Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Posted: January 16 2014 at 20:01
Dean wrote:
*sigh* this seems like an awful lot of hard work to justify feeling good about having a less varied and less interesting diet.
The Pessimist wrote:
They are not pointless, as your answer to this would explain whether you really do think there is a universal morality or not. They may never happen, but that doesn't mean that these questions shouldn't be answered. Not everything has to be strictly pragmatic, although I think that's probably where the roots of your disdain for philosophy come from: its lack of pragmatism.
You want to use the question to determine which kind of "philosophical" person I am, well, I'm the kind that doesn't answer the question.
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.
My answer would not explain anything, and certainly not whether I really do think there is a universal morality. Trying to fathom what I believe based upon my answer is silly - just ask me the direct question. Lack of pragmatism is not a problem, many things in this world lack pragmatism. Is there a universal morality? - no, of course not, that's absurd - there is however, a universal susceptibility (or capability) for morality - whatever that mechanism is it is natural and inherent - call it conscience, empathy, self-preservation, survival instinct, nurture, parent-instinct, selfishness, altruism, herd-instinct, pack-behaviour - whatever, and since nature abhors a vacuum, if the capability is there then a morality will occupy the space. So that is the basis for all morality, it's always been there and it's constant - but it is not a universal morality. We are a social-animal - we need to live in a social group in order to survive. In nature these come in two main flavours - herd and pack: a herd animal is self-sufficient in the food it eats (vegetation) but congregate in large numbers for mutual protection, no animal in the herd is dependant on any other; a pack animal is not self-sufficient in the food it eats (meat or meat and vegetation), it needs other members of the pack to help it gather food and so each animal in the pack dependant on the other members. We fit into the "pack" category, this makes us protective of other animals in the pack because we depend on them to survive. That fundamental basic instinct is the corner-stone of all morality. Your 1 vs 1000 thought experiment is a test of that basic instinct - do we allow one to die so the pack or tribe survives (thus aiding our survival) or do we let the 1000 perish to save the one... well, it depends on the "one" really doesn't it, but since we are denied the necessary information to make an informed decision the answer lacks meaning - pragmatic or otherwise - flipping a coin or rolling a dice is equally as valid in such a bound-limited thought experiment.
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...
The Pessimist wrote:
And that question is a very childish one, and doesn't really mock Philosophy at all. How much Philosophy have you actually delved into just out of curiosity? I mean after all, Aristotle arguably created logic. Pythagoras was a philosopher. Nietzsche was an important political writer who's works came out of Philosophy. Marx's Philosophical writings Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto are two of the most influential books in European politics, whether it was misinterpreted or not. You can't argue that it's all disposable codswallop when it's all had such a profound influence on every single walk of life.
Sorry, which question? The flower colour one? That wasn't to mock Philosophy nor is it childish, it was a valid and somewhat typical example of a scientific question - all scientific inquiry starts with that seemingly simple question: 'Why does 'X' have/do/make/cause "Y"?' - you said Philosophy brings up a problem and contemplates it, I merely illustrated that with an example of scientific inquiry that philosophical contemplation would get no further than posing the initial question. The apparently childish "Why does a Flower have colour?" reveals a mass of scientific data from physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, psychology and probably a few others I've not thought of - it is not a simple question.
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.
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?
I have read enough of Philosophy to sit here arguing with you, Aristotle gets a free pass because he was the first true scientist, (his list of achievements are more than just formal logic) (Agreed) but with many of those ancient Greek philosophers, as I have said before, some of them were more than just "Philosophers" in the modern sense, there was no separation of science, art and contemplating your navel, so Aristotle, Pythagoras and later, Archimedes, were as much Scientists as they were Philosophers. (Once again agreed, but just because there were no formal separations doesn't mean that the subjects didn't exist, and furthermore it doesn't decrease any of their validity)Socrates and Plato on the other hand are said to have been less interest in the physical and natural aspects of the world - whether that is true or not we cannot say because we can only judge them on what they left behind, we do know they did contemplate music and light but not in the same physical way that Pythagoras and Aristotle did, they were more interested in the effects of music than the mechanics of it. This interests me en passant because I am interested in science - I would equally cite Galileo and Newton as Philosopher/Scientists of interest for their scientific studies and discoveries, not for their philosophical output. Nietzsche, Kant, Wittgenstein and all those dudes do not interest me, I know enough to know they do not tempt me to look further. 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. Is/was their influence profound? Sure. Should it have been? Probably not. Who is to say this? Really? Marx is slightly different because I am a socialist, but let's be honest here - socialism has failed as a political movement, just as every extreme politics will ultimately fail - the concept is noble and sound, but in practice it is untenable in this or any other world - as is any other philosophy. (and probably universal suffrage is the only true success of socialism, though I think Marx believed that socialism would be a consequence of universal suffrage). 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.
The Pessimist wrote:
The Philosophy of Science is a cornerstone of science, even though its foundation is circular logic and thus proves science not actually a complete answer at all (but the best we have so far).
