Pharyngula

Posted by: SEF | November 12, 2009 7:52 AM

Poor little octopods. :-(

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 7:54 AM

Seconded. Pointless superstition leads to pointless cruelty.

Posted by: Sclerophanax | November 12, 2009 7:58 AM

I'm not shocked or even suprised. Not after I found out that Koreans still torture dogs and cats to death so they could eat them. The suffering of the animal is supposed to, again, make the meat "potent", enhancing the strength and stamina of the eater.

But I suppose we should respect their culture and beliefs no matter how insane and harmful they are, right?

Posted by: firemancarl | November 12, 2009 8:03 AM

Pardon my Western bias, by they are so damn weird over in Asia!

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 12, 2009 8:03 AM

The part where they were cheering him on made me think of college parties where everyone is yelling "CHUG! CHUG! CHUG!"

Posted by: Hannah | November 12, 2009 8:05 AM

...EEEEEEWWWWWW gods, that's disgusting! They're still alive! I mean... EW slimy is gross enough, but eating them ALIVE? While they FIGHT BACK? Geeze! I literally watched this with my mouth open in a grimace of horror. EW. And their reasons for it - they're so bloody stupid! Ugh. Yuck.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | November 12, 2009 8:09 AM

Well, there goes my breakfast appetite.

Posted by: PatrickKanne | November 12, 2009 8:15 AM

Really..? they eat them alive? WTF? What is wrong with these people? You don't do that to another living being, it's called "savage". Like how cheetahs eat a living antelope. Screw cultural differences.

And Kendo relying on concentration? Then maybe they should first try it in an environment where not everyone is shouting and bashing away like a bunch of half-wit street cleaners. I bet a *quiet* dojo would do a lot more for their "concentration" then eating live ...anythings.

Oh, wait, I'm trying to apply Logic to human behaviour.. Silly me..

Posted by: amstrad | November 12, 2009 8:20 AM

The South Korean film Oldboy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldboy) features a controversial (to westerners) scene of eating a live octopus.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 8:22 AM

Wouldn't chemical aids be illegal in sports competitions?

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | November 12, 2009 8:23 AM

Also, I vehemntly oppose the eating of cuttlefish, dead or alive, on the basis they are cute.

Posted by: Clint Burky | November 12, 2009 8:34 AM

I know each country has their problems with cruelty towards animals.

...But some of these Asian countries take cruelty to the up most extremes and then parade it around like they're proud of it. It's a malevolent and heartless attitude towards life.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 12, 2009 8:36 AM

They'll be sorry when Cthulhu returns! Seriously, this is vile, but is it more so than what goes on in many factory farms and slaughterhouses across the industrialised world? That's comfortably out of sight for consumers, and done for profit rather than superstition, but I doubt that makes a difference to those on the receiving end. (I'm not making a case for complete vegetarianism here, but meat and other animal products are as cheap as they are partly because animal welfare standards are so low, and so poorly enforced.)

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 12, 2009 8:49 AM

Well honestly this is what the animal goes through when eaten by almost any other animal than us. I'm not sure it's really that much less "humane" really, but it sure as hell does seem "unpleasant" so I don't think I'd be down.

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | November 12, 2009 8:53 AM

It usually just gets cut/torn up and sprinkled in sesame seeds. The body of the octopus is concious (duh) and the limbs continue wriggling, even after being torn off.

I'm no vegetarian. I won't eat anything that isn't sustainable though nor will I touch anything I can't confirm was slaughtered in a humane manner ie: it didn't suffer anxiety or pain. Makes shopping for meat an absolute bitch.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 9:01 AM

-Well honestly this is what the animal goes through when eaten by almost any other animal than us.-

-WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?- (Death in Reaper man by Terry Pratchett)

Posted by: madbull | November 12, 2009 9:11 AM

Ah as a vegetarian I wonder , the magnitude of the difference between killing an animal with ur teeth or with a knife.
Chicken aren't treated so well before they are killed either, you know

Not that I have a huge problem with non vegetarians, I just don't see why they complain so much if the animal is alive during consumption. Other animals do it, Its just the circle of life either way.

