Iron Chef "Octopus Battle"....

Armstrong

Vampyroteuthis
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
476
#1
Has anyone ever seen Iron Chef Octopus battle when they ate Octopus and they had to cook them LIVE?
It was so sad, and funny becuase the octopuses were very srtong and the Iron Chefs were having a hard time cooking them and grabbing them.
I felt super dee duper bad for the octopuses though. They were pretty large too. They had trouble picking them up out of the tanks becuase they were so slimy and slippery and octopuses are usually.
The episode was GREAT, but not the octopus, lol.
 

octapush

Cuttlefish
Registered
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
29
#2
Not again!!!

Yuck that sounds like my last post about them doing the same on Amazing Race!!?? What is the big kicker in chopping them up live?? I'm so disgusted to hear it has happened again for entertainment purposes :x
I personally do not find this funny in any way what so ever!!!!
 

Armstrong

Vampyroteuthis
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
476
#3
Re: Not again!!!

octapush said:
Yuck that sounds like my last post about them doing the same on Amazing Race!!?? What is the big kicker in chopping them up live?? I'm so disgusted to hear it has happened again for entertainment purposes :x
I personally do not find this funny in any way what so ever!!!!
I only found it funny cause the Iron Chefs didn't know how to handle em; properly. But that's it. I never found it funny to kill em'.
That's SAD.
 

octapush

Cuttlefish
Registered
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
29
#4
No I know thats what you meant :) I think thats funny too, gotta laugh at em, and good for the wee octopuses for giving such a good fight :heee:
 

WhiteKiboko

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
2,702
Location
Charleston
#5
im a fan of the show....i havent seen that episode, but ive seen the clip of them trying to pull them out of the tank, and by no means were they 'wee'.... as for chopping them live im not sure if the effect is for it to still be wriggling when eaten, which i have the feeling was the case in the other thread, or simply freshness which im guessing is the case for iron chef but id have to see the episode to substantiate any of this (how close to serving, etc) as for the killing, i think its pretty safe to say that if its a cooking show, the animal isnt being dispatched for entertainment value...
 

Armstrong

Vampyroteuthis
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
476
#6
WhiteKiboko said:
im a fan of the show....i havent seen that episode, but ive seen the clip of them trying to pull them out of the tank, and by no means were they 'wee'.... as for chopping them live im not sure if the effect is for it to still be wriggling when eaten, which i have the feeling was the case in the other thread, or simply freshness which im guessing is the case for iron chef but id have to see the episode to substantiate any of this (how close to serving, etc) as for the killing, i think its pretty safe to say that if its a cooking show, the animal isnt being dispatched for entertainment value...
It was WEIRD.
When they finally chopped the octopuses up tentacles AND mantle, the chopped up tentacles in the pots were still moving.
I think this is becuase octopus have so many nurves in there tentacles more than in it's brain.
They were still alive out of the water for quite some time.
lol.
 

spooky

Pygmy Octopus
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
11
#7
the thought of eating my favorite sea creature or any seafood makes me want to throw up. i can't even look at an octopus and then want to eat something right after. i never understood how some octopus owners can eat their pet after it dies. that to me is like eating your dog or cat after it dies. i have a feeling i'm going to be a vegetarian sooner or later. :(
 

Burstsovenergy24

Larger Pacific Striped Octopus
Supporter
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
1,312
#9
Armstrong said:
When they finally chopped the octopuses up tentacles AND mantle, the chopped up tentacles in the pots were still moving.
I think this is becuase octopus have so many nurves in there tentacles more than in it's brain.quote]

Yeah when I was in Africa a guy nailed a octopus with a spear and when I felt him he still sucked my arm.

Weird huh?


Jesse
 

CuttlefishCurious

Pygmy Octopus
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2003
Messages
11
#10
i would feel more sad/sorry for the humans than the octopus. for one, remember the animal kingdom can be pretty torturous itself, clean knife cut might not be as bad as being ripped apart..by eels.
mostly, though, I feel a great sadness and pity for anyone that finds no harm in torturing something live. Even iron chef should be praying for himself, for showing no remorse and generally no mercy!
People will always have their 'excuses" as to why it's ok to keep a live, sentient animal in a destitute existence, seems to make ( a supposedly, more evolved, more intelligent) a human feel better about his/her own pitiful existence.
just my $.02
 

CuttlefishCurious

Pygmy Octopus
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2003
Messages
11
#12
restaurant

oh, by the way, found out yesterday that the restaurant i work at gets its squid from Cuttlefish alone... :bugout: well, that's not good either..i guess the opposite of drowning would be bad, like what fish go through when 'fished' out of water..life is one big contradiction....
 

