Next Question
RSS
Something that perturbs me about this particular PETA campaign is how they inadvertently (and likely unintentionally) imply that organisms must be cute and cuddly in order to be of any worth to human kind. I see this campaign of theirs as reinforcing a nasty habit that often occurs when aiding endangered and threatened species: often, the species we see being preserved are those that are iconic and/or cute, even though the lives of many "ugly" creatures are in danger; I believe that all species are inherently valuable, and that even "ugly" organisms play an essential role in our survival.
I definitely believe that Americans should cut back their intake of meat for the sake of the environment and our health, but I don't think the tactic of, "Aw...Isn't he too cute to eat?" should be utilized. I would be much less annoyed if they gave valid arguments and facts as to why people shouldn't eat seafood instead of playing with people's emotions. In a way, it's almost as if they're implying that people are either too shallow or too dumb for anything factual, even though they're probably going after publicity more than anything else.
Seafood would be the last type of meat to give up considering that I like it the most of all types of meat; I like how it tastes, and I feel much better after eating it than I do with red meat. I would actually like to have a vegetarian diet, but something as silly as "sea kittens" sure isn't going to make me change my ways any sooner. (And, yes, I'm definitely a cat person, so you can't say that this is somehow related to the dislike of cats.)
Permalink | Report
PETA, in my opinion, is like a pushy older sister that won't let you have your way without paying for it. Much like Scientology is in the religious realm.
Permalink | Report
albanian
I don't think this campaign is going to really affect their targeted child demographic either. I think that the fundamental message being sent by this campaign is wrong. By dressing up fish in kitten costumes, it is sending the message that only cute animals are worthy of concern. I think that beliefs about animal rights is something that children should be able to form on their own or with guidance from their families.
Permalink | Report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901777.html
Permalink | Report
Yet another great idea by those incredible thinkers over at PETA. Count me in!
Source(s):
The People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
Permalink | Report
If kittens eat fish, and fish are sea kittens, does that make them...cannibal kittens? Yes. Yes it does.
Ultimately I'd say this is just a move for some publicity, and since we've all picked it up they were successful in this regard.
Permalink | Report
Additionally, a lot of seafood is very healthy and heart-friendly. With all the health concerns I hear about red meat, bacon, etc., it seems like I should be eating MORE seafood if anything.
Source(s):
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/guide/good-protein-sources
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
For example, people didn't want to eat dolphins (the fish) so it was renamed mahi-mahi and now is served at countless restaurants.
Slimeheads were renamed Orange Roughy.
Oilfish was renamed Blue Cod
Spiny Dogfish was renamed Rock Salmon.
...and on and on. This has nothing to do with science or scientific names. Most fish have common names given to them by fishermen and seafarers long ago. But in the last few decades the seafood industry's marketers have simply relabeled unpopular fish with more appetizing names.
So it is certainly a fair turn around for PETA to try to relabel fish to suit their own marketing purposes.
Will it work for PETA? It did work for the seafood industry. But PETA doesn't have the money or leverage that the seafood industry has. On the other hand, PETA might consider it a success if only a few people are convinced, the seafood industry is aimed at the mass market.
Personally, I have concluded that commercial fishermen are so unscrupulous and hostile to environmental considerations that I am now eating mainly farm-raised fish. I do not agree with the folks who object to farming fish, it seems safe and efficient to me.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahi-mahi
http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/archive/students/jjacquet/tradesecrets.pdf
Permalink | Report
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76489787@N00/2394571801/
Permalink | Report
Source(s):
http://sea-kittens.com
Permalink | Report
peta is showing itself for what it is: An organization that doesn't know where it's going, or where it's been. They're simply flailing around trying to get attention for themselves because the rest of the country sees them as they are: irrelevant.
Permalink | Report
Also, these days, more and more people are discovering the dark side of PETA and the organization isn't thought of in quite the same light as it used to be.
Source(s):
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Permalink | Report
But this campaign annoys me the way renaming prunes to "dried plums" was supposed to make use eat more of them. To me, name changes are baffling and confusing. I do not see how this could possibly work.
