PETA Pissed At Restaurants Serving Live Octopus

I've heard that eating live PETA protesters is considered a delicacy at my apartment.

Fuck PETA. bunch of bitches. Reel talk.

http://www.reeltalkblog.com

The things we allow in the name of political correctness in this country..

Perhaps maybe this would be a justification for eating one live though. Just sayin...

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-04/guerrilla-octopus-filmmaker-steals-divers-camera

When is PETA gonna go after the real issues like people who eat live plants, They feel Pain!! Please, when they can feed everyone, kill every pedophile, stop the kidnapping of our children to be sold as sex slaves, and every other vile thing man does to man, and oh yeah I can Afford to eat a damn octopus! then I'll worry about some damn octopod's feelings!

No doubt they feel pain. I'd bet like most intelligent animals they also feel FEAR. This is terrible.

All of you STFU. Seriously. Stop being a bunch of racist, ignorant, ethno-centric assholes.

That is how they octopi there. Don't like it? Don't go.

Are any of you Christian? If so, I'm offended because you glorify a scene of a human man suffering being nailed to a piece of wood. Or, could he feel pain because he was the son of God?

Exactly. Get a clue, there's other places/customs/traditions than your own.

peta is gay

That's an insult to the word, and community of, 'gay'.

USA, fueled by PETA, finally declares war on korea over its live-eating octupus practices...

what about eating dogs and live dogs hanging upside down in the market. wtf????

uhm, hello? if you're just spewing out demons, what's your real motive for standing up for peta? because you just showed that you're a dickfuck.

...live dogs? link please.

OCTOPUSES ARE SMARTER THAN MOST RETARDED CHILDREN

eh, looks like they're just training for post-world war iii survival tactics.

ps i don't eat live anything (a live octopus? i'd wince), except for fresh fruits and vegetables. :)

Whatever, they are delicious, sorry.

Actually, I'm not sorry. They are delicious, remember?

ROFL! Still bad though. I hate it when a bad person makes me laugh :(

laughter (and in some cases, women!), the key to make incredibly serious people lighten the fuck up.

True dat. But the problem is that we have TOO much laughter (but, sadly, not enough women ;)) and not enough serious people.

oh and btw, none of my incredibly hot female friends are attracted to guys who act too seriously. the only exception is, when you're seriously funny. ;)

hah, improve your game or stay serious? that is the real question.

if you think that too much laughter is a problem, and that there aren't many serious people around... y'know, i can recommend you a really good and funny movie called, 'a serious man.'

I think a bigger story would be: When is PETA not pissed?

octopus = highly intelligent

anyone that would eat an octopus = lacks intelligence and compassion

eat octopus ? yes ? you're a douche

Ok, I'm wrong. An octopus IS highly intelligent because it's smarter than a scallop and figured out how to use a coconut as shelter.

(I apologize to any intelligent octopus that recognize my sarcasm.)

It's food, not a family member or friend. If I CHOOSE to eat it, then do me a favor and leave me the eff alone. I don't picket in front of organic stores calling vegetarians douches, or chanting that harvest day is the holocaust for carrots. If you don't like whats on tv, then choose to change the channel. Choose not to patronize an establishment that serves food you don't like. We have become entirely too self-involved and sensitive as a race. Everybody wants everybody to eat, think, etc. like they do.

And the day eating live octopus becomes illegal is truly the day we've wasted too much time, effort, resources and tax dollars on over-controlling, worthless shite.

octopus = highly intelligent ???

seriously? then i guess all the octopi fisherman/farmers are genius to be able to fool them well enough to catch them. and i certainly never saw live octopus runninng off the plate or out the back of these restaurants.

is this the current american standard of intelligence... being able to simply flail your arms/tenticles around?

if an octopi's brainless movements or way of life qualifies as "intelligent", then the consumption of anything green/organic, which at one point was "lifelike", would be of equal intelligence. Hence, everybody, regardless of our diet, is a douche.

