General Polls - Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?

Print Page | Close Window

Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=96668
Printed Date: May 02 2024 at 23:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?

Posted By: The Pessimist
Subject: Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 13:47

I've recently turned vegetarian as a NY resolution and I'm just interested to see who else is, or who else isn't. Moral discussion is also very welcome!

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Replies:

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 13:53

I will never give up eating meat.

Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 14:04

I'm a cyclothymic eater. What can I vote for?

Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 14:05

"Everything in moderation" said the ancient Greeks and they were probably right

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 14:06

CPicard wrote:

I'm a cyclothymic eater. What can I vote for?

I strongly suggest you don't vote and get to a doctor.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 14:10

I'm a meat eater, and although I think I should eat a bit less meat, I don't plan to become a vegetarian.

Posted By: bloodnarfer
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 14:33

Meat isn't really all that tasty for me. I don't really enjoy steakor bacon most the time wwhich I think is odd. I could probably be a vegetarian easier than most but the difficulty of getting protein otherwise and lack of good veggie options at restaurants make that kinda difficult. Also I love seafood so that would be hard to give up.
Tldr; being vegetarion is too much of a hassle for me to make the effort

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/ramza1316" rel="nofollow - www.last.fm/user/ramza1316
https://open.spotify.com/user/1211221845" rel="nofollow - https://open.spotify.com/user/1211221845

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 14:39

bloodnarfer wrote:

Meat isn't really all that tasty for me. I don't really enjoy steakor bacon most the time wwhich I think is odd. I could probably be a vegetarian easier than most but the difficulty of getting protein otherwise and lack of good veggie options at restaurants make that kinda difficult. Also I love seafood so that would be hard to give up.
Tldr; being vegetarion is too much of a hassle for me to make the effort

It's really not as difficult as it sounds once you know what your options are. There are plenty of protein supplements out there that are slightly cheaper than meat (in England we have Quorn, Soya and Tofu) and a bit healthier too. You can also find protein in a lot of places where you wouldn't expect. Here's a useful chart:

http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/vegetables-high-in-protein.php" rel="nofollow - http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/vegetables-high-in-protein.php

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 14:41

nice to meat you

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">

The greatest record label of all time!

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 15:57

This thread probably will probably "meat" a rotten end.

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 15:59

I might need to give it APPLE in the right direction before that happens.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 17:42

Padraic wrote:

I will never give up eating meat.

This.

-------------

Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: January 10 2014 at 17:42

Meat is too delicious not to eat.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.

Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 00:56

Mmmmmeeeeeaaaatttttt

-------------
--
Frank Swarbrick
Belief is not Truth.

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 01:15

I am omnivore, mixedcdiet of vegi and carni.

-------------

Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 01:43

I am familiar with the benefits of vegetarianism but I couldn't live without steaks and burgers. Moderation is the key.

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 03:04

I eat meat, but the animal suffering that goes on at slaughterhouses and farms is unacceptable and something needs to be done.

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 03:16

Should be a new film series, like Men in Black and Ghost Busterw, callled Animal Rescuers. (

-------------

Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 03:23

Y'know - the meat presented at supermarkets is done so in such a way that you don't associate it with a living animal at initial glance.....

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 05:36

I dislike the term "meat eater" - I am not a meat eater, I am an omnivore, meat is a part of my diet, I also eat vegetables, dairy and fungi - that is not a "meat-eater" (carnivore) diet.

The disassociation between supermarket packaged meat and the animal in the field is an important point. That "naked lunch" moment when you realise what is at the end of your fork is not a complete reconnection, we were omnivorous before this disassociation existed. When we had to hunt, kill, butcher and prepare our own meat there was no compunction against eating it. I find this to be a curious observation because the revulsion against causing suffering to another animal is not a modern development, it too is a natural trait of the human animal - the necessity to kill to live did not desensitise us, being "humane" is not a newly acquired emotion but this disassociation has made us over-sensitive.

Where this disassociation has had a negative effect is in the inhumane treatment of animals in intensive food production, we need to reconnect this association between the animal and the slab of meat to improve animal husbandry.

We are an omnivorous species, this is the only natural diet for a human being but the key is balance. There are many ways to be healthy, excluding meat from the diet is not the only way, a balanced diet is a healthy diet. We are not carnivores who survive solely on a meat diet and we are not herbivores who survive solely on a limited diet of one class of vegetable - vegetarianism is not a natural diet [-vore diets are natural, -ism diets are man-made] - other species of animal do not eat a wide variety of vegetable food groups, they specialise on selected food groups (Frugivores, Folivores, Nectarivores, Granivore, Palynivores, Mucivores, Xylophages, etc). I suspect the reaction we have to killing is a natural regulatory process, just as the boredom we experience to eating the same thing over and over again is part of the same regulatory process, that maintains a balanced diet - variety is not only the spice of life, it is a necessary part of our natural diet that allows us to adapt to the seasonal nature of all food groups that is prevalent in temperate climate.

Our understanding of nutrition has permitted us to enjoy a vegetarian lifestyle, our technology has enabled us to make food groups non-seasonal so we can grow, harvest and transport any vegetable at any time we like anywhere in the world we like (this is not natural) and thus maintain a healthy balance all year round.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 05:56

We're basically like bears - only with different sleeping patterns, is that what you're saying? Clown

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 06:04

If we could not preserve food to last us through winter I'm sure we would sleep through most of it (I know I feel like that most days when the sun is low in the sky and the temperatures drop) so yes.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 06:05

More like rats ( primates and rodents are from the same evolution branch) along with flying lemurs and treshrews

-------------

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 06:24

Dean wrote:

If we could not preserve food to last us through winter I'm sure we would sleep through most of it (I know I feel like that most days when the sun is low in the sky and the temperatures drop) so yes.

I know how that feels. I was planning on getting out of the apartment, but the skies have formed an impenetrable thicket of grey substance, looking as seductive as the Danish gastronomic pride and joy, leverpostej:

Think I'll pass for now. Keep lying on my bed, drink coffee, smoke cigarettes and listen to music. Fine idea if I must say so myself Approve

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 06:27

As for the poll: I only eat endangered species. Panda sweet breads are my fave along with ring tailed lemur cooked as Osso Buco.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 06:31

Mmmmmm leverposteij,

youve not lived before liver

-------------

Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 06:42

aginor wrote:

Mmmmmm leverposteij,

youve not lived before liver

QFT

Officially endorsed by none other than

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 07:07

He knows how to prepare stews of liver, its to die for, the recepie

I love bull liver strw with cloudberries and rosen kål mmmmm

-------------

Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 09:20

Vegetarian here, though mainly due to habit, not choice.

-------------
Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here .

