Lobsters Unlikely to Feel Pain

[papau]

A new study out of Norway concludes it's unlikely lobsters feel pain, stirring up a long-simmering debate over whether Maine's most valuable seafood suffers when it's being cooked - its thrashing is a reaction to stimuli - boiling water - but only as escape mechanisms, not a conscious response or an indication of pain?



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=716&e=8&u=/ap/20050215/ap_on_sc/lobster_pain

Study: Lobsters Unlikely to Feel Pain

The study, which was funded by the Norwegian government and written by a scientist at the University of Oslo, suggests that lobsters and other invertebrates probably don't suffer even if lobsters do tend to thrash in boiling water.

"Lobsters and crabs have some capacity of learning, but it is unlikely that they can feel pain," the study concluded.

The 39-page report was aimed at determining if invertebrates should be subject to animal welfare legislation as Norway revises its animal welfare law. The report looked at invertebrate groups such as insects, crustaceans, worms and mollusks and summarized the scientific literature dealing with feelings and pain among those creatures without backbones.

It concluded that most invertebrates — including lobsters, crabs, worms, snails, slugs and clams — probably don't have the capacity to feel pain. <snip>

[sniffa]

1. i Love hearing them scream

even though i don't touch the stuff. :puke:

[hyphenate]

2. It's not screaming

It's the air in the shell escaping when the water gets in, as well as the steam escaping when they're fully boiled.

Any of us who have been raised with seafood on a steady basis (and my grandfather and uncles were lobster fishermen) knows that shellfish are pretty much unable to feel pain. I got spoiled as a kid, because I spent every summer at my grandparents' home in Cape Breton, Mova Scotia, and lobster was quite common. Of course, now, I couldn't afford it, even if I gave up eating almost everything else for about two or three weeks!

[egoprofit]

18. the thing is... what does it matter? people will eat them anyways

seriously folks this study is kinda pointless, the fact is that PEOPLE EAT LOBSTER. that won't change. we are meat eaters and God as my witness we will boil them and eat their meat.

[Beaverhausen]

39. uh- speak for yourself

some of us don't eat meat.

[Democrat Dragon]

52. good point., I don't think it really matters, it's a waste of money.

[Cadence]

17. OMG. If I heard anything like that...

I'd puke. I've heard lobsters mate for life. I can't stand seeing them in those tanks at restaurants. I feel like they are searching and wanting a way out. I hate it.
I just think that they'd have to feel pain of some sort because pain is used to create a survival instinct. They have a nervous system and with nerves there is the capacity for pain. How do we know that just because they don't have a cerebral cortex that humans need to feel pain, that they don't have a different system? I don't think we do.

[petronius]

54. Apparently, they do not mate for life

At, least according the following lobster-porn from the Gulf of Maine Aquarium.

She usually seeks out the largest male in the neighborhood and stands outside his den, releasing her scent in a stream of urine from openings just below her antennae. He responds by fanning the water with his swimmerets, permeating his apartment with her perfume. He emerges from his den with his claws raised aggressively. She responds with a brief boxing match or by turning away. Either attitude seems to work to curb the male's aggression. The female raises her claws and places them on his head to let him know she is ready to mate. They enter the den, and some time after, from a few hours to several days later, the female molts. At this point the male could mate with her or eat her, but he invariably does the noble thing. He gently turns her limp body over onto her back with his walking legs and his mouth parts, being careful not to tear her soft flesh. They mate "with a poignant gentleness that is almost human, " observes Dr. Atema. The male, who remains hard-shelled, inserts his first pair of swimmerets, which are rigid and grooved, and passes his sperm into a receptacle in the female's body. She stays in the safety of his den for about a week until her new shell hardens. By then the attraction has passed, and the couple part with hardly a backward glance.

[Ediacara]

74. It's not screaming

It's steam escaping from their shell through their mouth. It's a lot like a whistling tea kettle.

[trotsky]

3. PETA embarrasses themselves (and their cause) once again.

Honestly, they pick the worst battles to try and win people over to the cause of animal rights.

[arwalden]

8. Very true... and then they wonder why people think they are all KOOKS!

I think they do more harm than good.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. People think they are KOOKS because people love to make generalizations

about things they don't understand or things that frighten them or will upset their level of comfort. It's the same reason people make generalizations about liberals, minorities, women, the gay community and any other group that has been on the receiving end of some common unfair generalization.

