Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMeat eater, vegetarian or vegan?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Poll Question: Which are you?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
34 [77.27%]
9 [20.45%]
1 [2.27%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2014 at 18:42
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

When can we start eating vegetarians?


As soon as cannibalism is okay.

Depends on what you mean by "eating" Tongue
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
dwill123 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 19 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4460
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2014 at 11:49
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65248
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2014 at 02:33
You got me--  I should've known

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2014 at 01:29
A falafel mix?!?!?!? David, I'm mortified Shocked

Take one tin of chickpeas, open can, place in bowl, attack with potato masher until at desired consistency (smooth or crunchy, like peanut butter), add sautéed chopped onion and crushed garlic and whatever herbs and spices take your fancy. Form into balls then fry. 

You can use a food processor instead of a masher but it's too easy to go past falafel consistency and into hummus territory. Talking of which, this will make enough for 4 people so if cooking for 2 or less use half the chickpeas to make hummus by adding tahini paste to the chickpeas and garlic with a good slug of olive oil and blitzing them in the food processor until smooth. And you can even make your own tahini paste by placing some sesame seeds in a hot dry pan until you can just start to smell their aroma (you don't want to colour them) - remove from the heat and allow to cool -  whizz in a blender with a drizzle of olive oil, keep adding oil until a smooth but slightly sloppy paste is formed, mix in a dash of lemon juice to taste.




Edited by Dean - January 20 2014 at 01:42
What?
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65248
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2014 at 22:04
talk about your hushpuppies 
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2014 at 22:01
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Take the ubiquitous falafel, a tasty little morsel that is often used as the staple in vegetarian "spag-bog", often overlooked by omnivores because of its vegetarian association it can be an interesting main component and/or accompaniment in a meal, the versatility of the ingredients cannot be overstated. Having said that, a good falafel can be as hard to find as a good meatball, for many are over-spiced and have far too much garlic for my personal tastes, there are times when I felt that my breath could have stripped wallpaper at  twenty paces after eating a pre-prepared falafel.

I'm telling you right now; try making your own at home.  Get a decent box of falafel mix, add water, shape into pads and fry those puppies up in hot olive oil till golden brown and crunchy on both sides.  Shove in a pita with your favorite hummus and some veggies and you won't know why you waited so long.




No animals were harmed in the making of this recipe LOL
Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2014 at 21:53
No carb-free? Gluten-free? Paleo? What-Would-Jesus-Eat? Wink
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65248
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2014 at 21:46
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Take the ubiquitous falafel, a tasty little morsel that is often used as the staple in vegetarian "spag-bog", often overlooked by omnivores because of its vegetarian association it can be an interesting main component and/or accompaniment in a meal, the versatility of the ingredients cannot be overstated. Having said that, a good falafel can be as hard to find as a good meatball, for many are over-spiced and have far too much garlic for my personal tastes, there are times when I felt that my breath could have stripped wallpaper at  twenty paces after eating a pre-prepared falafel.

I'm telling you right now; try making your own at home.  Get a decent box of falafel mix, add water, shape into pads and fry those puppies up in hot olive oil till golden brown and crunchy on both sides.  Shove in a pita with your favorite hummus and some veggies and you won't know why you waited so long.


Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2014 at 21:43
Omnivore.

I could really give up almost any meats except steak and seafood. Those I'm particularly attached to. I'm not swayed one way or another as far as the morality of it. I don't really care. But for what it's worth, if you can grow me a steak in a lab that tastes good enough, I'll eat it instead of an animal.


Edited by stonebeard - January 19 2014 at 21:46
Back to Top
siLLy puPPy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic

Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2014 at 21:35
VEGEN
vegen (ˈvexə(n))
werkwoord
enkelvoud onvoltooid verleden tijd veegde , voltooid deelwoord heeft geveegd
1. schoonmaken door met een bezem of borstel ergens langs te strijken de vloer vegen de schoorsteen vegen je voeten vegen aan de deurmat
2. door ergens langs te strijken verplaatsen of verwijderen de tranen van je wangen vegen
van de kaart vegen - totaal vernietigen
onder het tapijt vegen - negeren doen alsof (een lastige kwestie) niet bestaat


VEGAN


veg·an  (vgn, vjn)
n.
A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.

Whoever started this post needs to at least spell it right
Back to Top
catfood03 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2014 at 21:24
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

No argument from me, though I would add that a McVeggie burger, fries and tomato sauce does not let the vegetarian "off the hook", we are all capable of making poor choices on our "side" dishes. [Not that there is anything inherently wrong in a McVeggie burger, I actually enjoy them occasionally - I once ordered a McVeggie burger and was told they had none left so would I like a McChicken burger instead...]


