New PETA campaign: "Save the Sea Kittens"

[GabonX]

In an effort to raise awareness about the plight of fish PETA seeks to rename them "sea kittens."

People don't seem to like fish. They're slithery and slimy, and they have eyes on either side of their pointy little heads—which is weird, to say the least. Plus, the small ones nibble at your feet when you're swimming, and the big ones—well, the big ones will bite your face off if Jaws is anything to go by.

Of course, if you look at it another way, what all this really means is that fish need to fire their PR guy—stat. Whoever was in charge of creating a positive image for fish needs to go right back to working on the Britney Spears account and leave our scaly little friends alone. You've done enough damage, buddy. We've got it from here. And we're going to start by retiring the old name for good. When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover. And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?

http://www.peta.org/Sea_Kittens/index.asp

[wcaclimbing]

Do you think they taste like real kittens?
or if you keep them for long enough they grow up into catfish?

[GabonX]

I doubt they taste as good as real kittens...

[muy_thaiguy]

The "create your own sea kitten" thing sucks, can't even gut the stupid thing.

[MeDeFe]

That bluish fish, pardon, sea-kitten, on the homepage looks like it might be into BDSM. Black mask, black gloves(?), well, it takes all sorts I guess.

[DAZMCFC]

i can't see "Sea Kitten & Chips" going down to well.

[Nickbaldwin]

What about fresh water fish? Does PETA hate them?

[apey]

i can't see "Sea Kitten & Chips" going down to well.

I bet it would do wonderfully in China

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

I can still see myself putting a hook through the head of a sea kitten.

I can't believe PETA is actually trying this.

[PLAYER57832]

I can't believe PETA is actually trying this.

PETA had (maybe has?) a campaign to convince folks not to wear wool because sheep get "mauled". I lived by sheep farms for years ... a shearer who knicked the sheep, never mind the kinds of gashes they would display, was unlikely to be asked back.

I mean, barbers sometimes knick toddlers ... because they wiggle. Nothing is fool proof, but their complete lack of honesty is scary. Even more scary is that so many actually believe them!


The REAL irony? If you want to look at species that are not threatened or endangered .... look at species that people actually USE regularly!

The number one reason for species loss is loss of habitat, not hunting or fishing (other than some ocean stocks) or ...

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

I have no problem with animal conservation, Player, and I fully support conservation of habitat. I just happen to think renaming fish "Sea Kittens" to be asinine, and possibly damaging to the animal rights cause.

[debbie4eva]

IF we rename cocaine 'happy cabbage' or something, it won't become legal. This is a stupid idea.

[InkL0sed]

IF we rename cocaine 'happy cabbage' or something, it won't become legal. This is a stupid idea.

Maybe it will in the long run; we haven't tried it yet, right?

This is blatant subliminal messaging...

[debbie4eva]

IF we rename cocaine 'happy cabbage' or something, it won't become legal. This is a stupid idea.

Maybe it will in the long run; we haven't tried it yet, right?

This is blatant subliminal messaging...

Damn, foiled.

[InkL0sed]

Heh, I was actually referring to the renaming of fish to sea kittens.

Seems I unwittingly you caught you in the act.

[MeDeFe]

IF we rename cocaine 'happy cabbage' or something, it won't become legal. This is a stupid idea.

Maybe it will in the long run; we haven't tried it yet, right?

This is blatant subliminal messaging...

"Spying on the own population" has been relabeled as "security measures". Maybe it's worth a try.

[debbie4eva]

Heh, I was actually referring to the renaming of fish to sea kittens.

Seems I unwittingly you caught you in the act.

That normally happens. When I was 16 my dad caught me masturbating with my new dildo.

[PLAYER57832]

I have no problem with animal conservation, Player, and I fully support conservation of habitat. I just happen to think renaming fish "Sea Kittens" to be asinine, and possibly damaging to the animal rights cause.

Me too! It has been my career, in fact.

But I would say that PETA, as a whole does more to damage the cause than any other organization because they have a habit of picking asinine causes.

(and PETA is not about preserving habitat in reality ... they are anti-direct killing, but I know too many PETA members who are quite happy to go buy a house on new land .. they may make it "environmentally friendly", but leaving the land alone would do far more. ).

[InkL0sed]

Heh, I was actually referring to the renaming of fish to sea kittens.

Seems I unwittingly you caught you in the act.

That normally happens. When I was 16 my dad caught me masturbating with my new dildo.

That must have been a tad awkward.

[MeDeFe]

Heh, I was actually referring to the renaming of fish to sea kittens.

Seems I unwittingly you caught you in the act.

That normally happens. When I was 16 my dad caught me masturbating with my new dildo.

That must have been a tad awkward.

But for who was it more awkward?

[InkL0sed]

Since when was it a competition in awkward? I'm sure they were both satisfyingly embarrassed.

PS. I think you mean "for whom"

[MeDeFe]

Since when was it a competition in awkward? I'm sure they were both satisfyingly embarrassed.

PS. I think you mean "for whom"

To my knowledge both forms are correct, "whom" is more formal though.

[InkL0sed]

Since when was it a competition in awkward? I'm sure they were both satisfyingly embarrassed.

PS. I think you mean "for whom"

To my knowledge both forms are correct, "whom" is more formal though.

No, to be completely correct, you must use "who" and "whom" in the proper place. It's become so uncommon to use "whom" correctly, though, that it's generally accepted when someone says something like "The person who you love is a fat witch." But when you pull out a <insert preposition> + who(m), you're already in the realm of grammar nazi. So it should be "for whom" in that case. No one ever says "for who."

[MeDeFe]

Since when was it a competition in awkward? I'm sure they were both satisfyingly embarrassed.

PS. I think you mean "for whom"

To my knowledge both forms are correct, "whom" is more formal though.

No, to be completely correct, you must use "who" and "whom" in the proper place. It's become so uncommon to use "whom" correctly, though, that it's generally accepted when someone says something like "The person who you love is a fat witch." But when you pull out a <insert preposition> + who(m), you're already in the realm of grammar nazi. So it should be "for whom" in that case. No one ever says "for who."

I checked my DCE and it agrees with me that "whom" is very formal and not commonly used. That said, the poor man's corpus Google appears to confirm your claim that "whom" is more often used together with a preposition than "who", though not overwhelmingly so. However, I did some random sampling of the results and they were often heavily biased towards literature (especially "for whom", Hemingway owns that one and "within whom", a complete victory for the bible).

[InkL0sed]

In any case, when they say something is more formal, they really mean "this is actually correct, but people refuse to learn the grammar of their own language, so you'll probably never hear it."