Posted By: yam yam
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 09:33

Omnivorous diet is best - just follow the Chinese example. As the Duke of Edingurgh once famously said at a World Wildlife Fund meeting back in 1986: "If it swims, and it's not a boat or a submarine...if it flies, and it's not an aeroplane or a helicopter...if it has legs, and it's not a table or a chair - then the Cantonese will eat it!

Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 09:53

Meat....but I prefer fish and chicken over beef and pork.

But as someone said above everything in moderation is an excellent policy.

-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 09:58

Omnivorian. It is our nature.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 11:47

Dean, what exactly is wrong with the word "meat eater"? Surely it just means someone who eats meat? It's not necessarily a term that labels you as exclusively eating meat. I'm a whiskey drinker, but whiskey sure as hell isn't the only thing I drink

Let me just clarify why I'm a vegetarian:

There are living examples everywhere of the fact that we don't have to eat meat to survive. From this we can deduce that as a race, we kill animals unnecessarily, and while I don't have a problem with other people consuming meat, I don't particularly want any part in it. It's not a boycott either, it's a moral decision, the same sort of decision that I make when I don't read The Daily Mail or watch Fox News.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 11:48

Slartibartfast wrote:

Omnivorian. It is our nature.

This isn't really an argument. So are sexism, racism, homophobia, cannibalism, theft, murder and rape. Morality fights the natural urge in almost all cases.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 12:38

The Pessimist wrote:

Dean, what exactly is wrong with the word "meat eater"? Surely it just means someone who eats meat? It's not necessarily a term that labels you as exclusively eating meat. I'm a whiskey drinker, but whiskey sure as hell isn't the only thing I drink

I kinda thought I'd made that pretty clear in my post that the term "meat eater" is synonymous with carnivore (carn ~ meat; vore ~ devour) - when we call a lion a meat eater we mean it is a carnivore. Drinking whiskey is a matter of taste, abstaining from alcohol is not, the converse of whiskey drinker is not a teetotaller, your poll essentially polls whiskey drinkers with teetotallers, not with gin drinkers, tea drinkers and soda drinkers.

However, you can piss about playing with words as much as you like, you did not put an omnivore option in this poll but offered two non-meat lifestyle diet options, therefore you have given the phrase an implied negative connotation. (Why is this implied? because you made it so in the OP by inviting discussion on morality.

Argue as much as you like, carnivore, omnivore and herbivore are natural diets, vegetarianism and vegan-ism are not. (and your reply to Brian is just plain nutty btw)

The Pessimist wrote:

Let me just clarify why I'm a vegetarian:

There are living examples everywhere of the fact that we don't have to eat meat to survive. From this we can deduce that as a race, we kill animals unnecessarily, and while I don't have a problem with other people consuming meat, I don't particularly want any part in it. It's not a boycott either, it's a moral decision, the same sort of decision that I make when I don't read The Daily Mail or watch Fox News.

It is not a moral decision. I am not immoral nor am I amoral for eating meat, you are not morally any different from me for deciding to survive on a diet of vegetation, no better no worse. It is a decision of conscience perhaps but that does not always mean it is question of morality.

-------------
What?

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 12:59

Dean wrote:

Argue as much as you like, carnivore, omnivore and herbivore are natural diets, vegetarianism and vegan-ism are not. (and your reply to Brian is just plain nutty btw)

I think we're just arguing semantics here, which never really resolves so let's move on... I'll change the option to omnivorous due to the fact that it may upset some people. rest assured though, the term was not meant to segregate anyone in any way.

Why exactly is the post nutty? Morality does combat natural behaviour. I'm open to arguments that counter that assumption however.

Yes we can survive without eating meat - there are lots of food groups we do not need to eat to survive - chocolate, fruit, ice cream, potatoes, legumes, brassicas, mushrooms - remove any of them from your diet and you will survive. From this we can deduce that fermenting fruit sugars using a specific strain of fungi to produce intoxication liquor is unnecessary, though I don't have a problem with other people getting blotto on vino collapso... (the parody runs out here, I do partake of alcoholic beverages in moderation so I cannot claim that I don't particularly want any part in it, though I have no desire to get blotto).

I'm not saying that anyone who eats meat is immoral at all. I do think it's the more moral option, which is why I have made that decision, but that does not mean that not being vegetarian would make a person immoral. Morality is big web of decision making that is so complicated I wouldn't agreeing with labeling any one person entirely immoral, but I would say that supporting the meat industry is an immoral act as it is killing innocent creatures that don't need to be killed. I can understand doing that if you have to eat meat because of a certain condition (I know a sax player like this), but most of us just eat meat because we like it. Is the systematic breeding and slaughter of a chicken really worth a nice taste? I personally don't think so. Some people think it is, and while I would disagree, I didn't make this poll to berate folks that eat meat, more for healthy debate on the issue.

Yes, most food groups we could probably do away with. But only the food groups under meat and fish require the slaughter of a sentient being, which is why I choose to leave them out of my diet. I don't really see why this is a problem.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 13:09

Carrots have feelings too.

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 13:29

timothy leary wrote:

Carrots have feelings too.

Quite.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Andy Webb
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 14:31

Guldbamsen wrote:

As for the poll: I only eat endangered species. Panda sweet breads are my fave along with ring tailed lemur cooked as Osso Buco.

-------------
http://ow.ly/8ymqg" rel="nofollow">

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 16:24

The Pessimist wrote:

Claiming "arguing semantics" is not an intellectual "get out of jail free" card. If I say I dislike the term "meat eater" it is because it is inaccurate and incorrect, not because the semantic meaning is ambiguous or is a matter of interpretation. Even though we are discussing the meaning of a phrase, it is not an argument of semantics.

The Pessimist wrote:

Why exactly is the post nutty? Morality does combat natural behaviour. I'm open to arguments that counter that assumption however.

Because your list of "crimes" are not equivalent, nor are they natural urges as you say they are - I have no natural urge to indulge in sexism, racism, homophobia, cannibalism, theft, murder or rape. You are creating a strawman argument.

The Pessimist wrote:

I'm not saying that anyone who eats meat is immoral at all. I do think it's the more moral option, which is why I have made that decision, but that does not mean that not being vegetarian would make a person immoral. Morality is big web of decision making that is so complicated I wouldn't agreeing with labeling any one person entirely immoral, but I would say that supporting the meat industry is an immoral act as it is killing innocent creatures that don't need to be killed. I can understand doing that if you have to eat meat because of a certain condition (I know a sax player like this), but most of us just eat meat because we like it. Is the systematic breeding and slaughter of a chicken really worth a nice taste? I personally don't think so. Some people think it is, and while I would disagree, I didn't make this poll to berate folks that eat meat, more for healthy debate on the issue.

Unfortunately you are being judgemental, (not a criticism, just an observation) because you are claiming a moral superiority (the more moral option). By claiming it is more moral you are saying that eating meat is less moral by default. You are making an emotional argument and claiming it is a moral one. There is nothing wrong with not eating meat for emotional reasons, but that is not morality, practically every decision we make is an emotional one - like and dislike, love and hate - even after we've weighed up the logical and empirical pros and cons the ultimate decision will be a choice based upon emotion - and that's what makes us human, but that is not morality even if it feels like it should be.