The octopus and squid are certainly intelligent as far as nonvertebrate sea creatures go; they are certainly the highest-evolved mollusks. Their eyes are the most highly developed of any invertebrates.

And eating live anything is wrong.

www.forgotten-ny.com

So weird, just last night I happened to watch the episode of No Reservations about the outer boroughs, and Bourdain went to Sik Gaek and enjoyed some live octopi with David Chang. I'd love to go to that place when I get back from my time in China... I love Korean cuisine... thought not sure if I'd order the octopus.

I don't find the practice so objectionable. The creature undoubtedly suffers, but so do most animals that end up in the gut. I hear no outcry about the billions of fish that slowly suffocate to death in the open air. A certain degree of cruelty and suffering are a part of existence on earth. I understand the desire to root out as much of it as possible, but if you are going to rally your forces to stop the needless suffering in this world, there are better places to focus than the invertebrates at a few ethnic restaurants. And calling the people who enjoy this cuisine uncivil, barbaric, sick, subhuman, or any other variety of vile insult is tantamount to base ethnocentrism. Not every culture shares your particular (and perhaps peculiar) values and beliefs regarding suffering and stewardship. Steady your condemning gaze.

So weird, just last night I happened to watch the episode of No Reservations about the outer boroughs, and Bourdain went to Sik Gaek and enjoyed some live octopi with David Chang. I'd love to go to that place when I get back from my time in China... I love Korean cuisine... thought not sure if I'd order the octopus.

I don't find the practice so objectionable. The creature undoubtedly suffers, but so do most animals that end up in the gut. I hear no outcry about the billions of fish that slowly suffocate to death in the open air. A certain degree of cruelty and suffering are a part of existence on earth. I understand the desire to root out as much of it as possible, but if you are going to rally your forces to stop the needless suffering in this world, there are better places to focus than the invertebrates at a few ethnic restaurants. And calling the people who enjoy this cuisine uncivil, barbaric, sick, subhuman, or any other variety of vile insult is tantamount to base ethnocentrism. Not every culture shares your particular (and perhaps peculiar) values and beliefs regarding suffering and stewardship. Steady your condemning gaze.

"I don't find the practice so objectionable." Really? Why not? You seem to agree with the claim that animals shouldn't be harmed. Your point seems to be that people should focus their attention on more widespread practices. You might be right, but how does that absolve minor (i.e. less widespread) moral crimes? If one holds this particular practice to be morally reprehensible (and one should), then surely all similar practices are also morally reprehensible, no?

I think "reprehensible" is too strong to apply to this manner of behavior. This is my opinion, of course. I will admit to feeling a little squeamish at seeing a cephalopod dismembered alive, but I also regard it as a fairly minor offense (and as an offense itself, highly subjective). And while I would agree with the claim that animals should not be egregiously or unnecessarily subjected to pain and suffering, I am unopposed to killing certain ones for dietary use or gastronomic pleasure. I would not call this kind of treatment of an octopus "morally reprehensible", though I can see that those with slightly different values and ethical standards could. But that is strong language. Moral offenses work on a sliding scale, and as far as animal abuses go, there are far, far worse things than this on which PETA can (and usually does) focus its indignation.

In short, cutting up an octopus is, to my mind, really not so terrible. Personally, I'd take mine grilled.

A terminological clarification: "reprehensible" means "worthy of censure". So, all moral crimes (even on a sliding scale) are, by definition, reprehensible. Some crimes are worse than others, but so what? You might say that it is justifiable to commit some crime on the lower end of the scale if some overriding condition comes into play (e.g. I might rightly lie to someone in order to save someone else's life). So, what overriding condition are you identifying in this case? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this practice does in fact (i.e. it has been scientifically established to) cause pain and suffering and that pain and suffering are states that are intrinsically bad. Are you really saying that the pleasure that you get from eating grilled octopus overrides the moral crime (however low on the scale you want to place it) of causing it suffering? And if so, how does gastronomic pleasure override pain and suffering? And don't answer with "those are just my personal values and ethical standards" because that's not the question! The question is: What good reason do you have to prefer your own gastronomic pleasure at the cost of animal suffering?

