"Old Father's Quote #28. We argue over truth and knowledge and play politics with it. Sometimes we even kill for it. (2021-11-02)" [i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]
"Old Father's Quote #29. The truth is not determined by democratic process - you can not vote it into being. (2021-11-24) How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
I ate for breakfast something that probably only exists here. It is called Sobao, and it is cooked mostly in Cantabria. Because I care about all of you, I am sharing the recipe in case you want to try making it at home:
I have to say I've never heard that type of measurement before. What is a "zest"? Does it have a weight? Is it indescribable or otherwise varies from lemon to lemon and so warranted this new, haphazard form and term of measurement? If I'm out of sugar and just need a tiny bit to complete whatever it is I'm preparing, can I go to my neighbor and ask for "one zest's worth" of the stuff?
I often use lemon zest. Outlander seems to be quite unfamiliar with food.
I come from a simplistic background. Food is not guaranteed from one day to the next. Well, that's not entirely true in my current given circumstance. But I don't let such happenstance delude myself into thinking that's how the world is, has to be, or would be organically. It's called humility.
What piqued my interest was (though perhaps it was his unintended formatting) the idea of "1 zest of lemon", as if it was a predetermined or widely-established and formal measurement.
Otherwise, I just put a "squirt of lemon juice" either from an actual lemon or a commercially manufactured container of such. Though, lemon pepper seasoning (powdered) is pretty good as well in most instances.
I looked it up. Presumably that's just a grinding or shredding from the skin of one lemon. Now I know. I owe you both my thanks, I suppose.
I reverse seared brussels sprouts last night, speaking of food stuff. Start with the cut half down in oil with pan covered. Don’t need to add any water because there’s plenty in the sprouts already. Simply remove the cover for the last few minutes and add additional seasoning (lemon zest perhaps). Works like a charm.
It comes from the French word zeste, which originally meant the peel of a citrus fruit.
I was about to reply: "Thank you, Jamal. Your knowledge of entomology and language itself is not only legendary but worthy of being revered—nay, envied—by all." Though perhaps that's more of that "saying the same thing twice" I've been scolded about before.
Man, your avatar's have grown to become eerily (or perhaps bewilderingly) similar.
Reverse seared. Interesting! What does that offer as far as taste, texture, or perhaps even nutrition, or anything else? Is it just something fun to do or does it have measurable utility? Depends on the foodstuff, I would imagine?
Alas, my only greens these days are from bagged salads (which I never get to, seeing as they barely last 3 days), the lettuce in the sub sandwiches at the one local shop we have, and if I go into the nearest town to get a burger. I'm a bit of a meat and cheese man, myself.
I suppose I could just eat grass. Works for cows. Or, try those "nutrient powder mixes" that all have the word "green" in the name. Yes, perhaps I should do that.
As an aside. I would have quite enjoyed seeing a photo of your meal as prepared. Some of the staff here do that occasionally. And it's always a delight. Living vicariously, or perhaps a latent voyeur inclination I need to keep an eye on, but whatever it is. It's always fun to see what other people have going on. I understand, particularly for folks of advanced age or habit, the process is a bit burdensome, if not difficult. But if you're ever able to find the time to do so, it would certainly not go without appreciation. :smile:
In other news, I purchased a 5 gallon bucket of laundry detergent. Buying in bulk saves time and readies me for the end of times. I then needed to move it from that bucket to a 5 gallon container with a spigot so that I could then pour it into a quart sized container that could easily be poured into my washer.
My first idea was to buy a $10 battery operated pump that is propeller driven. It moved water very well, but it could not begin to pull detergent of such viscosity. I spent a good deal of time then learning about types of pumps and their viscosity tolerance.
I was to find out that a propeller driven pump would never work, but that a suction based pump would be needed. Some pumps required an air compressor to operate and others a 12 volt power source I'd have to purchase.
The time and money commitment was making me rethink my money saving buy in bulk strategy.
I then settled on a manual pump, which I show above. It worked very well, and it did require some strength (which I have an abundance of) to suck the detergent from one container to the other.
My thought is that one day there will be a water flood issue and everyone will be at a loss as to how to remove the water and I'll heroically arrive with my water pump, saving the day.
In the meantime, the pump hides itself on a garage shelf, just because it's easier to explain this episode to you guys than my wife. The 5 gallon bucket of detergent that sits prominently on the laundry room floor already took a bit of explaining.
Reply to Outlander I suppose I should have presented my problem here for ideas first, although I couldn't locate an Archimedes screw pump online now that I just checked. The only ones they had were educational ones.
I suppose I could carve the screw from a wax block, pack clay around the wax, put that in a kiln and drain out the melted wax, then pour molten steel into the emptied mold, cool it and then break away the hardened clay and thereby fashion my own screw, then create a cylinder with perfect clearances, and from that make my own pump.
The Archimedes screw is very common as the grain elevator.
Today I learned flour is combustible. Though I never considered using a loaf of bread as an improvised explosive before, it is no wonder the aristocrats strive to keep large quantities of bread from us peasants. We simply do not know any better and legally speaking could not be blamed for whatever we may cause as a result of being left to our own devices.
Today I learned flour is combustible. Though I never considered using a loaf of bread as an improvised explosive before, it is no wonder the aristocrats strive to keep large quantities of bread from us peasants. We simply do not know any better and legally speaking could not be blamed for whatever we may cause as a result of being left to our own devices.
Not just flour, whole grains in general. Silos and other facilities for storing grain require special protection to prevent dust explosions caused by flammable dust in poorly vented enclosed spaces.
We just opened two holes in an old bucket lid, a small one for a car tire valve and a larger one for the pipe where the paint comes out. All of the piping and fittings can be PVC.
we used to place the full bucket inside an empty bucket to reinforce it and wrap a cinch strap over the lid to hold it down. A small 12v. emergency car compressor (that you probably have in your car already) can de used to push the liquid out of the big container to the little one. Once you have the lid and connections made you can just put it onto any other bucket. The video gives you an idea how it works.
Reply to Sir2u That might have worked. The viscosity creates an issue. Paint isn't as thick. The pump you showed pumps .02 gallons per pump, but mine pumps out .125 (16 oz (a pint)) per pump. The detergent came with a small plastic pump, but that tired my pumping hand, and so my adventure began.
Imagine this. You're throwing a party, you've concocted a thick smoothie tequila surprise, you fill a (new) garbage container with it, you put my mega pump through the lid, and with one quick pump and you fill a red Dixie cup with a pint of it. That's bad ass. I mean the first 20 or 30 will taste like detergent, but after that, totally bad ass.
Oh yeah, my brother read about that when we were kids. And of course, we had to test it out. Boy does it ever blow! Sometimes I wonder how I ever managed to make it to adulthood.
In college, this guy filled a record album sleeve (old school vinyl album cover) with powder and put it under some guy's dorm door and then stomped on it, creating a heaven like effect in the room. We enjoyed the outcome and were prepared to share it with others, but someone told us it could combust and leave us all dead, creating a more literal heaven effect, so we chose other mischief.
That might have worked. The viscosity creates an issue. Paint isn't as thick. The pump you showed pumps .02 gallons per pump, but mine pumps out .125 (16 oz (a pint)) per pump. The detergent came with a small plastic pump, but that tired my pumping hand, and so my adventure began.
We used it for kind of heavy wait latex paint and even industrial ship grade paints without problems, even pushing it up 20 or so feet. You could also try putting the bucket on a shelf with a hose and valve directly to the washing machine.
Imagine this. You're throwing a party, you've concocted a thick smoothie tequila surprise, you fill a (new) garbage container with it, you put my mega pump through the lid, and with one quick pump and you fill a red Dixie cup with a pint of it. That's bad ass. I mean the first 20 or 30 will taste like detergent, but after that, totally bad ass.
Please remind me to always arrive late at your place for cocktails. :lol: :rofl:
You could also try putting the bucket on a shelf with a hose and valve directly to the washing machine.
Nice. Maybe hang it from the ceiling and dress it up like a disco ball.
I had a friend who rigged his wiper fluid hose back into the car so that he could serve himself drinks by pulling back the wiper control. Probably had the same issue with the first few drinks tasting like wiper fluid.
Reply to javi2541997 I filled up today and it was $2.72 per gallon. Convert that to whatever I'm looking at here.
As I recall, you guys sell it by the kiloliter, which is roughly a quart and then there's the euro to dollar thing. My guess is that our gas (as we call it) is cheaper than yours, but when I was Portugal, the prices for food and lodging was really low comparitvely.
Years in the planning, over in seconds, thanks to the vigilance of the mods, no damage done - their evil plan to abduct us all to... whatever it was... thwarted!
Australians never have anything good to say about Bali! What I know about it is mainly through my interest in gamelan, although of course I'm aware of the presence of foreign hippies and pissheads.
I am now considering nasi goreng for breakfast, as I'm quite close to a restaurant that serves it.
Australians never have anything good to say about Bali!
