Okay, have you guys heard about PETA's new Sea Kitten schtick?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for conservation and preserving the environment, and I'm definitely not a fan over-fishing. But attempting to... I don't even know how to describe it... to alter people's perceptions of fish by simply renaming them sea kittens is patently stupid. Sure, sure. There is some logic to the argument that people would think twice about hooking, gutting, de-boning, and eating kittens. That is, if we didn't eat them as a staple of our diet to begin with. But, is the reason we don't eat kittens, or cats, because they're too "cute"? I highly doubt this is the case. I'm quite sure our collective ancestors ate cat meat at some point in time, and they found out that it was both not-appetizing and not part of a proper diet. When it comes to the meat that we eat, it almost entirely consists of a list of anciently approved animals that we have winnowed (pun intended) down for millennia. Fish is one of those meats. It's much more likely that PETA is trying this because A) It will get headlines in newspapers and B) PETA and Ingrid Whatshername thinks sea kitten eating humans are, at the core, idiots. It's "Your Mommy Kills Animals" all over again.
I'm not trying to say the mistreatment of animals is right. But I'm certainly not going to argue that eating animals, and choosing the specific animals that we eat, is inherently wrong. Lest us not forget that cats-- wild jungle cats-- can, and do, eat people on occasion. Stupid people who shouldn't be wandering around a lion's den, sure. But still.
Plus, PETA has been known to have associations with domestic terrorists who seem to sanctify the lives of animals, any animal, over people, any people.
-Rob
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for conservation and preserving the environment, and I'm definitely not a fan over-fishing. But attempting to... I don't even know how to describe it... to alter people's perceptions of fish by simply renaming them sea kittens is patently stupid. Sure, sure. There is some logic to the argument that people would think twice about hooking, gutting, de-boning, and eating kittens. That is, if we didn't eat them as a staple of our diet to begin with. But, is the reason we don't eat kittens, or cats, because they're too "cute"? I highly doubt this is the case. I'm quite sure our collective ancestors ate cat meat at some point in time, and they found out that it was both not-appetizing and not part of a proper diet. When it comes to the meat that we eat, it almost entirely consists of a list of anciently approved animals that we have winnowed (pun intended) down for millennia. Fish is one of those meats. It's much more likely that PETA is trying this because A) It will get headlines in newspapers and B) PETA and Ingrid Whatshername thinks sea kitten eating humans are, at the core, idiots. It's "Your Mommy Kills Animals" all over again.
I'm not trying to say the mistreatment of animals is right. But I'm certainly not going to argue that eating animals, and choosing the specific animals that we eat, is inherently wrong. Lest us not forget that cats-- wild jungle cats-- can, and do, eat people on occasion. Stupid people who shouldn't be wandering around a lion's den, sure. But still.
Plus, PETA has been known to have associations with domestic terrorists who seem to sanctify the lives of animals, any animal, over people, any people.
-Rob
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
Doesn't make sense to me.
9 out of 10 people can't even tell the difference when heavily doused in sweet and sour sauce!