Subtle differences between the US and the UK that baffle me/you/us. - by SubJeff
faetal on 17/12/2012 at 13:10
I was paraphrasing SD who said that French cuisine was unwilling to adapt, which I wouldn't disagree with. Just saying that it doesn't mean that they have bad food.
demagogue on 17/12/2012 at 13:16
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
dema - why does the cognitive ability of the animal matter? It is a alive and you are taking its life. Saying that a fish suffers less than a pig is making a judgement and its just plain old discrimination, isn't it?
The definition of dogma is not making judgments. *Ethics* period is about making judgment. That's why we have judges decide cases and not linguists. Anyway it matters because most theories of moral restrictions turn on the status of the receiving agent... Does its life have meaning for it, and what kind of meaning; does it comprehend pain and death; what is the status of suffering for it? How does it comprehend the value of its own life, and the continuation of it?
Utilitarianism for instance is about maximizing "meaningful wellbeing or happiness", but that will mean different things for different animals. Quasi-Contractualisms would depends on what animals understand of their life. Mammals have significantly greater comprehension of the value of their life than fish do. Cognitive capacity is about the only thing one *can* look to. If it were just "life", it'd be hard to even distinguish plants from animals.
faetal on 17/12/2012 at 13:24
Also, wrt vegetarianism, I think there are set definitions along the lines of:
Pescetarian* - Someone who eats no meat, but will eat seafood
Vegetarian - Someone who will not eat something which had sensory capabilities
Vegan - Someone who will not eat any product derived from something which had sensory capabilities
There will be overlaps and additions, e.g. pescetarians who will will eat fish, but not molluscs or crustaceans, vegetarians who won't eat eggs, but will drink milk and so on and so forth.
I have lots of friends who are vegetarian and vegan. Certain food types are more / less compatible with their choices, but that ought not reflect on whether we class the food good or bad in terms of quality.
* I was pescetarian for about 2 years once.
SubJeff on 17/12/2012 at 13:46
Ah, I see how the vegetarian battle lines are being drawn dema, thanks. As far as ethical vegetarianism - how can you possibly make a judgement as to where you draw that line? You'd have to take some neurobiologist's word on what animals feel x amount of pain or comprehension about their life.
Quote Posted by faetal
I was paraphrasing SD who said that French cuisine was unwilling to adapt, which I wouldn't disagree with. Just saying that it doesn't mean that they have bad food.
No, but it could mean they have bad vegetarian food. I don't cook veggie and vegetarians coming around to my house for dinner cannot expect good food because I just don't know how to make good veggie stuff. Unless they are happy eating just the fine salads and vegetable accompaniments to the main dishes.
Thirith on 17/12/2012 at 13:52
A few years ago I attended a conference in Montpellier. For the big conference dinner they asked beforehand whether people were vegetarians or not, so that was okay. However, it very quickly turned out that for them foie gras lies outside the meat eater/vegetarian discussion - everyone got their portion of foie gras, and questions or comments re: "But I said I don't eat any meat" were met with an utter lack of comprehension...
(For the record: 1) I eat meat, although I can do without foie gras, and 2) the food was very, very nice. :-) )
demagogue on 17/12/2012 at 14:09
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Ah, I see how the vegetarian battle lines are being drawn dema, thanks. As far as ethical vegetarianism - how can you possibly make a judgement as to where you draw that line? You'd have to take some neurobiologist's word on what animals feel x amount of pain or comprehension about their life.
It's not an easy judgment, but it's not totally in the dark either (like it would have been 50 years ago), or at any rate it's what we're supposed to try to do however hard it is. We have the same problem with the line between abortion vs infanticide and dealing with people in comas or vegetative states too BTW.
I think the technical term we have for it, coined by justice Holmes IIRC, is the "oh hell" theory of decision-making. You have limited information and time, and then you realize the time has come to make a decision, and you say "oh hell" and make the best decision you can with the limited information you have, even if you might make a different decision if you had infinite time & omniscience to know all the factors. Saying a judgment is very hard is different than saying you're off the hook for trying to decide what to do based on what (little) you know so far anyway.
Chimpy Chompy on 17/12/2012 at 15:11
Quote Posted by SD
I was just offering a situation when it's acceptable to use the word "nosh"
I'm not talking about your experience, I'm talking about you enthusing about blowjobs from teenagers
I mean, why did you reference that age bracket in the first place? When you're a fair bit older and so is the average TTLG reader
SubJeff on 17/12/2012 at 15:13
I'd assume because that is indeed the only time when you'd get a nosh in the bathroom and not a blowjob in the bathroom.
What is so hard about this?
Chimpy Chompy on 17/12/2012 at 15:28
that... doesn't help at all?
Vivian on 17/12/2012 at 15:33
His point is only teenagers would call it being noshed off.
Except I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. More like Viz-readers circa 1995.
Just laying my cards on the table, I don't see any theoretical issue with teenage blowjobs. Sounds ok.