Yes, intensive "farming" is bad - whether it is immoral is another question - it is not farming it is an industrial process and it should be stopped. We as consumers have the power to change it, and yes, boycotting meat is a way of doing that, so is only buying from ethical sources.

The Pessimist wrote:

Yes, most food groups we could probably do away with. But only the food groups under meat and fish require the slaughter of a sentient being, which is why I choose to leave them out of my diet.

There is a diet that does not involve the killing any living thing, sentient or not, this excludes the eating of any plant matter that is still connected to a living plant at the time of harvest such as fruit, tubers and leaves - this is a philosophical choice so those who practice this are called Fruitarian (as opposed to Frugivore). By extension there is also a diet that extends this to carrion. When making a philosophical choice you have made a philosophical decision on what constitutes sentience since you have chosen between vegetarianism and vegan-ism.

The Pessimist wrote:

I don't really see why this is a problem.

It is not a problem. I never said it was a problem. You are making it into a problem all by yourself. I have not condemned anyone for being a vegetarian nor defended anyone who eats meat, I have proffered no judgemental or emotional opinions, merely stated the biological case. All I have stated is that omnivore is natural, vegetarianism is man-made. I have not claimed that either are unhealthy diets or that either are healthy diets - diets are only healthy when they are balanced and consumed in moderation. You are claiming the moral argument and I simply refute that it is about morality.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Jared
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 16:59

I'm a vegetarian and have been for 16 years now, although 3 years ago, I went back to eating fish.

A meat free diet is right for me, but I've never been a Veggie who tells everyone else that they also should be.

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 17:29

I eat meat. I eat good quality meat and free range stuff if I can. We pay far too little for our meat and put animals through disgusting lives to do that. If I want to eat meat I should pay for it.

-------------
Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 18:16

akamaisondufromage wrote:

I eat meat. I eat good quality meat and free range stuff if I can. We pay far too little for our meat and put animals through disgusting lives to do that. If I want to eat meat I should pay for it.

I agree with you although some would argue that causing prices to go up would hurt lower income people....sort of making meat a luxury for the well off....more than it already is.

Same with veggies....the prices are artificially low because of the very low wages paid to farm workers.

If we insist on more environmental standard for meat and veggies, have more regulation of labor, min wages, etc, you and I are willing to pay more the good things this brings about. But do we price poor people out of quality food choices?

-------------

Posted By: HemispheresOfXanadu
Date Posted: January 11 2014 at 19:25

Meat eater, though I admire the intentions of vegetarians and vegans.

-------------
https://twitter.com/ProgFollower" rel="nofollow - @ProgFollower on Twitter. Tweet me muzak.

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 05:08

Dean wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:

Why exactly is the post nutty? Morality does combat natural behaviour. I'm open to arguments that counter that assumption however.

The Pessimist wrote:

Yes, most food groups we could probably do away with. But only the food groups under meat and fish require the slaughter of a sentient being, which is why I choose to leave them out of my diet.

The Pessimist wrote:

I don't really see why this is a problem.

Okay fair enough, I guess I don't see anything wrong with the term.

How exactly is it a strawman argument? You only need to look towards some of the more primitive human civilisations and most animal civilisations to see that rape and murder as natural urges. Just because you, and most people in the West, don't have that urge, does not mean it isn't a natural one. We don't have that urge because we live in first world countries with far developed moral structures and at an educated guess I'd say that you were brought up to understand that rape and murder are heinous. This is no argument against these things being natural urges though because we've conditioned ourselves against our own nature through thought. I can give you a list as long as my arm of points in history and current groups of people that see rape as an okay thing. Why would these exist in such mass numbers if it isn't part of the natural human psyche?

I wasn't aware of a dichotomy between emotion and morality. Morals stem from thought do they not? And aren't emotions just thoughts really? I'm not seeing any real proof in your post that emotion and morality can't be of the same. That's not to say you don't have proof, which I'm sure you do. And I am being judgmental, but not in a way that I intend to be confrontational.

And yes I am making a judgement on what is okay to kill and what is not, but only as a transitional process. If I were to go vegan straight away I would most likely become ill (this happened to a friend of mine). I intend to turn vegan in the future. Regarding Fruitarianism... I'm well aware of it. However the problem I have with killing animals is that you are killing a conscious being. A potato is not conscious.

As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 05:29

Finnforest wrote:

The poor are already priced out of quality food choices. Unethical intensive factory farming is not to feed the poor, it is not a welfare system - it is to feed all of us and make a fat profit for the retailers, we all reap the benefits of lower prices but it is time to realise the cost of low value is too high.

High volume farming does not have to be intensive factory farming, it does not have to be unethical and inhumane, it does not have to be stressful and unpleasant for the animals, similarly it does not have to be chemically enhanced with pesticides, herbicides and inorganic fertilisers for vegetable production. Deep sea fishing also fails - fish deemed unsaleable are discarded at sea, fishing quotas exacerbate this so even saleable fish are discarded - all these fish are dead when they are returned to the sea. There is little that is ethical in mass production of food. Food production is currently dictated by the retailers, not the consumers - we never asked for chickens to be sold at five bucks each having spent the 6 miserable weeks of their lives in cramped broiler sheds choking on ammonia fumes. Moreover, ethical food does not have to be expensive - currently it is sold at artificially higher prices because those who "care" are prepared to pay for it and the retailers exploit that.

In the west we are incredibly wasteful of the food we buy, whether we buy a chicken for 5 bucks or 10 we waste most of that animal. We are even more wasteful of the food that retailers buy and do not sell. This is where we should start the solution to the problem - it is apolitical, it bypasses the economists and the regulators and will ultimately force the retailers to re-think their purchasing strategies - eat everything you buy. It is that simple - buy whole chickens and portion them yourselves to create three or four meals instead of one - each chicken yields two breasts, two wings, two drumsticks, two thighs and a bones and trimmings for making a stock that can form the base for a soup or stew - augment that with more vegetables and producing three substantial meals of a family is a doddle. Reducing the portion size that gets put on each plate reduces waste, makes the food go further, it is cheaper and it will reduce obesity - just taking one slice of meat off your plate and saving it for a sandwich the next day's lunch saves you money and improves your health. That is how I can afford to buy ethically produced free-range organic chicken - each meal costs me far less than the one meal made from a $5 battery broiler.

And again, this is also true of vegetables - we buy more than we need because we buy it pre-packed, and we waste more than we should because it spoils before we can consume it all. Spending a few more pennies on quality veg in the quantity I need means I throw less away, the net result is a gain - it's cheaper.