I had no idea McDonalds offered such a burger. Going veg has kept me away from the fast food burger chains for quite some time, assuming there is nothing for me to go back there for outside of a salad. On a side note, I was speaking with a co-worker from India who told me the McDonalds there were completely meat-free.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I think we've pretty much established that "interesting" is a matter of personal taste, I will concede that since it is subjective any subset of ingredients can be more or less "interesting" depending on how they are prepared and presented. Relativism is a comparative measure against a base-line, in my original comment that base-line was an omnivorous diet, you are measuring against a different base-line so the comparison is meaningless.


Yeah, I think I overdid my argument a bit and can't add anything more without treading the same ground.
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

There is no avoiding the "disgust" factor and I respect those who avoid meat for "ethical" reasons, it is a sound and perfectly reasonable reason to become a vegetarian. There are many animals (and parts thereof) that most omnivores find disgusting to eat, vegetarianism is merely an extrapolation of that, just as veganism an extreme extrapolation of the same. Personally, I find dairy production to be no more (or less) ethical than meat production, but that's just me, I could argue this for hours but that is not my intention here, I have no desire to question peoples' ethical choices.


I find it noble to want an existence with minimal amount of life taken from other creatures on our planet, but that could be a topic of discussion for another time. I'll need to catch up on the older posts in here to read what has already been said.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2014 at 05:57
Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

 
True, a meat lover can still add their favorite protein to whatever meal that I could make. If I made spaghetti with vegetarian "meatballs" then I suppose you could always add real meatballs to it to make it more "interesting". 
LOL
A humorous quip no doubt, but not without possibilities - meatless balls would make for an interesting addition to a spaghetti dish, even thought the combination of meat and meatless balls does seem a little superfluous at first glance it is only if you regard the meatless balls as a meat substitute or alternative.  

Take the ubiquitous falafel, a tasty little morsel that is often used as the staple in vegetarian "spag-bog", often overlooked by omnivores because of its vegetarian association it can be an interesting main component and/or accompaniment in a meal, the versatility of the ingredients cannot be overstated. Having said that, a good falafel can be as hard to find as a good meatball, for many are over-spiced and have far too much garlic for my personal tastes, there are times when I felt that my breath could have stripped wallpaper at  twenty paces after eating a pre-prepared falafel. As you mentioned Indian cuisine earlier I do feel they are more "adventurous" in their use of vegetable patties and fritters (dal, bhaji, vadai etc.) both as a main and as an accompaniment to meat-based dishes than how they are used in Western cuisine.
Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

 
I've adopted this dietary lifestyle for 3 years now and I would not be a vegetarian if I did not cook for myself on a regular basis. Vegetarians can make bad choices if they think that all it takes is eating cheese pizzas and frozen veggie-burgers, they are doomed to fail. Some forget the point of vegetarianism is to eat vegetablesSome omnivores, on the other hand, think ketchup and french fries counts as a viable serving of vegetables.
No argument from me, though I would add that a McVeggie burger, fries and tomato sauce does not let the vegetarian "off the hook", we are all capable of making poor choices on our "side" dishes. [Not that there is anything inherently wrong in a McVeggie burger, I actually enjoy them occasionally - I once ordered a McVeggie burger and was told they had none left so would I like a McChicken burger instead...]
Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

 
I like that I am debating this with someone who shares a passion of cooking as I do. I live to eat too, but because I have eliminated animals from my diet does not make my diet less interesting. Not from my perspective. I've found new dishes that fill that void. The vegetarians who are in it primarily for ethical reasons would not find a meat diet more interesting, just more disgusting.
I think we've pretty much established that "interesting" is a matter of personal taste, I will concede that since it is subjective any subset of ingredients can be more or less "interesting" depending on how they are prepared and presented. Relativism is a comparative measure against a base-line, in my original comment that base-line was an omnivorous diet, you are measuring against a different base-line so the comparison is meaningless. 
 
There is no avoiding the "disgust" factor and I respect those who avoid meat for "ethical" reasons, it is a sound and perfectly reasonable reason to become a vegetarian. There are many animals (and parts thereof) that most omnivores find disgusting to eat, vegetarianism is merely an extrapolation of that, just as veganism an extreme extrapolation of the same. Personally, I find dairy production to be no more (or less) ethical than meat production, but that's just me, I could argue this for hours but that is not my intention here, I have no desire to question peoples' ethical choices.