If we agree that some animal can suffer (we have objective methods for determining this) and that suffering is bad (this is a conceptual truth) and we can avoid causing suffering (we don't NEED to eat the animal in that way), then causing that animal suffering is just plain wrong. The same goes for our duties towards human animals.

i don't know if eating live octopuses is morally right or wrong, but i know this: choosing to demonize a nation of humans because of its 'immoral' eating practice is even more immoral, the exception being if such a nation tolerated eating other humans, live or not.

also, this moral dilemma is nothing new--it's been going on for thousands of years. you'll also find this in the new testament of the bible, where the jewish believers struggled to tolerate the gentile believers who ate 'unclean' things, and nonetheless many jewish believers understood that these gentiles ate to feel good and were innocent in their minds, and the last thing that these jewish believers wanted to do was to demonize other people's eating habits, especially when it didn't involve eating other human beings.

Huh? Is this directed at me?

You wrote: "choosing to demonize a nation of humans because of its 'immoral' eating practice is even more immoral, the exception being if such a nation tolerated eating other humans, live or not."

Well, it depends on what you mean by "demonizing". No, we should not condemn a group of people as moral reprobates because of their eating habits, but we can condemn their eating habits. So, we can distinguish evaluating someone's character from evaluating their actions. Dallas, above, uses racially insensitive language that has the effect of assassinating the characters of the individuals that belong to that octo-eating group, and she is wrong to do that. However, she is not wrong to point out that they shouldn't be eating octopus in that way.

However, you seem to make an exception when it comes to human-eating societies. Why? What, exactly, makes human suffering any worse than non-human animal suffering? Are you suggesting that non-human animals don't have the capacity to suffer as much pain? Or maybe you're suggesting that the quality of pain is different? I'd love to know.

first off, i'm not for or against other people's eating habits. so why do i have a higher regard for humans? one reason is because none other species do what you, as a human being, are doing. name one species that are a member of peta, that advocate animal rights, that knowingly protect the planet--you can't, and this is the very reason why i have a higher regard for humans. and not because they have capabilities for higher understanding, but because most humans are simply born this way.

it's difficult to escape demonizing a group of humans while condemning their eating habits. you can keep sharpening your argument so as not to put others down, and it's possible, although why i'd go through all that trouble is beyond me.

and btw, if an octopus were in a higher food chain than humans, it will not protect other humans as you're protecting it. if humans were at the bottom of the food chain, yet still retaining all the human emotions and knowledge, will peta still exist?

Hey 3 - I love your spunk, but you clearly haven't thought very carefully about these issues. Sadly, you do express a very common belief. I'm going to just make a few brief points (though we could go on forever!).

We don't want to tie moral worth to intellectual capabilities for the following two reasons:

1) whatever standards we set will have the unintended effect of excluding some beings that we think do have moral worth from the moral realm. For example, if you set the bar too high (pick an IQ number), then it will exclude humans with mental disabilities, children, etc. Presumably you think it's wrong for these people to suffer. But if you set the bar too low (to include all of these people) then you would also include non-human animals (like apes, dolphins, elephants, etc.), which you (not I) do not want to do.

2) A bigger problem, however, is that we have no good reason to use intellectual capability as a standard for moral worth. In other words, morally valuing someone because they are smart is arbitrary - it's like morally valuing someone because of their skin color. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you think racism is wrong. Well, the same thing that makes racism wrong also makes the moral view that you are advocating wrong: it is arbitrary.

Instead, we might say that having moral worth is a function of being sentient (i.e. conscious) and I would suggest that that is what we actually believe (even though we are not aware of it). You probably think that it's wrong to kick your friend's dog, right? Well, the reason you think that is wrong is not because the dog is smart, but because the dog can feel pain (i.e. it is sentient).