These are skills that our parents knew but we've never learnt so we are failing to pass them on to our children. My mother would be mortified by the food we waste, her mother would have been outraged.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 05:50

The Pessimist wrote:

As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade.

Not wishing to ignore the rest of your post but at the same time not wishing to get into a pointless philosophical argument, I disagree with this conclusion. I believe that moral fibre (as you call it) is an inherent trait of humanity, morality and ethics is the formalisation of those traits into a philosophy - we didn't learn these from books, the books were written to explain our natural behavioural tendencies. I believe we were moral before we invented moral codes, we adopt them because we have a natural inclination towards them. The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance, the concept of the barbarian was an artificial construct of imperialism, conquest and religious doctrine.

Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected.

-------------
What?

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 06:23

Dean wrote:

Finnforest wrote:

I agree with you although some would argue that causing prices to go up would hurt lower income people....sort of making meat a luxury for the well off....more than it already is. Same with veggies....the prices are artificially low because of the very low wages paid to farm workers. If we insist on more environmental standard for meat and veggies, have more regulation of labor, min wages, etc, you and I are willing to pay more the good things this brings about. But do we price poor people out of quality food choices?

In the west we are incredibly wasteful of the food we buy, whether we buy a chicken for 5 bucks or 10 we waste most of that animal. We are even more wasteful of the food that retailers buy and do not sell. This is where we should start the solution to the problem - it is apolitical, it bypasses the economists and the regulators and will ultimately force the retailers to re-think their purchasing strategies - eat everything you buy. It is that simple - buy whole chickens and portion them yourselves to create three or four meals instead of one - each chicken yields two breasts, two wings, two drumsticks, two thighs and a bones and trimmings for making a stock that can form the base for a soup or stew - augment that with more vegetables and producing three substantial meals of a family is a doddle. Reducing the portion size that gets put on each plate reduces waste, makes the food go further, it is cheaper and it will reduce obesity - just taking one slice of meat off your plate and saving it for a sandwich the next day's lunch saves you money and improves your health. That is how I can afford to buy ethically produced free-range organic chicken - each meal costs me far less than the one meal made from a $5 battery broiler.

And again, this is also true of vegetables - we buy more than we need because we buy it pre-packed, and we waste more than we should because it spoils before we can consume it all. Spending a few more pennies on quality veg in the quantity I need means I throw less away, the net result is a gain - it's cheaper.

These are skills that our parents knew but we've never learnt so we are failing to pass them on to our children. My mother would be mortified by the food we waste, her mother would have been outraged.

Agree with every word of this. I would add that retailers should stop the BOGOF and similar offers on meat or veg that will go off and get wasted. Just put the price down if you want to put stuff on offer. Also eat less meat (you do say smaller portions though) but a meal doesn't have to include meat every time. Variety is the spice...

Then we can save money eat better and stop animals being treated like sh*t.

-------------
Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 06:32

Dean wrote:

Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected.

It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway

I'm a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather... well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as you've stated, it could not be. But let me elaborate my point further with examples:

I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one.

Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature.

I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself.

And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on.

Regarding this:

"The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..."

I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 06:34

Also Dean, I agree with your comments on battery farming, however so long as capitalism is present it will always be there, and the free-range market will always be supporting the battery market as it makes battery farming the rather attractive cheap alternative.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 06:44

Ugh, I guess it's google chrome that's inserting all those dhtml codes into my posts, boy do we need a forum upgrade asap. Dead

akamaisondufromage wrote:

Agree with every word of this. I would add that retailers should stop the BOGOF and similar offers on meat or veg that will go off and get wasted. Just put the price down if you want to put stuff on offer. Also eat less meat (you do say smaller portions though) but a meal doesn't have to include meat every time. Variety is the spice...

Then we can save money eat better and stop animals being treated like sh*t.

Absolutely - BOGOFs are a dreadful cause of waste - "Three for Two" (when I only need one) and "Three for a Tenner" (for the Waitrose milfs Wink

) deals are no better. I too get suckered into these deals and find myself having to pre-cook some of it in advance before it spoils - thank heavens for chilli con <whatever is in the fridge> is all I can say.

Supermarkets selling processed, pre-prepared and pre-cooked food cheaper than the basic ingredients is also a problem, not only for waste and base-line cost but for nutrition and health too because of the higher level of preservatives in them (and those are not necessarily chemical preservatives either - they have a higher salt and sugar content to prolong their shelf-life). We decry "airline food" yet happily buy the same product when it is packaged for convenience on a supermarket shelf - "Taste the Difference"? No, but I can smell the marketing BS.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 06:55

The Pessimist wrote:

Also Dean, I agree with your comments on battery farming, however so long as capitalism is present it will always be there, and the free-range market will always be supporting the battery market as it makes battery farming the rather attractive cheap alternative.

That's looking at it backwards, the free-range and organic market was a reaction to industrial farming. The organic veg market has not affected the pricing and production of intensive arable and vegetable farming. The artificial pricing policies of the supermarkets is maintaining the divide, not the consumer. If the majority of consumers switched to a vegetarian lifestyle it would not affect how meat is produced but it would affect arable and vegetable farming. If food production was solely determined by supply and demand then the increase in demand for vegetables products would increase prices and intensify production of vegetables, its effect on meat production and pricing would be considerably less, there are no guarantees that "battery" farming would decrease, on the contrary, it could increase as more land is given over to arable and vegetable crops. The bottom line is we simply cannot make such predictions.

-------------
What?

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 06:57

The Pessimist wrote:

Dean wrote:

Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected.

It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway

Apologies for going off topic a tad but I can't believe this post: in summation - anything that changes human standards about morality over time (including evolution) is by definition 'unnatural' because what was hitherto deemed morally acceptable has now changed in the interim.
You state "We haven't always been this intelligent" You are kidding right? LOL

-------------

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 07:29

ExittheLemming wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:

Dean wrote:

Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected.

It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway

I didn't say it's unnatural, I'm saying that morality serves as a dialectical to nature. There is a massive difference. Everything we do can essentially be called "natural" because... Well, it's happened, but every moral you can think of was once unquestioned, with a few exceptions.

And no, I'm not. There's evidence that's humans were once rather primitive beings, and thus not as intelligent. Intelligence is a constantly evolving thing. As individuals we become more intelligent through learning. You highlight the statement "We weren't always this intelligent" as though it's ridiculous, but could you explain why?

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 08:24

Dean I agree with every letter of what you wrote below....my folks were Depression era kids and my grandparents taught them the kind of values you discuss....using everything....modest eating....things I employ as well in my life. And not just food. Our old clothes become our rags for garage and cleaning, lawn clippings get mulched, not bagged and driven away somewhere, things around the house are donated if still useful to someone. Although I still think food producers would use any mandatory regulation of their world as a reason to jack up the prices....whether they really need to or not. In the same way you admit they exploit those who will buy ethical food choices. Maybe the spike would be only temporary though until all producers were acting more reasonably across the board, then prices would drop again?

