Iron Chef "Octopus Battle"....

Barbaric? hmmm..let's see, making something suffer (living creatures DO suffer when you MUTILATE them) and gettting no reward for it (no extra dietary benefits)...hmm..sounds like Torture to me....but barbarism and torture are TOTALLY different...what?! i can concede that culturally it's accepted, but we are talking about HUMANS.. we are the most selfish animal on the planet, and you just prove my point. you still have no concern for the possibility that hurting something sentient is wrong--sad.
Escpecially in this day and age. And, oh, by the way, the main reason (culturally) that they WERE cooked live was for freshness, and to keep "chewiness" limited. but, Thankfully, with technology today, freezer burn and what not is NO LONGER A CONCERn. so, it may have had it's DECENT reasons in the past, but the only purpose it serves now is a link to our own Barbaric Legacy.

i may be wrong, but atleast it's not hurting anything.. can you say the same about your actions and beliefs? I'm not trying to start anything here, i just don't think humans understand that we did not inherit the planet, there were many, more civilized creatures here LONG before us.

funny, people personify these animals' actions until it means feeling something REAL for them, like pain. but, do as you please, nobody stopping you.


In the end, though, my answer is: keep them alive UP until you decide to Cook them, but right before you throw it in the broiler, KILL IT! you get both freshness and the satisfaction of a quick kill (for you cro-magnon, hunters out there that still gain satisfaction from taking life..)
if we as humans can't show animals respect, then we are no more civilized than our prehistoric precursors.
I will stick to my Native American up-bringing in that my intended food should be shown kindness, for it is giving it's life for my well being. This is a sacred relationship, and to soil it by putting my aesthetic taste above that respect would be self-destructive. but, not only are we destroying ourselves we are taking the entire earth's population with us..but little do we care for the well-being of our food, until it is all gone..ONLY then will we feel remorse, but for all the wrong, selfish reasons. when you only think of them as food, you do not understand yourself or your place in this world...anthropocentricism is real and will probably never change. especially as long as there are those that try to seperate themselves (in thought) from one only slightly down the foodchain.
 
Armstrong said:
For the last :alarm: time the big bag-shaped part of its body is its MANTLE or TRUNK because HEADS aren't packed with organs. An octopuses head is between the eyes where the donut-shaped brain is.
Please ... :alarm: ... remember this.

AND an octopus has ARMS or TENTACLES, NOT legs. I don't know why everyone says they're legs. They use their arms to grab things and hold on to.

Hiya there Armstrong, good catch. The bag-(or 'sac', both terms used interchangeably) shaped part is the mantle; 'trunk' is not a term that I am overly familiar with, but it is OK to use. However, Recent (as in modern-day) octopuses only have 'arms'; they do not have tentacles (only Recent squid have these, and they only have two of them (although quite a few species lose the tentacles in the post-paralarval/juvenile stages (things like Octopoteuthis, Taningia and Lepidoteuthis)).

We could wage a debate as to whether the 'arms' are truly 'arms', whether they are 'legs', or whether they are some form of 'head appendage', being neither 'arms nor legs' .... or perhaps derived from something quite different. Unfortunately the fossil record isn't going to tell us too much - as in how or from what these structures evolved - and even I don't know enough about it to debate the issue one way or the other. So for the meantime I'd be happy with usage of 'arm' or 'leg' for both octopus and squid, but restrict usage of the term 'tentacle' to squid (which have 8 arms/legs & 2 'tentacles').
Cheers
Steve
 
CuttlefishCurious said:
you still have no concern for the possibility that hurting something sentient is wrong

i think calling cephs sentient may be jumping the gun but thats not really pertinent....

as far as i know, the octo was dead by the time it was cooked, but as i said before, i haent seen the show yet so im avoiding being definite....