Posted by: robertmfarmer | November 12, 2009 9:14 AM

Personally, I think it would be hilarious if the octopus blocked the guy's airway and killed him. Especially if this happened every single time someone tried to eat anything alive. Fuck that noise. And to RICHARD EIS: I assume you're not justifying this disgusting, cruel, superstitious action...because that would be stupid.

Posted by: bc23.5 | November 12, 2009 9:21 AM

@#31
I agree, the whole time I was watching this I was thinking about sharks and killer whales and lions, tigers etc... we just don't seem to think of "wild" animals as being cruel. Personally I wouldn't eat living octopi, I prefer cooked meat, unless I'm offered fresh sushi. But I am not going to anthropomorphize here, I'm saying we are just another animal.

Posted by: MrFire | November 12, 2009 9:28 AM

Yeah, I'll support the motion that causing unnecessary suffering to animals (in this case so as to eat them) is wrong anywhere, anytime, for creatures such as ourselves that are meant to be capable of empathy.

If I'm marooned and a live octopus is my only source of food - needs must when the devil drives.

If I'm in a restaurant, with an embarrassment of more humane options about me - no.

Posted by: Newfie | November 12, 2009 9:41 AM

I prefer my Cephalopods stuffed and baked, TYMV.

Posted by: zeroangel | November 12, 2009 9:42 AM

"Understandable under the circumstances!...fuck me sideways that is well into the grey area of gross. "

It wasn't that bad. It was kind of slimy and chewy, but pretty much how you might expect it to taste if you've had it cooked or raw before. It's rubbery and really doesn't taste like much at all.

It wasn't the most disgusting thing I ever tried there. I didn't puke after all. With this however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beondegi

...I nearly did, but then I was drinking soju at the time too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soju

Once again, I'd like to say, most Koreans these days aren't so superstitious as this might lead you to believe. Many just like this kind of food.

Posted by: Chinomalon | November 12, 2009 9:44 AM

Although I am NOT a vegetarian...I'll have to agree with Knockgoats...What's all the fuss about "animal cruelty" posts, unless all those mentioning it are strict vegetarians...It is just a matter of timing...The poor little octopi get eaten alive and instantly...The nice filet mignon part of that nice psoas muscle of the cow or veal, where obtained after a very cruel process...you just don't see it.... And this video proves it...

http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_cows.asp

Posted by: Ray Moscow | November 12, 2009 9:50 AM

Sure, I always swallow large-brained, struggling, live prey whole.

Just kidding. This is too gross for me. I'd cook them first after finding some humane way to kill them.

I'm also one of those weird people who, after a few months in Japan, still thought seafood was much better cooked than raw.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 12, 2009 9:54 AM

Cruelty is part of life. I'm not an octopus-killer but I'll eat a pile of calamari without asking if the death was serene and humane. I also eat chicken without finding out first whether it was free-roaming...I've been known to nibble on beef jerky when I'm not even hungry. As it turns out, I just don't care that much. But for some reason, I have a soft-spot for spiders. I have lived in apartments with both brown recluses and black widows and can't bring myself to harm them. Further, given the choice between sparing the life of a chicken or an endemic plant, I would wring the chicken's neck myself. I'm not going to pretend that this is reasonable. However, I've had this argument with myself, and I can't find any non-arbitrary way to divide edible organisms from inedible organisms (except for flavor, I guess)*. It is my opinion that most people are about this idiosyncratic regarding what constitutes "unnecessary cruelty" and what is sanctioned.

*There is some sense, though, in collectively eating lower on the food chain...I'll buy that too.

Posted by: IaMoL | November 12, 2009 9:55 AM

Note to self: Choose thread topics wisely. It always goes to hell when the door is opened too wide for Libertarians, PETA pushers, vegans and anti-circumcisionistas to derail everything.