Or philosophy of science is the somewhat redundant means of examining what science does from a philosophical viewpoint (this circular logic thing is a gas isn't it It is indeed...). It does not prove that science is not a complete answer at all, it struggles to prove its own worth by making such a claim. Science is well aware that it is not a complete answer - science does not deal in absolutes.
It's a commentary, that is all, which I don't personally see as worthless. And I am well aware. Science can't function in absolutes as we don't know of any absolutes as of late.
The Pessimist wrote:
How the text is interpreted is not up to the author. Least of all can a misinterpretation be blamed on the subject of the text itself. The fault is entirely down to the person doing the misinterpreting.
You do seem to be preoccupied with absolutes. The author is not to blame? Blame is applicable to both sides and to the text itself. This has been the truth through the ages and is a truth today. If the words can be misinterpreted then they will be misinterpreted, if the words are ambiguous or lead to conflicting conclusions then they will be misinterpreted. The fault is not just in the misinterpretation but also in the composition.
(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.
The Pessimist wrote:
"Philosophy has failed to make life more understandable." Well this I just outright disagree with. It has enlightened countless people through the ages. It may have failed to make life less understandable for you, but that doesn't mean it has failed completely. For some people, like myself, it opens doors.
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.
The Pessimist wrote:
The purpose of Philosophy isn't to prove, solve or answer. Not everything has to have that as its main purpose. Music does neither of those things either as it is totally ambiguous. That doesn't mean it is useless however: it enriches our lives! Philosophy does the same.
If like music, Philosophy is just an entertainment and a diverting pastime then that's just fine by me. Astrology also is just an entertaining and diverting pastime, I think it is hokum and mostly harmless, whereas Philosophy is hokum and considerably less harmless. Nations do not go to war because they like different music or are of opposing star signs, but give a man a Philosophy...
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.
The Pessimist wrote:
It gives us the facility to doubt EVERYTHING, which is a valuable human trait amongst the enlightened. As far as I'm aware, in the words of Richard Feynman, doubt is essential to science. Whilst I'm not saying that the facility to doubt was put there by formal Philosophy, doubting IS a philosophical process.
"amongst the enlightened"?!?! Is this available to all übermensch? Oh, please...
Okay that was sh*tty of me. I must have slipped...
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.
The Pessimist wrote:
DvsFW may be daft to you, but many people including myself find it very interesting and relevant.
So? Doesn't mean that it is though does it.
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...
Edited by The Pessimist - January 16 2014 at 20:06
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 17 2014 at 04:03
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.
These are some elderflower and lemon jellies I made for a christmas lunch party at work - one of our employees is a vegetarian so out of respect for her dietary lifestyle choice I went to the trouble and effort of making these entirely vegetarian, which is not a simple task by any means when what makes a jelly a jelly is gelatine - in the end I used three different vegetarian gelling agents, all of which were difficult to work with. Most of the time vegetarian jelly either ends up as a solid rubberised lump or a revolting gloop of the consistency of snot after a heavy cold - neither of which have the same pleasing mouth-feel as a gelatine based jelly. As you can see from the photograph, the plan was to suspend cubes of lemon jelly in a fizzy clear elderflower jelly topped with a set foam, in normal gelatine this is simple and it even preserves the bubbles in the elderflower cordial flavoured tonic water if you do it right, alas this is not possible for vegetarian gelling agents because the high temperatures required flatten the tonic water but by luck and a fair amount of culinary skill I managed to produce a complicated vegetarian dessert that actually was enjoyable to eat, and that wasn't just my opinion.
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.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 17 2014 at 05:40
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.
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")
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 isa 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.
The Pessimist wrote:
Dean wrote:
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
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.
The Pessimist wrote:
Is/was their influence profound? Sure. Should it have been? Probably not. Who is to say this? Really?
A sarcastic person.
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.
The Pessimist wrote:
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.
The Pessimist wrote:
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.
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.
The Pessimist wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Dean wrote:
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.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 18 2014 at 03:11
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.
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.
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.
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Posted: January 18 2014 at 10:10
Dean wrote:
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?
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.
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 isa 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.
The Pessimist wrote:
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.
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
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!
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!
The Pessimist wrote:
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.
The Pessimist wrote:
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?
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.
The Pessimist wrote:
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...
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
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 18 2014 at 13:11
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.
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:
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 theoreticalmathematics 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].
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.
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 knowledgeMarxism 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.
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.
don't make me become an apologist for bloody Hitler
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...
The Pessimist wrote:
How?
? It is not an example of Philosophy making life more understandable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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 vegetables. Some 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.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: January 19 2014 at 05:57
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".
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.
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 vegetables. Some 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...]
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.]
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.
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.
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.
Special Collaborator
PSIKE, JRF/Canterbury, P Metal, Eclectic
Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242
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
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.313 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Posted: January 16 2014 at 20:01
don't make me become an apologist for bloody Hitler 
g
n, v
j
Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?
Topic Options
Dean wrote:
