Vicky Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 [size=1]I'd love to eat a kitten. Even from the sea. There's just something delightfully cruel about it... like when you imagine your food alive it tastes better (in this case imagine them as cute little swimming cats).[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaryanna_Mom Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I can perhaps understand wanting to promote changes in fishing or to keep species from being literally driven extinct. But I just don't see how a name change is going to do that. This just seems like a complete and total waste of time. That and I don't need someone using an absurd name change to educate my kids or anyone else's for that matter. If they want real change, it takes more than simply altering the name. Or I could just go with Allamorph's bit in all caps... It's rather fitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='desertphoenix'][FONT="Verdana"][COLOR="DarkRed"] [IMG]http://themcode.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/tigerdm2805_468x680.jpg[/IMG] [CENTER]Cute now, but when they grow up...[/CENTER] [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] [size=1][color=indigo]Best tag line ever. I don't know if I can say anything else on this subject, really. I'm a meat-eater, can't live without it. I am an animal lover, but we have to eat to survive. It's what humanity's been doing since....well, ever. Hm....this leads us also to wonder about the phrase [spoiler]"Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten."[/spoiler]....hehe. Amusing thought. Oh, and another "There are better sea kittens in the sea.." Yeah, that'll help a friend's self esteem.[/size][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaGirlSango Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I saw this posted on another forum too. I hope for their own sake that it's satire, or just a ploy to draw attention to a problem. Though personally I'd be more concerned about the runoff and pollution that's killing the fish rather than humans eating them as they have for centuries. Athena totally stole my though about God killing kittens. P: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tophel Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Manic Webb']However, I'm not going to deny my natural instinct to eat meats and fishes (especially considering their health benefits) just because killing animals for the purpose of ingestion is less than kind.[/QUOTE] Well, actually, if you're talking modern day lifespans of 80+ yrs, meat is actually not good for you. Certainly not on a daily basis. Humans can eat meat yes but we were never really carnivores. If you look at our digestive system and especially our teeth we are more vegetarian than carnivore. Meat, in particular, red meat is a booster. So when we had lifespans of 40+ yrs (which was only until a couple of centuries ago), the protein in meat provided easy and quick energy. It also helps a little with brain development. But as you age the consequences of eating meat build up and the negative begins to outweigh the positive. Which is why nutritionists normally recommend eating red meat only about 3 times a week. Anyway, the short of it is that meat, in this modern urban age does not really have 'health benefits'. Generally speaking, provided you do it reasonably and sensibly, being a vegetarian is better for you than being a steak-a-day or even 3-steaks-a-week carnivore. But all of this is moot because most people separate fish meat from red meat. The most unhealthy is red meat followed by fowl followed by fish. Sea kittens are actually good for you. :animesmil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allamorph Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Tophel']If you look at our digestive system and especially our teeth we are more vegetarian than carnivore.[/quote] [FONT=Arial]And if you look really closely you suddenly notice a distinct omnivorous nature to the human digestive system. We weren't designed to eat just meat or just veggies. We were designed for both. Fortunately our systems don't seem to break down when one or the other are omitted, or vegetarians would be up a creek. (Of course, we wouldn't have to deal with Vegans then, but eh. I like my sane vegetarian friends, thank you.) Responsible people (or people not in college) are able to monitor and balance their diet so that they do not end up eating exclusively one or the other. I mean, just like eating hordes of pizza will wreck your body and probably turn you into El Gordo, and eating loads of sugary foods will set you well on your way to becoming Mr. Diabeetus the Walrus, if you only eat lettuce every day, you're gonna waste away. And heck, as much as I love a good sirloin, sometimes you just gotta have that salad.[/FONT] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [IMG]http://messingaboutinboats.typepad.com/sailing/images/2008/01/07/ugly_fish.jpg[/IMG] I just want to pet him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tophel Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]And if you look really closely you suddenly notice a distinct omnivorous nature to the human digestive system. We weren't designed to eat just meat or just veggies. We were designed for both. Fortunately our systems don't seem to break down when one or the other are omitted, or vegetarians would be up a creek. (Of course, we wouldn't have to deal with Vegans then, but eh. I like my sane vegetarian friends, thank you.)