As for your hypothetical claim about what octo-monsters would do if they were higher up in the food chain, . . . so? They can't act otherwise, we can.

hah. i can see that you've been thinking about this for years. i don't have the time and energy (or the care) to morally dissect all the issues you're discussing here. afterall, i'm someone who simply don't care about the whole issue being right or wrong, remember? not going to get on the issue now just b/c someone else has been involved in dissecting it, for years.

on that note, i'm going to enjoy my beer tonight. hah!

Anything alive? Even oysters? But they're so good.

I'm no vegan, but cutting up and swallowing a live octopus on a plate is unusually cruel, so yeah, eating anything that's still alive is wrong. We're civilized...sorta...

www.forgotten-ny.com

actually, octopi (?) routinely try to escape from aquariums they are kept in, and in the video you can see one trying to "run" from the serving dish it's been put on.

so yes, they do try to escape, and yes, they are actually "intelligent".

I think I remember reading somewhere that they've even been given an IQ score but I can't back that up right now, so that is possibly the sound of my sphincter speaking.

Cutting off a conscious animal's limbs is horrific cruelty, and cruelty isn't acceptable. There are so many positive ways to engage in culture or tradition without hurting animals.

This practice is totally ridiculous. These animals feel pain just like you and I!

This just promotes prolonged suffering for these animals – who happen to feel pain just like you and me. This isn't a new theory, or even one that PETA created, but when we can avoid causing others pain, we should.

This is so fucking disgusting! Oh my god! People disgust me... over in those asian countries they really think of every possible way to abuse an animal... makes me SICK!

lol, racism.

meanwhile that your clothes were made by child slaves and that the US imprisons 1 out of every 3 black males is a-okay

when it's me, it's okay!

Oh Rasputin - not again! You are right to point out that people can be hypocritical (though, it's not a very novel observation - in fact, it's a little like shooting fish in a barrel), but how on earth is that relevant? The fact that I condone slave labor when it suits me (Daddy needs a new pair of skinny jeans!) and condemn it when it doesn't suit me (I only drink organic, fair-trade coffee) does not show that I am wrong to condemn slave labor. Clearly, I have good reason to condemn it and therefore should be praised for condemning it (when in fact I do condemn it - like Dallas is doing here). The fact that I am inconsistent in my moral judgments says something about me ( I am wrong to be inconsistent), not about my judgment (I am not wrong to condemn slave labor).

i'm mostly here to troll felix

i do actually appreciate your even-handed analysis of things i have to say, you're one of the nicest people i've ever encountered on the internet

I can't tell if you're making fun of me or not. :(

I'm relatively new to internet-chatboard-comment action, so I haven't yet developed the techniques for deciphering and appropriately responding to trolling comments. Am I to assume that I shouldn't engage with you seriously?

As for felix, his heart's in the right place. I'm just gonna go ahead and guess that he's given up on trying to convey his views in an even-handed way due to the constant frustration of having to respond to trollers (or assholes). If you have to deal with assholes on a daily basis, you'll probably become one yourself (not that I think you're an asshole felix - you and I are moral and political kin!).

P.S. I'm not felix.

And what is your point? There will be no justice or peace as long as ignorance and cruelty exists.

let me put this in a way you can understand

christine quinn did it

The only things I eat that are alive are oysters.

Why aren't they able to stop this under existing animal cruelty laws? There's no doubt it would qualify.

good question. I'm curious to know the answer to that too.

I think i'm going to have some baby seal meat fresh from canada. i hear it has clubbing goodness to them.

because the solution to a moral dilemma is to even go more brutish and join brutal practices with joy and pride! there you have for being intellectually consistent even when totally wrong!

This is disgusting. Those poor animals.

some people go with the herd even when being wrong, evil or plainly stupid, most just like to state power by doing things just because they can, rather than for a good reason. The "is only an octopus" proves this point, I can eat a living octopus, just because I can no other consideration AT ALL.

This practice is absurd, and helps distinguish between civil and barbaric people.