Permalink | Report
Ethical treatment of an animal, even a fish is one thing, but like so many other causes, most of what PETA seems to do is "fashionably" cool, rather than environmentally or even ethically useful. Go out and do something physically to help save endangered animals. Get on a boat and go stop the whalers from wiping out the endangered whale population. Take action instead and make a real difference.
I realize that a lot of people are very passionate about animal cruelty. It's a disheartening subject. I love animals just as much as the next person, but I also see the situation from a realistic perspective. I grew up in farm country. Everyone I know hunts and fishes and that is dinner. Deer overpopulation in my state is through the roof most years, and we wind up seeing the poor things stumbling into the cities and suburbs, half-starved and sick because there's not enough food to go around. Do I support trophy hunting or fishing just for sport. No way! Unless you can eat it, don't kill it.
Putting a cute, fuzzy name on something like "sea kittens" isn't going to discourage me from grilling salmon when it's in season, and tuna has been the "chicken of the sea" for decades. I don't know too many people who are discouraged from eating tuna because it reminds them of fuzzy yellow chicken peeps. It's just another form of PETA manipulation.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1
January 14, 2009 12:30 AM
Will PETA calling fish "sea kittens" make you eat less seafood?
"PETA thought that by renaming fish sea kittens, compassionate people who would never dream of hurting a dog or a cat might extend that sympathy to fish, or sea kittens," PETA campaign coordinator Ashley Byrne says.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99249669
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99249669
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
- In Society & Culture |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| January 14, 2009 02:19 AM |
I definitely believe that Americans should cut back their intake of meat for the sake of the environment and our health, but I don't think the tactic of, "Aw...Isn't he too cute to eat?" should be utilized. I would be much less annoyed if they gave valid arguments and facts as to why people shouldn't eat seafood instead of playing with people's emotions. In a way, it's almost as if they're implying that people are either too shallow or too dumb for anything factual, even though they're probably going after publicity more than anything else.
Seafood would be the last type of meat to give up considering that I like it the most of all types of meat; I like how it tastes, and I feel much better after eating it than I do with red meat. I would actually like to have a vegetarian diet, but something as silly as "sea kittens" sure isn't going to make me change my ways any sooner. (And, yes, I'm definitely a cat person, so you can't say that this is somehow related to the dislike of cats.)
| Asker's Rating: |
• So many of these answers made me laugh out loud, but this one made some very good points, so it got my vote for best answer.
Permalink | Report
Other Answers (27)
January 14, 2009 12:41 AM
Why would it? First it was red meat... Did the beef industry suffer? No. Then it was fur... Furs are still being sold... Now it's the seafood industry... No, it's not going to make me eat less seafood. As a matter of fact, I might even eat more seafood now just out of spite of PETA. I don't hate them, just hate the way they force their views on others and the methods with which they use it. They turned what could have been a very honorable stance into a mob of vicious, blood throwing animals. Ironic, is it not? PETA, in my opinion, is like a pushy older sister that won't let you have your way without paying for it. Much like Scientology is in the religious realm.
Permalink | Report
albanian
January 14, 2009 11:03 AM
The campaign against fur resulted in fur farming being made illegal in several countries (most recently Croatia) and restricted in others. I'm sure PETA would be happy with that much success with fish.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Christy_Turlington_I%27d_rather_go_naked_than_wear_fur.jpg/180px-Christy_Turlington_I%27d_rather_go_naked_than_wear_fur.jpg
Tip albanian for this comment
Report
January 14, 2009 07:01 PM
I understand that it made fur farming illegal in several countries; however, there is still definitely a fur trade. Although I do agree that they would be ecstatic about performing that well with fish. Though I'm not sure what they plan on eating once they've turned PETA into PETE... People for the Ethical Treatment of Everything.
Report
January 14, 2009 12:52 AM
No, this campaign will have absolutely no affect on my love of seafood. While I do consider myself an animal lover, I'm not a cat person so the term "sea kittens" doesn't really have the emotional affect on me that they were going for. Maybe if they had used "sea puppies" instead, I would be more swayed. I don't think this campaign is going to really affect their targeted child demographic either. I think that the fundamental message being sent by this campaign is wrong. By dressing up fish in kitten costumes, it is sending the message that only cute animals are worthy of concern. I think that beliefs about animal rights is something that children should be able to form on their own or with guidance from their families.