[/FONT][/QUOTE] I really don't mean to be disrespectful here. I say that openly. But IMO I believe you need a bit more care with what you say. Omnivore classification for humans is a cop out. Most people are aware we can eat vegetables or meat. We do it all the time. But where does our evolutionary history take us? I think it is very clear, in terms of science anyway, our bodies are more vegetarian than carnivore. We can eat meat, yes, but that is not only a recent development and it is not where we are biologically speaking. There is a simple test. There are many people who can go on for weeks, months, even years, eating vegetables and not touching any meat. Compared that to how many people go weeks/months/years eating JUST meat and no vegetables. So it really isn't true that we can omit vegetables. Then you will see that we are more vegetarian than carnivore, and we aren't truly omnivores. Yes, I know on a conservative board like this one, it is cool to mock vegans/vegetarians/etc but putting value-laden considerations aside, purely speaking in terms of our biology, we are certainly more vegetarian than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Tophel']I really don't mean to be disrespectful here. I say that openly. But IMO I believe you need a bit more care with what you say. Omnivore classification for humans is a cop out. Most people are aware we can eat vegetables or meat. We do it all the time. But where does our evolutionary history take us? I think it is very clear, in terms of science anyway, our bodies are more vegetarian than carnivore. We can eat meat, yes, but that is not only a recent development and it is not where we are biologically speaking. There is a simple test. There are many people who can go on for weeks, months, even years, eating vegetables and not touching any meat. Compared that to how many people go weeks/months/years eating JUST meat and no vegetables. So it really isn't true that we can omit vegetables. Then you will see that we are more vegetarian than carnivore, and we aren't truly omnivores. Yes, I know on a conservative board like this one, it is cool to mock vegans/vegetarians/etc but putting value-laden considerations aside, purely speaking in terms of our biology, we are certainly more vegetarian than anything else.[/QUOTE] Our bodies need Vitamin B12, which is found primarily in meat, fish, poultry, and dairy. A deficiency of which can lead to damage of your brain and nervous system. Most of the "defenses" for vegetarianism can be debunked pretty easily. We're omnivores, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Webb Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Tophel']Well, actually, if you're talking modern day lifespans of 80+ yrs, meat is actually not good for you. Certainly not on a daily basis. Humans can eat meat yes but we were never really carnivores. If you look at our digestive system and especially our teeth we are more vegetarian than carnivore. Meat, in particular, red meat is a booster. So when we had lifespans of 40+ yrs (which was only until a couple of centuries ago), the protein in meat provided easy and quick energy. It also helps a little with brain development. But as you age the consequences of eating meat build up and the negative begins to outweigh the positive. Which is why nutritionists normally recommend eating red meat only about 3 times a week. Anyway, the short of it is that meat, in this modern urban age does not really have 'health benefits'. Generally speaking, provided you do it reasonably and sensibly, being a vegetarian is better for you than being a steak-a-day or even 3-steaks-a-week carnivore. But all of this is moot because most people separate fish meat from red meat. The most unhealthy is red meat followed by fowl followed by fish. Sea kittens are actually good for you. :animesmil[/QUOTE] I'm not going to sit here and deny that we need vegetables, could survive on veggies alone, or we'd die if we tried to eat meat alone. I know all that stuff. Thing is, you're presenting your argument as if I'm saying there are benefits to eating [i]only[/i] red meat everyday. Nobody does that. Everybody eats vegetables. People eat meats other than steak. There [i]are[/i] health benefits to eating meat. They provide the body with plenty of protein, and chicken is an excellent source of niacin. That's my whole point. Meat has health benefits. All you did was tell me that it's bad to eat steak too many times a week. I know that. Now find me the nutritionist who says it's dangerous to eat chicken more than 3 times a week (by the way, niacin is known to regulate insulin levels and cholesterol) as well as any & all other meats, and you'll have proven me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Tophel']Yes, I know on a conservative board like this one, it is cool to mock vegans/vegetarians/etc but putting value-laden considerations aside, purely speaking in terms of our biology, we are certainly more vegetarian than anything else.[/QUOTE] [SIZE="1"]I can assure you Tophel that any mocking of vegan/vegetarians/etc is light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek rather than anything serious. Surely you can see the ridiculousness of this move by PETA as much as anyone else which has thus lead to the satire of what PETA stands for. As for calling OB a "conservative board" I have to admit you've given me a good chuckle with that one. While there are an array of political views expressed here on Otakuboards, I would say that those in the centre and left-wing far outnumber those on the right.[/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tophel Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]I can assure you Tophel that any mocking of vegan/vegetarians/etc is light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek rather than anything serious. Surely you can see the ridiculousness of this move by PETA as much as anyone else which has thus lead to the satire of what PETA stands for. As for calling OB a "conservative board" I have to admit you've given me a good chuckle with that one. While there are an array of political views expressed here on Otakuboards, I would say that those in the centre and left-wing far outnumber those on the right.