I think that might be a misinterpretation... the things about which we never have anything good to say are very often the things we love most. That Celtic irony stuff is deeply ingrained. Gamelan is wonderful. We use it and Tibetan Bowls for relaxation.
think that might be a misinterpretation... the things about which we never have anything good to say are very often the things we love most. That Celtic irony stuff is deeply ingrained. Gamelan is wonderful.
If you have Hulu, watch Alien: Earth. It's pretty good, with androids, human-android hybrids, and synthetic bodies that have the consciousnesses of children downloaded. All done in that gen-z self-conscious nostalgia.
There's also an alien that is just an eyeball with legs who seeks to pull out the eye of a host and take over its brain.
There's also an alien that is just an eyeball with legs who seeks to pull out the eye of a host and take over its brain.
That seems difficult with just legs. Perhaps they're multi-functional. And thanks for spoiling the best part. It's obvious how it ends. All these movies end the same. Humans win. Totally unrealistic. But people like fancy graphics and colorful imagery coupled with rehashed plot lines that haven't been used in a few decades so it'll likely be top-rated.
Kierkegaard's reproach of Hegel was that he had the whole universe figured out, but he had put to the side the only thing one really knows: what it's like to be alive.
Reply to Pieter R van Wyk
Where can i find these laws, so I can read, interpret, and decide whether or not to follow them? And if they have no morality or legal standing why would anything bother to read them, or follow them?
Try any physics handbook, it should contain a few of these laws. It is not your decision to follow them or not - you are subject to them. Whether you like it or not.
They have as much existence as any philosophy - even more so.
Reply to Hanover
Agreed. I guess a natural follow up question would be to ask how that judgment is carried out. What was thrown off by one set gets to be a problem for another.
Try any physics handbook, it should contain a few of these laws. It is not your decision to follow them or not - you are subject to them. Whether you like it or not.
The laws of physics are descriptions concerning the interactions of inanimate objects. These descriptions do not apply to the freely willed acts of living beings. Therefore I am not subject to them. And when I use them to figure something out, they are subject to my actions, as my tools, not vise versa. I think you are a little confused on this matter Peter.
If you replace "theism" with "religion" it would work better, no?
But even then, beliefs, which are true or false, matter to a lot of religious people.
I think the more generic the better, which would suggest "belief" be substituted for "religion," and then theism just being a specific example of religion and belief.
The reason I think "theism" is more provocative in my quote is that it faces atheism more head on, but that's admittedly just rhetorical value, not substantive.
I don't know if what I've said is just a restatement of James's will to believe or if something is added by my form of life reference, suggesting the proof of a belief"s value might be tied to its public performance.
Or, I might just be articulating my own religious beliefs in secular terms unknowingly and thinking I've discovered something new. We all need internal justification for our beliefs. Might as well be self aware of it.
I've seen much worse, so I'll have to agree with your father.
:up:
I am going to tell him right now because we were having a heated discussion. Everything started because my father skipped a gas station purposely. I told him it was our chance to clean it because there weren't many cars, and perhaps the rest of the gas stations are full.
But now we are more relaxed with your opinion and point. Thanks, Jamal!
Reply to javi2541997 When I was a kid, you'd drive up to the gas station and drive over this air hose and it would make a ding sound and a guy would run out to your car to pump your gas. You'd say (or my dad would because I was a kid) "fill er up with regular." Then he'd fill up your car with regular gas (as opposed to high octane or unleaded), check your oil, and clean your windows. The gas pump would also make a dinging sound as I recall.
Then they started adding self serve lanes. Then they eliminated the full service lanes. That was the beginning of the end. Now we talk to bots like they're people. It's very sad. At least you had a real life conversation with your dad today, even if it was a heated argument over whether you should clean your windscreen that should have been called a windshield.
I see why you feel nostalgic. Those times seemed to be beautiful, and you miss the human interaction which is likely forbidden in today's society. You have good memories of your dad but also of the filling station worker, and this is very gorgeous. We never had that kind of modern stuff where our cars made a dinging sound after they were filled up. However, I also miss the rumbling noise that the filling station used to make. Now, it appears that everything has lost its soul because we only focused on dehumanising everything.
The other day I was in a hardware shop because I wanted to make copies of my keys. The owner started to draw the shape with his hand. I almost started to cry because of his human ability. He didn't ask the AI or whatever.
The other day I was in a hardware shop because I wanted to make copies of my keys. The owner started to draw the shape with his hand. I almost started to cry because of his human ability. He didn't ask the AI or whatever.
I lost my key a long time ago and keep my garage door unlocked. It's been unlocked for years. Sometimes, like if a repair person needs to come over and I'm not in, I tell them they can just walk in, but they won't do it. They think they might get bitten by my dog or they'll get shot. It might be that an unlocked door is scarier than a locked one because they think either someone's home or that they're being set up.
So take my advice and just leave your door swinging in the wind.
When I was probably 6 or 7, I would walk up to the gas station and convenience store about a mile from my house and buy candy. My mom would watch me cross the street and I'd come home a while later. They don't let kids do that any more. They'd probably call the police if they saw little kids unattended. I don't know that's gotten less safe though really. We didn't wear seatbelts or wear bicycle helmets. We ate pure sugar cereal every morning. We left the house in the morning and returned when the street lights came on at night. I feel like I'm part of the last generation that cared enough about their kids to leave them alone to grow up.
I saw this documentary on TV of an African village that was provided running water, but everytime the system broke, they went back to their old way. They enjoyed the convenience, but they refused to become dependent on it. We get a phone that can track our every move and it immediately becomes and indespensible part of responsible parenting. There were commercials on TV when I was a kid that would say, "It's ten o'clock, do you know where your kids are?" And they would run them at different times. As in, there was a time when parents had to be reminded to round up their kids and get them home.
When I was a kid, you'd drive up to the gas station and drive over this air hose and it would make a ding sound and a guy would run out to your car to pump your gas. You'd say (or my dad would because I was a kid) "fill er up with regular." Then he'd fill up your car with regular gas (as opposed to high octane or unleaded), check your oil, and clean your windows. The gas pump would also make a dinging sound as I recall.
I was that guy, for nearly half a day. I actually got paid an unmemorable amount. ( It might have been ten shillings, which was nearly half a guinea!)
——————————————————————————————————————
"An aphorism in the shoutbox is worth two in the thunderbox."
We all have familiar memories. Since you shared one special memory with me, I am going to share another nostalgic memory:
Christmas dinner (In Spain, we celebrate Christmas at night I think I have already said this in The Shoutbox) has always been celebrated in my home. I watched a TV show or film (I can't remember) about human sacrifices. In my innocent mind, I had the confusing idea that Christmas would not be celebrated if I couldn't make a sacrifice. Then, I took a razor blade from my father's drawer. When I was in the shower, I started to cut myself (just in one finger). I cried, but alone because I didn't want anyone to know this.
When I returned to the hall, perfectly suited and combed but with red eyes because I was crying, my mother asked: 'What happened?' And then I replied, 'I am thrilled because the spirit of Christmas is saved!'
Reply to javi2541997On Passover, we would slaughter a lamb and pour its blood on the door so that Yahweh would pass over the homes of the Jews and only kill the Egyptian first born. You'd think he'd have known who was who, but given I don't lock my doors, he's was scared shitless just to walk in and have to wrestle Fred like the time he wrestled Jacob.
Why do you find it odd that I can move away from other things? Can't you?
Duh! Yes I can move. For this to happen I need to convert energy, because I am moving in a gravity field. Therefore still subject to the law of gravity. I can also pay Elon Musk a lot of fiat money to take me out of earths gravity field - this will require a lot of energy because we are all (YOU INCLUDED) subject to the law of conservation of mass and energy. Whether we like it or not.
Seems to me you skipped a few science classes in grade 6.
You asked what was my point in making the original statement - apparently to teach you that you are, in fact, subject to these laws, whether you like it or not.
Furthermore, you also stated that the laws of nature have no existence. This is odd indeed, since even you yourself is subject to them, yet you claim they have no existence.
You might ask yourself what other laws of nature exist, in fact, to which we all (YOU INCLUDED) are subject to - you might come to the understanding that the quest for wealth is due to the laws of nature, not the rules of man. This will be some real progress in your understanding.
Your formulation is a common justification for denial of deserved protections.
Quite so, unless you, diametrically, disagree with the politics of the institution that grant such an entitlement. Then you will, most probably, maintain that the denial is justified. Again, mere politics.
Yes please. Let's have less shoutbox, and more songbox.
Here's one from the afterlife, curtesy of The Grateful Dead —
Uncle John's Band:Well, the first days are the hardest days
Don't you worry anymore
'Cause when life looks like Easy Street
There is danger at your door
Think this through with me
Let me know your mind
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Is are you kind?
For this to happen I need to convert energy, because I am moving in a gravity field.
Read your physics handbook. The gravity field is not a law, it is a property of spacetime. This is the inversion brought about by the Einsteinian revolution. Gravity is no longer understood as a law, it is a property of the substrate.
Quite so, unless you, diametrically, disagree with the politics of the institution that grant such an entitlement. Then you will, most probably, maintain that the denial is justified. Again, mere politics.
