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.