-------------

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 08:34

The Pessimist wrote:

It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway

You are mixing intellect (the capacity for learning) with intelligence (the acquisition and application of knowledge) and knowledge itself. The capability of the human mind has not evolved over time, a Neolithic human is identical in every way to a modern human (there is some speculation that brain volume has decreased over the past 12,000 or so years but that is highly speculative based upon limited data and the assumption that increased DHA omega-3 fatty acid from a higher proportion of fish in the prehistoric diet - if brain size was a measure of intelligence it is however an argument that we are less intelligent that out prehistoric forebears). Our sum of human knowledge has increased but only in proportion to our understanding of the world around us, our level of relative intelligence in regard to what we need to know is unchanged, it is a fair assumption that you cannot knap flint tools, that does not make you more or less intelligent it is simply knowledge you do not possess. Knowing more things does not make you more intelligent and it does not increase your intellect.

The Pessimist wrote:

But let me elaborate my point further with examples:

I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one.

Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature.

I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself.

And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on.

The Pessimist wrote:

Regarding this:

"The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..."

I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument.

You are old fashioned.

-------------
What?

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 08:47

The Pessimist wrote:

ExittheLemming wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:

Dean wrote:

Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected.

It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway

I'm a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather... well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as you've stated, it could not be. But let me elaborate my point further with examples:

I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one.

Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature.

I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself.

And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on.

Regarding this:

"The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..."

I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument.

I'm not sure I really should have to explain to such an evolved species as yourself BUT I merely quoted you stating such:

Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so

I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race

There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature.

I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself.

Do you want me to stop?

-------------

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 09:09

Finnforest wrote:

Dean I agree with every letter of what you wrote below....my folks were Depression era kids and my grandparents taught them the kind of values you discuss....using everything....modest eating....things I employ as well in my life. And not just food. Our old clothes become our rags for garage and cleaning, lawn clippings get mulched, not bagged and driven away somewhere, things around the house are donated if still useful to someone. Although I still think food producers would use any mandatory regulation of their world as a reason to jack up the prices....whether they really need to or not. In the same way you admit they exploit those who will buy ethical food choices. Maybe the spike would be only temporary though until all producers were acting more reasonably across the board, then prices would drop again?

I'm not wholly convinced by the supply-and-demand model of economics since it represents a linear snapshot image of a static market when the markets are non-linear, dynamic and not the result of simplistic cause and effect therefore I do not believe the "poverty trap" is as real (or at least as simple) as it is presumed to be for example. We simply cannot predict with any confidence how a market will behave if left to its own devices, however I do not believe prices ever drop by themselves, it is the nature of business to maximise profit.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 09:21

Sorry if I'm skirting off topic a bit here but I can't resist sharing this...Below Dean mentioned proper usage of chickens and spoke about our grandparents generation....well, it brought this photo instantly to mind.

This is a neighbor lady from back in my Grandparents old neighborhood. She preparing the evening meal and I'm guessing that not an ounce of that bird will be going to waste! Also, this photo was taken in the middle of a large city.....this is not out on the farm. year is 1943

-------------

Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 09:24

The Pessimist wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

Omnivorian. It is our nature.

This isn't really an argument. So are sexism, racism, homophobia, cannibalism, theft, murder and rape. Morality fights the natural urge in almost all cases.

If we extend this logic, vegetarianism would then be reasonably expected to reflect a high degree of morality in the character of a person because he would have the capacity to resist several immoral natural urges ( I do not really agree but going along with it for the sake of argument). To that idea, I present the curious concoction that is Jains with right wing fantasies. Jainism practices a very strict form of vegetarianism that does not permit its followers to consume vegetables derived from roots and insists they walk bare footed to spare the lives of insects they might trample underfoot. Yet, some members of this uber non violent sect whole heartedly endorse the candidature of a politician who allowed a pogrom on Muslims to take place in his state and wish for India to emulate the acts of a certain world power in reducing two countries to rubble to avenge an isolated act of terrorism. I am not going to debate the pros and cons of said act, only that endorsing war and wanton killing of innocent civilians jars rather violently with non violent values. Morality, what morality?

You may argue that that a person is vegetarian does not necessarily mean he is moral and that is precisely my point. A person's choice in diet has nought to do with morality. I would be more inclined to judge if he were consuming an endangered species of animals, but that would land him in jail in most jurisdictions, I presume. Modern lifestyle as such is extremely wasteful and indulgent, so meat eating is but small fry in the larger scheme of things. Oh, vegetarian by birth, by the way.

Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 10:00

Whatever, on Deans advice, I will be doing my shopping at Waitrose from now on.

-------------
Help me I'm falling!

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 10:22

The Pessimist wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

Omnivorian. It is our nature.

This isn't really an argument. So are sexism, racism, homophobia, cannibalism, theft, murder and rape. Morality fights the natural urge in almost all cases.

I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 11:50

Dean wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:

It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway

We cannot measure the IQ of prehistoric people, in more recent history there are things that bronze age people could achieve that confounds us today because of our arrogant view of more "primitive" times.

I definitely mixed the two, apologies for my ignorance. I will alter my point to accommodate this. Wouldn't you agree that certain moral points have emerged due to knowledge acquired by the human race through philosophical contemplation and the scientific process? I'm just curious as it will help me address my point better.

The Pessimist wrote:

You are still constructing a strawman, (albeit indirectly perhaps), as these "examples" are neither illustrative nor are they equivalents. The arrogance that civilisation is morally superior to these "primitive" examples has oft been a disingenuous justification for ethically dubious practices - the slave trade is a prime example of that, as is the forced conversion of indigenous peoples to western ideology and religion. With the benefit of hindsight and "enlightenment" we see things differently now, but they believed they were being morally ethical because they deemed themselves to be morally superior ... that was an arrogance.

Perhaps it is a strawman, and it was definitely unintentional. Maybe I'm being vague as I'm not saying that because a group "primitive" or lesser developed that they are less moral. In fact I'd consider capitalist fascism incredibly immoral. Lesser developed countries should barely even come into the argument as development has nothing to do with knowledge acquired, e.g. most, if not all, of my favourite musicians come out of poverty. I'm not (edit) trying to say that the smarter you are the more moral you are either, and I can see why if you take my point like that it would be enraging. Of course, people can be incredibly intelligent and still commit crimes against humanity (Mao being of the infamous). Slavery would be another example of this. I am trying to say though that there are certain things we have learned, or come to agreement on, as a collective, that have changed our moral coding. This comes through knowledge.

You are old fashioned.