Rights are not granted by institutions. Institutions are obligated to protect rights you already have.. Rights are an inherent part of being human. When one says they are entitled to rights, they are not saying the government is duty bound to do anything. They're saying the government is restrained from taking things from them.
As in, no one grants me the right to own property. They will violate the rights I already have if they steal from me.
The distinction is critical, dividing US ideology from much of Europe, imposing Lockean Enlightenment standards of natural rights into the the system.
This is where your conversation with @Metaphysician Undercover got confused. You said "the laws of nature have no morality," where you were referring to physics, not natural law morality, which says something different, but then it shifted to your entitlement comments, so it seems now both sorts of nature's laws are being discussed.
My criticism of your book is (1) it presents unprocessed theses statements as if crystallized wisdom, (2) your reference to your comments being "old father quotes" is pretentious, as if the comments are time honored bits of common sense being passed down, when really they're just bite sized meanderings of a guy peddling a book.
Gravity is no longer understood as a law, it is a property of the substrate.
And you are part of the substrate of which gravity is a property - still subject to it. Your statement that the laws of nature have no existence has been refuted, thus, my original statement is making a valid and constructive point.
Rights are not granted by institutions. Institutions are obligated to protect rights you already have.. Rights are an inherent part of being human. When one says they are entitled to rights, they are not saying the government is duty bound to do anything. They're saying the government is restrained from taking things from them.
Really! Who provided humans these rights? Was it provided by some God? Is it a result of our evolution from Homo Habilis to Homo sapiens? Or some other cosmological endowment?
Really! Who provided humans these rights? Was it provided by some God? Is it a result of our evolution from Homo Habilis to Homo sapiens? Or some other cosmological endowment?
Theistic (and deistic) bases exist as do secular ones. Human rights can exist without God and can transcend government. The question is of moral realism generally. Why would a nation be wrong to legalize rape if the nation decides what rights there are?
And you are part of the substrate of which gravity is a property - still subject to it.
No, objects are separate from the substrate, and the interactions of objects are sometimes described by laws. But the two are definitely very distinct and in many ways incommensurable. This is what creates quantum uncertainty, the gap between the substrate, described as fields, and the objects (particles) which are supposed to interact. Strictly speaking the particle is not a part of the field, that's why it must be assumed to take every possible path, and why people talk about a collapse of the wavefunction when the particle appears. Even though we talk about a wave/particle duality, the two can't really coexist. So one is not a part of the other.
I feel weird and melancholic because I just realised that it has been a while since @Shawn posted a picture of a pig. I know he comes and leaves sporadically, but the big question is when we are going to see another picture of a pig shared by him.
Quite so, unless you, diametrically, disagree with the politics of the institution that grant such an entitlement. Then you will, most probably, maintain that the denial is justified. Again, mere politics.
I would’ve thought more it was a question of morality.
[...]
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Is are you kind? — Uncle John's Band
Very nice!
A rarity, also kind'a dealing with spiritual themes, I found in a very early addition of Jack London's "Martin Eden" as a preface:
Let me live out my days in the heat of blood!
Let me lie drunken with the dreamer's wine!
Let me not see this soul-house built of mud,
Go toppling to the dust a vacant shrine!
You have not answered the question: Who provided humans these rights? Not some God, not some evolution, not a cosmological endowment, but some moral realism - thus humans themselves? Therefore it is decided by the politics we conduct - just get the right person in the White House then any person will be entitled to abortion on demand and to hell with the morality of it. Although, claiming this entitled human right in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be kind of a problem ...
Is politics conducted on what is morally right or wrong or is what is regarded as morally right or wrong decided by what is politically expedient? — Pieter R van Wyk
Neither.
Correct.
It is all governed by what is metaethically right and wrong. As we all know. Hence virtue and righteousness and all the rest. The problematics of it all is that, though we all know this, coming to actually know what in fact is metaethically right and wrong is in and of itself utterly immoral. Or so much of our current mores assert. Something to do with apples.
Then, please enlighten me; by whom or under what authority can a decision be made that something is morally good or not?
As far as I’m concerned, that’s outside the scope of this discussion. All I did was point out that it was primarily a moral issue and not a political one, which is what you claimed. Maybe you would say that the issue is “merely moral.”
DO you think the ones in the White house are good?
It is not for me to give judgement on the people currently in the White House. I can confirm, in my opinion, that the current government in South Africa is fundamentally corrupt. The people of South Africa has two options to change that: by democratic vote or by a revolution. I believe it is the same in America. Personally I prefer the democratic vote way - it is normally conducted by less tears and bloodshed. Thus morally a better way, not so?
"The distribution of wealth is severely skewed - a few rich humans and a lot of poor ones. This is a result of the Laws of Nature, not a result of the Rules of Man." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
"The distribution of wealth is severely skewed - a few rich humans and a lot of poor ones. This is a result of the Laws of Nature, not a result of the Rules of Man."
What on earth do the Laws of Nature have to do with the man-made economics of a global pyramid scheme grounded in the supposition of infinite resources?
It is not for me to give judgement on the people currently in the White House.
A cop out. Who else is going to do it for you?
But you don't have to answer, because the answer you give is not really about them. It's about you. Folk who do think them good are moray bankrupt.
I haven't paid much attention to what you have been saying, but there are folk hereabouts who think that because we don't find moral truths lying around the place in the way we find physical truths, that there are no moral truths. You and I know better. If someone says that kicking the puppy for fun is a good thing to do, you and I know that they are wrong.
So back tot he issue that grabbed my attention. Folk have rights if you and I agree that they have rights and agree to enforce them.
A fable saddens you, thinking of all the people who couldn't board the ark, but relieved to know the horses, iguanas, frogs, and polar bears made it.
The saddest part though, which I actually learned in an Irish bar, was that a long time ago when the earth was green, there were more kinds of animals than you've ever seen. But, to make a long story short, the unicorn didn't get to board the ark. Now there are none, and its existence has been relegated to being used as an example of an entity without a referent.
Perhaps it might be considered beautiful if we no longer see death as something horrible.
It's an ancient piece of art hanging on the wall, subject to interpretation. I see the availability of a holy cleansing always present regardless of how impure things may be, but also a promise it will never happen again.
But maybe some see the undescribed drowning of babies, mothers treading water holding them high for one last breath, spinning, twisting dying last survivors, clawing and killing before they take their final plunge.
The point is that you see it as the beginning of something, but Reply to Banno seems to see it as the end. Both interpretations are perfectly suitable. A drowning is something terrible, but I skipped important elements because I didn't know the theological meaning of Noah's Ark or whatever biblical narrative.
I think the flood actually happened in Mesopotamia. It was not a myth; the Tigris–Euphrates river system was flood-prone, and perhaps a big river avulsion happened, which influenced Moses when he wrote the Genesis.
But, to make a long story short, the unicorn didn't get to board the ark. Now there are none, and its existence has been relegated to being used as an example of an entity without a referent.
I read a fascinating novel last year about Noah's Ark: Not Wanted on the Voyage by Timothy Findley, in which Noah, friend and loyal servant of Yahweh, is an abusive authoritarian patriarch obsessed with following Yahweh's laws, to the exclusion of love and fairness within his family. One day Yahweh visits him to complain that humanity is showing him no respect and to cheer him up Noah shows him a magic trick in which a coin disappears in water. This gives Yahweh the idea to wipe everything out and start again with a big flood, and he instructs Noah to get busy building the ark. Noah dutifully agrees, and the drama plays out in exciting and disturbing fashion.
In this telling, Yaweh and his loyal patriarchs seem to be a tyrranical gang, jealously guarding their power and acting cruelly out of frustration at not getting the respect they think they deserve.
EDIT: To find out the shocking truth about the unicorn, you'll have to read it (the Wikipedia page skirts around it)
Noah shows him a magic trick in which a coin disappears in water. This gives Yahweh the idea to wipe everything out and start again with a big flood, and he instructs Noah to get busy building the ark.
I see a metaphor in this. Perhaps the trick of the coin means that the big flood was also a way to deceive the people. :chin:
Well, what a beautiful way to start November – discussing some narratives from Genesis.
What on earth do the Laws of Nature have to do with the man-made economics of a global pyramid scheme grounded in the supposition of infinite resources?
Not much I am afraid, this thing you are speaking of has much to do about the shuffling around of vast amounts of fiat money - which has almost nothing to do with wealth.
Reply to Pieter R van Wyk
How is it consistent to argue that there are laws of nature, but no natural rights? Doesn't the very same principle of realism, which makes the laws of nature real for you, also make human rights real for you? Where do you draw the line between the two?
But you don't have to answer, because the answer you give is not really about them. It's about you. Folk who do think them good are moray bankrupt.
I haven't paid much attention to what you have been saying, but there are folk hereabouts who think that because we don't find moral truths lying around the place in the way we find physical truths, that there are no moral truths. You and I know better. If someone says that kicking the puppy for fun is a good thing to do, you and I know that they are wrong.
So back tot he issue that grabbed my attention. Folk have rights if you and I agree that they have rights and agree to enforce them.