If they are "KOOKS" than that means you don't have to listen to them. If what they say doesn't make sense at all, why listen? It completely invalidates everything they are saying.

You'll miss a lot invalidating a whole group of people based on the unwise actions of a few, or based on the fact that you disagree with some of what they are saying. Do you like it when people discount you because you are liberal? Why push that feeling on others then?

[trotsky]

27. I think you're totally missing the point.

You're completely right about "kooks" - if a group is labeled as such, pretty much anything they say will be dismissed.

And what arwalden and I both believe, if I can presume to speak for him, is that whatever good PETA does do and does stand for is unfortunately invalidated when they go on crusades to save the lobster, or compare the chicken processing industry to the holocaust. These campaigns, no matter how much PETA members might believe in them, have the net effect of registering them as "kooks" to the majority of Americans.

And thus, our point, that by picking absurd battles, they're doing more to alienate people from the cause of animal rights than win anybody over.

So I guess in a roundabout way, you're agreeing with us.

[4_Legs_Good]

28. Seriously, though, can't you say the same thing about Gay Marriage?

Tons of my "moderate" friends basically blame the election of George Jr. to a second term on the gay community for pushing for gay marriage when they "should have quietly just tried to get civil union laws passed.' By challenging the establishment they terrified a lot of people and caused this HUGE backlash which, in a large part, is responsible for four more years of the worse Administration in U.S. History.

Are they to blame for standing up for what they think is right? I think not. I think PETA is the same way. They have every right to fight whatever fight they see fit. While your point is taken, I think it shows more of the imbecility of Americans than it does the kookyness of PETA.

david

[trotsky]

30. I think that's stretching way too far.

Homosexuals are human beings with rights.

Lobsters are not.

Comparing the two is far more of an insult to homosexuals, I think.

[4_Legs_Good]

32. It is a group promoting an agenda

and said agenda has political ramifications. Does PETA do this in the most political efficatious way? No. But one can say the same thing about the gay marriage "movement" of 2004.

And why don't lobsters have rights? I think that's basically what PETA is saying - that they should have rights. To many peole that will seem kooky, and, as you say, HURT their cause. However, the SAME is absolutely true about the gay marriage business. It *did* in fact hurt the cause of gay rights in these United States of America. Now, I believe, over 30 states have anti-gay marriage laws on the books and we have an inane President in the White House who wants to write it into the Constitution!!!

Clinton didn't advise Kerry to get on the anti-gay bandwagon for nothing. He told him to do it because he *knew* what was brewing.

Anyway, I'm not saying that lobsters have or necessarily should have the same rights as humans; I'm just saying that sometimes you fight for what you believe is right because you believe it's right.

Did the Quakers who presented the objection to slavery in the first Congress end up hurting their cause? Probably. (I'm reading Founding Brothers ATM). But does that mean they were wrong to do it? I don't think so.

Sorry, probably shouldn't have brought this up.

david

P.S. And I wasn't comparing homosexuals to lobsters. I was comparing advocates and activists for homosexual rights to advocates and activists for animal rights. I certainly didn't mean to imply that lobsters = people regardless of sexual orientation.

[arwalden]

34. Thanks...

That's precisely it. You know me well. Feel free at any time to clarify any points of mine that need help.

On more than one occasion I've voiced my concerns about unnecessary animal cruelty and torture. My disdain for Peta should not be construed as a lack of concern for animal welfare.

I think Peta is following a foolish course. They are very naive if they cannot see (nor comprehend) how they are perceived. Their PR skills are lacking and their kooky image turns more people OFF than ON to the cause of animal welfare.

It's difficult to trust an organization whose members and organizers support and encourage VANDALISM, DESTRUCTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY and PERSONAL ASSAULT. Even when Peta merely calls for protests and pickets and boycotts... even when Peta has legitimate concerns, people instinctively turn away and figure it's just another KOOKY HYPE and PUBLICITY STUNT.

If Peta were a television show, it would be the sensationalist "Jerry Springer Show". If Peta were a fairy tale... it would be "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" or "Chicken Little".

