PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

[aegina]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

I'll be honest. I think those People are nuts. It's not like we torture animals for fun! They're our food! What do you want us to eat?

Don't say plants. I'm sure that salad you're crunching on didn't like you yanking it out of the ground and ripping its leaves off, niether. And don't try to say plants don't know what's going on, because they do. I watched a discovery channel show about it a couple years ago. If you're going to argue not to eat animals because theyre alive, you can't say it's ok to eat plants instead. Life is life.

Oh, and I agree we should cut down on the fish, though. Not on the grounds that they're cute and cuddly, but because we're eating the seas dry

[Feba]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

I watched a discovery channel show about it a couple years ago.

Discovery Channel: Always true.


Especially those shows about haunted houses. Spooooky!
______________________________

The animal's name means jack

Indeed. The point is again not to change the NAME, but to change the PERCEPTION.

[aegina]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

Discovery Channel: Always true.


Especially those shows about haunted houses. Spooooky!

Touche^^

My point is, if life is life, why don't we hear about defending plant's rights?

*does a google search, expecting to find nothing*

Oh...my...god... P.E.T. P. HOME.

*reads around that site* Everyone in the world is nuts

[Ziero]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

Indeed. The point is again not to change the NAME, but to change the PERCEPTION.

Well changing the NAME of an animal doesn't change my "perception" one bit. A slimey, scaley water creature is still a slimey, scaley water creature whether it's called a fish or a "sea-kitten" and a delicious mud-dwelling mammel is still a delicious mud-dwelling mammel whether it's called a "pig" or named "Babe".

[Feba]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

Because most people can draw a line between sentience and life. Bacteria are life, and we need to CONSIDER them, but that doesn't mean we need to take care not to harm it. Not considering bacteria at all would leave us at a huge disadvantage from a research perspective, as well as leading to problems with superbugs like MRSA. But not using anti-biotics at all would be a giant step backward in human progress.

The fact is, a head of lettuce isn't going think "This hurts!" when you chop it off; the head of a chicken will. That's also part of what PETA is trying to do; even a lot of people who call themselves vegetarians will still eat fish, because they don't think fish are capable of feeling pain or suffering. Most vegetarians and vegans I've talked to loathe PETA's "MEAT IS BAD, EAT SALAD" approach, as it's just as brainless as the "MEAT TASTE GOOD, EAT IT" opinion. When you CONSIDER the facts all around, it's clear that eating meat -- especially meat raised as most meat is nowadays, and as much meat as many people do -- has far more disadvantages than not eating it; again especially when you consider modern vitamins that can provide the nutrients that people who don't monitor their diets may become deficient in, as well as B12.
______________________________

Well changing the NAME of an animal doesn't change my "perception" one bit.

Again. Not about changing the name. It's about changing the perception. Not changing the perception BY changing the name. Just changing the perception.

Here's a hint: It's called an ad campaign.

Or PR stunt, if you're more cynical

[Firewind]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

When a PETA thread came up before I'm going to say the same thing I said there. The human body is NOT designed to consume about 70-80% of the things we eat today. Look at the things that were consumed in ancient times as staples: Fruit, nuts, pulses (legumes to any Americans), berries and whatever you can hunt or fish. Look at any source dating back to the bronze age and you'll hear foods from one of these groups mentioned.

There are things outside of this group that are edible but not really that digestible such as wheat, millet, rice and other grasses, dairy products and vegetables containing high amounts of celluose, something that is completely indigestible by the human body. Intolerances to these things are really more common than you think since the human body isn't really designed to digest grass or milk from another animal. Sometimes it can pose serious health risks.

Actually there are far more harmful species of plant than there are bacteria. Something like 95% of all bacteria that ever enters your body is completely harmless and only a tiny percentage of bacteria species are even classified as pathogenic.

The fact is, a head of lettuce isn't going think "This hurts!" when you chop it off; the head of a chicken will. That's also part of what PETA is trying to do; even a lot of people who call themselves vegetarians will still eat fish, because they don't think fish are capable of feeling pain or suffering.