Posted by: Tim Carroll | November 12, 2009 9:58 AM

Ew. Not gonna watch.

Posted by: JD | November 12, 2009 10:00 AM

As a general rule, I never eat anything that is more intelligent or interesting than my junior high cohorts.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 10:01 AM

Note to self: Choose thread topics wisely. It always goes to hell when the door is opened too wide for Libertarians, PETA pushers, vegans and anti-circumcisionistas to derail everything.

I especially like how if you're not the most humane person in the world...EVAR...then you have absolutely no say on such matters. There is a big difference between eating meat to live and going out of your way to do something cruel and pointless in the name of superstition.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 12, 2009 10:03 AM

Note to self: Choose thread topics wisely. It always goes to hell when the door is opened too wide for Libertarians, PETA pushers, vegans and anti-circumcisionistas to derail everything. - IaMoL

Note to IaMoL: before you start whinging, check whether what you're whinging about has actually occurred.

Posted by: MrFire | November 12, 2009 10:10 AM

Cruelty is part of life.

Acknowledged, but there's no need to indulge in it for a solely recreational purpose.

As it turns out, I just don't care that much.

I respect your candour, and to be honest, it's a pretty similar position to mine. I'd rather not eat meat produced the way it mostly is today, but dealing with it is lower on my priority list than perhaps it should be.

Posted by: Dave in Denver | November 12, 2009 10:12 AM

I wish they'd choke to death on it.

Posted by: Chris Lamb | November 12, 2009 10:14 AM

Lot's of people falling for naturalistic fallacy here.

I'm not a vegetarian but you cannot make the argument that because animals are brutally eaten alive in the wild it is therefore perfectly ethical for us to do it. This is the same nonsense Ben Stein uses to equate the TOE with Eugenics.

Lots of nasty things happen in the wild that doesn't mean we have licence to do it guilt free.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 12, 2009 10:18 AM

Mmmmmmmm. Lamb.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 10:22 AM

- Is Martin Brock conscious?

Martin says: I can answer this question.

Well then, which is it? and remember to provide proof.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 10:24 AM

The octopus itself eats other living things while they're still alive. Turnabout is fair play?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 12, 2009 10:28 AM

Bite me.

ftw

Posted by: MrMarkAZ | November 12, 2009 10:34 AM

I can haz Cthuluburger?

Posted by: hznfrst | November 12, 2009 10:43 AM

Things like this make me want to resign from my species.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 10:46 AM

-Martin says: I can prove it to myself. Can I prove it to you?-

(evil grin)
You could try.
I will give you points out of ten.

Posted by: MrFire | November 12, 2009 10:51 AM

The octopus itself eats other living things while they're still alive. Turnabout is fair play?

The octopus is not sitting in a restaurant, with the luxury of (i) choice; (ii) (I suspect) a similar moral capacity. Analogy fail and naturalistic fallacy fail, as mentioned earlier.

Posted by: IBY | November 12, 2009 10:53 AM

@zeroangel
I have had beondegi too, and I almost threw up. The Korean ladies that gave me, though, wow. They ate around 1/4 of a cup of it.

Anyways, Korea is I guess as superstitious as any country might be, although I would say the superstition level is slightly above average, especially among the older generations. My parents themselves are into various forms of woo. Some of the other superstition includes back luck in putting chopsticks straight up in the rice bowl, leaving a fan on while sleeping is bad for you, and they seem to have an unreasonable fear of American cows due to mad cow disease.

Posted by: MutantJedi | November 12, 2009 11:00 AM

The narrator says that the dish is dangerous but I think the better term is risky.

Also the whole superstition angle is a bit a Western distortion. Sure, there's a grain of truth that there is the superstition but I really doubt if any of the guys at the table would have the same sort of conviction about eating octopus as Catholics do about eating crackers. But the West sure does like to distort the East.