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 10:48 AM
Even the Jain religion, which considers it wrong to kill plants for food, allows eating tomatoes. This is because the tomato plant itself is not killed. The tomato is grown by the plant deliberately to be eaten in order that the seeds be spread.
Report
January 14, 2009 01:02 AM
if PETA really wanted to help their causes, they would disband. PETA are terrorists, and will never be takes seriously by any rational people. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901777.html
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 01:59 AM
- Fact Refuted
No offense but FBI documents on supposed terrorist groups are not exactly reliable sources. PETA are a bunch of idiots but terrorists they are not. As the article itself says: They have no proof of actual terrorist activity. It's a blatant waste of taxpayer money to have baseless investigations like this.
Report
January 14, 2009 04:44 AM
- Fact Refuted
look up ELF and ALF. PETA says they don't support either organization, but the principals lend each other support.
PETA workers were caught disposing of euthanised animals in "borrowed" dumpsters.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549
Report
PETA workers were caught disposing of euthanised animals in "borrowed" dumpsters.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549
January 14, 2009 01:02 AM
I've always thought "fish" was a poor name anyway. Sea kittens sound much more appetizing. Plus the word fish has all these negative connotations -- fishy, for example, and the fish smell. The dead fish in the newspaper that mobsters hand out as threats. Sleeping with the fishes. Meanwhile, sea kittens have a clean slate. They probably smell like rainbows and sleeping with them could be better than a Serta Postur-pedic. Put one in a newspaper and it probably absorbs the comics like Silly Putty. Yet another great idea by those incredible thinkers over at PETA. Count me in!
Source(s):
The People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 01:15 AM
Would a fish by another other name taste as delicious? I would say yes. Also, there already is something called a catfish, and it doesn't seem to keep people from eating those. If kittens eat fish, and fish are sea kittens, does that make them...cannibal kittens? Yes. Yes it does.
Ultimately I'd say this is just a move for some publicity, and since we've all picked it up they were successful in this regard.
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 01:16 AM
In my case, PETA is assuming that I wouldn't eat a kitten if it were a tasty and nutritious food. I can't really promise that. I think assuming I only eat something based on how it looks is awfully elementary. In fact, if it went by looks, there are a lot of animals I would not eat, like cows and pigs. They certainly don't look appetizing. Additionally, a lot of seafood is very healthy and heart-friendly. With all the health concerns I hear about red meat, bacon, etc., it seems like I should be eating MORE seafood if anything.
Source(s):
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/guide/good-protein-sources
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 01:49 AM
Of course not. PETA's stunts are just stupid. I also completely disagree with how they try to push vegetarianism on everyone. They should respect people's decision to remain meat eaters. Biologically, human beings are supposed to be omnivores. PETA would be a much more respectable organization if instead of pushing vegetarianism down people's throats they can tackle the much more important issue of regulating the food industry so that it becomes more humane and environment friendly.
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 02:05 AM
Whether or not it works, it certainly is a fair ploy. No one has pointed out that the seafood industry is absolutely notorious for renaming hard to market fish as something with better advertising value. For example, people didn't want to eat dolphins (the fish) so it was renamed mahi-mahi and now is served at countless restaurants.
Slimeheads were renamed Orange Roughy.
Oilfish was renamed Blue Cod
Spiny Dogfish was renamed Rock Salmon.
...and on and on. This has nothing to do with science or scientific names. Most fish have common names given to them by fishermen and seafarers long ago. But in the last few decades the seafood industry's marketers have simply relabeled unpopular fish with more appetizing names.
So it is certainly a fair turn around for PETA to try to relabel fish to suit their own marketing purposes.
Will it work for PETA? It did work for the seafood industry. But PETA doesn't have the money or leverage that the seafood industry has. On the other hand, PETA might consider it a success if only a few people are convinced, the seafood industry is aimed at the mass market.
