll settle for Long John Silver's...:(

You said the f-word again. They're Sea Kittens, damn it.:D

Every time you masturbate, God kills a sea kitten. Please, think of the sea kittens.

Also lolz.

http://www.2flashgames.com/2fgkjn134kjlh1cfn81vc34/flash/f-Shark-Cat-3136.jpg
Trostia... for unleashing that picture on me during my lunch break and almost causing me to lose it into my gyoza... I condemn you to Hell... Oh yes, straight to Hell!


















:hail:

Or maybe you know, encourage fisheries and aquatic farms. Ivory is mostly a luxury good. Fish isn't. It's a staple in some countries. You would have about as much luck telling them to stop eating fish as you would telling the Eskimo tribes to stop eating seals.

The problem isn't consumption. The problem is that for the most part, it's harvesting, not production. Increase controlled production with fisheries, with higher output, lower risk and more uniform quality than trawlers, lower barriers to entry and the problem is solved.

Wave your magic wand.

I think farmed fish account for nearly 50% of consumed fish already, and they do have their own problems in terms of lowered nutrition, increased spread of disease and poorly managed waste.

However, better regulation of fish farms would certainly help, I'm not against it.

...and as I said in my first post, I'm no great fan of this particular campaign but the fact remains that something needs to be done about the current destruction of the sea.

What about Sea Bears and Sea Rhino's?
Are they cute and cuddly too?

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k292/bekster3/untitled-5.jpg

http://spongepedia.bimserver.com/images/thumb/1/1b/Seerhinozeros.jpg/180px-Seerhinozeros.jpg

PETA's not exactly known for being sensible....

Wave your magic wand.

I think farmed fish account for nearly 50% of consumed fish already, and they do have their own problems in terms of lowered nutrition, increased spread of disease and poorly managed waste.

However, better regulation of fish farms would certainly help, I'm not against it.

...and as I said in my first post, I'm no great fan of this particular campaign but the fact remains that something needs to be done about the current destruction of the sea.

It's a more practical and longer running alternative than just letting trawlers run rampant. No amount of laws against the practice is going to put a stop to it unless you go the Wild West route and sink trawlers routinely with global satellite coverage to find them.

Tackling the problem economically by providing cheaper, less riskier, alternatives while still covering the original demand would be more effective than making laws that are generally ignored and difficult to enforce.

You said the f-word again. They're Sea Kittens, damn it.:D

Son of a...! I'm living proof that this sea kitten nonsense is destined for failure, like PETA's other half-baked publicity stunts.

Remember back when that guy got decapitated on that bus in Canada? PETA went and exploited that incident for their dumbass, flawed beliefs with some stupid campaign.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/06/peta-mclean.html

Seriously, PETA is awful.

What the hell makes you think I wouldn't eat cats if they tasted good?

What about Sea Bears

http://linuxette.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/water_bear.jpg

Pfft, everyone knows there is no fish in fish sticks.

Pfft, everyone knows there is no fish in fish sticks.
very true. Indeed, there's probably more chance of there being kitten in fish sticks than there is being fish.

Is it just me or does this picture they have look like a cat eating a fish?

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.canada.com/topics/news/national/1173189.bin?size=l

Epic Phail!

PETA once again stoops to ridiculous levels to accomplish something stupid; they will of course wonder why they fail. I personally don't like to eat fish but many people do, and I remember reading, or hearing on TV about nations who's economy is so bad that fishing is the only thing they rely on for the vast majority of their GDP. That, and there really is no sustainable and cost efficient way to meet the world's demand for seafood that isn't worse than fishing. These people need to use some common fucking sense.

Pfft, everyone knows there is no fish in fish sticks.

Fish sticks just made me think of this:
http://x4a.xanga.com/f4ec7713c6633189650034/z145890519.jpg

Is it just me or does this picture they have look like a cat eating a fish?

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.canada.com/topics/news/national/1173189.bin?size=l

Considering we can see the fish's tail, it could conceivably be seen as a fish being shot through a cat's head from the back and exiting poor kitty's mouth.

So the only real recourse is to convince the public to slow down consumption, much as the only real solution to ivory poaching is to stop people buying ivory.

