Let me take this opportunity to recommend this recipe from my country - https://www.thespruceeats.com/galician-style-octopus-recipe-...
like how the ground fungus communicates through earth, the invisible flying fungus might have a wifi-type system.. 'we found bread!'
Follow up question since I can guess your answer: what about mentally disabled chimpanzees? What about mentally disabled octopuswhiches[0]? I'm talking to the point where they would not survive outside of human intervention. Or maybe not. Where is the line?
[0] as defined as the plural of octopus elsewhere in the comments
If we have collectively decided that intelligence is a factor when deciding whether an animal can be eaten by humans, then it's a perfectly logical conclusion for many people that eating octopuses is disgraceful.
Tip: "We" haven't decided that.
Second tip: All this chatter is sterile, I bet that this species isn't edible at all
They are not “savages,” just different.
We’ve eaten meat, of land, sea, and air, for far longer than anyone has tried to convince anyone else they should be vegan. That’s all I’m saying.
You have, and that’s completely okay.
But to unilaterally call a culture’s cuisine “absolutely reprehensible,” is, in my opinion, the actually reprehensible act.
In particular, calling someone’s cuisine (or really almost anything else) “absolutely reprehensible” is a great, surefire way to not convince anyone your point has merit.
To be ultra clear: I have no issues with vegetarians, vegans, or anyone else. My issue is with people who have issue with those who have different beliefs or ways of life, labeling those people as “absolutely reprehensible.”
That, in essence, is my issue with the original comment.
I do mean we as in humankind.
> Clearly the Portuguese and Spanish still love their pulpo, so we as a “collective” of humans have apparently not collectively re-evaluated our values over time, deciding that eating meat is cruel and savage.
I'm saying we evolve our collective moral views in general. For example, slavery even just 300 years ago was way more prevalent than today, and more people find it morally reprehensible. It still exists today, but it's a clear example of an area we've collectively re-evaluated our values over time. The acceptance of homosexuality and interracial relationships are even more recent. Do you disagree that we've evolved as a collective on those issues?
Sure, today it's not a majority view that eating octopus is "absolutely reprehensible" but imo that's a valid point of view and there's no telling whether that will become the majority opinion. If Christians get to walk around saying "we believe everyone else goes to hell" then I'm not going to complain about someone from expressing their opinion that octopus consumption is barbaric. You can say both groups are equally intolerant (Christians and octopus-lovers) but I'd encourage you to consider how they're different too, because they are.
I think the key point in your reaction is interpreting this sentiment as cultural slander. Reminder that cultural practices don't automatically become things we all have to respect. Like, do you have any reservations about cultural repression of women (e.g. certain Islamic countries as an extreme example)? I sure do, and I think that's okay. Would you have considered anti-slavery folks intolerant 300 years ago just because their viewpoint cut against the (global!) cultural grain?
Eating octopus isn't a culture just as trading crypto currency isn't a personality.
Can you give some examples ? Because when i think at Guantanamo and various wars, i don't see any reduction.
Cheers neighbour!