Not a cop out, no! Since I am not a US citizen, I have absolutely no influence on who sits in the White House. I do not think there are moral truths, definitely moral rights and wrongs - sure my mother taught me that to kick any other living being is wrong - accept in self defence. You and me seem to agree that kicking a puppy for fun is not a good thing to do but there are cultures in our world in which this is quite acceptable.
Also, I will never say that human rights does not exist - they surely do - you and me might agree on them but in order to enforce them we do need a government, a government that is put in place by "we the people". You might disagree with the laws that the government of the day enforces - that is your right to do so. You cannot disobey the laws that are in place - it is exactly these laws that keeps civilisation in place. You disobey them at your peril, unless you intend to start a revolution - but in my opinion that would be morally wrong.
How is it consistent to argue that there are laws of nature, but no natural rights? Doesn't the very same principle of realism, which makes the laws of nature real for you, also make human rights real for you? Where do you draw the line between the two?
The Laws of Nature is time-invariant. What you call "natural rights", I have defined as Rules of Man and they are time-variant.
Reply to Pieter R van Wyk
But that's just a matter of ruling out the possibility of time-invariant natural rights by means of definition, which would be begging the question.
My criticism though, is that it appears to be inconsistent to define the laws of nature as time-invariant, but natural rights as time-variant.
"Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods."
And then the clearer question from Leibniz:
"It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Your suggestion that the "good ones" decide the good falls in line with both Plato and Leibniz because to have a good that can permeate one person and not another speaks to an independence of the good, not determined by its host., even if parasitic to the host and incapable of survival without it.
I also think your position is more aligned with a natural rights theory, inconsistent with @Pieter R van Wyk,s because he sees it as a nod to mysticism (as in what is a transcendent enity?). And I do think a mystical nod is necessary to avoid subjectivism and relativism (as in Trump is right because he has might).
Yours is the dilemma of protecting atheism while arguing absolutes. Mine is in protecting rationality while allowing the deux ex machina to solve dilemmas. Pieter's is in creating moral universals.
Since I am not a US citizen, I have absolutely no influence on who sits in the White House.
You were not asked to influence them. You were asked if what they were doing is right. You have an answer to that already.
Similarly, that if there are cultures in our world in which this is quite acceptable to kick puppies for fun then you and I agree what they are doing something they ought not.
No, Reply to Hanover not the Euthyphro. To say of something that it is good is to adopt an attitude towards it, not to discover a previously unnoticed property it has. There's no issue of whether it's good because of the attitude adopted or the attitude is adopted because it's good. It's being good and one's the attitude are the same.
No, ?Hanover not the Euthyphro. To say of something that it is good is to adopt an attitude towards it, not to discover a previously unnoticed property it has. There's no issue of whether it's good because of the attitude adopted or the attitude is adopted because it's good. It's being good and one's the attitude are the same.
Would you make the same declaration about saying that something is green? That this is not to discover a property of the thing, but to adopt an attitude toward it? I don't see why anyone would say that one is an attitude, but not the other. But if you would, what makes one an attitude of the subject, and the other a property of the object?
As you said, we do. Not just the folk in the White House nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
I might be able to entitle some rights to my children, for the rest I can only play some politics. Perhaps you should explain to Trump, the King of Saudi and perhaps also Putin that they are exceeding the rights that you have entitled to them.
"... if competition and innovation are driven by a reduced change in entropy, instead of an increase in (fiat money) profit, we just might be able to avert the looming environmental disaster," How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
I might be able to entitle some rights to my children, for the rest I can only play some politics. Perhaps you should explain to Trump, the King of Saudi and perhaps also Putin that they are exceeding the rights that you have entitled to them.
Seems odd to suppose that only those with authority can decide on your rights. They might well deny you your rights; but if they can deny you your right then it follows that you have a right, the one being denied...
If Trump denies the right to due process to a suspected illegal immigrant, then it follows that they have that right. And yes, he would be exceeding the rights to which we have entitled him.
Political power operates within the framework of rights, not as their source.
Do you not take anti-realism to be assigning the good to social construction? But I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Why is the Trumpian expression of morality not consistent with what reality dictates to be the truth? If my phrasing "with what reality dictates to be the truth" is not of relevance to you, then you don't seem to be a moral realist.
Who provided humans these rights?
— Pieter R van Wyk
As you said, we do. Not just the folk in the White House nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
These express two different positions:
1. You say that good people determine morality and the bad people (the White House people) are excluded. How do you distinguish the good people from the bad people without already knowing the good from the bad.
2. You then say the good is determined by the global "we," not just the folk in the White House. That is, this seems to allow the White House a vote, but everyone gets a vote, not just the White House folks.
But I won't try to dissect this anymore and just ask you where you think morality comes from. Why can't I kick puppies for fun? Why is it so self-evident? How do I use this self-evidence for those moral quandaries that are not as clear?
Seems odd to suppose that only those with authority can decide on your rights. They might well deny you your rights; but if they can deny you your right then it follows that you have a right, the one being denied...
This is an agreement with Enlightenment principles adhered to closely by American conservatives, offering an argument for a limited government subservient to higher ideals. Maybe you're a federalist. Who'd have thunk.
What do you want, a world were puppy-kicking is a legitimate pastime, or one in which it leads to a reprobation?
Realism is the view that there are truths. Anti-realism, most coherently is the view that there are no truths. Now if it is true that one ought not kick puppies, then that is about what we ought do, and so is a moral truth. Hence, it is not anti-realism. Anti-realism tends to translate “truth” into verification, consensus, or usefulness, but truth is simpler than these, and is presumed by them anyway.
Further, what is good is not decided by a vote.
Morality comes from considering what you want in the light of recognising the needs of others.
Hence the "we".
You decide what you want, while interacting with others decides what is good.
One of the errors here is the naive moral solipsism that thinks of good as if it were independent of other people. Good is about what we want, and so evaluative; it is about what we do, and so normative; and it is about others, and so communal.
From what you have said, I gather you think that good is determined by god and tradition. As if good were commanded. Notice that that is your choice? It's about what you want to be the case, and what you think ought be the case. That's stuff about your deciding what is good. Why ought you be obedient?
What you think about kicking puppies for fun will be a large determinate of what we think about you.
You decide what you want, while interacting with others decides what is good.
That's pure subjectivism. If I get to decide and you get to decide then we're the definers of the good.
The problem is that plenty of bad people do decide. While puppies aren't kicked for fun these days, I remember the post on Descartes who cut up puppies thinking they felt no pain. There have also been societies that have held the victims of rape ought be murdered, have allowed humans to be traded as chattel, and have protected the rights of the elite to rape the underclass. If every single person in those societies but the victim said rape was morally acceptable, they'd all be wrong but the person being raped.
That is, it has nothing to do with what Hanover says. My say is irrelevant. If you wish to say something about the reasonable person, and you want to say I am that person, then I matter. But "reasonable" here is circular because I'm defined as the guy who knows right from wrong.
From what you have said, I gather you think that good is determined by god and tradition. As if good were commanded. Notice that that is your choice? It's about what you want to be the case, and what you think ought be the case. That's stuff about your deciding what is good. Why ought you be obedient?
I have the choice to be right or wrong, not to decide if I am right or wrong. If you claim we can create what is good and what is bad, you're a subjectivist. If you claim we can discover what is good and bad, you believe in absolute morality.
The path you've described leads anywhere is also the problem. If within me lies the omnipotent force of deciding the proper basis for why I should believe as I do, then I suppose I can decide that once I've decided, I will never decide otherwise. That's my moral decision. So, once I decide, I stand incorrigible. So, should I believe god told me I can't kill and so killing is wrong regardless of what anyone says, and should you tell me the 1,000 of reasons I'm wrong to rely on god, you waste your time, as I've slammed down the gavel and decided. The same holds true for the puppy kickers who insist upon its moral goodness. They have decided to kick. You have decided to tell them not to kick. Everyone is right in their own head. But in my head, you're both wrong. And while you tell me that is my subjective belief, I disagree because I've so decided. And don't get me wrong, I don't carry lingering self-awareness that maybe I'm not wrong. I am positive that I am right.
The problem is what happens when I say it's right to kick puppies?
That's pure subjectivism.... If you claim we can create what is good and what is bad, you're a subjectivist
Well, no, since it is very much about the other. That's what the comment about ethical solipsism fits. The bolded "we".
And sure, bad people do make decisions about what they do. Are they good decisions? Are you going to leave that to them?
Your say is fundamental, not irrelevant. But also, not the whole.
To see what is going on, you will have to leave behind the ethical solipsism, together with the idea that ethics is a fixed moral code handed to Moses. It's a negotiation between you and I. Which is much the same as everything else.
To see what is going on, you will have to leave behind the ethical solipsism, together with the idea that ethics is a fixed moral code handed to Moses. It's a negotiation between you and I. Which is much the same as everything else.
Reply to Banno My thoughts on this is that you seem to bevcollapsing the distinction between morality and law. We accept the latter is arrived at by social negotiation, whether highly formalized (as in legislatures) or limited sophistication (as in tribal leadership).