So you think the Korean people are uncivilized and barbaric?

some of you guys are just very thick. oh no they are alive and its very barbaric to eat them alive etc...

ummm the other foods you eat were once alive too!!! death itself is part of the natural life cycle. octopus they eat other living animals etc... they too were eaten alive!!!

plants are alive too, might as well stop breathing and just kill yourselves save the rest of the living creatures to the rest of us.

in terms of "food chain" dynamics, just name one "predator" that profits economically by systematically killing, offering in mass, and prolonging the dead of of its pray.

orcas and polar bears also kill for sport, and they often play with/torment their prey. watch an orca toss a live seal around for a while, it's pretty gruesome.

not saying right or wrong, just sayin'

you sort of load the deck with that question since no animals have an economy

also, cats. cats will kill rodents for no reason and play with them while they're still alive

your move, Every Person I Met In College

This is one of the worst comments of the thread, since it is prima facie so persuasive (and no doubt held by many people). Here's the problem: "Ought" implies "can". But cats "cannot" act otherwise, which is why it is absurd to hold a cat to any moral standards (e.g. we can't morally reprimand the lion for eating the gazelle, the eagle for digging its talons into the trout, etc.). Humans, on the other hand, can be held to moral standards because humans (assuming there is no biochemical obstacle) can act according to moral standards. Having said that, Amanda's comment (to which the comment that I am responding to is a response) also misses the point. Animals of all sorts might very well profit from systematically killing their prey in cruel ways. We can accept that fact (assuming it is one, I don't know) without accepting that WE should act that way.

OK,so you understand the moral implications in this situation (exceptional trait), same implications MOST people can not even begin to grasp, therefore the "economic" question...since is the only level of awareness most people handle.

SO then, why should we avoid discussing the moral issues on this situation? I have never advocating for ignoring the moral content (or lack of) in this practice. I agree about the ever present situation of a practice being repeated by the actors with no other considerations than their power, what is, what is possible with no other considerations on moral validity.

Unfortunately for most humans being "superior" means destroying and oppressing others just because they can... Moronic from every angle.

I agree! I just don't think that we need the economic analysis - it confuses the issue.

Agree.

Yet it is the logic approach (level i'd say) most people use when talking about moral issues.

True. This is why we should lobby Congress to fund Moral Compass Re-Adjustment camps where individuals like HowBoutDemCowboys can be sent for "treatment".

Kidding. (Not really. Does that make me bad?!?)

you do realize i was just responding to her query about "name an animal, MAAAAN that does that" and i did. i was not making a moral recommendation

Hey Rasputin . . . yeah, I realize my comment was targeted at a non-literal interpretation of your comment, but my fear was that your curt remark would have the unintended effect of condoning animal cruelty on the grounds that it was natural (as exhibited by cats, etc.). I think a better response to Amanda would have been: "So?". The force of your original answer extended beyond its intended content: you correctly answered the question, but it was the wrong question to answer, and THAT can have unintended consequences . . . blah, blah, blah . . . you get what I mean. In any case, sorry to have used you as a punching bag!

the question is, could you give a moral recommendation?

yes! and this makes sense because plants have exactly the same nervous system than animals! (?)

Are you aware of some basic biologic categories?

Do you know plants have no brains, right?!

truly ignorant!

obviously you like to judge life base on their level of development.

me all life is precious that's why i respect the food i consume. i don't need to hide its eyes or heads chop off when consuming them.

since you judge life base on the complexities of them. no animal has the awareness of self like humans. true self no matter how much you try to prove it.

so does that mean we can eat everything? lol

plants are life just like animals. i respect them both. don't distinguish between any life. only thing i can't consume is human :p.

so with "respect" and your "equality food levering" you mean slicing animals alive, deep frying animals alive, and deeping your brainless bread in warm blood?

Yeah that is some respect and some equality you practice!

The science is pretty clear on the ability of octopuses to feel pain: there's no question that being dismembered and eaten while alive is excruciating for them. But even if this were not the case, isn't it better to give the animals the benefit of the doubt while science catches up?

