I REFER to your recent article concerning a 33-year-old man ingesting live fish and would like to register my revulsion at a grown man's distasteful act.
What did he want to prove? His prowess , or his immaturity? It was a barbaric act.
But, let us reflect for a moment. Was he so exceptional? Should he have been punished at all?
Why should the same punishment not be be meted out to the lovers of oysters who delight in swallowing the poor things live?
Or the advocates of lobster, which have to suffer the indignity of being boiled alive? Or ,indeed, fish caught at sea being gutted while still alive? Or the slaughter of live cattle without anaesthetic?
Are we hypocrites, or are we selective in our judgement?
We seem to tolerate those things we like but take exception to events which we deem offensive?
Can someone explain the difference? And where should we draw the line?
Or are we just hypocrites?
P LEMKEY Goodrich