We typically think of morality as coming from an alternate source.
In Enlightenment societies, we draw a clear line between the church (morality) and state (law). We don't deny some laws are also moral, but we see the two as distinct.
When I asked whether a vote determines the good, you said it did not. You didn't want to defer to the majority for the rule, but instead to those who meant to do the best. This strikes me as still a political system, but it defers to the morally elite. If that's the case, we enter the world of philosopher kings for deciding the good.
In your collapse of the moral/legal distinction, you make the good determined by the hand of the elite, blurring any meaningful distinction between a theocracy and a secular state. In both, it's a small class that dictates the law, but also the moral because the two are the same.
So, my question is: what is the difference between law and morality other than the procedure that is used to get it to be made the norm?
My thoughts on this is that you seem to (be collapsing) the distinction between morality and law.
Not at all. But someone who sees morality as a set of rules might think that.
A church cannot function as the source of one's personal morals unless they intend them to do so. The responsibility for that choice, the acceptance of the moral guidance of the church, remains with the person concerned. It's what they want, or what they choose, ore what they consider themselves obligated by, or some other excuse.
In deciding what to do there's what one wants, which only takes oneself into consideration. Then there is what others also want, which is were ethics enters. Then there are the social institutions involved, which is where politics and Law enter.
But if morality is just a set of rules handed down from on high on a mountain, then the difference between it and law would indeed dissipate.
But if morality is just a set of rules handed down from on high on a mountain, then the difference between it and law would indeed dissipate.
No, if morality arises from something other than the morally elite properly weighing the varying goods of others, it maintains that distinction, namely that it is not a product of subjective time, place, or person.
The dissipation of the legal/moral distinction occurs under your interpretation because the distinction in methodology between the two is arbitrary. That is, it is unimportant how the human created rules arise - whether by informal agreement or legislative act, they are of the same import.
If the law is determined by considering the other, why does morality get priority over the law? If it is decided by you, me, and the 3 wise men that puppies shouldn't be kicked, why does our judgment prevail over an act of Congress?
Can the law be more moral then whatever it is we agree to after our deliberation?
Is there a final, correct answer to a moral dilemma? If we know puppies can't be kicked, why can't we list that in our Holy Set of Rules? Why must we reprocess our basis each time? Wouldn't it behoove us to write down all our truths this way for easier access, and we can just learn the rules without the rigamarole?
If the law is determined by considering the other, why does morality get priority over the law? If it is decided by you, me, and the 3 wise men that puppies shouldn't be kicked, why does our judgment prevail over an act of Congress?
I don't know. It's your theory. I am arguing morality is discovered, not created. But my questions remain:
Why can't a law be more moral than a moral decision we reach?
Why can't moral decisions be codified into a list?
Do moral determinations change over time?
If puppy kicking is determined moral on Monday but immoral on Tuesday, was it immoral on Monday but we were just wrong on Monday? How can we be wrong if we went through the proper deliberation process?
If we can be wrong about what's moral, doesn't that mean we don't decide what's moral but that we're searching for what it's moral?
This points up the incoherence of @Banno's ethics quite well (and it hints at Reply to Hare's). :up:
Banno is a moral realist only via fiat truths (i.e. he is a voluntarist, which is classically not moral realism in any thoroughgoing sense). He never defends why, say, it is immoral to kick puppies. Instead of answering the questions put to him, he tries to shift the attention onto religious accounts. Your point about the Euthyphro is apt given the way Banno grounds morality in "wants" (i.e. will).
Which is to mistake what is the case for what ought be the case.
Where do we find moral laws?
No, it's not. The naturalistic fallacy is to claim the world is X so it ought be X. I'm saying the morality which governs is Y, so if the world doesn't behave as Y, it's immoral. The world's being X doesn't determine Y.
Reply to Hanover Since you plainly haven't understood, I am trying to understand what I'm arguing against.
Go back to the origin of the conversation, the question of who decides human rights. The suggestion is that we decide human rights. You objected with the Euthyphro dilemma, asking which came first the right or the good folk who decide them; I pointed out that this was to misconstrue what was being said. You moved on to claiming I was an antirealist, I explained that there are moral truths and so antirealism is in error. You returned to the misconstrued piece, oddly suggesting this was an example of conservative 'mercantile dogma, and calling it subjective despite the central place played by community, both of which I refuted. Then you moved on to asking about the difference between morality and law, which I explained in terms of social institutions. You then started to talk about moral elites, a puzzling move which I have been probing.
Now you say, despite all of that, that I am not answering your question...
So, if rights are not the result of human interactions, as I suggest, but are "discovered", as you suggest... where do we discover them?
What do you want, a world were puppy-kicking is a legitimate pastime, or one in which it leads to a reprobation?
Realism is the view that there are truths. Anti-realism, most coherently is the view that there are no truths. Now if it is true that one ought not kick puppies, then that is about what we ought do, and so is a moral truth. Hence, it is not anti-realism. Anti-realism tends to translate “truth” into verification, consensus, or usefulness, but truth is simpler than these, and is presumed by them anyway.
Further, what is good is not decided by a vote.
Morality comes from considering what you want in the light of recognising the needs of others.
So why is it a truth that one ought not kick puppies? Apparently because of something Banno wants in the light of some need that the puppy has. That's pretty thin in the first place, but it sure does seem to commit the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" (given that what Banno wants and what the puppy needs are "is" claims).
I may write a thread about how Hume held to "oughts" derived from "is's," that he did not object to such a move when it involved what he called "sentiment" (either directly or indirectly), and that his broader project was to oppose the moral theory grounded in self-interest or divine commands found in folks like Hobbes and Locke, offering instead a thicker moral theory grounded in "sentiment." Contemporary confusions on this point have more to do with Moore's "open question" than Hume, although misreadings of Hume also contribute.
Now you say, despite all of that, that I am not answering your question...
I have provided answers to your questions. Maybe not satisfying to you, but nevertheless responses.
My reference to the moral elites was to point out that an elite group that offers moral decrees (which excludes Trump and his ilk) that convenes and decides the moral decisions for society (don't kick puppies) is only irrelevantly distinct from Congress, both being social constructs for rule determination. That is, law and morality are the same under this system, social norms passed and enforced, either by handcuffs or social stigma.
It was why I asked whether the law as passed by Congress could be more moral than those by whatever method your morals were passed. If a law can be more moral than morals, we've reached a point of reductio that should cause reconsideration of our theory.
You criticized the idea that morals might be enumerated like a list, and I asked why we couldn't codify our rules and were forced to redeliberate the same question as it posed itself repeatedly.
I also questioned whether morals were immutable or whether they changed from deliberation to deliberation dependent upon the deliberators or perhaps the season they met for negotiation. Can the good today be the bad tomorrow or was the bad the bad even though we all agreed it was good?
All my questions were labeled as such, and I don't see them answered.
Where do I find morals? Morals seem revealed through the conscience, refined through reason, and analogized to one another. I look upon prior ethical decisions or controlling and persuasive regarding new considerations.
I am also unapologetically theistic, but I don't hold to literalist traditions and I don't suggest every word of scripture is ineerant and true, but I do believe reliance upon thousands of years of others' exploration into what the good is offers substantial direction into what the good is.
If every last person agrees we kick puppies, we live in odd times for sure, but every last puppy kicker is morally wrong.
You need to ask? That tells us about you, not about kicking puppies.
I'll leave you to your footwork.
You're arguing self evidency or something. I really don't follow this. It's bad to kick puppies and if anyone disagrees it means they're a bad person and if you ask why they're bad, be careful, because you too will be bad.
In your collapse of the moral/legal distinction, you make the good determined by the hand of the elite, blurring any meaningful distinction between a theocracy and a secular state. In both, it's a small class that dictates the law, but also the moral because the two are the same.
The standard conflation on the part of the democrat is between monarchy or aristocracy and tyranny (to take Aristotle's terms). The presumption is that there could be no moral elite that is not a tyranny. Or in other words, that the only way a moral elite could rule would be through coercion and force.
This isn't true, and in order to understand human social life one must also understand its falsehood. The virtuous man exercises rule precisely through his virtue. He is recognized by others as virtuous, and that is why they defer to him and follow him, much the way a child defers to and follows their father or mother. For Aristotle, if the demos is incapable of recognizing virtuous leaders, then monarchical or aristocratic regimes are eo ipso ruled out.
Thus trust is a natural phenomenon, present in politics, morality, and religion. The reason the democrat tends to think that politics is merely a matter of vote-casting, and that politics is therefore separate from morality, is because they can't conceive of any non-democratic form of governance. Robust moral realism requires the ability to answer questions and reason about morality, but it does not exclude forms of trust or faith. The ability to recognize the competence of another and place one's trust in them is intrinsic to humanity, even when it comes to morality.
If I say the sun ought shine because the book of morals says it ought shine, it's not [the is/ought fallacy].
But why not?