We could also give the elephants machine guns. That'd probably cut down on the poaching.

Considering we can see the fish's tail, it could conceivably be seen as a fish being shot through a cat's head from the back and exiting poor kitty's mouth.

Or maybe it's the fish wearing a cat suit after it's killed the feline and taken its skin, showing what vicious buggers these fish are.

Or maybe it's the fish wearing a cat suit after it's killed the feline and taken its skin, showing what vicious buggers these fish are.

All the more reason to eat them then. Before they develop a taste for Human

Yep...our friends at PETA are at it again. They are now refering to fish as "sea kittens" in a move targeted at young children. Their goal is to make kids feel bad about eating fish sticks and the like by making them think about a cute cuddly little animal.

Personally, I think cats should become "land fish".

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1173188

How dare those bastards exploit our thin veneer of justification for eating one set of animals on the grounds they aren't as cute as animals we'd be horrified to eat?

Have they no decency?

:rolleyes:

EDIT: Before anyone hyperventilates, I don't think this is a brilliant idea. And although I respect some of PETA's beliefs, many (if not most) of their actions and many of their beliefs are stupid and harmful. I grew up on a farm/ranch and know all about where our meat comes from and I still eat it. I just don't kid myself about the moral superiority of doing so.

How dare those bastards exploit our thin veneer of justification for eating one set of animals on the grounds they aren't as cute as animals we'd be horrified to eat?

Have they no decency?

:rolleyes:

Cats are too stringy to make good eating.

How dare those bastards exploit our thin veneer of justification for eating one set of animals on the grounds they aren't as cute as animals we'd be horrified to eat?

Have they no decency?

:rolleyes:

We have no issue eating cows, pigs, sheep, or any other number of animals that are cute. Most people who eat meat would eat just about anything except for creatures they consider pets. Some also have no issue with eating cat or dog meat.

It's shameless manipulation of children without any education to back it. Don't tell kids "See?! They're all cute cuddly animals!". Teach them about animals. Take them to the zoo. The aquarium. Fish farms. Land farms. Show them where their food comes from. Don't insult their ability to understand by reducing it to "Fish are cute too, so we shouldn't eat them!". Educate them instead. Who knows, maybe the kid will be able to form opinions for themselves, and shop ethically, rather than just associating fish with that little cartoon-ish picture of a fish morphed with a kitty for 6 months, and still having no clue what that has to do with that breaded, deep fried thing they get for lunch.

We have no issue eating cows, pigs, sheep, or any other number of animals that are cute. Most people who eat meat would eat just about anything except for creatures they consider pets. Some also have no issue with eating cat or dog meat.

It's shameless manipulation of children without any education to back it. Don't tell kids "See?! They're all cute cuddly animals!". Teach them about animals. Take them to the zoo. The aquarium. Fish farms. Land farms. Show them where their food comes from. Don't insult their ability to understand by reducing it to "Fish are cute too, so we shouldn't eat them!". Educate them instead. Who knows, maybe the kid will be able to form opinions for themselves, and shop ethically, rather than just associating fish with that little cartoon-ish picture of a fish morphed with a kitty for 6 months, and still having no clue what that has to do with that breaded, deep fried thing they get for lunch.

Check my edit.

But why do you object to teaching children that fish are cute? Isn't it precisely because you know people may have a problem eating animals they perceive as cute? Although they are going about it in a stupid way, PETA has a point here.

Check my edit.

But why do you object to teaching children that fish are cute? Isn't it precisely because you know people may have a problem eating animals they perceive as cute? Although they are going about it in a stupid way, PETA has a point here.
They do? I know a number of people who think that cows and pigs are cute. My mother has a cow mania going, her kitchen is full up with various cow figures and cow print stuff. She even has a large tattoo on her back of a cow mooing at the moon (Don't ask, PLEASE don't ask)...

Doesn't stop her from loving steak and eating hamburger every week.

They do? I know a number of people who think that cows and pigs are cute. My mother has a cow mania going, her kitchen is full up with various cow figures and cow print stuff. She even has a large tattoo on her back of a cow mooing at the moon (Don't ask, PLEASE don't ask)...

Doesn't stop her from loving steak and eating hamburger every week.