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Yes, I see the ridiculous nature of PETA's latest move. I think I said earlier that this move was likely to hurt more than help their cause. It's not like they haven't been written off as nut jobs and this move by them only further marginalises them. Stupid IMO. And OB, from what I have seen of it, is a conservative board. It seems to me it is a little like moderate Republicans. Socially progressive, i.e. not your born-again Christian Bush supporter. But politically conservative, i.e. Hugo Chavez probably doesn't have a strong fan base here. Just check out the Israel thread. While brief passing reference is made to the Palestinians, the bulk of the comments are in support of Israel. But if there was a thread in support of gay or lesbian rights, then you are likely to get more sympathy. Methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChibiHorsewoman Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 [color=#9933ff]Sea Kittens... nope that still looked and tasted like salmon to me. ANd has it occured to anyone in PETA that you usually just chop the fish's head off with one whack? Seriously though I can go without eatting meat for a while by choice and eatting too much red meat is bad for you. But fish is healthy and has omega 3 fatty acids and all that good stuff. If you want to be vegan or a regular vegatarian fine. But please respect the fact that I don't eat fake meat- the occasional tofu stir fry but not a lot of fake meat. I respect that not everyone wants to eat something different and heck sometimes instead of cereal I have jasmine rice for breakfast- it's actually pretty good. But you can't force people to just eat vegatables and no animal bi-products. I'm quite sure PETA is against eatting eggs and thinks that milking a cow or goat is cruel to the animal. In effect the opposite is true cows udders can get gengrene when not milked constantly because of bacteria. But hey they already want to ban horse riding because the horse doesn't come when called- but hey my kid doesn't come when called either so should we ban parenthood too? I don't see what PETA hopes to accomplish with re-naming everything. A few years ago- I think it was when I was in College- PETA wanted to try to rename the town of Fishkill New York Fish save. This is ridiculous and proof that these people really don't do their research because a kill is Dutch for a stream or river and since Eastern New York state was settled by the Dutch and that's how most of the towns (Rensselear, Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Schenectedy anyone?) got their names it makes sense that there would have been towns with Kill in the name. What would be next? Can we change the Catskill mountains to the Cat Save mountains? Frankly PETA just gets on my nerves. I can respect that they want to protect animals, but we already have the ASPCA for that thank you. As for the OB being conservative- that may be so. But if that's the case then we're conservative in a Canadian stand point not an American one because the conservative Canadian parties are more liberal than the American liberal parties. I personally like to think that here on the OB we're more of a moderate bunch of people. But I also like to think that I can survive on three hours of sleep to get through a nine hour work day. Senility anyone?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Personally? I'm a liberal conservative (I support a mix of both conservative and liberal policies). However, that doesn't mean I'm Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly, and nor does it mean I'm Keith Olbermann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raiha Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 [quote name='Doc Holliday']Personally? I'm a liberal conservative (I support a mix of both conservative and liberal policies). However, that doesn't mean I'm Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly, and nor does it mean I'm Keith Olbermann.[/QUOTE] [COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Okay people, we've officially strayed off the topic of this thread, which as we all should know, is another excuse to engage in an orgy of PETA bashing. So leave off analyzing OB's political slant, cause that's honestly for another thread. In the meantime, I can assure you that red meat is on occasion important for people's health, specifically women who need folic acid and iron, particularly when pregnant and right after giving birth. There's a reason most tribal cultures always presented the liver and heart to the women after a hunt of large game.[/FONT][/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Okay people, we've officially strayed off the topic of this thread, which as we all should know, is another excuse to engage in an orgy of PETA bashing. So leave off analyzing OB's political slant, cause that's honestly for another thread.[/font][/color][/QUOTE] It's all Tophel's fault! As for PETA, they're definitely a radical organization, there's no other way to spin it. As for this stunt; let's just say it's not giving them any good publicity. Changing the name of fish to sea-kittens is only going to piss off a lot of people and make them all think you're even bigger pricks than you are now; in fact, I bet consumption of fish will rise just to spite PETA for making ***** of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachmaninoff Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 [quote name='Tophel]Yes, I see the ridiculous nature of PETA's latest move. I think I said earlier that this move was likely to hurt more than help their cause. It's not like they haven't been written off as nut jobs and this move by them only further marginalises them. Stupid IMO.[/quote]I think a lot of people see just how stupid this latest move really is. Which is kind of sad since they have, in the past, done things that made a difference. So to see them going down a route like this is just... meh.