Still, I think I'd probably pass on eating live octopi just as I pass on eating pig brains or duck head soup. I'm just not used to it.

Posted by: waspbloke | November 12, 2009 11:07 AM

Come here little octopus, I don't need or want to eat you, I'm just going to chew you to death and then spit you out.

I hope it had a shit in his mouth while it was there.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 11:15 AM

The octopus is not sitting in a restaurant, with the luxury of (i) choice; ...

Define "choice". I suppose an octopus does "choose" in a meaningful sense.

... (ii) (I suspect) a similar moral capacity.

I agree that an octopus has no similar moral capacity, because it lacks the same capacity for language and thus the same formal "programming".

Analogy fail and naturalistic fallacy fail, as mentioned earlier.

Nature (distinguished from the artificial) is a foundation of "morality", but I haven't asserted the morality of octopus behavior, so I haven't committed any naturalistic fallacy. I rather asked a question. Why is behaving like an octopus "immoral" in this scenario?

"Treat an octopus as it treats other creatures" is a possible moral standard, for a human octopus eater. It's an artificial standard and is not "naturally moral" in any sense of "morality" I accept, but the question remains. Why some other standard instead?

Posted by: IaMoL | November 12, 2009 11:16 AM

Note to Knockgoats: I wasn't whinging (sic). I was just being prescient and proactive in a snarky manner. Thanks for your (misplaced) concern. ;)

Posted by: Ben in Texas | November 12, 2009 11:20 AM

OT:

Has anyone seen the promos for a new show with Jesse Ventura called Conspiracy Theory?

I'm making a snap judgment, but I think he'll be the ringleader in a new circus of profound ignorance.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 12, 2009 11:38 AM

"scala naturae", dammit

Posted by: Quidam | November 12, 2009 11:46 AM

Why is intelligence such an important factor in deciding what to eat?
It is not so much a factor in whether it can be eaten, rather how it should be killed. A sentient animal that can apprehend what is happening and can show fear, demands an approach that minimises suffering. I will eat a lamb, I wont boil it alive. I will boil a crab alive because that is (IMO) the most effective way to kill it with the least suffering. I will eat live oysters because I don't think they are in any meaningful way sentient.

I have no moral objection to eating pigs which are as least as intelligent as dogs, provided they have been reared and killed humanely.

Posted by: bc23.5 | November 12, 2009 11:51 AM

end blockquote fail.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 12, 2009 11:55 AM

I'm going to throw my hat in with the "I feel kind of bad about eating animals, but I do it anyway" crowd.

I'm not going to feel bad doing something my body was evolved to do and take advantage of: eating meat. I understand that we should try to minimize suffering, but meat provides vitamins and minerals that go lacking in vegetarian and, especially, vegan diets.

Besides, and I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet, bacon is delicious!

Posted by: Le Moustier | November 12, 2009 11:57 AM

Isn't the capacity to suffer (i.e. sentience) a more meaningful approach than intelligence? Animals much less clever than a chimp or a dog would still suffer pain and fear whether or not they can recognise themselves in a mirror.
Also, the validity of both "humane killing" and "unneccessary suffering" is worth examining. The only way to kill something without ANY pain or anxiety is to sedate it first, as we do with pets, which is not possible for food animals as it makes them unfit to eat. Furthermore it can be argued that for the vast majority of people in the developed world, it is not even necessary to kill sentient animals for nutritional reasons. Therefore such suffering, even in the best slaughterhouses, never mind chewing an octopus alive, is totally unneccessary.

Posted by: zeroangel | November 12, 2009 12:00 PM

A thought after the fact, ref. my #102 post:

The idea that these kinds of food give you "stamina" could be said to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. :)

Posted by: Norwegian Shooter | November 12, 2009 12:22 PM

Creation.com has claimed to pwn PZ.
http://creation.com/evolutionary-equivocation

Posted by: nikolas | November 12, 2009 12:28 PM

As an asian food is food. What they are doing can be compared by the same way cows, chickens, etc are grown and prepared.

