>Crustaceans are very distantly related to "bugs,"
How do you figure? What makes them not a bug? Generally the distinction I see is that people consider pretty much all arthopods bugs unless they're big and live in the sea and cognitive dissonance doesn't want them to think about that they like eating bugs. Sure, they're not /insects/ but neither are spiders or centipedes. Heck, I think most people consider "Pill Bugs" to be bugs, it's in the name. Those /are/ crustaceans. Don't know how they taste, though.
Scientifically, "bugs" refers to hemiptera, not crustaceans.
As for flavor, second hand account indicates that bugs taste like chicken, while first hand account indicates lobster doesn't taste like chicken, at least not to me.
Contextually, we're downstream in a conversation caused by someone saying they will not eat bugs. If you had to guess, do you think someone yelling they won't eat bugs would eat fried crickets? Or popcorn pill bugs? Shrimp fried bees? Chocolate cockroach crunch cereal? None of those are hemipterans. I imagine those are all pretty well covered by the "I will not eat bugs!" statement.
All that's true also, but since he said "scientifically" I thought it was important to point out that it wasn't the case. And more directly that lobster really isn't very similar to cricket at all, so even though people like to gross each other out by saying it's the same, it's really not. Cockroach is much more similar to grasshopper than lobster. And yet plenty of people eat grasshoppers, but very few eat cockroaches. Therein lies the nuance. Lobster is so different from "bugs" that we shouldn't be grossed out by the false claim that it's the same thing, any more than someone would want tomatoes on their hamburger, simply because they like pickles.
The correlation is very accurate. Lobsters were once considered so low-quality that they had to be force-fed to prisoners. Anyone complaining about "eating bugs" on principle is being foolish. If you don't like bugs for the taste, that's one thing (I've tried crickets before; they're unremarkable). But if anyone thinks that eating bugs is inherently any worse than eating, say, pigs, or octopuses, then that's simply incoherent.
Cut the BS. Lobsters used to be ground up, shell and all. The people eating them didn't know how to cook them corredtly. It was a recent innovation (like 19th century) to keep them alive, boil them, deshell, and douse in butter which made them delicious.
It's not accurate. Scientifically, "bugs" refers to hemiptera, not crustaceans. Nomenclature isn't typically determined by the quality of nutrition, nor the economic class to which an animal is fed. But this is interesting, nonetheless.
Not upset. Just correcting you. Bugs are hemiptera, which is an order of the class insecta. Lobster is not in that order and it's not even in that class. If you say "scientifically" then you're especially wrong.
'Bugs' is also an idiom for arthropods and it's pretty clear from context that this is how the word was being used. I understand some people have more difficulty than others picking up on idioms but that's no reason not to take all the poetry out of everyday speech. Linguistic drift is a beautiful thing! Just embrace it.
How do you know? I was offered fried scorpions and grass hoopers once, but I was too chicken to try. My friends thought they taste normal, it sounds plausible at least.
Honestly, eating scorpions isn't even as weird as half the things you can buy from a good butcher. Give me a choice between scorpion and rocky mountain oysters, and I'll take the scorpion.
If you round them out with Mangrove worms and snails and throw in a few Witchetty grubs you've got a tasty smorgasbord - good easy food when you're on the move and the nearest shop is at least a few 100km away.
Both are, scientifically speaking, bugs.