WhiteKiboko

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
2,702
Location
Charleston
#13
CuttlefishCurious said:
I feel a great sadness and pity for anyone that finds no harm in torturing something live. Even iron chef should be praying for himself, for showing no remorse and generally no mercy!
what torture? he's preparing food..... the animal in question or the preparation may not be to your liking, but i fail to see how that counts as a barbaric act....
 

octapush

Cuttlefish
Registered
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
29
#14
what torture? he's preparing food..... the animal in question or the preparation may not be to your liking, but i fail to see how that counts as a barbaric act....

Ok picture this, watching your dog (or whatever animal you may own) getting his legs hacked off while still alive, evenually cutting off its head, then throwing it all into a pot and sitting down for dinner.....still hungry?? :yuck:

At least cut the damn head off first!!!!!!! :shock:
And anyone who eats their pets ....thats just wrong!!!! why not just dine on our family members after they pass too ....really!!!!????? :bugout:
 

Armstrong

Vampyroteuthis
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
476
#15
octapush said:
what torture? he's preparing food..... the animal in question or the preparation may not be to your liking, but i fail to see how that counts as a barbaric act....

Ok picture this, watching your dog (or whatever animal you may own) getting his legs hacked off while still alive, evenually cutting off its head, then throwing it all into a pot and sitting down for dinner.....still hungry?? :yuck:

At least cut the damn head off first!!!!!!! :shock:
And anyone who eats their pets ....thats just wrong!!!! why not just dine on our family members after they pass too ....really!!!!????? :bugout:
For the last freaken time the big bag shaped part of its body is it;s MANTLE or TRUNK becuase HEADS aren't packed with organs. An octopuses head is between the eyes were the donut shaped brain is.
Remember that.

AND an octopus had ARMS or TENTACLES NOT legs. I dont know whyeveryone says there legs. They use there arms to grab things and hold on to.
 

CuttlefishCurious

Pygmy Octopus
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2003
Messages
11
#16
Barbaric? hmmm..let's see, making something suffer (living creatures DO suffer when you MUTILATE them) and gettting no reward for it (no extra dietary benefits)...hmm..sounds like Torture to me....but barbarism and torture are TOTALLY different...what?! i can concede that culturally it's accepted, but we are talking about HUMANS.. we are the most selfish animal on the planet, and you just prove my point. you still have no concern for the possibility that hurting something sentient is wrong--sad.
Escpecially in this day and age. And, oh, by the way, the main reason (culturally) that they WERE cooked live was for freshness, and to keep "chewiness" limited. but, Thankfully, with technology today, freezer burn and what not is NO LONGER A CONCERn. so, it may have had it's DECENT reasons in the past, but the only purpose it serves now is a link to our own Barbaric Legacy.

i may be wrong, but atleast it's not hurting anything.. can you say the same about your actions and beliefs? I'm not trying to start anything here, i just don't think humans understand that we did not inherit the planet, there were many, more civilized creatures here LONG before us.

funny, people personify these animals' actions until it means feeling something REAL for them, like pain. but, do as you please, nobody stopping you.


In the end, though, my answer is: keep them alive UP until you decide to Cook them, but right before you throw it in the broiler, KILL IT! you get both freshness and the satisfaction of a quick kill (for you cro-magnon, hunters out there that still gain satisfaction from taking life..)
if we as humans can't show animals respect, then we are no more civilized than our prehistoric precursors.
I will stick to my Native American up-bringing in that my intended food should be shown kindness, for it is giving it's life for my well being. This is a sacred relationship, and to soil it by putting my aesthetic taste above that respect would be self-destructive. but, not only are we destroying ourselves we are taking the entire earth's population with us..but little do we care for the well-being of our food, until it is all gone..ONLY then will we feel remorse, but for all the wrong, selfish reasons. when you only think of them as food, you do not understand yourself or your place in this world...anthropocentricism is real and will probably never change. especially as long as there are those that try to seperate themselves (in thought) from one only slightly down the foodchain.
 