They eat it, they don't actively torture it. To them its just as though it was swallowing a whole slimy twinky.

the Animal pity is great for dogs and the like, but we evolved eating meat and judging sometimes basing it on our point of view and saying it iscruel without considering they are just eating it and it is not hurting other humans and has no verifiable substantial negative impact on the future is jumping to conlcusions.

Why make it too complicated? Why judge it by standards that is too arbitrary? Its like over here, we eat duck embryos it looks disgusting and it could have been a cute chick but its food. We also eat tiny crabs soaked in a bit of beer and munch them down still living.

I'm curious how it tastes like and might try it if there was medical aid near by. I heard you can do the same with squid.

I wouldn't wait for a time when people would grow meat in vats.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 12, 2009 12:39 PM

MrFire (#104)

I don't want to get lost in semantic hell here - it is a fate for which I am ill-equipped.

But it's his primo trolling trick to question definitions and drag you into semantic hell because he doesn't have a single meaningful thing to contribute otherwise.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 12, 2009 12:45 PM

in the UK octopuses are regarded as honorary vertebrates

We already have honorary (or, in Romer's phrase, "courtesy") vertebrates: hagfish.

On account of their persistent notochord and general lack of, y'know, vertebrae.

Posted by: zeroangel | November 12, 2009 12:54 PM

"We already have honorary (or, in Romer's phrase, "courtesy") vertebrates: hagfish."

You gotta love Koreans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish#Gastronomy

Hagfish are usually not eaten owing to their repugnant looks, as well as their viscosity and unpleasant habits. However, a particular species, the inshore hagfish, found in the Northwest Pacific,[17] is valued as food in the Korean Peninsula.

Posted by: zeroangel | November 12, 2009 12:59 PM

I'm with you, Gyeong Hwa Pak.

The video really does try to make Koreans out to be a silly bunch of barbarians that eat live animals so as to gain "power" to use in martial arts.

You half expect one of the folks in the video to try shooting lightning from their fingertips.

The video is just being a tiny bit sensational.

Posted by: bc23.5 | November 12, 2009 1:02 PM

Let me try again and preview first.

My calling out your unprovoked slagging of a group (or subset of a group) not related to thread at hand is noted.

Posted by: Kraid | November 12, 2009 1:04 PM

I try not to eat living animals. I do like my plants and fungi fresh, but I make the exception because I have a bias toward organisms with nervous systems capable of some degree of consciousness, pain, distress, etc. I'd feel terrible causing a poor octopus undue agony while eating it.

That being said, I happily eat dead animals of most varieties. It is a bit of hypocrisy that I recognize in myself and I'm still not sure just how ethically consistent I'd care to be. I mean I love bacon, but I can only eat it because someone else does all the dirty work. If I had to hunt or slaughter my own animals, I'd surely be a vegetarian.

Posted by: Irene Delse | November 12, 2009 1:11 PM

The video is indeed sensationalistic, but I tend to feel as bad for the student as for the octopus. Looks more like a hazing or stupid "tough guy" contest than anything.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 1:18 PM

Creation.com has claimed to pwn PZ.

On Pharyngula, PZ pwns YOU!

Oh noes, the memes are a breedin!

Posted by: CKim623 | November 12, 2009 1:21 PM

I agree with Gyeong Hwa Pak and zeroangel. The whole video segment smacks of freak show marveling--as if Koreans are a population of animal-worshipping, sword-wielding ninjas who burn virgins to make it rain, and isn't it lucky that some white people were around to capture it on video.

While I don't condone people eating live animals in general, this is no reason to write an entire country's people off as completely insane and/or heartless. Some of the comments here are so self-rigteously racist, it's shocking.