[QUOTE=Tophel']And OB, from what I have seen of it, is a conservative board. It seems to me it is a little like moderate Republicans. Socially progressive, i.e. not your born-again Christian Bush supporter. But politically conservative, i.e. Hugo Chavez probably doesn't have a strong fan base here. Just check out the Israel thread. While brief passing reference is made to the Palestinians, the bulk of the comments are in support of Israel. But if there was a thread in support of gay or lesbian rights, then you are likely to get more sympathy. Methinks.[/quote]If you want to start a seperate thread on this go right ahead. I do find your assumption that supporting Israel = Republican rather amusing, mainly because I'm a Democrat, voted for Obama and voted against measures that took away gay/lesbian rights. You might want to wait until you've been around longer before you decide what the slant at OB really is. :p And now if you'll excuse me, I need to pull a roast out of the freezer so it will be ready for me to bake for tomorrow's dinner. Or perhaps I'll grab some sea kittens out of the freezer instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 [quote name='Tophel']Yes, I see the ridiculous nature of PETA's latest move. I think I said earlier that this move was likely to hurt more than help their cause. It's not like they haven't been written off as nut jobs and this move by them only further marginalises them. Stupid IMO. [/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think it's true that PETA has gone from being seen as a legitimate organization to a pretty far-out organization in recent years. This latest stunt is part of that. As far as vegetarianism goes, I would say at a guess that most OBers would never make a serious judgment about that. I can only imagine that most "jokes" or references are firmly tongue-in-cheek. My own view is that vegetarianism is definitely a personal choice, but choosing to eat meat is not a fundamentally cruel or inhumane thing to do. After all, human beings are, by nature, omnivorous. We have canine teeth. And the one organ we have that is used to digest grass became obsolete long ago, as a result of our own evolution as a species. You'll find that most serious dieticians promote a balanced diet that involves a variety of foods, including meats/fish/poultry. This is why "vegans" in particular often must take supplements - taking a supplement implies that your body is missing out on something it could be getting naturally. I do have a lot of sympathy for some of PETA's arguments, such as the treatment of caged hens and things like that - even if eating meat is part of who and what we are as a species, we should still behave in a humane manner. I think most people would agree on that. As far as OB being conservative, well, I think Rach answered that point effectively. If you pay close attention to the Israel thread you'll find that most people actually [i]do[/i] talk quite seriously about the plight of the Palestineans (I certainly do). Glossing over that is somewhat unfair. I tend to think that whether it's PETA or any other issue, OB is pretty balanced. We are probably more center-left than anything else. Being a centrist doesn't make you conservative, really.[/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 [FONT="Arial"]I really don't see this move by PETA doing anything other than taking them further down that road of portraying themselves as nuts. It just lowers their level of legitimacy in my opinion. As for the bit on vegetarian or not, I view that as a personal choice. And I don't view it as being inhumane if one does eat meat. Like Rach I find the assumption that I am conservative based on the Israel thread very amusing. Like him, I too am a Democrat and have voted in a similar fashion. [/FONT] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allamorph Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 [CENTER][IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/16/128766381947705347.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 [quote name='Allamorph'][CENTER][IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/16/128766381947705347.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER][/QUOTE] [SIZE="1"]Nicely done Al, Nature 1 - PETA 0. Now we just need to get one of a bear catching a salmon in mid air. On a side note, that is possibly the angriest looking cat I've ever seen. [/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChibiHorsewoman Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 [color=#9933ff]Not exactly what you were looking for Gavin, but I found it: [URL="http://video.aol.com/video-detail/grizzly-bear-catching-salmon-in-katmai-national-park-alaska/1492004455"]Drop that sea kitten now![/URL] Go on PETA, tell that Grizzly to become a vegan, I dare you. (Okay yes, I know bears are omnivores like most humans. But still I couldn't resist. And really SEA kitten? Doesn't PETA realize that there are fish in streams, brooks, rivers and lakes as well? Or do they only care about the fish in the sea? Oops, I'm sorry KITTENS! [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Webb Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I imagine the term "Fresh Water Sea Kittens" being used, which would be a term just stupid enough for PETA to actually use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 [IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/2730662392_48bc95f802.jpg[/IMG] The inevitable fate of all sea-kittens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spectacular Professor Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 [FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Eh, that looks more like a sky-kitten strip. Then again, the consistency of the meat looks aquan. Still, it's the wrong shape. And yes, I am aware that sky-kittens cannot fly.[/FONT] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now