Yes, how dare a culture eat an animal, making delicious cuisine. What villainy. Who would ever think to stoop to cooking and eating something that lives in the ocean?!
It has nothing to do with the fact that they live in the ocean. We are omnivores, not herbivores. If there were no other animals around to eat, then yes, I’m certain various populations of people would resort to cannibalism and have in the past.
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.
We've also as a collective re-evaluated our values over time, reducing our overall cruelty and savagery as we realized its extent. There's nothing wrong with that either, and your original comment did not adequately recognize that this is where the sentiment comes from.
Please check yourself here; who is “we”? 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.
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.
> 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?