[arwalden]

36. You Give Them Far Too Much Credit Than They Deserve...

Peta does not "frighten" me... how absurd! The only thing about them that "upsets my comfort level" is the fact that Peta organizers approve of personal assault, property destruction, violent intimidation, slander, invasion of privacy, and vandalism.

>> It's the same reason people make generalizations about liberals, minorities, women, the gay community and any other group that has been on the receiving end of some common unfair generalization. <<

Wow. It's the same, huh?

>> (blah blah blah...) It completely invalidates everything they are saying. <<

Peta is a very knee-jerk organization. They aren't sophisticated at all. Their own PR problems indicate a lack of understanding of how a group's credibility hinges on how they are perceived by the public.

Whether or not any one individual is or isn't a genuine kook... it doesn't matter because they are collectively perceived as a kooky organization. Whether or not Peta may have an occasional valid concern about animal welfare is all lost because of how they are perceived. Even worse... EVERY thing Peta does seems to be purposely designed to REINFORCE the opinion that they are bunch of KOOKS.

They image they have is one that they have foolishly crafted for themselves. By consciously moving to the fringe, they are marginalizing themselves.

They have nobody to blame for their reputation but themselves. Nobody remembers the cause of the month... they just remember that the Peta organization is wacky and (unfairly or not) by association the Peta folks are wacky too.

>> You'll miss a lot invalidating a whole group of people based on the unwise actions of a few, <<

Peta has had ample opportunity to improve their image and to condemn these types of actions. But they don't... why? They go out of their way to be as ODD as possible, then they cry foul when someone points out how ODDLY they are behaving. -- Go figure!

>> or based on the fact that you disagree with some of what they are saying. <<

It's much more than merely disagreeing with a message. I believe that people should be concerned with animal welfare and that animals shouldn't be treated with unnecessary cruelty. But I don't believe that animals are humans. I don't think that animals have or are entitled "civil rights". --- I wonder from your comparison to other oppressed groups (women, gays, minorities, etc.) if you seem to think that animals ARE equal to humans and that they are entitled to civil rights?

>> Do you like it when people discount you because you are liberal? <<

This isn't about me.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

37. You misinterpret my meaning.

To Peta members, the rights of animals are incredibly important to them. They do believe that animals deserve civil rights. They do NOT believe that they should compromise their beliefs to attract more moderate members.


Now, seperate thought:

To Liberals, the rights of humans are incredibly important to them. THey do believe that ALL people deserve their civil rights. THey do NOT believe that they should compromise their beliefs to attract more moderate members.


I am not comparing WHAT they feel strongly about, but HOW strongly they feel about it.


Secondly, while I don't agree with a lot of their demonstrations (making out in the streets for example), they have done a lot of good things, including getting Burger King to change the way it slaughters animals. I can't just forget about those things because of the bad.

Thirdly, PETA has never encouraged personal assault or any other violence towards people. PETA doesn't even encourage violence against inanimate objects. That would be the ALF.

Finally, yes, I do believe that animals have certain rights. I don't believe that if someone gets a dog and then gets tired of it, they have the right to just dump it in an empty field like a used pair of shoes. I believe that an animal is a living thing, and as such has the right to be treated with a certain level of dignity, not merely as an object in a means to an end.

I apologize if I offended you, I did not intend to. But it has been my personal experience that most people who are so vehemently opposed to PETA are so because they do not want to feel guilty about their decisions.

[Lilith Velkor]

56. Damn right I don't.

I joined an antiwar group to discourage my government from slaughtering my fellow human beings, and the PETArds condemn me for hypocrisy because I eat turkey sandwiches and wear my uncle's ancient motorcycle jacket. Feh!

My bitterness is not directed at you, I'm just saying.

[arwalden]

59. Thanks for your response.

To Peta members, the rights of animals are incredibly important to them.

Yet... animals are still not humans. Animals are not citizens. Animals do not get to have civil rights.

They do believe that animals deserve civil rights.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... I rest my case.

They do NOT believe that they should compromise their beliefs to attract more moderate members.

Why should membership matter? Ought not it be public opinion and laws that matter to them? Their odd behavior and odd tactics indicate otherwise.

Now, seperate thought:

Okay.

To Liberals, the rights of humans are incredibly important to them. THey do believe that ALL people deserve their civil rights.