I tend to think the is-ought divide is taken too seriously. I'm not sure why it is taken so seriously. Doesn't everyone who holds to substantive moral truths "violate" it? The ones who profess not to violate it tend to end up in very awkward poses, regardless of their philosophical tradition.
The simple case I've argued on TPF is that to understand what pain is is to desire to avoid pain. Anyone who understands what pain is also believes that pain ought to be avoided (ceteris paribus).
I think @Count Timothy von Icarus has written ably on the is-ought topic, but perhaps it needs to be rehashed at a more rigorous level.
It's bad to kick puppies and if anyone disagrees it means they're a bad person
Well, what do you think? Did you answer that? - if so, I missed it. And it's pretty much pivotal. If you think it bad to kick puppies, then we agree, and can move on. If you think good to kick puppies, then other folk will reach conclusions about you.
Were does that go astray? And what do you think about kicking puppies?
I have provided answers to your questions. Maybe not satisfying to you, but nevertheless responses.
Reply to Hanover explicitly:
I don't understand were your notion of an elite comes from.
The comparison between morals and laws
Since ethics is a negotiation, while one might codify the result, to codify the negotiation would be to end it.
One of the more obvious characteristics of morality is that what is ethical does change over time.
Each of these answers were given previously, implicitly if not explicitly.
Where do I find morals? Morals seem revealed through the conscience,
Then they are not discovered, but revealed. Moral intuition or the voice of god? I could go along with the former. The latter, I'd need convincing it wasn't the medication...
If every last person agrees we kick puppies, we live in odd times for sure, but every last puppy kicker is morally wrong.
Good to hear - is that your answer? Tell me, was that written in the Big Book Of Morals? I suspect not; and conclude that the Big Book Of Morals is also irrelevant.
only those with authority can decide on your rights
Please, who gave authority to those with authority, the electorate or your parents who taught you to respect authority - but not blindly? So these rights are determined by politics, thus not an entitlement.
You agree with natural right theorists that rights exist?
To date I have not met or spoken with any "natural right theorist' but to my understanding there is only one [i]natural right[/I] - the right to live - because you were born. (Refer to Old Father's Quote #22 - already posted).
Of course rights exist, we humans create them with the politics we play - thus not an entitlement.
So, what you or I want, does not entitle us anything.
Why not? Why should we deny someone something they want...?
...and there is were we start to do ethics.
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
Quite so, but then my ethics might differ from your ethics - then who decide who's ethics is right and who's are wrong? You and me? Then we could meet tomorrow at dawn, with our seconds - you can choose the weapons, swords or pistols? Or should we rather leave this to the politicians that you and I authorised to adjudicate these and other matters?
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
Quite so, my decisions are mine, as is yours. If you think my decisions are unethical we can sort this out tomorrow morning - I prefer with swords. If, however, you and me agree that we both are right, but the politicians that we authorised to adjudicate have it wrong, we have a few options:
We can try to vote them out at the next election and replace them with politicians that conform to our [i]ethics[/I].
If we are unsuccessful with this, or do not want to wait for the next election, we could start a revolution.
We might even come to the conclusion that the problem is actually the political system itself, then we could change the constitution - if unsuccessful start a revolution.
Yes, we could ignore them but I doubt they will ignore us; especially if we start to ignore federal law.
My statement: claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy, still stands.
"Each and every distinct object of my perception or my thoughts, is a state of some components of my brain." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
So, If I want to kick my puppy in my back-yard, you will not deny this - you will grant me this entitlement?
Would you? I'd be on the phone, since you would not be the sort pf person who should have a dog.
But if you want ice cream, I'll not stop you.
There's a difference. I hope you can see that.
If the only way you can think of to settle our differences of opinion is a duel, that's also about you. But you see, this does not only involve you and I. That's kinda the point.
A church cannot function as the source of one's personal morals unless they intend them to do so. The responsibility for that choice, the acceptance of the moral guidance of the church, remains with the person concerned. It's what they want, or what they choose, ore what they consider themselves obligated by, or some other excuse.
For the most part, this is wrong, because most religious people have been born and raised into their religion, they did not choose it. Their sense of right and wrong is so inextricably defined by their early internalization of religious teachings that they cannot think without them. To say that such people "choose" to follow the religious teachings is like saying you chose English as your native language. They do not, and you did not.
Phenomena that contextualize a person are beyond said person's choice. The concept of choice doesn't apply in such situations.
The moment you suggest, like you did the other day, that religion might well be merely a useful fiction, but that that's alright, as long as people and society are happy and productive -- this is when you stop being theistic.
but I don't hold to literalist traditions and I don't suggest every word of scripture is ineerant and true,
Why are you saying this? What is your motivation for saying this?
A man might say, "I haven't beaten my wife in ten years." Why is he saying that? Does he thereby admit that he used to beat his wife? Is he seeking validation, approval?
When we make factual statements, we make them for a reason. So what is yours, here?
but I do believe reliance upon thousands of years of others' exploration into what the good is offers substantial direction into what the good is.
I'm not disagreeing, but there is the no small matter of cruel optimism.
A person can have very high standards of morality. But if they cannot act on them, or if acting on them is significantly disadvantageous for them, then they have a problem. To avoid insanity, the person will have to change the moral standards they adhere to, or at least change their meta-view of morality.
If every last person agrees we kick puppies, we live in odd times for sure, but every last puppy kicker is morally wrong.
The question is, are you willing to let yourself be burnt at the stake for believing/claiming this?
Why can't moral decisions be codified into a list?
Because it seems practically, pragmatically impossible to produce a comprehensive and concise list of such moral decisions.
For example, while the Ten Commandment forbid killing, elsewhere, the OT goes into considerable detail as to who should be killed. Why is that? What does it mean?
Do moral determinations change over time?
If puppy kicking is determined moral on Monday but immoral on Tuesday, was it immoral on Monday but we were just wrong on Monday? How can we be wrong if we went through the proper deliberation process?
If we can be wrong about what's moral, doesn't that mean we don't decide what's moral but that we're searching for what it's moral?
My intutition is that the problem here is actually one of how to present moral principles in the abstract, in general, with practical consideration for the length and complexity of such a text.
Is there a final, correct answer to a moral dilemma? If we know puppies can't be kicked, why can't we list that in our Holy Set of Rules? Why must we reprocess our basis each time? Wouldn't it behoove us to write down all our truths this way for easier access, and we can just learn the rules without the rigamarole?
It appears that somehow, a crucial part of proper moral reasoning is that it is not codified with a text, but resides in the person somehow.
That morality is in the acting on moral principles, in living by them, rather than in being able to come up with a comprehensive, exhaustive, finite list.
Why can't moral decisions be codified into a list?
This question, I believe, holds the key to understanding the mystery of morality. Moral decisions cannot be codified into a list, because each and every one is specific to the particular circumstances. The list would include an infinity of possible circumstances. Morality therefore, is best described as having a specific type of attitude toward the particularities of the circumstances.
But this inclines us to try and fit all "correct" particular acts into one universal type of attitude, the "moral" type (Kant's categorical imperative). But that's the exact opposite of having the correct attitude. The correct attitude must allow flexibility to the type, to shape the type to meet particulars of the circumstances. So even approaching the question with the attitude that there is such a thing as a type of act labeled as "the moral type", is a self-defeating approach which will result in endless discussion going nowhere. That is because morality (as a proposed type) must be shaped to the particulars of the circumstances, and this denies the possibility of any formal typification.
Because it seems practically, pragmatically impossible to produce a comprehensive and concise list of such moral decisions.
For example, while the Ten Commandment forbid killing, elsewhere, the OT goes into considerable detail as to who should be killed. Why is that? What does it mean?
It's common that we document prior decisions and use those decisions to form future opinions. It's the basis of Talmudic law and anglo-saxon based legal precedent based law. It's not pragmatically impossible, although you are correct that hundreds of thousands of volumes of information have been stored that document our prior judgments. We don't reinvent the wheel every time.
Regarding the Ten Commandments and biblical text generally, the idea that it can be interpreted from just reading the literal meaning from the pages without reference to other religious text might describe certain 19th century fundamentalist Christian literalist traditions, but that is not the most common way of interpreting and it's particularly recent. That tradition has its own unique history.
As to the specific commandment you refer, the Hebrew text states ?? ???? (Lo tirtzah), with tirtzah having a very specific meaning. The best English word would be "murder" which describes an unlawful taking of a life, very distinct from "harag" (???), which means to kill. That is why it is permissible to kill an enemy in battle but impermissible to murder your neighbor. Quoting baker
The question is, are you willing to let yourself be burnt at the stake for believing/claiming this?
Probably not, but of what relevance is my personal integrity to a cause when assessing whether something might be moral?Quoting baker
It appears that somehow, a crucial part of proper moral reasoning is that it is not codified with a text, but resides in the person somehow
That morality is in the acting on moral principles, in living by them, rather than in being able to come up with a comprehensive, exhaustive, finite list.
No, you've decontextualized this part of the conversation. @Banno stated that moral rules were not written but they were the result of agreement between parties. My response is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We can arrive at truths and then write them down and then use those prior decisions to assist with future decisions. That seems an organized way of doing things.