Note the word "may" in that sentence. :wink:

Also, my point was: if there is no problem with people eating animals that are cute, what harm does it do for PETA to try to teach children fish are cute?

Check my edit.

But why do you object to teaching children that fish are cute? Isn't it precisely because you know people may have a problem eating animals they perceive as cute? Although they are going about it in a stupid way, PETA has a point here.
I see no problem teaching kids that fish are cute. I have an issue with saying "Fish are like kitties!". No, kitties are like kitties. Fish, on the other hand, are like fish.

And I'm a bit confised about what you're accusing me of...are you saying that I want more people to eat meat, and therefore have a problem with anything that reduces this population?

I would prefer fewer people eating fish. Would drive down the cost and allow me to do so more frequently, or atleast at a more reasonable cost when I do.

I don't particularly care why people choose to eat what they eat. I made my choice to eat meat after some 15 years without. And yes, I find cows exceptionally cute. I also find dogs to be among the best animals on earth, yet look forward to trying dog meat in northern Vietnam.

My issue here comes with how they are doing it. Educate, don't indoctrinate.

My issue here comes with how they are doing it. Educate, don't indoctrinate.

It sounds very much like the line between education and indoctrination is whether or not you agree with what is being taught.

Apparently it is OK to "indoctrinate" children with the believe that fish sticks are fun and yummy.

It sounds very much like the line between education and indoctrination is whether or not you agree with what is being taught.

Apparently it is OK to "indoctrinate" children with the believe that fish sticks are fun and yummy.

No, because school cafeterias offer several choices. I also advocate that they find out where their food comes from. Field trips when possible, class discussion and film when not.

It's fine to offer the kid a choice to have fish sticks. It's not fine to say "you will eat these fish sticks and you will enjoy them.". It is fine to educate a child where that fish stick comes from. It's not fine to lie to them and tell them "fish are just like fluffy."

How dare those bastards exploit our thin veneer of justification for eating one set of animals on the grounds they aren't as cute as animals we'd be horrified to eat?

Have they no decency?

:rolleyes:

EDIT: Before anyone hyperventilates, I don't think this is a brilliant idea. And although I respect some of PETA's beliefs, many (if not most) of their actions and many of their beliefs are stupid and harmful. I grew up on a farm/ranch and know all about where our meat comes from and I still eat it. I just don't kid myself about the moral superiority of doing so.

Maybe not inherrently superior, but surely not inherrently inferior either? Humans evolved as naturally omnivorous, did they not?

However, their are current environmental issues from the raising of cattle and overfishing, and the "factory farms" are pretty damn sickening. I just feel that maybe we should take it on a case-by-case basis when it comes to eating meat. Though I can see the other side too.

In the immortal words of Nirvana:

And the animals I've trapped
Have all become my pets
And I'm living off of grass
And the drippings from the ceiling
But it's ok to eat fish
Cause they haven't any feelings

:wink:

In the immortal words of Nirvana:

And the animals I've trapped
Have all become my pets
And I'm living off of grass
And the drippings from the ceiling
But it's ok to eat fish
Cause they haven't any feelings

:wink:

I've more been stuck with "Fish are friends, not food" for about the last page and a half

Note the word "may" in that sentence. :wink:

Also, my point was: if there is no problem with people eating animals that are cute, what harm does it do for PETA to try to teach children fish are cute?
What harm is there in the tobacco companies teaching that Joe the Camel is cute?

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with PETA educating children about the effects of overfishing, I also wouldn't mind is they sponsored trips to the aquarium so that kids can come face to face with fish and learn to appreciate the wonders of the sea and learn why we must do our best to take care of it.

What I DO have an issue with is PETA is attempting to "scare" kids away from eating fish. I don't like scare tactics period because they do nothing to educate or solve the underlying problem. It also doesn't address issues about what to eat instead, given that fish is healthy and (Now being in a sea country as opposed to a landlocked desert) a major part of people's lives.

What harm is there in the tobacco companies teaching that Joe the Camel is cute?

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with PETA educating children about the effects of overfishing, I also wouldn't mind is they sponsored trips to the aquarium so that kids can come face to face with fish and learn to appreciate the wonders of the sea and learn why we must do our best to take care of it.