Yes, PEOPLE! People deserve to be equal with each other. Animals do not deserve to be equal with people.

THey do NOT believe that they should compromise their beliefs to attract more moderate members.

Obviously you haven't been hanging around the same DU forums as I have. But this isn't about compromising beliefs, it's about Peta's kooky tactics.

I am not comparing WHAT they feel strongly about, but HOW strongly they feel about it.

If you say so... it sure sounded to me as though you were making Peta's arguments for them.

Secondly, while I don't agree with a lot of their demonstrations (making out in the streets for example), they have done a lot of good things, including getting Burger King to change the way it slaughters animals. I can't just forget about those things because of the bad.

Okay.

Thirdly, PETA has never encouraged personal assault or any other violence towards people. PETA doesn't even encourage violence against inanimate objects. That would be the ALF.

Peta, Alf. Alf, Peta. Take a look at who's who of founding members and officers, who's slept where, who screws whom, who pays for whose lawyers and bail.

Finally, yes, I do believe that animals have certain rights. I don't believe that if someone gets a dog and then gets tired of it, they have the right to just dump it in an empty field like a used pair of shoes.

Yet Peta wants ALL animals to be LIBERATED! Pets are slaves to our vanities of entertainment and companionship. Set them fre-e-e-e-eee! -- So what's the dif between dumping an unwanted dog along the side of the road and setting them freee? Free is free, right?

I believe that an animal is a living thing, and as such has the right to be treated with a certain level of dignity, not merely as an object in a means to an end.

I don't think lobsters have any concept of being dignified or undignified.

I apologize if I offended you, I did not intend to.

Thanks, but you don't bother me.

But it has been my personal experience that most people who are so vehemently opposed to PETA are so because they do not want to feel guilty about their decisions.

I have no guilt. How could you know what the emotions are of those who are "so vehemently opposed to Peta"? Are you a mind reader? Did they break down and confess to you their feelings of guilt?

It sounds more to me like you're trying to rationalize and imagine alternate reasons why someone might be opposed to Peta... and put the blame on Peta's failings and shortcomings everywhere *except* where it belongs.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

60. Ok

Peta does not want to "set animals free". They call their pets companions because it does not carry with it a sense of ownership. If you own something, you can do with it as you like. If you have a companion, you have an obligation to treat your companioni with a certain level of respect. In a perfect PETA world, what would happen would be...
As more and more people became vegan, the need for cows to be bred would go down and down and down. The numbers would dwindle and eventually, there just wouldn't be any more.
Zoos would release their animals back to their natural habitats (which is already being done in conservation programs)
Circuses would do the same
Companion animals would stay companion animals, but probably there would be stricter laws about what can and cannot be done with them.

That's it. No setting animals free down wall street.


Now, as for the guilt:

I myself, just didn't want to hear it for a long time because it was an inconvenience. It was easier to just shut my eyes than think about what I ate or wore. I didn't want to hear it because I didn't want to feel guilty.

And the poster above agreed with me.

Other vegetarians, some that stayed vegetarian and some that didn't, have said the same thing.

I don't know anyone that eats meat but likes to watch or hear about how their meat gets to them. If I ask any meat eater, and I've asked a few in my early days, I don't ask anymore to respect their lifestyle, they always say "I don't wanna know! I don't wanna know!" or "I know it's gross...I don't want to hear about it".

I also know people that look with disdain on hunters, not trophy hunters, but all hunters. To me, that is hypocritical beyond belief. It's not like the hunters are doing anything that these people are not indirectly doing. They just don't want see it or face it. At least hunters are being honest with themselves about what their meal entails and where it comes from.


And you're right, I shouldn't extend it to all those who hate Peta. But that has been my expeience nevertheless.

But as trotsky said earlier, your main contention against Peta is not that alien to my own view point. I don't think the public demonstrations help the cause. I don't defend those. I only defend the lifestyle and I try to point out that despite those poor choices in PR, Peta does indeed do a lot of good things.

[trotsky]

67. No zoos?

That seems self-defeating as well.

How many children do you think develop a concern for wild animals BECAUSE they got to see them in a zoo? "Out of sight, out of mind" is a problem for kids who will grow up and run the world someday.