Posted by: IanKoro | November 12, 2009 1:32 PM

Personally, I think that the treatment of chickens in factory farm conditions is probably a LOT crueler than this... I'm sure most of you who are so shocked and appalled by this have no problem with eating chicken now and then.

I would certainly be interested in trying this. I find weird food fascinating.... I'm not entirely sure if I could handle live octopus, but I'm not going to go all whiny vegetarian on anyone over it.

Posted by: MrFire | November 12, 2009 1:45 PM

But it's his primo trolling trick to question definitions and drag you into semantic hell because he doesn't have a single meaningful thing to contribute otherwise.

Thanks A. Noyd; duly noted.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 12, 2009 2:18 PM

Hagfish are craniates, but not vertebrates.

Oh, I know that. Monophyly rules in formal taxonomy, but the hoi-polloi still use some traditional informal groups--like the traditional subphylum of "vertebrates" as opposed to Vertebrata sensu novo e stricto.

In that case Craniata and Vertebrata would become synonyms. But so far I doubt it.

Good. Me too. Would fuck up a couple of nice narratives.

Posted by: Peter G | November 12, 2009 2:37 PM

mus@78 Any thoughts on why this is morally wrong? The various live lower order flora and fauna you ingest daily would like to know.

Posted by: Peter G | November 12, 2009 2:50 PM

David@110 "1. P is natural
2. All natural things are moral
3. therefor P is moral

Not a proper syllogism. 2 is not true. All things natural are neither moral nor amoral. They just are.

Posted by: MrFire | November 12, 2009 3:05 PM

mus@78 Any thoughts on why this is morally wrong? The various live lower order flora and fauna you ingest daily would like to know.

I'm guessing mus's point was that the higher-order fauna are more capable of suffering, and that causing them to suffer unnecessarily is wrong.

Posted by: Jim Thomerson | November 12, 2009 3:24 PM

I've been told, by someone who whas there, that, for the Japanese, the offer of a live baby octopus is a mark of the highest respect and appreciation. You swallow without chewing, so that you can enjoy the octopus' death struggles in your stomach. Occasionally, an octopus will grab on and choke someone to death. Win some, lose some.

Posted by: Carlie | November 12, 2009 3:39 PM

My thought is that this is more wrong than buying Perdue chicken at the supermarket because it is being done entirely for the gratuitous thrill of eating something alive. Yes, factory-farmed chickens suffer worse. Absolutely. Yes, buying that chicken supports the cruelty. But the person buying it is doing so for a multitude of reasons: ignorance of how it was produced, inability to afford organic chicken, lack of other chicken choices, dealing with a family who is demanding chicken rather than tofu, etc. to all eternity. It's a crime of turning one's eye if one knows about farm conditions, and of inadvertence if one doesn't know. For the person buying the chicken, NONE of the reasons they eat it include "to be all fierce and cool and kickass for eating something alive and feel it squirm in my mouth". It's cruelty on a very personal and direct level, rather than contributing to it indirectly in the abstract.

Posted by: zeroangel | November 12, 2009 3:54 PM

@Carlie:

I don’t mean to pick on you, but you fell for the aforementioned sensationalism the video was going for. In general, Koreans that eat live octopus don't think of themselves as being fierce and cool when they do it.

Being fierce and cool is what consuming massive amounts of soju is for.

@Peter G:

Some people are trying to offer some "moral" reason why some cultural norms are superior to others but that is mere prejudice.

Gyeong Hwa Pak, CKim623, and other defenders of Korean culture and cuisine unite! I think I am going to ask the wife if we can go out for Samgyeopsal this weekend.

Posted by: Sili | November 12, 2009 4:31 PM

I thought octopus had rather a nasty beak and fearsome bite. Do they de-beak it before serving?

(Oh, and I tried corn on the cob the other day, and I can't say that I found it particularly delectable.)

Posted by: zeroangel | November 12, 2009 4:38 PM

@IBY:

Of course, you are right, I am no cultural relativist that is for sure. I will gladly call out any culture that causes the needless suffering of humans (and perhaps a few other "higher" animals).