Personally, I have concluded that commercial fishermen are so unscrupulous and hostile to environmental considerations that I am now eating mainly farm-raised fish. I do not agree with the folks who object to farming fish, it seems safe and efficient to me.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahi-mahi
http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/archive/students/jjacquet/tradesecrets.pdf
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 02:29 AM
Who's a pretty kitty...your a pretty kitty http://www.flickr.com/photos/76489787@N00/2394571801/
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 07:55 AM
Well, http://sea-kittens.com has a few nice sea-food recipes, if anyone is interested :)
Source(s):
http://sea-kittens.com
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 10:50 AM
That site gives an inaccurate and biased report on the elderly lobster. The lobster lived more than 100 years in the wild and only a short time in captivity. Plus it is being release into a nature preserve of sorts.
Report
January 14, 2009 01:35 PM
No... In fact, I carry so much dislike for that organization, it actually makes me want to eat more fish. And I'll call it sea kitten while I'm eating it. peta is showing itself for what it is: An organization that doesn't know where it's going, or where it's been. They're simply flailing around trying to get attention for themselves because the rest of the country sees them as they are: irrelevant.
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 06:05 PM
No, it's a stupid comparison. They look nothing like kittens, so, it won't catch on in actual conversational dialect between non-PETA members. Also, these days, more and more people are discovering the dark side of PETA and the organization isn't thought of in quite the same light as it used to be.
Source(s):
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 06:20 PM
It's silly. Naming brine shrimp "sea monkeys" does make them sound more interesting - until you actually see one. But this campaign annoys me the way renaming prunes to "dried plums" was supposed to make use eat more of them. To me, name changes are baffling and confusing. I do not see how this could possibly work.
Permalink | Report
January 14, 2009 09:55 PM
All this did was remind me of the Nirvana song lyrics: "It's okay to eat fish 'cause they don't have any feelings." Ethical treatment of an animal, even a fish is one thing, but like so many other causes, most of what PETA seems to do is "fashionably" cool, rather than environmentally or even ethically useful. Go out and do something physically to help save endangered animals. Get on a boat and go stop the whalers from wiping out the endangered whale population. Take action instead and make a real difference.
I realize that a lot of people are very passionate about animal cruelty. It's a disheartening subject. I love animals just as much as the next person, but I also see the situation from a realistic perspective. I grew up in farm country. Everyone I know hunts and fishes and that is dinner. Deer overpopulation in my state is through the roof most years, and we wind up seeing the poor things stumbling into the cities and suburbs, half-starved and sick because there's not enough food to go around. Do I support trophy hunting or fishing just for sport. No way! Unless you can eat it, don't kill it.
Putting a cute, fuzzy name on something like "sea kittens" isn't going to discourage me from grilling salmon when it's in season, and tuna has been the "chicken of the sea" for decades. I don't know too many people who are discouraged from eating tuna because it reminds them of fuzzy yellow chicken peeps. It's just another form of PETA manipulation.
Permalink | Report
January 15, 2009 12:20 AM
Sea kittens? Have these people ever looked at a grouper? Or a monkfish? Not particularly cute, but certainly tasty! All the major scientific studies done on health and fish consumption show that it's by far the healthiest source of easily digestible protein, with benefits to the cardio and vascular systems, brain development in fetuses, amelioration of inflammatory diseases...they can call fish puppies, joeys, kitties, sugar babies, calves, foals, chicks, whatever they want, and I'll still eat it two or three times a week.
Permalink | Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
- Arts & Design
- Beauty & Style
- Books & Authors
- Business
- Cars & Transportation
- Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
- Education
- Entertainment
- Environment
- Fitness
- Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
- Health
- History
- Hobbies
- Home & Garden
- How Tos
- Humor
- Jobs
- Legal
- Local
- Love & Relationships
- Mahalo Answers Community
- Money
- Music
- News
- NSFW
- Parenting
- Pets
- Science & Mathematics
- Services
- Shopping
- Social Science
- Society & Culture
- Sports
- Technology & Internet
- Travel
- Video Games
Welcome New Members
- holidaygolfusa, November 09, 2009 12:06 PM
- abstract24, November 09, 2009 11:49 AM
- jamyhoriton, November 09, 2009 11:23 AM
- ruder, November 09, 2009 10:51 AM
- chaitanyaprabut, November 09, 2009 10:37 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