This idea is also not limited to religious reasoning or legalistic reasoning, but it forms the basis of rule utlitarianism, where the idea is that the creation of rules leads to the moral good and so you adhere to the rule as opposed to arriving at the good each time you are faced with it.
Moral decisions cannot be codified into a list, because each and every one is specific to the particular circumstances.
The use of prior decisions does not require blind adherence to unnuanced rules, but it allows the opposite, where each prior decision can be considered for the principle it contains, but if there are important distinctions to make the prior decision inapplicable, it will not be considered (or will be limited in its value).
This is pretty straightforward Anglo legalistic reasoning, which not suprisingly has its origins in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Edit: The way this would look in the legalistic tradition would be that you would have a law. You would then have citations in actual cases where that law was interepreted. The law would mean what it says and how its been interpreted, with varying entities empowered for arriving at that meaning.
In religious traditions, hypotheticals can be considered, so you're not limited to actual cases in controversies, but the concept is the same. We don't limit ourselves to just reading a simple rule everytime and divorce ourselves from our prior considerations. We also rely on the rule itself though for some type of grounding to know what we're interpreting.
As to the specific commandment you refer, the Hebrew text states ?? ???? (Lo tirtzah), with tirtzah having a very specific meaning. The best English word would be "murder" which describes an unlawful taking of a life, very distinct from "harag" (???), which means to kill. That is why it is permissible to kill an enemy in battle but impermissible to murder your neighbor.
Yet somehow, this distinction didn't make it into so many Bible renditions in other languages, even when those languages have that same distinction. And this goes back for centuries. The KJV, for example, has "Thou shalt not kill". In my native language, when children are taught the Ten Commandments, the word used is also the equivalent of "kill"; and this is the RCC version which goes back for centuries and can hardly be accused of decontextualized reading.
The question is, are you willing to let yourself be burnt at the stake for believing/claiming this?
— baker
Probably not, but of what relevance is my personal integrity to a cause when assessing whether something might be moral?
It casts doubt on you as a relevant participant in a discussion about morality.
Ad hominems are not always fallacious, especially when it comes to matters of morality. It's at least strange that people will defend particular moral principles and judge others for not living up to those principles -- yet they themselves do not live by them. One has to wonder what is going on, and whether it's all just a matter of virtue signalling.
It appears that somehow, a crucial part of proper moral reasoning is that it is not codified with a text, but resides in the person somehow
That morality is in the acting on moral principles, in living by them, rather than in being able to come up with a comprehensive, exhaustive, finite list.
— baker
No, you've decontextualized this part of the conversation.
No, I was furthering my own point.
We can arrive at truths and then write them down and then use those prior decisions to assist with future decisions. That seems an organized way of doing things.
Slavery was "organized" as well, for example.
This idea is also not limited to religious reasoning or legalistic reasoning, but it forms the basis of rule utlitarianism, where the idea is that the creation of rules leads to the moral good and so you adhere to the rule as opposed to arriving at the good each time you are faced with it.
Except that in day-to-day practice, rules still come down to "might makes right". One has to do something that someone with more power said that one has to do, or else face consequences.
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
In other words, you're not saying anything. You have a nice clause there about ignoring others which you can always refer to when other people don't think, feel, speak, or do as you want them to.
Morality comes from considering what you want in the light of recognising the needs of others.
Feudal landlords and slave owners, for example, also "recognize the needs of others".
Point being that you're not actually "recognizing" the needs of others, but merely taking for granted that you know what those needs are, without ever actually asking those people about their needs.
It's a classic case of an authoritarian personality. Even while you talk about others, even to others, you don't actually acknowledge them as persons.
You decide what you want, while interacting with others decides what is good.
In other words, might makes right.
Say, an employee wants a raise and communicates this to his boss; the boss says no and threatens the employee with dismissal. And the good in this is ...?
The use of prior decisions does not require blind adherence to unnuanced rules, but it allows the opposite, where each prior decision can be considered for the principle it contains, but if there are important distinctions to make the prior decision inapplicable, it will not be considered (or will be limited in its value).
As if people could not decide on their own. Of course they do, all the time. The issue here seems to be the justification of one's decisions, the purpose of which is that the decision-maker can exonerate themselves.
The virtuous man exercises rule precisely through his virtue. He is recognized by others as virtuous, and that is why they defer to him and follow him, much the way a child defers to and follows their father or mother. For Aristotle, if the demos is incapable of recognizing virtuous leaders, then monarchical or aristocratic regimes are eo ipso ruled out.
Thus trust is a natural phenomenon, present in politics, morality, and religion. The reason the democrat tends to think that politics is merely a matter of vote-casting, and that politics is therefore separate from morality, is because they can't conceive of any non-democratic form of governance. Robust moral realism requires the ability to answer questions and reason about morality, but it does not exclude forms of trust or faith. The ability to recognize the competence of another and place one's trust in them is intrinsic to humanity, even when it comes to morality.
Now envision the above being said about, for example, Nazi Germany. It fits.
Yet somehow, this distinction didn't make it into so many Bible renditions in other languages, even when those languages have that same distinction. And this goes back for centuries. The KJV, for example, has "Thou shalt not kill". In my native language, when children are taught the Ten Commandments, the word used is also the equivalent of "kill"; and this is the RCC version which goes back for centuries and can hardly be accused of decontextualized reading.
You should have known something was amiss just from the grammar. Hebrew doesn't have a third person objective perspective (the depersonalized "thou," as if to suggest it applies to anyone anywhere). It literally says "no murder," not "thou shalt not," and it would apply to you, as in you personally dear reader, because it is the product of a specific covenant between God and his people. If only you were more educated in ancient semitic languages and OT themes you wouldn't have had to endure the trauma of your youth. I blame you for teaching any children otherwise, not Moses. Moses did all he could do, walking about for 40 years while his peeps kvetched. It's really much to blame him.
As if people could not decide on their own. Of course they do, all the time. The issue here seems to be the justification of one's decisions, the purpose of which is that the decision-maker can exonerate themselves.
And so in a fell swoop you eliminate the idea of considering other's views when deciding one's own. That makes me wonder why I should consider your position here and why I don't stand boldly independent.
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
— Banno
In other words, you're not saying anything. You have a nice clause there about ignoring others which you can always refer to when other people don't think, feel, speak, or do as you want them to.
Pretty much. My comments are about the way in which deontic statements function, setting a grammar that is consistent.
There's much that is presumptive in your critique. It's more about you seeing your antagonisms in others than about reading what is being said. It's unclear, for example, how you manage to characterise an ethic centred on finding common values and working through those as "authoritarian". Is that because you think that I should not point out the kicking puppies is wrong? That we should not tell you what to do? There's something quite odd in your asking if I would die in a ditch for the pup; as if that were the only reason for some value being relevant, some all-or-nothing account. It's unclear what you are advocating as an alternative, but it seems to be some sort of libertarian, laissez-faire arrangement. Now there is nothing much to say about folk doing as they please, up until what they do effects someone else. And that is were we might look for agreement and negotiation. Or we might just reach for our guns. Which would you prefer? Are we going to discuss ethics or warfare?
All this by way of asking what the point of your responses is. What are you offering?[/hide]
Geez. Can you guys just get a [s]room[/s] thread and take this elsewhere. You're making it hard for us everyday schlubs to get a useless word in edgewise. Nobody will even see poor @javi2541997's thoughts on greek yoghurt and brown sugar.
Geez. Can you guys just get a room thread and take this elsewhere. You're making it hard for us everyday schlubs to get a useless word in edgewise. Nobody will even see poor javi2541997's thoughts on greek yoghurt and brown sugar.
I did. I prefer honey. But there is something to be said for the caramel in brown sugar.
But point taken - my apologies. I'd already said as much to Hangover in a PM, but got sucked in again this morning before I had my first coffee. I'll try again.
Nobody will even see poor javi2541997's thoughts on greek yoghurt and brown sugar.
I thought my opinion about the taste of Greek yoghurt with brown sugar went unnoticed like a handful of salt in a soup. But I am now pleased that you actually could read it. :smile:
There remains something oddly contradictory in the idea that one can have a right to which one is not entitled.
I can't see how you might reconcile that.
I can see that you have not grasp my point, yet. Let me try and explain it more fundamentally, without the use of stupid examples:
We humans claim free will, but our whole civilisation is based on collective decision-making. This is a contradiction. One might claim some fundamental, chimerical, ethic or morality or some greater good to which humans should freely make a collective decision on - this foundation has not been found yet. We humans, especially the more philosophical ones, have been barking up this tree for millennia. This way of understanding has met with great success according to some and great failure according to others - depending on who are the current winners in our political games.
Thus, the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed. Therefore, claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy.
Thus, the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed. Therefore, claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy.
If "the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed", then there is an entitlement to a right, albeit dependent on a specific political environment.
So one could claim such a right as an entitlement dependent on a specific political environment.