[The discussion between Alex and myself has drifted away from ethical justification into a discussion on philosophy and the roots of morality, I don't believe that "more ethical" means "more moral", I can make more ethical choices in the food I eat, that does not necessarily make those choices more moral.]
What?
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 18 2014 at 21:03
There are a lot of posts in this thread that are way too long to bother reading


Time always wins.
Back to Top
catfood03 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 18 2014 at 20:51
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

 However... you are arguing unfairly when you are presenting opinion as fact."Less Interesting diet" is your opinion based on your particular tastes in food, and I will deny that quote as correct."Less varied" can be presented as fact, but I also dismiss this claim as true. If anything going vegetarian has helped me think more creatively about meals I'd never consider when I was focused on a meat diet, and I have built a repertoire of a variety of recipies so that I am never for want of diversity. Sometimes, I get the feeling that many meat-eaters think I eat only salads every day. Indian cuisine alone illustrates my point with a variety in vegetarianism on par with meat dishes. 
Ah, I don't go in for generalisations, sure many people eat a dull and uninteresting meals regardless of their lifestyle diet, also as creatures of habit many people's diet lacks variety, again this is independent of lifestyle diet choice. My statements remains undeniably correct - I can cook (and eat) the same meals as a vegetarian using the same ingredients, I can then repeat those meals with the addition of meat, that is by definition more varied. I also find it more interesting and yes, that is based upon my particular tastes but for me that is what food is all about - taste - I live to eat, I do not eat to live, so while I am not inclined to the vegetarian lifestyle, I am interested in their recipes. Just because I am an omnivore it doesn't mean I will not eat vegetarian recipes.
Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:


Actually I am okay with microwavable vegetables (from the frozen food section), good for a quick and easy meal. If I wanted to compare the best with the worst I would've used canned vegetables as my example. Tongue
The only veg that cooks well in  a microwave is frozen peas, but I prefer frozen peas to fresh peas anyway. My microwave does little more than re-heat leftovers and melt butter. Vegetables need to be cooked slowly so you can stop the cooking at precisely the right moment - a microwave is like cooking with a sledgehammer. If I use a gadget to cook veg (which isn't very often) it is the electric steamer - retains all the flavour and loses none of the texture - good for cooking rice too, especially sticky-rice.

Pulses in cans - ruddy marvellous invention - I know it's cheaper to buy them dried but that means soaking them for 24 hours before use (or you gonna die), so they're more convenient in a tin. If I come home from work and fancy a bean-burger for dinner I just open a tin of mixed beans, mash them up a bit, add some chilli, form them into patties and fry them - et violin - instant bean burger. Of course as an omnivore I can make myself a bacon cheesebeanburger, and that is probably the finest bean burger ever invented, there isn't a vegetarian recipe that cannot be made more interesting to an omnivore by the addition of one slice of crispy bacon. I'd also make a ragu using tinned beans rather than those highly processed bean-curd meat substitutes (I'm not a big pasta eater and I do not like cooked tomatoes, but I do cook a mean ragu)... or a vegetarian cassoulet with tinned haricot beans and oven roasted root-veg... or a bean and asparagus terrine wrapped in cabbage leaves... or a bean and mushroom goulash... but I suspect I'm preaching to the choir here, I imagine that many vegetarian know the wonder of tinned beans.

Fruit in tins is okay too though I don't use them anywhere near as much - a small tin of "mixed fruit cocktail" cooked with tomato ketchup and vinegar makes an instant sweet'n'sour that will cheer-up the most dullest of meals, even a grilled aubergine.


So, food is as interesting and as varied as you make it.

True, a meat lover can still add their favorite protein to whatever meal that I could make. If I made spaghetti with vegetarian "meatballs" then I suppose you could always add real meatballs to it to make it more "interesting". 
LOL

I've adopted this dietary lifestyle for 3 years now and I would not be a vegetarian if I did not cook for myself on a regular basis. Vegetarians can make bad choices if they think that all it takes is eating cheese pizzas and frozen veggie-burgers, they are doomed to fail. Some forget the point of vegetarianism is to eat vegetablesSome omnivores, on the other hand, think ketchup and french fries counts as a viable serving of vegetables. 

I like that I am debating this with someone who shares a passion of cooking as I do. I live to eat too, but because I have eliminated animals from my diet does not make my diet less interesting. Not from my perspective. I've found new dishes that fill that void. The vegetarians who are in it primarily for ethical reasons would not find a meat diet more interesting, just more disgusting.