Actually the head of the chicken will have the nerve endings from the body below the neck severed and thus unable to feel any part of the severed body because the signal isn't able to get through. Combine that with the sudden and rapid loss of blood and oxygen and the head will lose conciousness within seconds.

A head "lives" for a few seconds after being severed from a body not because the head is still concious. It's because in those few seconds the brain contains enough blood for basic brain functions to be detected. The head doesn't yell "Ouch this hurts!" because the brain is connected to no nerve endings in the body that can transmit a pain signal to the brain.

Why do you think game hunters shoot animals in the neck? The nerves in the neck being severed prevents the brain signal from reaching the brain and the sudden loss of blood from the major artery that the bullet likely penetrated will cause unconsciousness within seconds when something called shock sets in. The game animal in all likelihood would have passed out long before it either hits he ground or thought "Oh shit that guy just shot me this really hurts!"

[Feba]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

You don't like things that aren't literal, do you?

[Firewind]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

And you don't like it when people don't fall over and agree with every character you hit on your keyboard do you?

[Ziero]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

The fact is, a head of lettuce isn't going think "This hurts!" when you chop it off; the head of a chicken will.

Says who? That head of lettuce is alive just like the chicken, and killing the lettuce has the same effect as killing the chicken.

That's also part of what PETA is trying to do; even a lot of people who call themselves vegetarians will still eat fish, because they don't think fish are capable of feeling pain or suffering.

Then those people are retards.

Again. Not about changing the name. It's about changing the perception. Not changing the perception BY changing the name. Just changing the perception.

They're trying to change the "perception" by changing the "name". They literally say that "nobody would hurt a Sea-Kitten" insinuating that people eat fish because they're called fish. Again, they're taking an idea from South Park and trying to turn it to their favor. The only problem is they're doing it wrong.

And it's nothing more then a PR stunt. Calling it anything else would be ridiculous. Stupid stories about fish won't change anyone's "perception". Kids loved Finding Nemo...and then turned around and ate fish sticks shaped like him.

You don't like things that aren't literal, do you?

Or maybe bad anology was bad?

[Feba]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

There's a difference between "agreeing" and "understanding".

As in, understanding that "chopping a head of lettuce" and "chopping a head off a chicken" are maybe not literally talking about how much pain will be felt by those actions.

Just maybe they're abstractly referring to the suffering of chickens in extremely cramped cages, being boiled and shocked alive, having their throats slit and bleeding out, etc.; and the fact that lettuce kinda don't suffer.
______________________________

They literally say that "nobody would hurt a Sea-Kitten"

They literally say that.

Notice the important word there? There's a difference between saying something and meaning something. You both are apparently really bad at understanding that, which is probably why you don't get it.

Most people, yes, will laugh it off. But there will be some people who will think about the subject, and that is the goal.

[Balfree]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

There's a difference between saying something and meaning something.

If you dont mean it, dont say it... or else people will probably think you mean it, and im pretty sure you could do without the trouble of people thinking you meant something you didnt. Thats fine and dandy when its you who doesnt care what others think but when its an organization they might think twice before saying things they dont mean because they need to be credible or else they might as well not exist. Specially something with so many diverse opinions.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

Actually the head of the chicken will have the nerve endings from the body below the neck severed and thus unable to feel any part of the severed body because the signal isn't able to get through. Combine that with the sudden and rapid loss of blood and oxygen and the head will lose conciousness within seconds.

Why do you think game hunters shoot animals in the neck? The nerves in the neck being severed prevents the brain signal from reaching the brain and the sudden loss of blood from the major artery that the bullet likely penetrated will cause unconsciousness within seconds when something called shock sets in. The game animal in all likelihood would have passed out long before it either hits he ground or thought "Oh shit that guy just shot me this really hurts!"

Oh I remember the days of my youth when Grandma would slaughter the chickens. I got the fun job of picking up the heads and putting them in the bucket. They'd still be blinking at me as if "WTF JUST HAPPENED GDI!?" and the bodies running around with no heads on them was endlessly hilarious. LOL

As for us hunters, no we don't shoot them in the neck for those reasons. We shoot them there because the head doesn't look too good mounted on the wall with a big hole in its noggin and if you shoot it in the body you are ruining the meat. FYI, most of us don't shoot it in the neck anyways, we shoot for the heart just like you would a criminal attacking you.

