This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 10, 2009 1:39 AM. The previous post in this blog was Portland's next fiasco. The next post in this blog is Branch III and me, cont'd. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Ethical Question of the Week

Is it animal abuse to throw a fish that's already dead? Does it matter if you're going to eat it?

Comments (21)

Yes, it is abuse. The transport of a dead fish should utilize no less than four pallbearers, and be accompanied by Taps, unless, of course, said transport occurs in New Orleans, in which case a brass band ought to play the Saints, if you know what I mean... (wink wink). Oh yeah!

Of course, if the fish is Ichthys, then I might advise against burial; seems a little pointless, if'n y'ax me. Although, throw it or not, you definitely should eat it, body and blood... Just make sure to have your substantiations in order, fer Christ's sake.

Geez, I had to scroll back up to the header to make sure this wasn't from The Onion.

Well at lest they didn't try to get all of us to call them Sea Kittens this time.

Just another sad and desperate attempt by PETA to get attention. They succeeded.

They were less successful in comparing the Westminter dog show to eugenics earlier this year.

Throwing dead fish? Let the fish fly!

The sad thing is PETA has made inroads into mainstream thinking and policy. The whole idea of cattle flatulence causing global warming first came from PETA. It seemed patently absurd when I first heard it from PETA zealots in college nearly 20 years ago but the theory is now ingrained as stated fact.

Please, Jim, be sensitive. It's "pasture puppy pooting."

I thought that PETA stood for "People Eating Tasty Animals"

Is it animal abuse to throw a fish that's already dead?

No effin way.

mmm flyin' sushi!

There is room for all of God's creatures...right next to the mashed potatoes, gravy and asparagus with cheese sauce.

I'm waiting for the defenders of each wheat and rice grain. That would be one continuous funeral procession for eternity.

One thing that a vegan can never reconcile - the amount of small animals that get chewed up in farm machinery every year to support their "animal friendly" lifestyle.


Soon, it won't matter. we've about fished out the oceans. stocks are collapsing, many species never to return. *ever*. and the chain of events that's already set in motion is almost cataclysmic.

then, we all can sit back, make fun of PETA, and explain to the children what "seafood" was.

so I say let's sit back, loosen our belts, and eat up. I mean, what's the worst that could happen, right?


One thing that a vegan can never reconcile - the amount of small animals that get chewed up in farm machinery every year to support their "animal friendly" lifestyle.

Ergo, just kill and eat animals anyway? (Have I followed you correctly?)

Can never reconcile? You'd get the same answer off any vegan: it's terrible when animals die needlessly, and all measures should be taken to protect them from this or any human-generated danger. Large-scale industrial agriculture hurts and kills large numbers of animals... duh.

All vegans and meat-eaters alike need to be better informed when choosing the food they eat. The implication of the research to which you linked, that vegans just don't care about the impact of their diet or require a fundamental correction of their priorities, is absurd. There are more options available to us than the types of status quo agribusiness brought into focus by Davis' research.

Even wonder why vegan, local, and organic preferences so often coincide? Precisely because people who genuinely value animal and environmental welfare will and do refine their habits as they gain more and better understanding of their true cost.

PETA is a decidedly fauna chauvinist organization. You don't see them decrying the abuse of fruits, vegetables and grains, do you?

Me, I refuse to eat tofu because I can't stand to be part of the slaughter of defenseless little soybeans.

Corpse abuse?

Corpse abuse doesn't seem that silly to me. Corpses of US troops were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as profiled in Black Hawk Down. I would guess that most people would find this disturbing. In fact, the law generally considers mishandling of a human corpse per se emotional distress. PETA has a good point that throwing fish goes beyond the mere dietary requirements from eating them. We may disagree with PETA about the level of rights afforded to meat animals, but I don't think their argument is silly.

Dave C,

I'm not sure I can make a connection between dragging a corpse, any corpse (and I think you'll find that "corpse" is fairly universally accepted as the body of a human, with "carcass" referring to the body of an animal) and tossing a fish. The practice developed from the fish store workers stocking the displays. It's faster that walking back and forth to the delivery trucks, etc. It actually indicates the cleverness of the workers to turn a mundane task into a show of dexterity. But if you claim that "PETA has a good point that throwing fish goes beyond the mere dietary requirements from eating them," then I have to also wonder how that relates to dragging corpses, which is for humiliation. I have it on good account that the Pike Street workers are not trying to humiliate the fishes of the world. And I guess that preparation of fish with seasonings and garnish would also violate your standards. Is cooking okay?

Time to lighten up! It could be worse:


What's next for PETA?

Boycotting restaurants that serve double battered chicken?

Time to lighten up! It could be worse

making that statement after a 200-word rant about semantics sounds pretty hypocritical, my man.

Clicky Web Analytics