Edited by catfood03 - January 18 2014 at 20:52
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 18 2014 at 13:11
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 
Yes of course, and when you modify the question the answer changes, giving us a more accurate view on the person's moral cut-off points with each question. I don't see what the problem, or your point, is here, call me naive?
You are naive. [you've really got to stop asking me to call you things- if you ask me to call you a cab I will say you are a cab - it's a reflex reaction that I am duty-bound to respond with]

If the purpose of the question is to find a persons moral cut-off then it is worse than pointless, it is dishonest, moreover it is flawed. Previously you claimed my answer to this question would explain whether I really do think there is a universal morality or not, (which it doesn't), and now it is to determine my moral cut-off points (and it's not going to determine those either) - that particular experiment was designed to test neither of those things.

However, I suspect in these kinds of thought experiment the fault is mine. 
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 
Oh no, of course it doesn't prove my point as my point hasn't been proved as it is a view, same with your point on morality being constant within the life of the human race. They are points of view that would be very difficult to prove either way I reckon! I'd like to hear an example of genocide and genocide caused by holy war in another animal than humans though... I'm well aware of the brutality of dolphins (orcas and chimpanzees too), and I've read a modest amount about them. I still haven't found genocide or genocide caused by a holy war in these species yet, although I'd gladly be enlightened.
I have never claimed that morality has been constant. I would not claim that animals have a formal morality either. I've yet to hear of a genocide that wasn't the result of a philosophical ideology. So I don't follow your line of reasoning here.


Nota bene: I've deliberated swapped the order of next two quotes:
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

To say that Philosophy doesn't ask these kind of questions anymore is a very broad statement that will require a lot of proof on your part... I'm just doubting whether that is true or not.
To recap:

"Philosophy brings up a problem and contemplates it, science is the tool used to answer it"

I said that science stopped answering the questions that philosophy brings up during the Renaissance. Once we separated the disciplines of Science and Philosophy we also separated the natural/physical questions from the metaphysical/philosophical questions. Before that time the Philosopher/Scientist raised and answered the questions. Philosophy ceased to be an enquiry into the natural world and thus stopped asking questions that science could be used to answer. [The only metaphysical one hanging on by a thread is cosmology]. The questions that science attempts to answer since that time have been raised by science itself [including deeper metaphysical cosmology questions - bluntly put: a Philosopher cannot understand the theoretical physics (and the theoretical mathematics that goes with it) sufficiently well enough to be of any use at the level required - a knowledge of Nietzsche and Kant is of no value here].
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

I am neither (evidently) so I can't really answer this
Really? Science cannot fully answer the aesthetic qualities of a flower's colour: we know that a human can appreciate the colour of a flower aesthetically, we can even map the brain activity associated with that appreciation and can study the psychological effects to gain insight into the science of aesthetics; and we know that nectar and pollen eating birds and insects respond to the colour of a flower (which is the reason why they have colour at all). There are many philosophical questions that arises from observation of that science that science itself would not ask because it knows it cannot answer them, such as why do we have an aesthetic appreciation of the colour of a flower and if birds and insects can see those colours do they also have a psychological/emotional response to those colours, and if they do is that aesthetics? 

Such philosophical ponderings should keep a Philosophy department busy for decades and well away from meddling in economics and politics. Tongue
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Yes but it still functions as an ideal should: a goal. We are not going to achieve Marxism, that I am almost sure of as well, but I'm sure we can get as close to it as possible. My knowledge Marxism I admit is not great though, and people who know a lot more about the subject than I have said both that pure Marxism is not possible and that it is. I'll leave those guys to argue it out until I have read more!
In an ideal world any single ideology will work, but this world is far from ideal. I believe that any single ideology is an impossible goal and we are destined to vacillate between [near] opposing ideologies in perpetuity because while there are people who want an ideology to fail, it invariably will fail. Simplistically, socialism is necessary to prevent the domination of capitalism, and vice versa. The ideal ideology is one where everyone is happy, and that is utopian.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