I just can't call them out over octopuses. Like I was saying before, Korean culture rates higher than octopuses. Sorry. I guess I have to admit I am in the, "I know it's wrong, I just don't care all that much" camp. For some reason, I can't seem to put into words or a coherent moral framework my feeling that "it's just a stupid animal."

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 12, 2009 4:51 PM

Cthulhu is not amused.

But Casey is. I wouldn't eat them, though, I would watch them--because they're so cool.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 5:11 PM

... it has not forfeited some right to not be eaten.

I'm not sure it has a right not to be eaten in the first instance, but I'm not a believer in "natural rights" at all. Morality is an artifact. Human beings have rights because they say they do. They have legal rights because the dominant armed men say they do. That's all there is to it, for better or for worse.

I don't know much about the octopus. Don't know if they're endangered or much about their natural habitat or habits or anything else. I wouldn't eat a live one either, because of the "ick" factor, and I eat a lot of stuff you might not eat. I don't even like 'em dead and fried.

... I now believe, that it is a tu quoque fallacy, which you reinforce @89 with ...

A tu quoque fallacy involves an insinuation that you've been inconsistent, that an assertion is false because you contradict it yourself or that I'm not guilty of some charge because you are guilty of it or that some offense you charge cannot be "wrong" because you have committed it yourself. I never suggest such a thing.

The octopus is not a party to our discussion. I'm not debating him, so the tu quoque fallacy can't possibly apply. The octopus is not a moral agent. I don't judge its behavior in moral terms at all.

I only say that I may adopt a standard, governing my own eating, whereby I subject the creatures I eat to no more suffering than they inflict on the creatures they eat. This standard is not applicable to the creatures I eat. They don't worry about the creatures they eat at all. They just eat them.

This doesn't even apply amongst human beings.

So what? An octopus is not a human being. If it were human being, I wouldn't be eating it under any circumstances.

It is certainly not the corollary of the Golden Rule, if that is what you were alluding to.

I wasn't.

Posted by: zeroangel | November 12, 2009 5:18 PM

Peter G:

I am wholly convinced that at some future point (maybe not so far away) our descendants will eat vat-grown in-vitro meat that is indistinguishable from the real thing. They will also likely regard our meat eating past in the same way we currently regard slavery. I just don’t care. They will have the luxury of in-vitro meat and will not have to make the decision between being party to killing animals and not eating said tasty, nutritious animals. They will be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Besides, it’s not as cut and dry as slavery being wrong, so maybe that's a bad analogy. We are dealing with a whole bunch of different kinds of animals with different capacities for suffering, as opposed to one animal.

Posted by: Peter G | November 12, 2009 5:37 PM

Don't misunderstand me zeroangel. I have no problem wanting to impose my cultural and moral perspective on others with regard to things like eliminating slavery or child labor, allowing gay marriage, non-violence towards others or a host of other issues. I just frankly admit that it is my view I'd like to be the law of the land. On other issues, say vegetarianism, I wouldn't like to impose. I have no more inherent moral right to make those decisions anyone else. Nor they to decide for me. But we have agreed, at least within democratic nations to accept a legal framework to impose a governmental system to make those kind of determinations subject to constitutional protections for minority views and I'm perfectly fine with that.

Posted by: boygenius | November 12, 2009 6:12 PM

When I was a kid in rural northern Minnesota, there was a small pond behind our house. My best friend and I used to have a contest to see who dared to eat the biggest tadpole. We progressed from small ones to big ones to ones that had hind legs to ones that had all four legs. For some reason, once the tails dropped off and they were frogs, we called a truce. Because eating a live frog is just gross! Thirteen year old machismo only goes so far, I guess.

zeroangel@56 Chimps are frequently eaten in Africa. Google "bush meat". Seems sad and incomprehensible to me.