Oh and on the subject of vegetables, yes they are shipped in refrigerated trucks. The only time this is circumvented is by Farmers Markets when going to sale is only a short distance. The majority of the volume thats in your chain store is shipped via refrigerated trucks. Also, growing vegetables takes a lot of resources also. Back in the old days we rotated fields so as not to deplete the soil of the nutrients that are needed to grow the vegetables. Alas, in this day and age, we rarely do this so to circumvent this we enrich the soil with additives........which take considerable energy to produce. Add in the equipment used to maintain, then harvest, clean, and process the vegetables for shipping and vegetables are not as efficient as people believe.

[Feba]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

Also, growing vegetables takes a lot of resources also.

again, yes, but what do you think animals eat? For all it takes to make veggies, it takes more still to make meat.

they need to be credible or else they might as well not exist.

You've never heard of PETA, have you?

[Ziero]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

There's a difference between "agreeing" and "understanding".

As in, understanding that "chopping a head of lettuce" and "chopping a head off a chicken" are maybe not literally talking about how much pain will be felt by those actions.

Just maybe they're abstractly referring to the suffering of chickens in extremely cramped cages, being boiled and shocked alive, having their throats slit and bleeding out, etc.; and the fact that lettuce kinda don't suffer.

And you just explained, in detail, why your anology was bad. Seriously, think about that.

They literally say that.

Notice the important word there? There's a difference between saying something and meaning something. You both are apparently really bad at understanding that, which is probably why you don't get it.

Most people, yes, will laugh it off. But there will be some people who will think about the subject, and that is the goal.

...did you not notice that they're telling people to send letters to the government saying "stop killing sea kittens!"? They say it and they mean it. If they don't mean it then this whole stunt is even more retarded then those people who actually believe fish don't feel pain.

I get what they're trying to do, it's not hard to understand at all. It's just what they're trying to do is incredibly stupid. PETA has a history of doing just that. Or have we forgotten the whole "Don't use cow milk use breast milk!" stunt?

[aegina]

Re: PETA rebrands fish... now in "sea kitten" flavor!

Says who? That head of lettuce is alive just like the chicken, and killing the lettuce has the same effect as killing the chicken.

This is my point. People who say not to eat animals, then turn around and eat plants are hypocrites.

They're trying to change the "perception" by changing the "name". They literally say that "nobody would hurt a Sea-Kitten" insinuating that people eat fish because they're called fish. Again, they're taking an idea from South Park and trying to turn it to their favor. The only problem is they're doing it wrong.

And it's nothing more then a PR stunt. Calling it anything else would be ridiculous. Stupid stories about fish won't change anyone's "perception". Kids loved Finding Nemo...and then turned around and ate fish sticks shaped like him.

In their defence, if they want to make the world vegetarian, this is the right way to begin: Ad campaigns directed at children.

There's a difference between "agreeing" and "understanding".

As in, understanding that "chopping a head of lettuce" and "chopping a head off a chicken" are maybe not literally talking about how much pain will be felt by those actions.

Just maybe they're abstractly referring to the suffering of chickens in extremely cramped cages, being boiled and shocked alive, having their throats slit and bleeding out, etc.; and the fact that lettuce kinda don't suffer.
______________________________


They literally say that.

Notice the important word there? There's a difference between saying something and meaning something. You both are apparently really bad at understanding that, which is probably why you don't get it.

Most people, yes, will laugh it off. But there will be some people who will think about the subject, and that is the goal.

You make a good point about the treatment of these animals when they are in these factories. However, I disagree with you that the plants don't suffer. Plants, after all, live a lot longer after they're pulled out of the ground than chickens do once they get thier throats slit. For vegetables, it's a slow, painful death of starvation from want of soil and sunlight.

Does that mean we should stop farming and eating plants? That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying people should stop being so one-sided in favor of animals.

If the argument is that we are "more aware" of our surroundings than plants, then you could argue too that we are "more aware" than fish and other animals, too.

I'm not against plant and animal rights; I'm simply annoyed by such hypocricy.