I have an enormous problem with this in which Hitler, I believe, was a person who ignored the basic moral principles of almost everything he came into contact with. Catholicism is a bit different due to the whole cognitive dissonance thing, but with regards to Nietzsche's work, his what not the only one who was completely misinterpreted. I really think it was down to the man and the man alone. The fact that I misinterpreted Gervais as actually not getting Nietzsche is a prime example. I'd bring up Stewart Lee too for that very same reason. I really can't see how anyone would be at fault for their work being misinterpreted, but maybe that's just a mental block on my part.
Confused don't make me become an apologist for bloody Hitler OuchCryDeadAngryClown
Hitler was evil by practically every definition of the word, but I do not believe he ignored basic moral principles but adapted them to his twisted philosophy, I do not believe that he could, and even if he did I do not see how all of the crimes committed under National Socialism can rest entirely on one man's morality - it was his philosophy, ideology, (call it what you will) that his followers enacted. If that stems from Nietzsche's writing then old Friedrich is a moral dilemma all by himself... 
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

How?
? It is not an example of Philosophy making life more understandable.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 
Give a man a science and he'll most likely be irresponsible with it without the proper understanding. This can be applied to most things. Like Kenny G and his saxophone.
It loathes me to say it, but you've just done one of those philosophical fallacy things. It doesn't make your argument any weaker or even false in pointing that out, but it does not address the point I was making.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Are you not having fun Dean?  I love this kind of stuff, I would love to carry on.
I'm having fun, however this is a thread on vegetarianism, but since you are the OP here, I'm willing to play along.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:


Just a quick point on cutting out meat reducing variety... I would agree, it does in a literal sense. Vegetarianism is a restriction, and thus a reduction. However, like a restriction, it has a direct relationship with creativity, and if you know anything about the creative mind (which I'm sure you both do), it functions better with restrictions. This consequently broadens the mind to more possibilities and more meals that it wouldn't have done previously. 
I cannot completely dispute this because I find it more interesting composing music in modal scales than I do in chromatic scales but have a tendency to throw all other restrictions on composition out of the window, and in other areas of creative endeavour such as writing and painting I prefer to be completely unfettered. However, in food, as I have explained previously, I exercise my palate from a broader palette and explore wider possibilities without restricting myself to select food groups. I appreciate that not everyone does this, or can do this, but in my experience vegetarians are only no better at it than average. I like talking about food and food preparation (erm, I mean cooking) so take every opportunity to discuss it with whoever is interested, if someone is into a cuisine I've not delved into before I can be quite boorish in extracting as much information as I can from them and over the years that has included a number of vegetarians (though not many vegans I have to say) - I'll not claim that is an extensive or comprehensive study but the number of vegetarians whose cooking was unadventurous and very limited was quite surprising - to some even my simple home-made beanburgers where a revelation ... "Oh, I just buy the Linda McCartney stuff" ...  

From your OP it appears you've only recently turned vegetarian so I hope that you will explore and discover some great vegetarian food, there is life beyond Quorn.
What?
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 18 2014 at 13:11
Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

When can we start eating vegetarians?

The woman I eat isn't a vegetarian... Tongue
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
The Pessimist View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 18 2014 at 10:10
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 
That doesn't mean it is not a valid question. It is open ended, yes, but that would only mean that the answer would have to cover different scenarios. It's not an irrelevant question, more of a question of when YOU would save 1 for a 1000, or vice versa.
Any answer that begins with "If we..." is not answering the question, it is modifying the question to make it answerable, it is answering a different question or set of questions. Ergo the original question is not a question that has answers, whether that makes it valid or not does not come into it, it is simply, as I said, pointless. You have to modify it with assumed scenarios to give it a point. So, yes you can create a scenario where you would gladly allow a 1000 to die rather than purposely kill one, you can create a scenario where one dies to save a 1000, you can create a scenario where 1003 people die (the 1000, the one, yourself and the person who posed the question) and because you are modifying the question to create those unspecified scenarios then it is perfectly reasonable to argue that you can modify it so that no one dies (except the fat man in the balloon, he will always perish regardless of the scenario, obesity is a killer man). Of course a scientist would repeat the experiment several times to prove the veracity of the data so the death toll will rise considerably regardless of the scenario being played out.

Yes of course, and when you modify the question the answer changes, giving us a more accurate view on the person's moral cut-off points with each question. I don't see what the problem, or your point, is here, call me naive?