Surely primitive tribes live alongside nature are more moral and ethical than any so-called civilised culture. My point several posts back is the disassociation between the food on the supermarket shelf and the animal in the field has permitted the unethical treatment of livestock, this is a product of civilisation, a civilisation that you claim is more moral than an uncivilised one. Once you introduce morality into lifestyle choices you open a whole can of worms. Stick with your emotional decision, it is more honest than any contrived moral justification.

If someone is being uncivilised then they are generally being immoral to some degree. Once again I think this is a case of different definitions, as a tribe that lives an ethical life with nature is what I would call a more civilised society then any first world country that I can think of. For me, civilised and moral are the same word, whereas I think you're using the word to describe how powerful and organised the nation is. In fact, the dictionary tells us both uses of the word are correct.

ExittheLemming:

I don't recall saying that I think I'm better than everyone else, but if it came across that way then I do apologise profusely. This was in response to many people saying that being omnivorous is the natural occurrence. I would agree, and without repeating myself, I think my definition of natural is very different to yours. I would presume (at a risk) that you consider the natural evolution on human morality to be a natural phenomenon. I'd consider the basic state before certain moral developments to be the natural state, and the moral steps we take afterwards to be a manmade extension or development on that natural state. No-one can deny however that morality is a constantly changing thing.

Slarti:

Sorry about how that came across, I was in a rather foul mood this morning.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 11:57

Good luck on the resolution Pessimist. I tried vegetarianism for a while as well as a raw-food only diet, the latter which was very hard. Neither one lasted too terribly long for me but that's just me. Lots of people do fine with it, so happy eating! Let us know what you think of the health affects after a while, good or bad. Smile

-------------

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 12:45

The Pessimist wrote:

I definitely mixed the two, apologies for my ignorance. I will alter my point to accommodate this. Wouldn't you agree that certain moral points have emerged due to knowledge acquired by the human race through philosophical contemplation and the scientific process? I'm just curious as it will help me address my point better.

Certainly newly acquired knowledge raises ethical questions we've not had to consider before, that much I will grant you. However this does not result in the emergence of a new morality.

[My low opinion of philosophical contemplation will not permit me to acknowledge that we have gained any knowledge through the staring at navel lint, it's when philosophy imposes morality things tend to go titsup in a major way, as your examples in the next paragraph demonstrate. The moral dilemmas of philosophical thought experiments solve nothing except the perpetuation of moral philosophy as an academic discipline. I may be a lone voice speaking out against philosophy as an intellectual pursuit, but for me it should be placed on the "not needed on the voyage" pile of luggage along with alchemy and astrology.]

The Pessimist wrote:

Perhaps it is a strawman, and it was definitely unintentional. Maybe I'm being vague as I'm not saying that because a group "primitive" or lesser developed that they are less moral. In fact I'd consider capitalist fascism incredibly immoral. Lesser developed countries should barely even come into the argument as development has nothing to do with knowledge acquired, e.g. most, if not all, of my favourite musicians come out of poverty. I'm not (edit) trying to say that the smarter you are the more moral you are either, and I can see why if you take my point like that it would be enraging. Of course, people can be incredibly intelligent and still commit crimes against humanity (Mao being of the infamous). Slavery would be another example of this. I am trying to say though that there are certain things we have learned, or come to agreement on, as a collective, that have changed our moral coding. This comes through knowledge.

I do not believe that it does. We didn't learn that slavery is bad through the acquisition of knowledge for example. Knowledge can give us a better understanding of certain things and overturn long-held beliefs, such as the idea that cold-blooded animals feel no pain or that plants do not react to stress (re: Tim's earlier quip that carrots have feelings too) - if that changes how we treat fish, reptiles, lobster, oysters, squid and carrots then that was not necessarily a moral decision or one that changed our moral code (whatever that is) - the morality of not causing suffering was pre-existing, we have simply extended it to encompass another life-form.

The Pessimist wrote:

If someone is being uncivilised then they are generally being immoral to some degree. Once again I think this is a case of different definitions, as a tribe that lives an ethical life with nature is what I would call a more civilised society then any first world country that I can think of. For me, civilised and moral are the same word, whereas I think you're using the word to describe how powerful and organised the nation is. In fact, the dictionary tells us both uses of the word are correct.

It seems that on this forum I cannot repeat this often enough: when words have more than one meaning we cannot mix them willy-nilly in our conversations, if we have been at cross-purposes then the context of where and how the word was used dictates which meaning was in use. If I were to use civilised and moral in the same sentence it would be a tautology for me to use one as the synonym of the other as you have here. Fortunately the dictionary definitions of civilised do not tell us that civilised = moral, (I should chuck your dictionary in the bin and buy a better one if I were you): one definition is that civilised means having a high state of culture and development both social and technological while the other means cultured and/or polite - neither means "moral". You can be civilised in both meanings of the word and still lack morality.

-------------
What?

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 13:34

Dean wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:

Certainly newly acquired knowledge raises ethical questions we've not had to consider before, that much I will grant you. However this does not result in the emergence of a new morality.

The Pessimist wrote:

To answer both your first two paragraphs, this is turning into a classic Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism. Do we really need to continue? I'm completely a relativist as I think it's quite dangerous and unreliable to say that morality is an unmovable thing, yet you seem to be absolutist for your own reasons. Correct me if I'm not mistaken? This argument is one of the oldest in the book.

And I really thought as a scientist you would appreciate the importance of philosophy as science can't function without it. Would you dismiss the great philosophers like Nietzsche, Plato and Marx as pseudoscientists? At least we agree that astrology and alchemy are fantasy.

Regarding the last paragraph I apologise for my literal ignorance. However, I would say that being civilised (a la the second half of the definition) is an integral part of being moral, but I suppose that's just me hating rudeness and littering.

Finnforest, thanks man. It's been nearly two weeks and I'm starting to feel a bit better health wise. Also my wallet is feeling better too I must say! Vegetarianism is cheap. I don't really miss meat either which is good I suppose.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 15:01

The Pessimist wrote:

ExittheLemming:

I don't recall saying that I think I'm better than everyone else, but if it came across that way then I do apologise profusely. This was in response to many people saying that being omnivorous is the natural occurrence. I would agree, and without repeating myself, I think my definition of natural is very different to yours. I would presume (at a risk) that you consider the natural evolution on human morality to be a natural phenomenon. I'd consider the basic state before certain moral developments to be the natural state, and the moral steps we take afterwards to be a manmade extension or development on that natural state. No-one can deny however that morality is a constantly changing thing.

No need for apologies,I enjoyed our exchanges but I was guilty of being my usual abrasive self, Embarrassed

Thanks for providing such a thought provoking thread. Thumbs Up

-------------

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 18:48

The Pessimist wrote:

To answer both your first two paragraphs, this is turning into a classic Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism. Do we really need to continue? I'm completely a relativist as I think it's quite dangerous and unreliable to say that morality is an unmovable thing, yet you seem to be absolutist for your own reasons. Correct me if I'm not mistaken? This argument is one of the oldest in the book.