Again, PETA seems to take the "all-or-nothing" route to guaranteed failure. Why don't they fight for better zoos, with larger habitats, better care, etc., etc. Wouldn't that be a more successful way of achieving the long-term goal of respect for animals? Ban zoos and people will once again roll their eyes and say, "Jeezus, don't those PETA freaks ever take a sane position?"

[redqueen]

68. How many animals will soon likely only be found in zoos

due to their extinction in the wild?

[flvegan]

4. I'll take Dr. John Baker, Oxford zoologist's word on it

They do. So also says Dr. Jaren Horsley, PhD, invertebrate zoologist.

So I'll go with the folks in the know, rather than the folks seeking to profit of inaccurate information.

Norway. Yeah, they really want to put the ole kybosh on part of their fishing industry...

[zanana]

5. I'm amazed at the way we all rationalize...

To save ourselves from feeling guilt. I'm not a vegetarian writing this to criticize. I eat fish myself, but let's please be honest with ourselves; the fish we eat DO feel pain when they're killed.

[trotsky]

9. True, but...

they also "feel" pain when eaten by a predator fish, or internally consumed by parasites, or virtually any other manner of death.

[DeaconBlues]

44. So, just because lobsters have a chance to feel pain in the wild

there is no problem with taking as many of them as possible and prolonging their agony by boiling them alive.

Very logical. I think I will go on a killing spree now. People are going to die eventually, so why not bump them off now. :crazy:

[trotsky]

47. Awesome logic!

Yes, that's PRECISELY what I said and meant. </sarcasm>

Now can you form a coherent argument, or do you just want to engage in hyperbole and foolishness?

[DeaconBlues]

62. So, what exactly did you mean, besides suggesting that because lobsters

suffer in the wild its okay to let them suffer so humans can have a yuppie meal? Cause that is sure what it looks like you are trying to say.

[trotsky]

64. I mean that

if you are going to show concern for the "fact" that lobsters feel pain, how do you escape from falling down the slippery slope of looking to prevent ALL pain for ALL animals, thus totally disrupting the natural cycle of predator and prey?

Do you draw the line at just human-caused pain?

Intentional or unintentional?

Hunting for food OK or not?

Because whether you like it or not, our bodies evolved to be meat-eaters. Nutrients, protein, and minerals that are readily available to our body in the form of meat consumption can be much more difficult to obtain from a vegan diet.

Now you can either accept that many people are going to eat meat, and help see to it that when we do kill animals for food, we do it quickly and humanely - or - you can just go off on someone and attack people who eat meat as wanting "yuppie meals", thus totally turning people off from your cause.

Which shall it be?

[DeaconBlues]

65. I draw the line at rejecting violence in my personal life

There is nothing we can do to stop most of the suffering of animals in the wild. But as a human being, I have the choice to do my best to make sure that I am not involved in the suffering of animals. Where's the slippery slope in that?


Sure, I can accept that many people are going to eat meat. Thats their choice. But I also have the right to point out the problems with rationales like "its only natural to eat meat" or "they are going to die anyway" that people use to assuage their guilt about their eating habits.

As for humans being having evolved as meat-eaters - thats true. But we have also developed a mind that allows us the free will and the technology to choose what we will will consume. A meat-free diet is an option for most people.

By the way, I didn't accuse those of eating meat in their dinners as wanting yuppie meals. Just those eating lobsters (unless, of course, the person in question is a fisherman or lives on the coast of Maine, or something of that nature). You are deliberately exaggerating what I wrote. Hmm, what was that you wrote about hyperbole?

[trotsky]

66. What's good for the goose...

Although to be fair, you weren't terribly specific about what you considered a "yuppie meal." Only now did you qualify that statement.

A meat-free diet may be an option for "most" people, but you've got a whole lot of us who really do like the taste. And so I think the anti-meat crowd would do a whole lot more for the overall cause (reducing the resources spent on meat production, protecting animals, etc.) by campaigning for people to cut back - not eliminate - their meat consumption. Screaming at them how horrible they are for causing harm to animals just ain't gonna work.

I, for instance, usually have 2-3 days a week where I don't eat any meat. And I've only had lobster twice in my entire life. When I do buy meat, it's either from the local butcher or from Whole Foods where I can be assured of fair profits for the farmer, safe chemical-free meat for my family, and good TASTING meat as well.