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 

Nothing really needs more to be said here, and I think we are on the same page. However, regarding pack animals, humans have come too far to be called merely pack animals. I think our nature is much deeper than that, otherwise how would you explain genocide? Religion? Iconoclasticism? Cults? Our behaviour is somewhat of an anomaly when compared to nature. Of course I only speak from my limited knowledge of the natural world, but so far I have yet to see pack animals mimic a lot of human behaviour. Just my observation...
Mimic is the wrong word, they do not copy us, they can and do exhibit similar behaviour - they will kill and murder, they do kill what they won't eat, they do exhibit cannibalistic behaviour, promiscuity, rape, property theft, bulling, genocide, infanticide and many other "human" behavioural traits. There are many examples of this in all pack animals, including those cute, lovable, highly intelligent dolphins. Our behaviour is not anomalous. (that does not make it excusable nor does it prove your earlier point on "urges")

Oh no, of course it doesn't prove my point as my point hasn't been proved as it is a view, same with your point on morality being constant within the life of the human race. They are points of view that would be very difficult to prove either way I reckon! I'd like to hear an example of genocide and genocide caused by holy war in another animal than humans though... I'm well aware of the brutality of dolphins (orcas and chimpanzees too), and I've read a modest amount about them. I still haven't found genocide or genocide caused by a holy war in these species yet, although I'd gladly be enlightened.

Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 Philosophy's purpose is not to give answers, and it never has been. That still doesn't make it fruitless. Your question "Why does a flower have colour?" Can be broken down in an infinite number of ways, and a Philosophy expert could and would do so. The understanding of this is the essential to the subject.
The transition here from "that question is a very childish one" to "a Philosophy expert could and would" is interesting. While it would be a philosophical curiosity to see the infinite breakdowns I would settle for one that a Philosopher would come up with that a Scientist would not.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:



I am neither (evidently) so I can't really answer this. I thought the question was a mockery of philosophy from you, which is why I called it childish. I was mistaken!

However, Philosophy does not ask those questions, (well not since the Renaissance anyway) - scientist do not go running to the Philosophy department for the next big puzzle to solve. And in my opinion, Philosophy stopped being relevant when it stopped asking those kinds of questions.

Does it not?
No it doesn't To say that Philosophy doesn't ask these kind of questions anymore is a very broad statement that will require a lot of proof on your part... I'm just doubting whether that is true or not.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

  I'm not arguing that your disinterest is criminal. However your dismissal of Philosophy still hasn't been justified yet. I'm not asking you to like it, only to accept that it is a valid subject of study and that it does produce great thinkers. You haven't proved me wrong yet as far as I can tell. 
I'm not attempting to prove you wrong, for that is an impossible task, as is any attempt to change each other's view. I am permitted to doubt Philosophy. Once again, nothing to argue with here
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 Is/was their influence profound? Sure. Should it have been? Probably not. Who is to say this? Really? 
A sarcastic person. Touché!
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 
As you know, Marx himself said that his political philosophy was a dialectic and not to be taken as purist, rather as an ideology that we should strive to be as close to as possible. This would create a sound political regime. That is the soul purpose of extreme academic ideologies.
It hasn't happened yet. In 3000 years of Philosophy it has never happened. It never will. It is attempting to square the circle. Yes but it still functions as an ideal should: a goal. We are not going to achieve Marxism, that I am almost sure of as well, but I'm sure we can get as close to it as possible. My knowledge Marxism I admit is not great though, and people who know a lot more about the subject than I have said both that pure Marxism is not possible and that it is. I'll leave those guys to argue it out until I have read more!
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

(I suspect you're not going to understand why I showed that)

I like Gervais, but if he is quoting from the Ubermensch, then he himself has misinterpreted it I believe. Of course the works of someone like Nietzsche can't be taken as absolute in anything however... A writer can't be held responsible for misinterpretation. Often in writing, Nietzsche especially (same with Blake I find), once you diminish its subtlety to crude and blunt, black and white information, you lose its beauty. It is not up to the author to be held responsible for the level in which something is misinterpreted, otherwise the deeper works of said artists would have turned out very dull and soulless indeed. Might I bring up INTENTION too? I'm pretty sure that Nietzsche didn't intend for his works to be used to justify genocide, and thus can't be held responsible if it is. A lot of great artists can be used to justify a lot of things (once again I mention Blake, Marx too), but the artist can't be held responsible if the consumer simply doesn't "get it".