What I DO have an issue with is PETA is attempting to "scare" kids away from eating fish. I don't like scare tactics period because they do nothing to educate or solve the underlying problem. It also doesn't address issues about what to eat instead, given that fish is healthy and (Now being an a sea country as opposed to a landlocked desert) a major part of people's lives.Thanks for saying what I've been attempting to for the last few pages.

Thanks for saying what I've been attempting to for the last few pages.
You're welcome!

How dare those bastards exploit our thin veneer of justification for eating one set of animals on the grounds they aren't as cute as animals we'd be horrified to eat?



I'd actually hold that the taboo against eating cats and dogs (as well as horses, depending on where you live) that exists in the west has more to do with the very high utility of those creatures. After all, cats eat rats, and rats spread plague, so it makes crazy-awesome sense to keep cats around, while dogs are great for hunting, herding (and eating random filthy decaying diseased dead stuff, as well as rats).

We derive greater utility from these animals when they're alive rather than dead, so we've created taboos, and developed the concept of "cuteness" to help enforce these taboos.

Let's save the plants, too, and let's raise the average IQ.

Rename all veggies to "tortured green kitten flesh". And grain and rice to "tortured fairy kitten dust". This way, all people who buy into such idiocies like the "tortured sea kitten" thing will starve and snuff it.

I'd actually hold that the taboo against eating cats and dogs (as well as horses, depending on where you live) that exists in the west ...

Luckily, here in Italy we eat horse and donkeys, too, and the city of Vicenza is notorious for cat-based cuisine. ;)

Otoh, dogs look dirty, and personality doesn't go a long way.

We derive greater utility from these animals when they're alive rather than dead, so we've created taboos, and developed the concept of "cuteness" to help enforce these taboos.

Not to mention it makes sense to take care of young animals in general...given how precious meat, dairy, and labor from animals was as recently as the 19th century, it's pretty easy to see why we might place higher value on young animals from a purely economic, let alone aesthetic, standpoint.

Hey, if PETA can guilt a bunch of susceptible prats into not eating fish, that means more fish for them what loves to eat it, like me.

Hey, if PETA can guilt a bunch of susceptible prats into not eating fish, that means more fish for them what loves to eat it, like me.

Stop Britishing, you're from Seattle.

This ...

http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=3124769

This ...

http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=3124769

I see a lot of shopped and shoop'd fish in mah future...

The problem is that the public focuses on the general dislike of PETA as an excuse not to consider their consumption of meat overall.

One sees the same in many aspects of this sort of thing, cast the messenger as insane and ignore the message.

PETA is as much to blame with some of their ridiculous tactics alas the media laps it up, denouncing animal rights group is a game to so many of them.

We want cheap meat and care not for the circumstances by which they end up on our plate.

EDIT: Slightly related to the other running strand of conversation in this thread...

Last night Fergus Henderson, chef/proprietor of St John and he of Nose to Tail Eating fame, and Jeremy Lee, chef of the Blueprint Café and whose recipes once graced the pages of Weekend magazine, set out on an odyssey on Channel 4 to eat their way through a good many things - beetles, rat, snake, dog, horse, elephant, monkey – that are consumed with relish and regularity in various countries, but which we British approach with revulsion.

Some of this wasn't exactly ground-breaking stuff - Tom Parker Bowles and Stefan Gates have been among our more amusing recent commentators on extreme eating, although my own particular favourite was an early book in the field, Unmentionable Cuisine by Calvin W Schwabe – but Fergus Henderson and Jeremy Lee brought their own very particular humour and expertise to bear on the subject.

They downed the snake with epicurean gusto, though a still-throbbing heart caused some wincing. The casu marzu - cheese riddled with maggots - went down reasonably well with Jeremy, but it turned out that there were quite a few foods which even those redoubtable gastro-warriors found difficult to stomach. Monkey was a step too far, with Fergus noting it looked like a "butchered baby"; elephant was rejected after the pair gazed with respect at the huge mammal, and Fergus's eyes misted over as he recalled the Babar stories he cherished in childhood. Perhaps more than anything, dog caused them disgust on gastronomic grounds as well as those of animal welfare.