[DeaconBlues]

70. I wasn't specific about what I considered to be a "yuppie meal"?

What part of "suggesting that because lobsters suffer in the wild its okay to let them suffer so humans can have a yuppie meal" is not understandable to you?

[trotsky]

72. Pardon me, I am so very sorry.

I got the subject line confused with another when referring to that post. I hope you can find it in your great big animal-loving vegetarian heart to forgive my most heinous of sins. :eyes:

[EstimatedProphet]

69. Fish do feel pain. Lobsters don't. There's a reason.

Fish have exposed skin. the skin may be covered with scales in some cases, but they have an exposed skin which receives stimulus from the environment. Lobsters have an outer shell that's very thick and durable. Very little can get through it that wouldn't outright kill a lobster. Also, they commonly shed limbs and regenerate them. The result is that lobsters have never had the need to develop pain receptor cells like other organisms have, and don't feel pain the same way.

[Redstone]

6. "Lobsters and crabs have some capacity of learning...?"

What's their evidence for that? Do the lobbies and crabs take little pencils in their claws and scribble out "Help me, help me?'

Redstone

[arwalden]

7. I Think It's Along The Lines Of "Which Box Always Has The Treat?"

... the ones with the stripes, or the one with the dots.

[Richardo]

24. The one with the stripes, or the wire-caged one with the dead fish in it?

:D

[DelawareValleyDem]

15. Good question. Have you tried

locating and reading the study?

Actually, that suggestion would apply to most people. It seems most people commenting in this thread appear to have reached definite conclusions one way or another, more so than the study itself has:.

The Norwegian study, even while saying it's unlikely that crustaceans feel pain, also cautioned that more research is needed because there is a scarcity of scientific knowledge on the subject.

Let's all keep an open mind and hope knowledge in this area is advanced.

[zanana]

16. Good one, Redstone!

Thanks for the laugh.

[Redstone]

25. Thank you so much...

My wife threw a fit one time when she bought some lobsters packed in seaweed, put them in the pot, and went into another room.

When she came back to the kitchen, she found "HELP ME!" spelled out on the kitchen floor in seaweed.

Dunno why she got honked at me instead of the lobsters...

Redstone

[Stop_the_War]

10. IMHO lobsters feel pain...

Why wouldn't they? They're being boiled alive!

[da_chimperor]

11. Yes, well if there brain and nervous system don't have the capacity to

register pain as we do (as something painful that we don't like rather than a hard-wired response to an external stimulus, i.e. an instinctual reaction), then it doesn't really matter. Get my point?

[TXlib]

13. And you're basing your humble opinion on what?

Research?

Analysis of their neurological system and its capacity for carrying pain-signal messages?

Anecdotal evidence?

Gut feeling?

[Renew Deal]

41. Gut feeling for me.

I would think that they can feel pain.

[KittyWampus]

12. Alston Brown's Solution To Lobster Pot Dilemma? Put Em In Freezer

for a few minutes to their metabolisms slow down and they go to sleep.

My family had a resturant here at our Inn for many, many years.

Shore dinners, with lobsters, were always a part of my Grandmother's repetoire.

It was Grandpa's job to pre-boil the things early in the afternoon to get ready for the broiling later.

He always woke up late anyway cause of tending bar til wee hours of the morning.

I can still see him putting the big huge pot o'water on.

We always had left over lobster so my family didn't find it a treat.
Nana would make a lobster bisque that'd make you want to cry it was so good.

To this day, I never buy or order lobster... except for the lobster bisque.

Sorry for getting all sentimental. Don't know why...

[Catchawave]

14. The Silent Suffering of Lobsters

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/vegan/lobster03.htm

More links at:

http://www.shellfishnetwork.org.uk/links.html

[AngryAmish]

19. Lobsters are Likely to be Delicous!

But I have to eat more to confirm my thesis.

[amazona]

20. well maybe but it's hard for me to imagine it

I would tend to interpret those little impulses warning them to try to get the heck out of trouble as a signal of pain. That said, all must eat, and I have certainly eaten my share of lobster. But I don't feel a need to kid myself about the sacrifice they make so I may live.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. Cigarette companies used to say cigarettes weren't bad for you.

