Must there be an exception to every rule?

As a general rule, ‘cute’ and ‘edible’ are words I think should always keep a safe distance from each other. Food should look like food. And taste like food. I accept as self-evident that teddy bears are cute. That puppy dogs and kittens are cute. That babies delivered by caesarean section are cute. 



Consider therefore the following syllogism:


Major Premise:  Teddy bears, puppy dogs and kittens, and babies delivered by caesarean section are cute.


Minor Premise:  Teddy bears, puppy dogs and kittens, and babies delivered by caesarean section are not, by any reasonable person’s definition of the term, edible. Which is to say, teddy bears, puppy dogs and kittens, and babies delivered by caesarean section are not things any reasonable person would choose to eat, even if one could eat them without injury to one’s health.


Conclusion:  Teddy bears, puppy dogs and kittens, and babies delivered by caesarean section don’t belong on the top of a birthday cake or a sugar cookie or a cupcake or any place other than a well-made bed, a green shag carpet, and a changing table respectively.

My knowledge of logic is basic, but I defy even the most experienced analytic philosopher to disprove the soundness of my reasoning.


Just to make the point, here is a brief list of things properly defined as edible:  Arugula, molasses, chicken livers, pearl barley, cinnamon bark, smoked trout, and mango.


Cute. Edible. Never the twain shall meet. Or shall they?