Of course, most people will have watched scenes of yelping dogs being forced into a cage with horror, having downed a microwavable chicken tikka masala of imported broiler hen or cheap sausage made with pork from pigs whose own living conditions were as a ghastly as those of the Vietamese dogs.

Our prejudices about what we will and will not eat are absurd. No form of contemporary snobbery is more ridiculous, pernicious and wasteful. There's no reason why rat, dog, cat, or horse should not be perfectly acceptable and delicious, and all are fine sources of protein. Indeed, most people will eat anything in a sufficiently desperate situation – rat was a delicacy during the siege of Paris in 1870 once the contents of the zoo had been exhausted; the Chindits regularly ate their mules in Burma during the second world war; and Argentinian rugby players ate each other after their plane crashed in the Andes in 1972.

Our own choices have become increasingly rarified and narrow as we have become more prosperous. We have become so addicted to what they call primary cuts – steaks, chops, legs - that many perfectly edible parts – shin, shoulder, head, offal - of the animals reared and slaughtered have to be turned into dog food or disposed of in other ways.

If anything good comes out of our desperate economic circumstances, it may be changing our appreciation of those parts of various animals we once despised. Various supermarkets have already realised the publicity value of putting pig's cheeks and trotters (two cuts always prized by chefs, incidentally) into the chill cabinets; not that anyone actually buys them.

St John is still at the forefront of the offal revival in this country; if Fergus was considering some new ingredients for his menu from his globetrotting adventures, I suspect not many animals from this journey will have made the cut - certainly not monkey. Was anyone surprised about the reluctance of the two to take on more challenging meats? And at what stage would your own threshold have been reached? Sewer rat, anyone? Could you eat an elephant?

Let's save the plants, too, and let's raise the average IQ.

Rename all veggies to "tortured green kitten flesh". And grain and rice to "tortured fairy kitten dust". This way, all people who buy into such idiocies like the "tortured sea kitten" thing will starve and snuff it.

nah, rename veggies to "Peter Cottentail's dinner" remember "kids, the more Veggies you eat, the less there is for Peter Cottentail and his family."

as for Sea Kitties?

show em a pic of that kitty all grown up.
http://www.ri.net/schools/East_Greenwich/Eldredge/catfish.jpg

nah, rename veggies to "Peter Cottentail's dinner" remember "kids, the more Veggies you eat, the less there is for Peter Cottentail and his family."

as for Sea Kitties?

show em a pic of that kitty all grown up.
http://www.ri.net/schools/East_Greenwich/Eldredge/catfish.jpg

Awww, a catfish. *Eats yet another fishstick while typing*

How dare those bastards exploit our thin veneer of justification for eating one set of animals on the grounds they aren't as cute as animals we'd be horrified to eat? It wouldn't horrify me to eat a kitten. I just don't think I'd like it. I don't tend to eat animals that are meant to be carnivores (I say meant to be, because so many people feed their dogs and cats vegetable protein instead of meat).

I have a bias against people who aren't willing to really look at where their food comes from. People who complain about hunting, yet have no problem buying meat at the supermarket. So sure, I think more people should actually have the conscious discussion with themselves about what they are okay with, and why. Our attitude as a society towards food is chock full of vitamin hypocrisy and mineral self-delusion.

That being said, PETA just annoys me. I'm okay with where my food comes from...I don't think PETA would let me continue to access those food sources if they had the power to make that choice.

Kitten taste as good as fish? mmmm... I may include them in my diet. Thank you PETA!

Yep...our friends at PETA are at it again. They are now refering to fish as "sea kittens" in a move targeted at young children. Their goal is to make kids feel bad about eating fish sticks and the like by making them think about a cute cuddly little animal.



Personally, I think cats should become "land fish".

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1173188

I was really wondering when PETA would come out with something like this just to push their agenda. It's just ridiculous.

What harm is there in the tobacco companies teaching that Joe the Camel is cute?

If you can't see the vast and critical difference between teaching children that fish are cute in the hopes that kids will not eat fish and teaching children that Joe the Camel is cute in hopes that kids will take up smoking cigarettes, I can't help you. :wink:

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with PETA educating children about the effects of overfishing, I also wouldn't mind is they sponsored trips to the aquarium so that kids can come face to face with fish and learn to appreciate the wonders of the sea and learn why we must do our best to take care of it.