Why are you so willing to believe a study by a group with a vested interest now?

[The Revolution]

23. I don't think I've ever had lobster....

At least I don't remember ever trying it. I suppose I should some day, but all I can think of is how they look like giant bugs. :)



But I'm not gonna lose any sleep over whether they do or do not feel pain.

ok...why won't my image show up...

[Redstone]

26. You'll be even less likely to eat one...

when you consider that their diet (in the words of a lobster expeert, not me) "consists primarily of garbage and other lobsters."

Redstone

[4_Legs_Good]

29. They are the insects of the sea...

actually, no?

I don't eat earth bugs either.

david

[Redstone]

31. Ever see a shrimp with the legs still on?

They look even more like a big old bug than lobsters do.

Good thing I'm allergic to shellfish.

Redstone

[4_Legs_Good]

33. Yup yup yup

pretty cool looking actually.

Lobsters look a lot like scorpions, I think. Both are cooooool, but I wouldn't want to get too near 'em.

david

[Maine-ah]

35. mmmmmmmmmmmm LOBSTER

If there was a drooling smiley, he'd be right here.

[Renew Deal]

40. Hey, but you're from Maine.

That's cheating. ;)

[Inland]

38. And Melted Butter is an anesthetic anyway. nt

[Padraig18]

42. Butter. n/t

[tjwash]

43. Oh yeah, nothing like eating a bottom feeding, poop eater that...

...subsists on the excrement and waste of other sea creatures, and anything dead and rotting it happens to find laying on the sea floor.

Make sure you drown it in lots of artery clogging butter.

Bon Appetit...

[Maine-ah]

46. I don't care. Give me the butter, and don't forget to pull

the poop shute out!:D

[Amaya]

49. Sounds GREAT!

Don't forget the corn on the cob :9

[Democrat Dragon]

50. Aren't pigs fed downer cattle?

I can recall some groups like PETA during the U.S's mad cow scare that downer cattle was still being fed to livestock. Oh, and downer cattle is still in big dog food and cat food brands.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

53. i've always preferred crab, myself. nt

[name not needed]

55. More lobster for me!

:P

[DeaconBlues]

45. For fifty years, radical behaviorists designed experiments, wrote books,

and gave lectures while all the while claiming that the human mind did not exist or was irrelevant. And these were the supposed experts on human nature. It is amazing how far so-called professionals will delude themselves because of vested interest, dogmatic adherence to theory, etc.

If it looks like pain, and sounds like pain, it probably is pain. Escape mechanism, my ass. These people could probably say the same about human reactions.

[Democrat Dragon]

48. Good point!

I was sabout to say that! Ever notice how when you lightly squish an ant so that it dosen't die or get it's abdomen squishes it starts running around like crazy and looking for the other ants?

BTW Isn't pain essential to survival? otherwise lobsters would go around like a guy on LSD(or whatever that drug is that doesn't let people feel pain).

[Dave Reynolds]

51. Yayyy!

Another carnivore vs. herbivore slugfest shaping up.

Popcorn, anyone?

:P

[Redstone]

57. Popcorn? Sure.

Got a beer I can have, too? This ought to be fun to watch.

Redstone

[Bonhomme Richard]

58. I scream when I hold them under the boiling water

Don't want them to get away. Doh!

[Maine-ah]

61. LOL!

well, there are other forms of cooking them that I refuse to do. Boiling them is the quickest. Steaming is another option. But stuffing and baking them is the worst. Even I couldn't cut open a live lobster, stuff 'em, and put it in the oven. Plus stuffing ruins it anyway. ick. just a plain lobster and butter. :D

[Lost147]

63. wouldn't the shock factor overload their nervous system?

If you're dropped in boiling water from head to toe I think it would kill almost all surface pain receptors and send you into shock before you could feel much... then again who the hell is willing to find out? any volunteers? hehe

[funkybutt]

71. Whew! that makes me feel better about the crabs and crawfish

I don't really care for lobster though. No flavor, compared to crabs and crawfish. I always assumed that death came instantly, but I have felt a fleeting sense of sympathy for them as I toss them into the water.

[shesemsmom]

73. That is good to know

if I can ever afford to eat one again