It would be FAN TAS TIC if most people's ideas and arguments would be supported by empiric and compassionate guidelines. I'm afraid that is not the case. So it is great to see that solid logic is not completely lost.

This is the best comment of the thread. Grac... has summarized both the morally relevant factors and the right course of action in two sentences. Case closed.

Time for a sexy PETA octopussy poster :D

This is just plain perverse

All you need to do is google "Octopus Nervous System" to know that octopuses can feel pain. Just check out the "How Stuff Works" article: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/marine-life/octopus3.htm.

Eating any animal alive is disturbing on so many levels.

It's one of the seven Noahide laws people. Kill the thing first. You'll be glad you did.

No animal, whether they can feel pain or not, should be subjected to this type of barbaric activity.

Eating a live animal is cruel and unnecessary (not to mention completely disgusting). The DA needs to take this seriously and shut these idiots down.

pointless if it doesnt actually taste good, which apparently it doesnt.

Actually the octopus has a complicated nervous system versus a lobster for example, so who know what the octopus actually feels when it is being chewed alive?

All these restaurants should do what David Chang (of Momofuku) did with fois gras and say that a percentage of the profits from Octopus sales will go towards a charity that helps ppl that are hungry. This would PETA in a dilemma... fight for the animals at the expense of humans.

and the charity being his ally trash can open to freegans!?

Retarded and evil all around.

at the expense of humans? yeah right!

Because the only way people would survive this crazy system is by the slow death of octopuses!

That makes sense, even when being totally immoral.

Amanda, don't you know that only humans count. In fact, in the end it's every human for themselves.

And charity always begins with someone else.

All animals feel pain. I remember a TED video i saw on octopuses. they are fascinating! http://www.ted.com/talks/david_gallo_shows_underwater_astonishments.html

Octopus, conscious? Really? C'mon.

Call the press, PETA is pissed!!!! Wait, isn't PETA ALWAYS pissed. Are they EVER happy about something, or are they just the ultimate negative Nancy? Shouldn't they be supporting people eating live octopus? I mean, these people are probably going to get Mercury poisoning and die, and then NO ONE will want to eat the poor wittle squiddy pie. Jeremy Piven KnowsWhatI'mSayin'!!!

PETA, why don't you stop people from eating meat PERIOD. Every day there are millions of cows, pigs, chicken, lamb, fish...................... being slaughtered for food.

GE: man you are ignorant about animal rights to have written that comment

Hey Gotham E, PETA has an aggressive campaign against factory farming and the group vigorously encourages veganism. Check out www.goveg.com to see PETA's video, "Meet Your Meat," narrated by Alec Baldwin, and its video "Glass Walls," narrated by Sir Paul McCartney. You'll also see the newly crowned winners of PETA's annual Sexiest Vegetarian Next Door. If you'd like to be a contender for next year, call 1-888-VEG-FOOD to order a free vegetarian starter kit from PETA, which has information on the health, environmental, and animal protection benefits of veganism and is chalk-full of recipes, tips, shopping info, and more.

PETA is all about vegan eating... I'm assuming that they take the incremental approach whereby every little bit helps.

It's a FUCKING OCTOPUS you retards. Why can't PETA tackle some real issues?

name one "good issue" that PETA should protect in you book.

Personally, I believe people should be able to eat live octopi if they so choose, but this really is in poor taste. Eating anything alive is cruel (yes, including plants)!

Let's hope we can all better educate each other so that we as a society begin to choose more humanitarian choices for ourselves, and not because we're legislated or told to!

The animal is ripped apart while it is still alive. Are you stupid or can you not comprehend that that this animal can feel pain just like you??? What is more real than mutilating live animals for food? You know, besides factory farming, fur farming, and beating animals for our entertainment...OH WAIT THEY TACKLE THOSE ISSUES ALSO. Take your head out of your rear and do some research.

I love octopus sushi/sashimi or grilled. Never had it live though.

Doesn't taste like anything, just a vehicle for the sauce you dunk it in. Good texture though!