What I DO have an issue with is PETA is attempting to "scare" kids away from eating fish. I don't like scare tactics period because they do nothing to educate or solve the underlying problem. It also doesn't address issues about what to eat instead, given that fish is healthy and (Now being in a sea country as opposed to a landlocked desert) a major part of people's lives.

First, let me repeat and make clearer: I'm not defending PETA's stupid campaign. I have no problem with people eating fish or most other animals. Even if I did, I wouldn't agree that PETA is going about this the best way. Moreoever, although I did say I sympathize with some of PETA's perspective, most of their views and actions are not just stupid, but also harmful.

Second, what I was commenting on was the moral ambiguity of human's relationship with animals, particularly when it comes to eating animals for meat. Maybe my perception is wrong and I am the only one that eats meat, but recognizes some moral questions about doing so.

Third, part of my point is that you and Sarkhaan are contradicting yourselves. You call teaching children that fish are cute "scare tactics," but at the same time deny that humans have any reservations about eating animals that are cute? If the latter is true, then the former isn't a "scare tactic," is it?

If you can't see the vast and critical difference between teaching children that fish are cute in the hopes that kids will not eat fish and teaching children that Joe the Camel is cute in hopes that kids will take up smoking cigarettes, I can't help you. :wink:



First, let me repeat and make clearer: I'm not defending PETA's stupid campaign. I have no problem with people eating fish or most other animals. Even if I did, I wouldn't agree that PETA is going about this the best way. Moreoever, although I did say I sympathize with some of PETA's perspective, most of their views and actions are not just stupid, but also harmful.

Second, what I was commenting on was the moral ambiguity of human's relationship with animals, particularly when it comes to eating animals for meat. Maybe my perception is wrong and I am the only one that eats meat, but recognizes some moral questions about doing so.

Third, part of my point is that you and Sarkhaan are contradicting yourselves. You call teaching children that fish are cute "scare tactics," but at the same time deny that humans have any reservations about eating animals that are cute? If the latter is true, then the former isn't a "scare tactic," is it?
You're not the only one who recognizes the morality issue of eating meat but still eats meat. I do it, too.

You're also not the only one who recognizes the value of producing food in non-cruel/abusive ways but still thinks PETA are bunch of idiots who do more harm than good for the reform of the food production industries.

One of the contestants on "Top Chef" last night said something apropos to this: The chefs were getting their ingredients direct from the farm (some wholly organic farm associated with a famous restaurant), and they were taken on a tour to get acquainted with the animals they would be cooking that day. Visiting the pig enclosure, the Italian chef, Fabio, gave us his philosophy of raising animals for food. I paraphrase:

"You are born into this world, you live a life, and you die and get eaten. And you were bred and born just for that purpose. That's it. But still, during this life, you deserve to be treated with respect. You deserve to be happy."

That's my view of it, too. I eat very little meat compared to most non-vegetarians I know because I think that food needs to be treated with respect. I just don't see how that's possible when we are consuming it in such quantities. I feel really uncomfortable when I think about the sheer number of chicken wings that are cooked in the US alone every single day. How can people kid themselves that animals can be raised and slaughtered in such numbers without horrifically cruel -- not to mention unhealthy and unsanitary -- treatment? And if they feel outraged, or guilty, or even just queasy when they are made to look directly at the reality of factory farming, then how can they continue eating the way they do? There's a disconnect going on here.

How can people look at the sheer number of fish dishes and fish products in the food markets and restaurants and not realize where those come from or what it takes to get them, or ask themselves, can these creatures reproduce enough to keep meeting so much demand?

But stunts like PETA's "sea kitten" bullshit only trivialize the issue, make those who are concerned with it look stupid, and give people an excuse to dismiss the whole question.

If we want to look at pop culture sources that might make people take their food more seriously and treat it better, I think the tv show "Deadliest Catch", about crab fishermen, packs a serious punch, as opposed to PETA's idiotic nonsense, which is really nothing more than an insult against human beings.

Stop Britishing, you're from Seattle.