CuttlefishCurious said:
when you only think of them as food, you do not understand yourself or your place in this world

actually, by thinking of them in terms of food constantly reminds me that im in the cycle of life...
 
sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.
1: Having sense perception; conscious
2: Experiencing sensation or feeling.

so, 1) if it has eyes and can perceive and react to sensory and 2)if it has nerves and can react to physical stimulii ---> then someone obviously doesn't know the meaning of sentient :lol: , or doesn't want to concede my view..
anyway, no biggie....i love debate. differences of opinion don't bother me, i just love to voice my opinion (not facts...)


I find it best to err on the side of caution, especially when it comes to life and death. Who knows, in the end we might be confronted by the spirits of those we harmed, only to realize that we were wrong in our actions the entire time. what greater pain can there be in the end than the realization that you lived WRONG. i'm not trying to accuse anybody of anything, for I am only in control of my actions, but take heed for yourself.

Hehe, by the way, i noticed Steve stayed away from this specific argument...prob'ly best off :) stick to what'cha know

and, no, whitekibo, being in the life cycle is not what i meant.. think about It for a few and then think BIGGER than food...again, you're not GETTing past Looking at them as food, obvious by your conclusion.
there are worse things than starving...like being left in the vacuum of our own regret.
 
i was aware of the definition, but i interpret it i a fashion that i only i take sentient to mean being self aware....whether this is correct or is shared by other people isnt important :)

i admit my arguements have been less than articulate, but to make assumptions about what a person youve never met knows, understands or simply 'gets' is foolish....

clumsiness with words notwithstanding, i agree that debating can be fun...

as for Steve's silence, i wouldnt read to much into it...those teuthologists are a wily bunch and hard to figure out :)

CuttlefishCurious said:
i just love to voice my opinion (not facts...)

:lol: you definitely win points for honesty....
 
WhiteKiboko said:
as for Steve's silence, i wouldnt read to much into it...those teuthologists are a wily bunch and hard to figure out :)

You're spot on there; I have a hard-enough time trying to figure myself out without getting involved in debates like this.
 
I was just about to post to this thread, and then realized I'd be reiterating what I said today on the "Octopuses Deserve Respect" thread (also in the Octopus' Den forum). So if anyone's interested in my boring, long-winded take on this, hie thee to the "Octopuses Deserve Respect" thread and take a gander at my post dated today.

Squidly salutations,
Tani
 
i was going to suggest locking one, and combining them, but they started going in different directions....

maybe if thye reconverge....
 
I'm glad that this conversation has not gotten negative, i think everyone is learning something, even if it's only other's perception (perception IS all we got, and all we really know). Yes, whitekiboko, i don't hold you to any side, and i'm not trying to say YOU are a certain way, i'm just ranting.. :)
heck, i'm contradictive in the fact that eating animals at all means killing them, which is painful, period. I can't escape my human errors.

hehe, steve, i wasn't saying that you had nothing to say on the subject, just that you are smart enough to stay away from the pointless, opinionated squabbles :jester: i bet you know more than most about how animals are true-ly treated by us, as humans.

I will check out the other thread, maybe it will bare more good arguments.

Thanks everyone for accepting my point of view, this is a very nice environment you all have created.
 
CuttlefishCurious said:
heck, i'm contradictive in the fact that eating animals at all means killing them, which is painful, period. I can't escape my human errors.

if thats the case, you might be interested in tanis post on the other thread.... :yinyang:

CuttlefishCurious said:
Thanks everyone for accepting my point of view, this is a very nice environment you all have created.

isnt it crazy how pleasant things are when everyone plays nice? :)
 
Lots of animals would eat you if you were to trade places. Maybe this is more appropriate with seafood than other animals - cows have little interest in human flesh! :jester: Cephalopods eating their tankmates, even those of the same species, make me think they wouldn't hesitate to hunt properly-sized people. Jacques Cousteau said something like "when you enter the ocean, you re-enter the food chain, and not necessarily at the top." I'm off to the beach this week to re-enter the food chain!

Melissa
 

Trending content

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top