*Sitting in my comfortable chair with a refrigerator full of food in the next room.*

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 12, 2009 7:09 PM

Hinemoana (#156)

While I am no vegetarian, I do believe in quick, painless-as-possible deaths for the things we eat. This is just sick.

Ever since I learned why cows "need" so many antibiotics, I can't really worry that it's the death that matters most in what we do to our food animals.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 12, 2009 8:23 PM

I am wholly convinced that at some future point (maybe not so far away) our descendants will eat vat-grown in-vitro meat that is indistinguishable from the real thing. They will also likely regard our meat eating past in the same way we currently regard slavery.

Of course, this development would decimate the bovine population, but at least it would cut methane emissions.

Will they put all of other carnivores in zoos and feed them vat-grown in-vitro meat too?

Posted by: zeroangel | November 12, 2009 8:56 PM

I'm real sorry guys. Ignore the previous post, it was meant for a completely different blog. Curse my multiple open tabs!

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | November 12, 2009 9:09 PM

#43 zeroangel
Beondegi makes boiled peanuts actually sound palatable.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 12, 2009 9:26 PM

The carnivores will all grow fat
Each lion in its lion vat
Each cheetah, wolf, or wolverine
Now grown completely by machine
And foxes, cats, hyenas, shrews,
Or any others you might choose;
With proper vats, I think you can
Grow anything... including man.

Who runs the cafeteria?
I think... perhaps... bacteria.

Posted by: Wiggy | November 12, 2009 10:41 PM

I live in South Korea and I've had live octopus on plenty of occasions. Normally it's served already chopped up, but the tentacles are still wriggling around and sucking onto stuff.

You'd be surprised to know that it actually tastes good - the octopus is served in sesame oil, which is the only flavor it really has. Mmmm... Sesame oil.

The feeling of the squirmy, sucky, live-octopus-in-your-mouth part is where most people get hung up. I think it's fun. It tickles :)

Posted by: ivo | November 13, 2009 2:20 AM

Gyeong Hwa Pak:

Eating live animals for stamina is no less insane than puting a Jesus fish on your car in the hopes that divine intervention will protect you from your own reckless driving.

I'm with Quidam #97. And thus with Peter Singer, I guess.

As other commenters, I'm surprised by the number of people here ready to commit the naturalistic and the "tu quoque" fallacies on regard to cruelty to animals. I guess the moral circle still isn't that wide yet...

Posted by: MrFire | November 13, 2009 6:49 AM

The octopus is not a party to our discussion. I'm not debating him, so the tu quoque fallacy can't possibly apply.

But I don't believe that's consistent. You said:

The octopus itself eats other living things while they're still alive. Turnabout is fair play?

"Treat an octopus as it treats other creatures" is a possible moral standard

How can these arguments have any meaning without attributing a moral dimension/value judgment to the behaviour of the octopus?

Your behaviour (eating a live octopus) is contingent upon the behaviour of that octopus (eating other live creatures). How is that not a tu quoque?

This ["Treat an octopus as it treats other creatures"] doesn't even apply amongst human beings.

So what? An octopus is not a human being. If it were human being, I wouldn't be eating it under any circumstances.

But see, you can't say eating a live octopus is justifed because it eats other creatures live, then say that magically doesn't apply to humans: that would be special pleading, surely!

Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 13, 2009 8:47 PM

we don't really have to be compassionate towards other species that we don't have a symbiotic relationship with, because compassion is just a mechanism of self-preservation

Whoosh! There goes that durned Naturalistic Fallacy again!

Compassion: you're not doing it right.

Posted by: KatieJoy | November 14, 2009 5:03 PM

If a child with an extremely low IQ and/or a high degree of mental retardation were to stone a cat, guaranteeing it a painful demise, would it give other children license to do the same? Would stoning the child be a fair response?

Animals that have no ability to empathize with their prey are not ethically responsible for their actions. Animals that do have that capacity are. We fall in the latter category.