This coming from someone who both can't read (I'm from Spokane, it's right there under my avatar), and verbed a nationality? I shall speak in any way I like, thank you.

*snip*

"You are born into this world, you live a life, and you die and get eaten. And you were bred and born just for that purpose. That's it. But still, during this life, you deserve to be treated with respect. You deserve to be happy."

That's my view of it, too. I eat very little meat compared to most non-vegetarians I know because I think that food needs to be treated with respect. I just don't see how that's possible when we are consuming it in such quantities. I feel really uncomfortable when I think about the sheer number of chicken wings that are cooked in the US alone every single day. How can people kid themselves that animals can be raised and slaughtered in such numbers without horrifically cruel -- not to mention unhealthy and unsanitary -- treatment? And if they feel outraged, or guilty, or even just queasy when they are made to look directly at the reality of factory farming, then how can they continue eating the way they do? There's a disconnect going on here.

*snip*

This. ^

Second, what I was commenting on was the moral ambiguity of human's relationship with animals, particularly when it comes to eating animals for meat. Maybe my perception is wrong and I am the only one that eats meat, but recognizes some moral questions about doing so.Don't get me wrong. I fully understand the moral/ethical side of the discussion...I was raised vegitarian (though, sometimes was given chicken, and somewhat frequently fish), and chose to eat meat regularly around the time I turned 14 and visited Europe. The family I was living with slaughtered their own chicken and cooked it. I discussed it with them (as well as a Frenchman with limited English and an American with limited French can), and started analyzing what I ate and why. I eat plenty of meat, and understand the moral issue it can and does raise.

Third, part of my point is that you and Sarkhaan are contradicting yourselves. You call teaching children that fish are cute "scare tactics," but at the same time deny that humans have any reservations about eating animals that are cute? If the latter is true, then the former isn't a "scare tactic," is it?
I don't deny that. I just said it isn't something that is a consideration for me.
While I didn't use the phrase "scare tactic", and while that may not be the most accurate phrasing possible, it isn't far from accurate. I have no problem with someone not eating fish because they think they are the worlds most adorable creatures ever. I have a problem with someone else coming in and saying "Fish are like sea kitties" with little other goal than to shock and disgust children. The statement itself is dishonest, the tactic somewhat underhanded.

Again, I don't have an issue with teaching that fish are cute. This a) isn't teaching and b) isn't teaching that fish are cute. It is calling them cats. They aren't.

I show you a picture of a Sugar Glider.
http://www.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/exotic-pictures-breeders-babies/sugar-glider-pictures-breeders-babies/pictures/sugar-glider-0019.jpg
Then I show you a flea.
http://blogs.thetimes.co.za/pendock/files/2008/05/flea-1.jpg

I then say "See? It's just like a flea! Both have big eyes and jump long distances!"

In reality, the similarities end there. You shouldn't disrespect or respect one animal because it shares a handful of traits with another animal. It is possibly the most apt example of "apples and oranges". We should be teaching children to respect animals for what they are. Reducing it to the point of such simplicity is insulting to children, and dishonest to all.

And yes, I know you aren't defending what PETA is doing. But it all ties back to the contradiction you see in my argument.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Is it just me or does this picture they have look like a cat eating a fish?

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.canada.com/topics/news/national/1173189.bin?size=l
Not just you.
imagine the irony if it backfires and kids start wanting to eat cats as well as fishsticks!
There are no words for how hard I would lol.
At some point, the consumption of fish needs to be curtailed, fact is that we simply dredge them up from the ocean because any laws that are around are practically unenforceable for the same reason there's difficulty curtailing Somalia pirates.

1. Waters are international
2. Waters are vast and unpatrollable - if such a word exists.

So any policy is ineffective at best even if taken seriously.

So the only real recourse is to convince the public to slow down consumption, much as the only real solution to ivory poaching is to stop people buying ivory.

The problem is; fish are not cute.
Pretty much the sole(pun not intended) purpose of the Irish navy is to protect our fishing waters from Spanish trawlers. Damn Spaniards, stealing our fish.
What about Sea Bears and Sea Rhino's?
Are they cute and cuddly too?