Steve O'Shea

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,669
#17
Armstrong said:
For the last :alarm: time the big bag-shaped part of its body is its MANTLE or TRUNK because HEADS aren't packed with organs. An octopuses head is between the eyes where the donut-shaped brain is.
Please ... :alarm: ... remember this.

AND an octopus has ARMS or TENTACLES, NOT legs. I don't know why everyone says they're legs. They use their arms to grab things and hold on to.
Hiya there Armstrong, good catch. The bag-(or 'sac', both terms used interchangeably) shaped part is the mantle; 'trunk' is not a term that I am overly familiar with, but it is OK to use. However, Recent (as in modern-day) octopuses only have 'arms'; they do not have tentacles (only Recent squid have these, and they only have two of them (although quite a few species lose the tentacles in the post-paralarval/juvenile stages (things like Octopoteuthis, Taningia and Lepidoteuthis)).

We could wage a debate as to whether the 'arms' are truly 'arms', whether they are 'legs', or whether they are some form of 'head appendage', being neither 'arms nor legs' .... or perhaps derived from something quite different. Unfortunately the fossil record isn't going to tell us too much - as in how or from what these structures evolved - and even I don't know enough about it to debate the issue one way or the other. So for the meantime I'd be happy with usage of 'arm' or 'leg' for both octopus and squid, but restrict usage of the term 'tentacle' to squid (which have 8 arms/legs & 2 'tentacles').
Cheers
Steve
 

WhiteKiboko

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
2,702
Location
Charleston
#18
CuttlefishCurious said:
you still have no concern for the possibility that hurting something sentient is wrong
i think calling cephs sentient may be jumping the gun but thats not really pertinent....

as far as i know, the octo was dead by the time it was cooked, but as i said before, i haent seen the show yet so im avoiding being definite....

CuttlefishCurious said:
when you only think of them as food, you do not understand yourself or your place in this world
actually, by thinking of them in terms of food constantly reminds me that im in the cycle of life...
 

CuttlefishCurious

Pygmy Octopus
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2003
Messages
11
#19
sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.
1: Having sense perception; conscious
2: Experiencing sensation or feeling.

so, 1) if it has eyes and can perceive and react to sensory and 2)if it has nerves and can react to physical stimulii ---> then someone obviously doesn't know the meaning of sentient :lol: , or doesn't want to concede my view..
anyway, no biggie....i love debate. differences of opinion don't bother me, i just love to voice my opinion (not facts...)


I find it best to err on the side of caution, especially when it comes to life and death. Who knows, in the end we might be confronted by the spirits of those we harmed, only to realize that we were wrong in our actions the entire time. what greater pain can there be in the end than the realization that you lived WRONG. i'm not trying to accuse anybody of anything, for I am only in control of my actions, but take heed for yourself.

Hehe, by the way, i noticed Steve stayed away from this specific argument...prob'ly best off :) stick to what'cha know

and, no, whitekibo, being in the life cycle is not what i meant.. think about It for a few and then think BIGGER than food...again, you're not GETTing past Looking at them as food, obvious by your conclusion.
there are worse things than starving...like being left in the vacuum of our own regret.
 

WhiteKiboko

TONMO Supporter
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
2,702
Location
Charleston
#20
i was aware of the definition, but i interpret it i a fashion that i only i take sentient to mean being self aware....whether this is correct or is shared by other people isnt important :)

i admit my arguements have been less than articulate, but to make assumptions about what a person youve never met knows, understands or simply 'gets' is foolish....

clumsiness with words notwithstanding, i agree that debating can be fun...

as for Steve's silence, i wouldnt read to much into it...those teuthologists are a wily bunch and hard to figure out :)

CuttlefishCurious said:
i just love to voice my opinion (not facts...)
:lol: you definitely win points for honesty....
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
19,425
Messages
202,309
Members
8,322
Latest member
stephjrick

Monty Awards

TONMOCON IV (2011): Terri
TONMOCON V (2013): Jean
TONMOCON VI (2015): Taollan
TONMOCON VII (2018): ekocak

About the Monty Awards
Top