Am I? Frankly I neither know nor care, sorry if that sounds belittling - it is not, it is merely a reflection of how low my opinion of formal philosophy is. I never said morality is unmovable, I do not say it is absolute - murder is wrong n'est pas? How about war and capital punishment? Are they sanctioned murder that is morally acceptable? I say a life is a life regardless of how it is taken so if it is intentional then it is murder. Period. No ifs, no buts. Yet (as I understand it) that is still not moral absolutism; conversely the evolution of morality (as a function of intelligence and civilisation) as you paint it is not moral relativism either as that would imply that there existed a time when murder (as we define it today) was morally acceptable ("Hey, Ug - you killed my Pa! I love you man"). I say morality existed in human species before we had a formal system for it - morality adapts to increasing knowledge, we do not invent new moralities to accommodate this improved view of the world. If that has a fancy name then so be it.

The Pessimist wrote:

And I really thought as a scientist you would appreciate the importance of philosophy as science can't function without it. Would you dismiss the great philosophers like Nietzsche, Plato and Marx as pseudoscientists? At least we agree that astrology and alchemy are fantasy.

How does science fail to function without philosophy? [please don't answer that here - I've gone into this countless times in several threads here over the past 6½ years - it is a question to think about, not to answer... how "philosophical" is that LOL

]

In classical Greece Philosophy was an umbrella term for all disciplines of wisdom, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, music, poetry, drama, alchemy, astrology and thinking about the meaning of bellybutton fluff. Since then we have split out the physical sciences and called them science, we have split out the practical arts and called them the humanities, and what remained after slinging out the obvious charlatans alchemy and astrology has been called philosophy more or less by default.

The Pessimist wrote:

Regarding the last paragraph I apologise for my literal ignorance. However, I would say that being civilised (a la the second half of the definition) is an integral part of being moral, but I suppose that's just me hating rudeness and littering.

Ah no it isn't part of being moral nor is it a consequence, but I do know what you mean.

-------------
What?

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 20:19

Dean wrote:

]

Philosophy brings up a problem and contemplates it, science is the tool used to answer it. Philosophy doesn't provide answers by nature, but it is the heart of the rational process in which answers are created. Through philosophy we have also come to understand that in the science world no-one is proving anything right, rather coming up with the best answer so far. That is a philosophical system. Sorry, I know you didn't want an answer but your question really surprised me so I had to.

I would dismiss all three of them in a heatbeat, and if we could have done that before Hitler and Stalin had swallowed their bs and distorted it to their own ends then all the better. {Plato doesn't get a free pass for failing to inspire a despot, he simply didn't produce anything of any value}

If you are saying that the philosophy of Marx is a bad thing purely based on the people who have read it then I really implore you to read his Manifesto... Also, Hitler and Stalin may have read Marx's work, but neither of them were actually Marxists. They both followed their own nutty systems. It's also debatable whether either of them were communist. Marx himself often criticised Stalin's "communism", claiming that for Stalin to actually be Marxist then he would have disintegrated the bourgeoise, which he didn't.

Philosophy is not a pseudo-science - it is not a science, if it is pseudo anything it would be pseudo-intellectual - the art of pretending to be more clever than one really is. Really? Yup - take the above "Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism" ... and the answer is? ... there is no answer. Does it solve anything? ... No. Does it increase the sum of human knowledge? ... no. It sounds clever but it's babble and the only time you'll ever see it is on a Philosophy A-level exam paper (or in a interweb discussion forum).

I think saying it is useless is a fair statement, but then again so are most things really if you look at them from a survival aspect. Philosophy is just a way on contemplating how to make life more understandable. Democracy comes from philosophical reasoning. So do morals. Determinism/Freewill are philosophical standpoints. Every debate that has ever been had ever is a result of a philosophical knot. If debates, and hence dialectics, were ruled by science, they wouldn't even exist. The fact that scientists by practise can't take anything as 100% fact is a philosophical decision. Philosophy may be useless at the academic level that you speak of, but it is an inescapable part of life's fabric.

Ah no it isn't part of being moral nor is it a consequence, but I do know what you mean.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 20:24

ExitthLemming: No worries man, it's been a pleasure so far!

Dean: This is going massively off topic too, but regarding Marx and how important his work is in politics...

A very good video.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: mithrandir
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 22:50

meat, cheese and tortillas... I could pretty much live off of this, actually I do...

Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: January 12 2014 at 23:57

I'm a dog! Of course i eat meat. I also eat anything that falls off the kitchen table and the occasional poop on the street during my walks. Yum!

Seriously! I used to be the biggest carnivore on the planet being raised in the US state of Nebraska being one of the biggest beef producers in the country. I even had the exhilarating pleasure of working in a slaughterhouse on the kill floor. Ever wonder what a gelatinous carpet of coagulated blood looks and feels like while you're walking through it?

After many years of playing with my diet and as a college student of biology and ecological sciences i have been searching for the right balance regarding this question for a long time. I have found several things to be true.

1. I believe the human body requires small amounts of animal proteins and enzymes for optimal health. This doesn't always have to come from eating an animal itself but through non-pasteurized dairy and egg products. I have noticed that every vegan i have known is always extremely lethargic and has trouble with clear cognitive functions. I'm not saying it's not possible to be a healthy vegan just very difficult to ensure the proper substances that a body requires.\

2. I have been become mostly vegetarian over time simply because i have lost my taste for most meat. I now only ever eat small amounts of fish occasionally or other bottom dwellers of the sea such as crab, lobster or shell fish. My larger concern is the sustainability issue which dictates which species i consume when i do. I favor wild Alaskan salmon since it is one of the most sustainable sources of animal protein we can get on the west coast of the USA and i also never tire of it. I no longer eat mammals and do eat birds but only when i'm a guest at someone's house and rarely do so at that since everyone i know is aware of my preferences.

3. Sustainability leads to yet another issue usually ignored by vegans and vegetarians who think they are saving the planet by not consuming meat. It is a fact that in order to grow enough vegetation that we devour on a daily basis that habitat is cleared for soy plantations, cornfields, strawberry patches etc. The amount of deforestation that occurs every day is still rising so we can feed the population of the planet that grows by about a million people every few days. When we clear habitat where animals live, those animals die and some species even go extinct. I think it would make much more sense to eat animals that are wild and live in their natural habitat if we cull them in a sustainable way. Here in California it seems to me that people should be eating more deer since there is an abundance. I do not eat deer but it makes more sense to me than eating tofu (which i also don't eat) since deer do not require a lot of resources. On the other hand there are many feral pigs that are devastating the delicate ecology of our wildlands here and all over the world including on fragile ecosystems on island habitats such as Hawaii. By all means i'm all for the consumption of those invasive species that are wreaking havoc on the balance of the whole.