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k292/bekster3/untitled-5.jpg

http://spongepedia.bimserver.com/images/thumb/1/1b/Seerhinozeros.jpg/180px-Seerhinozeros.jpg
I'm just worried about sea sharks......
Pfft, everyone knows there is no fish in fish sticks.
Nor are there any sticks.
Cats are too stringy to make good eating.
Tell it to China.
Let's save the plants, too, and let's raise the average IQ.

Rename all veggies to "tortured green kitten flesh". And grain and rice to "tortured fairy kitten dust". This way, all people who buy into such idiocies like the "tortured sea kitten" thing will starve and snuff it.
I approve of this lulzy idea.
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

*raises hand*

Dangit! Now looking at my gf's cat is making me hungry.

Dangit! Now looking at my gf's cat is making me hungry.

so... you hungry for your GF's Pu...

I need to think of new jokes... :(

I think it's a wonderful idea! Quick, everyone! Let's celebrate it by having dinner in an all-you-can-eat sushi place!

I am one of the few alaskans who neither fish nor hunt. If I want meat I buy it from the grocery store. Animals in the wild don't ask anything from me or mine, I don't feed them, I don't shelter them, a cow is raised to be eaten, it's feed comes from me, the barn it lives in from me, so it is food. now if for some reason all the cows die and I am feeling hungry, then the moose in my yard is going to be hamburger...or the moose equivalent. I didn't rise to the top of the food chain to eat grass.

In other news: PETA protests USAirways jet killing Canadian Geese in New York today.

In other news: PETA protests USAirways jet killing Canadian Geese in New York today.

:tongue:

In other news: PETA protests USAirways jet killing Canadian Geese in New York today.

are they calling them 'Canadian Flying Kittens'?

are they calling them 'Canadian Flying Kittens'?

Nah, that name is reserved for the Canadian Airforce.

Tell it to China.


There's a difference between good eating, eating what's available, and traditional medicines.

Ten bucks says PETA claims "oh, but when humans ACTUALLY kill animals it's not on the news" about the plane incident.

Ten bucks says PETA claims "oh, but when humans ACTUALLY kill animals it's not on the news" about the plane incident.

Save your money. I doubt anyone here thinks PETA won't pounce on an opportunity to once again be hypocritical attention whores.

As well as domestic terrorist supporter/mouthpiece.

I actually sympathize with the whole animal rights thing (even though I am hopelessly addicted to meat) but I think PETA suffers from disastrously bad strategy. While preventing needless killing of animals is a laudable goal, I really don't think you're going to convince anyone that this is a cuddly kitten:

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/anglerfish.jpg

Is it just me or does this picture they have look like a cat eating a fish?

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.canada.com/topics/news/national/1173189.bin?size=l

That pic is so cute!

I actually sympathize with the whole animal rights thing (even though I am hopelessly addicted to meat) but I think PETA suffers from disastrously bad strategy. While preventing needless killing of animals is a laudable goal, I really don't think you're going to convince anyone that this is a cuddly kitten:

PETA doesn't really prevent the killing of animals. In fact, several of its members have been convicted to adopting cats and dogs from shelters only to poison them with carbon monoxide in customized gas chamber vans so that the corpses could be stored in walk-in freezers for future propaganda.

They also don't care about the ecological impact that releasing farmed or caged animals would have on the surrounding environment.

They always have been and always will be blustering attention whores who don't really give a shit about animals. They're also supporters of domestic terrorists.

I have an aunt who's a PETA supporter. I've been meaning to have a word with her about it sometime.

They also give money to the Animal Liberation Front (you know, the terrorists). We should be careful not to let the superficial hillarity blind us to the underlying malevolence.

I think Ecoterrorists should only be able to use Proton bombs. That'd be rocking.

PETA doesn't really prevent the killing of animals. In fact, several of its members have been convicted to adopting cats and dogs from shelters only to poison them with carbon monoxide in customized gas chamber vans so that the corpses could be stored in walk-in freezers for future propaganda.

They also don't care about the ecological impact that releasing farmed or caged animals would have on the surrounding environment.

They always have been and always will be blustering attention whores who don't really give a shit about animals. They're also supporters of domestic terrorists.

So, would I be a bad person if I said we need more terrorism?