As far as I'm aware, Hitler showed psychopath traits before he read Nietzsche, whether it be due to his mother dying when he was young, his Catholic upbringing or whole multitude of other things.
Nietzsche died when Hitler was eleven years old, he could not have predicted that a psychopath would distort his philosophy, so in that respect Nietzsche is exonerated from direct blame, but since he is supposed to be a Philosopher of some intelligence I find it hard to believe he wasn't aware of the possibility that someone could (especially as eugenics pre-date übermensch). Sure Gervais is misrepresenting both Nietzsche and Hitler for comedic effect, he is using it as an illustration, as was I in showing it. The "that's not what I meant..." retort is not a get out of goal free card. I know that übermensch did not mean go create a master-race and commit genocide, and since Hitler was a German-speaker he was not misuderstanding the concept of "superman" since that translitteration/mistranslation of "übermensch" did not happen, what cannot be denied (or be apologist for) is that it formed the basis for National Socialist ideas. The rules (morals) were made by those with the will to make them, and Hitler had the will to make them. I have an enormous problem with this in which Hitler, I believe, was a person who ignored the basic moral principles of almost everything he came into contact with. Catholicism is a bit different due to the whole cognitive dissonance thing, but with regards to Nietzsche's work, his what not the only one who was completely misinterpreted. I really think it was down to the man and the man alone. The fact that I misinterpreted Gervais as actually not getting Nietzsche is a prime example. I'd bring up Stewart Lee too for that very same reason. I really can't see how anyone would be at fault for their work being misinterpreted, but maybe that's just a mental block on my part.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Show me one example of Philosophy making life more understandable. Nothing spectacular, just a simple example.
Knowledge of Philosophy is proven to aid critical thinking and enables people who study it to be able to answer difficult questions in a comprehensive and clear manner. To name just one.
I disagree, and that's not an example. How?
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:



Philosophy and religion are two very different things, if that is what you are getting at. People arrive at a religion through philosophy, but philosophies are open ended and cannot be blamed.
All religions have a philosophy, but no, that is not what I am getting at. In that "Give a man a Philosophy..." example religion was irrelevant to the point I made. Give a man a science and he'll most likely be irresponsible with it without the proper understanding. This can be applied to most things. Like Kenny G and his saxophone.
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Philosophy does not give us doubt. Doubt is another natural survival trait that every human posses from a very early age - that need to question everything, to take nothing for granted, to never to assume - Early education attempts to drum that out of us - learn by rote, believe what you are told, don't question your elders. Doubting is a philosophical process but it is not the sole property (or invention) of Philosophy.
 Which is exactly what I said. Care to present the dichotomy between Philosophy and philosophical processes? I'm unaware of it, forgive my ignorance.
Sorry, where did I say it was a dichotomy? Doubt creates enquiry, enquiry created Philosophy and Science, to claim that Philosophy invented doubt is putting the cart before the horse. Science and Philosophy come from doubt, I stand corrected. A blunder on my part...
Originally posted by The Pessimist The Pessimist wrote:

 
And because you don't doesn't mean that it isn't. As you said before, there are no absolutes, although I feel by saying that I've opened the old "subjectivity" can meaning this discussion will probably end soon...
I don't think this is the old "subjectivity" can o'worms, just as I am fully aware that questioning the validity of Philosophy is a philosophical debate, but I'm more than happy for it to end as soon as you're ready. Are you not having fun Dean? I love this kind of stuff, I would love to carry on.



Just a quick point on cutting out meat reducing variety... I would agree, it does in a literal sense. Vegetarianism is a restriction, and thus a reduction. However, like a restriction, it has a direct relationship with creativity, and if you know anything about the creative mind (which I'm sure you both do), it functions better with restrictions. This consequently broadens the mind to more possibilities and more meals that it wouldn't have done previously.


Edited by The Pessimist - January 18 2014 at 10:11
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 18 2014 at 03:11
Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

 However... you are arguing unfairly when you are presenting opinion as fact. "Less Interesting diet" is your opinion based on your particular tastes in food, and I will deny that quote as correct. "Less varied" can be presented as fact, but I also dismiss this claim as true. If anything going vegetarian has helped me think more creatively about meals I'd never consider when I was focused on a meat diet, and I have built a repertoire of a variety of recipies so that I am never for want of diversity. Sometimes, I get the feeling that many meat-eaters think I eat only salads every day. Indian cuisine alone illustrates my point with a variety in vegetarianism on par with meat dishes. 
Ah, I don't go in for generalisations, sure many people eat a dull and uninteresting meals regardless of their lifestyle diet, also as creatures of habit many people's diet lacks variety, again this is independent of lifestyle diet choice. My statements remains undeniably correct - I can cook (and eat) the same meals as a vegetarian using the same ingredients, I can then repeat those meals with the addition of meat, that is by definition more varied. I also find it more interesting and yes, that is based upon my particular tastes but for me that is what food is all about - taste - I live to eat, I do not eat to live, so while I am not inclined to the vegetarian lifestyle, I am interested in their recipes. Just because I am an omnivore it doesn't mean I will not eat vegetarian recipes.
Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:


Actually I am okay with microwavable vegetables (from the frozen food section), good for a quick and easy meal. If I wanted to compare the best with the worst I would've used canned vegetables as my example. Tongue
The only veg that cooks well in  a microwave is frozen peas, but I prefer frozen peas to fresh peas anyway. My microwave does little more than re-heat leftovers and melt butter. Vegetables need to be cooked slowly so you can stop the cooking at precisely the right moment - a microwave is like cooking with a sledgehammer. If I use a gadget to cook veg (which isn't very often) it is the electric steamer - retains all the flavour and loses none of the texture - good for cooking rice too, especially sticky-rice.

Pulses in cans - ruddy marvellous invention - I know it's cheaper to buy them dried but that means soaking them for 24 hours before use (or you gonna die), so they're more convenient in a tin. If I come home from work and fancy a bean-burger for dinner I just open a tin of mixed beans, mash them up a bit, add some chilli, form them into patties and fry them - et violin - instant bean burger. Of course as an omnivore I can make myself a bacon cheesebeanburger, and that is probably the finest bean burger ever invented, there isn't a vegetarian recipe that cannot be made more interesting to an omnivore by the addition of one slice of crispy bacon. I'd also make a ragu using tinned beans rather than those highly processed bean-curd meat substitutes (I'm not a big pasta eater and I do not like cooked tomatoes, but I do cook a mean ragu)... or a vegetarian cassoulet with tinned haricot beans and oven roasted root-veg... or a bean and asparagus terrine wrapped in cabbage leaves... or a bean and mushroom goulash... but I suspect I'm preaching to the choir here, I imagine that many vegetarian know the wonder of tinned beans.

Fruit in tins is okay too though I don't use them anywhere near as much - a small tin of "mixed fruit cocktail" cooked with tomato ketchup and vinegar makes an instant sweet'n'sour that will cheer-up the most dullest of meals, even a grilled aubergine.


So, food is as interesting and as varied as you make it.


Edited by Dean - January 18 2014 at 03:24
What?
Back to Top
catfood03 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 24 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 17 2014 at 21:07
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

Whoever thinks vegetarianism means a limited diet, either doesn't cook for themselves or isn't trying hard to see the possibilities. 
The phrase I used was "having a less varied and less interesting diet" - which is undeniably correct. While I never said that was a limited diet, that too is undeniably correct. By definition a vegetarian diet is an omnivore diet limited by the exclusion of meat.

I do cook for myself, as you can see from the posts I have made in the Prog Chefs Unite!!! thread, and though it is harder to prove, I do see the possibilities - I do cook a vegetarian meals, and I oft increase the possibilities by the cunning addition of some meat... Perhaps the following tale will serve as an example of the possibilities I see and the lengths I will go to to achieve it.


I must confess that I was not reading all the posts in this thread before making my general statement about an oft made criticism levelled against adopting a plant-based diet. It was purely coincidental that it sounded like a direct response to the phrase you highlighted. (I usually use the quote feature in the forum if I am directing specifically to a post)

However... you are arguing unfairly when you are presenting opinion as fact. "Less Interesting diet" is your opinion based on your particular tastes in food, and I will deny that quote as correct. "Less varied" can be presented as fact, but I also dismiss this claim as true. If anything going vegetarian has helped me think more creatively about meals I'd never consider when I was focused on a meat diet, and I have built a repertoire of a variety of recipies so that I am never for want of diversity. Sometimes, I get the feeling that many meat-eaters think I eat only salads every day. Indian cuisine alone illustrates my point with a variety in vegetarianism on par with meat dishes.




Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by catfood03 catfood03 wrote:

It's amazing the endless varieties I've discovered from shifting my vegetable eating from microwavable side dishes to homemade exquisite main courses.
Oh good grief - microwaveable vegetables are enough to make me want to give up eating vegetables forever - no wonder you found vegetarian main courses a revelation. I do love it when people compare the worse of something they don't like with the best of something the do like.


Actually I am okay with microwavable vegetables (from the frozen food section), good for a quick and easy meal. If I wanted to compare the best with the worst I would've used canned vegetables as my example. Tongue


Edited by catfood03 - January 17 2014 at 21:15
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 17 2014 at 12:27

Life feeds on life and cares not for philosophy........morality........
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.273 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.