I think it should be about the perspective of the big picture. We should ascertain the situation at hand and act accordingly. In that way some of the Asian countries have been doing for centuries. There is also the possibiltiy of one of the most readily available forms of animal protein on the entire planet and that is one of consuming insects. This has saved millions in Africa during the centuries through dry spells and instabilities in political structures. It is actually catching on across the world as something more hip as i've seen cooking shows catering to adventurous eaters who are willing to sautee grasshoppers and the like in garlic and have a go at it.

Yadda yadda yadda. Just my two cents worth. Great topic :)

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 13 2014 at 01:33

The Pessimist wrote:

I'm interested in how you see the killing of one man to save a thousand, or the killing of a man to save a child etc etc etc I'm sure these scenarios bore you rotten (they do for me) but I think it'll be a valid stepping stone in this argument.

Gah! These stupid thought experiments do not bore me, they are pointless - they sound clever and "intellectual" but they're stupid, futile and completely useless.

The Pessimist wrote:

Philosophy brings up a problem and contemplates it, science is the tool used to answer it. Philosophy doesn't provide answers by nature, but it is the heart of the rational process in which answers are created. Through philosophy we have also come to understand that in the science world no-one is proving anything right, rather coming up with the best answer so far. That is a philosophical system. Sorry, I know you didn't want an answer but your question really surprised me so I had to.

"Why does a flower have colour?" may be a philosophical question (with a small "p") but it is not a question posed by Philosophy (with a big "P") - any philosopher contemplating the colour of a flower would never arrive at the correct answer. In theoretical science Philosophy is not coming up with any "best answers" the scientists are - it may be a philosophical system but it is not Philosophy.

The Pessimist wrote:

If you are saying that the philosophy of Marx is a bad thing purely based on the people who have read it then I really implore you to read his Manifesto... Also, Hitler and Stalin may have read Marx's work, but neither of them were actually Marxists. They both followed their own nutty systems. It's also debatable whether either of them were communist. Marx himself often criticised Stalin's "communism", claiming that for Stalin to actually be Marxist then he would have disintegrated the bourgeoise, which he didn't.

...and if we could have done that before Hitler and Stalin had swallowed their bs and distorted it to their own ends then all the better. All formal philosophies get distorted and twisted, they all go titsup.

The Pessimist wrote:

I think saying it is useless is a fair statement, but then again so are most things really if you look at them from a survival aspect. Philosophy is just a way on contemplating how to make life more understandable. Democracy comes from philosophical reasoning. So do morals. Determinism/Freewill are philosophical standpoints. Every debate that has ever been had ever is a result of a philosophical knot. If debates, and hence dialectics, were ruled by science, they wouldn't even exist. The fact that scientists by practise can't take anything as 100% fact is a philosophical decision. Philosophy may be useless at the academic level that you speak of, but it is an inescapable part of life's fabric.

Philosophy has failed to make life more understandable. You cannot claim that morals come from philosophical reasoning when I am arguing that they are an inherent trait of human beings and ethical philosophy comes from those traits. Determinism vs Freewill is the daftest waste of time ever contemplated that, again, produces nothing, answers nothing, solves nothing. Discussion is not Philosophy (with a big "P"). A philosophical decision made by scientists is made by scientists, not Philosophers.

The Pessimist wrote:

Once again I'll repeat that philosophy is an integral part of all subjects.

Being an integral part of all subjects is not the Philosophy (with a big "P") I stand in opposition to.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 13 2014 at 11:33

A chat buddy of mine insists that vegetables are what food eats.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 15 2014 at 04:37

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: January 15 2014 at 09:34

^ I prefer the vegetarian chicken that's ham flavored.

-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 15 2014 at 09:38

The trope: "Chicken: what everything exotic or visually off-putting invariably tastes like, only cheaper" seems to apply to faux meats as well. If only a carrot tasted like chicken...

-------------
What?

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 16 2014 at 07:42

Dean wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:

Gah! These stupid thought experiments do not bore me, they are pointless - they sound clever and "intellectual" but they're stupid, futile and completely useless.

The Pessimist wrote:

Once again I'll repeat that philosophy is an integral part of all subjects.

Being an integral part of all subjects is not the Philosophy (with a big "P") I stand in opposition to.

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.

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.

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).

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.

"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. 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. 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.

DvsFW may be daft to you, but many people including myself find it very interesting and relevant.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 16 2014 at 07:42

And chicken flavoured ham... I'd rather eat a banana.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 16 2014 at 18:33

*sigh* this seems like an awful lot of hard work to justify feeling good about having a less varied and less interesting diet. Ermm

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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)

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

-------------
What?

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date 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. Ermm

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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:

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.

"amongst the enlightened"?!?! Is this available to all übermensch? Oh, please...

Okay that was sh*tty of me. I must have slipped...

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...

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: catfood03
Date Posted: January 16 2014 at 20:43

Whoever thinks vegetarianism means a limited diet, either doesn't cook for themselves or isn't trying hard to see the possibilities.

It's amazing the endless varieties I've discovered from shifting my vegetable eating from microwavable side dishes to homemade exquisite main courses.

Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: January 16 2014 at 22:27

When can we start eating vegetarians?

-------------

Time always wins.

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 16 2014 at 22:30

manofmystery wrote:

When can we start eating vegetarians?

As soon as cannibalism is okay.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: Dean
Date 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 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/search_results_posts.asp?SearchID=20140117033411&KW=" rel="nofollow - 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.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Dean
Date 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...

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.

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.

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.

-------------
What?

Posted By: VOTOMS
Date Posted: January 17 2014 at 05:48

Dream Theater, Vegetarian or Vegen. I need a Pasta Eater choice.

I eat meat. No problem about that.

Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: January 17 2014 at 06:16

I only eat bark

-------------

Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: January 17 2014 at 12:27

Life feeds on life and cares not for philosophy........morality........

Posted By: catfood03
Date Posted: January 17 2014 at 21:07

Dean wrote:

catfood03 wrote:

Whoever thinks vegetarianism means a limited diet, either doesn't cook for themselves or isn't trying hard to see the possibilities.

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.

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

Posted By: Dean
Date 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. 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.

-------------
What?

Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: January 18 2014 at 10:10

Dean wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:

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:

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.

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:

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)

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:

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:

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.

-------------
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."

Arnold Schoenberg

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 18 2014 at 13:11

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...

Posted By: Dean
Date 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 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].

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

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.

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 Ouch

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.

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

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?

Posted By: catfood03
Date Posted: January 18 2014 at 20:51

Dean wrote:

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.

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.

Posted By: manofmystery
Date 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.

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 19 2014 at 05:57

catfood03 wrote:

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:

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 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?

Posted By: catfood03
Date Posted: January 19 2014 at 21:24

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.

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.

Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date 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 (v

n, v

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

Posted By: stonebeard
Date 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.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!