Your conclusion, then, still does not follow. There remains something oddly contradictory in the idea that one can have a right to which one is not entitled, even if one thinks of rights as only happening within specific political environments rather than a consequence of our ethical consideration.
I can't see a contradiction between free will and collective decision making. I don't see that you make your case very well. There doesn't seem to be a reason folk could not choose freely to act collectively. But in any case the notion of free will is fraught with confusion. A whole 'nuther barrel of fish.
Reply to Banno Every "right" is created by the valuations of man, valuations nature doesn't give a fuck about. Pretty easy concept to understand I think? Rights to something not actually entitled...
"Claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy."
still appears very odd; as if one could have a right but not an entitlement -- picture that cop saying "you have the right to remain silent but you are not entitled to remain silent"...?
ll appears very odd; as if one could have a right but not an entitlement -- picture that cop saying "you have the right to remain silent but you are not entitled to remain silent"...?
Still missing the point, still using stupid examples. The mere fact that a cop must inform you of your rights, thereby granting you this entitlement; is due to a political environment ... nothing else.
Reply to frank Yes, he does it. But I think it is fantastic; I am going to quote myself too:
Javi - the mad linguist.:"Holy cow" is an idiom of most Anglo-Saxon nations; however, "bloody cow" is said in the suburbs of Glasgow. I heard it many times even though I didn't record the conversations to prove it.
Reply to Banno Language is an irreducibly platonic representation of our ideas presented in a reduced form. Often a ghastly and hamfisted representation.
Here's one from the afterlife, curtesy of The Grateful Dead —
Well, the first days are the hardest days
Don't you worry anymore
'Cause when life looks like Easy Street
There is danger at your door
Think this through with me
Let me know your mind
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Is are you kind?
— Uncle John's Band
Dearly beloved,
Nature is harsh, and nature is gentle by turns, and This concerns all of living nature, including humans. Don't get too comfortable or you will be in for a nasty surprise.
Let's discuss it together honestly.
All that I I need to know about you is, 'are you kind?'
______________________________________________________________________
A mouse does not ask the cat if it is kind, and the cat does not consider it either. Nature is kind and cruel without distinction; it is only a consideration for humans, and the bible has the right of things in explaining that these considerations and reflections eject humanity from the innocence of nature into the world of morality, and therefore of immorality.
It is possible to delight in cruelty, as it is possible to delight in kindness, and one can flip from one to the other and back. These are the gates of heaven and hell, and not to know the difference is to pretend to be a mere beast.
It's a buck dancer's choice, my friend
Better take my advice
You know all the rules by now
And the fire from the ice
Will you come with me?
Won't you come with me?
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Will you come with me?
ibid.
There is no point in arguing that War, War, is better than Jaw Jaw. The performative contradiction defeats the argument. You know the rules - will you come with me; are you kind? It's the same question.
It's the same story the crow told me
It's the only one he know
Like the morning sun, you come
And like the wind you go
Ain't no time to hate
Barely time to wait
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Where does the time go?
ibid.
The story in question is a nonsense tale, The answer to where the time goes is that it gets sucked into the infinite void of self, another nonsense tale.
I live in a silver mine
And I call it "Beggar's Tomb"
I got me a violin
And I beg you call the tune
Anybody's choice
I can hear your voice
Woah-ho, what I want to know
How does the song go?
Anybody's choice. You can choose kindness or cruelty. But it's nonsense to choose cruelty. That's how the song goes, all I want to know is 'are you kind?'
Come hear Uncle John's Band
By the riverside
Got some things to talk about
Here beside the rising tide
Thus saith the Grateful Dead, and here endeth the lesson. We've got some things to talk about and let's try not to talk nonsense, the tide is rising as we speak.
I've always wanted to say this when someone comes into my office to complain about whatever they are complaining about:
I see you've got your list out, say your piece and get out
Guess I get the gist of it, but it's alright
Sorry that you feel that way, the only thing there is to say
Every silver lining's got a touch of grey
EDIT: Philosophy is allowed in the Shoutbox only if it is relaxed and friendly and doesn't involve personal attacks. Those who are determined to debate these issues can make a new discussion. Those who are determined to carry on attacking people personally can find another website to go to.
Reply to T Clark The Missus met his Missus once. Apparently Mrs Cheney was polite enough, although she had several large friends who wore dark sunglasses inside, had obvious sub machine guns stuffed under their suits, and no sense of humour. That seem'd out of place, given that the location was an institution for advanced research in the humanities. But I guess there are always other ways to get your point across.
Reply to unenlightened
I'd say there's at least four Hanovorians still at it.
(Joke rather than personal attack. If you can't laugh with me laugh at me, or whatever.)
Where does the time go?
(Rhetorical question rather than philosophical question.)
If what you are saying is that rights are social institutions, well so is language.
Perhaps, that is why I try to define the nouns I use as far as possible. For example:
"Politics := A process used by humans (Class 7 systems) to propose, contemplate, and implement Rules of Man in order to test their conformance to the Laws of Nature that best describe the purpose of any and all companies." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
Let's say you were in the forest by the brook next to the tree beside the rock beneath the squirrel away from the hill near the well that Kevin drilled for all of the children to drink from to bath from and cook from, and to your surprise you were to see just a step from destruction an egg so oval and brown?
Would you think it came first all by itself if you couldn't find any chicken around, or would you insist despite the glory about you that it must have just dropped so gently in the most ordinary way?
Would you think it came first all by itself if you couldn't find any chicken around, or would you insist despite the glory about you that it must have just dropped so gently in the most ordinary way?
There’s a possibility, just a possibility mind you, you’ve missed the point of the question
@javi2541997. Good news! Last night I had MATIZ MUSSELS from Galicia packed in olive oil, vinegar, and some spice (?). ¡Deliciosa! I was going to add it to the Rao arrabbiata spaghetti sauce with mackerel on De Cecco pasta, but after I opened the can of mussels I decided they tasted too good to go with a pungent tomato mixture.
One quibble: Under "PRODUCT OF SPAIN" was a note that said "WARNING: Cancer and reproductive harm. Hmmmm. Is there a radiation-leaking nuclear power plant on a river pouring over the mussel beds? Or is there a factory secretly dumping polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the ocean? Perhaps the PCBs are the key ingredient of the special sauce that makes the mussels so exquisitely tender and delicious?
At any rate, I suppose I can now expect a testicle or two to fall off from the toxic Spanish water. The musses were so delicious, losing one or two balls at my age would be almost (but not quite) worth it.
Reply to BC Honestly, I think Galicia's mussels are the best in the world. I eat these very often, but just as they are in the can. I don't put them in any dish. As you noted, they are already delicious to mix with other products. I searched on Google for "MATIZ MUSSELS", and the brand seems lovely and legit. We don't have that brand, but we do have many others. I tend to buy the mussels directly from the fishmonger. I have to hurry because Christmas is coming and these little bivalves get very expensive!
I am surprised to see a warning note about cancer risks and potential harm. This is crazy. I promise the products of my country are healthy and optimum. I don't know what the lad who wrote it had in mind to do so. I guess it is more related to the can where the mussels are packed than the mussels themselves.
Reply to javi2541997 That's probably it -- the cans are made from recycled nuclear reactors and have a little plutonium in them.
A favorite Christmas bivalve around here are oysters, gently heated so that they just begin to wrinkle up. Then they are added to heated milk and cooked over hot water. Add salt and a little pepper.
There are many ways to prepare oysters, so I have heard, but they are terribly expensive, so buying a couple extra pounds of shucked oysters to make a baked oyster dish would be pretty expensive. I don't know what they cost in New York or Boston; we are nowhere close to the ocean. Some people here very much like potato sausage at Christmas -- it is a not very spicy Scandinavian potato / pork sausage in a casing. Good with a rutabaga and creamed potatoes.
Reply to BC Oysters are a common dish for Christmas here too. However, I skipped them because I tend to feel sick after eating them – I bet they are more dangerous than the mussels packed in lithium cans!
Here, people consume the oysters raw. They just open – or crack – the bivalve and eat the little seafood hidden there with a glass of champagne. And yes, oysters are pretty expensive, absolutely.
I am glad you tried a product from Spain. Since you liked it, I recommend you try our tuna. It comes from the Atlantic coast of Cadiz. Japanese lads say it is the best in the world, and they buy tonnes and tonnes of our tuna. But I would also like to hear your opinion on atún de almadraba.
I always purchased my mussels from this kind young woman who pushed her cart down the narrow cobblestone streets of my youth. She'd cry out to all who could hear when a fresh batch were available. She tragically caught a fever and no one could save her. And that's what became of her.
A guy named Tony Riggatoni then kicked her in the river, took her cart, and modified it into a hotdog stand where he sold 2 for 1 brats. The remaining mussels were canned, marked as being from Spain, and California then marked them as poison. I felt like something was lost with the transition from that sweet lass who pushed the cart.
Christmas-themed socks are in our wardrobe again. Whether it is too early or too late to wear them, these socks are considered an "object of cultural interest". They were woven in Denmark. If you have one of these, you are lucky. It is not easy to find because Danish manufacturers are having a shortage of sheep. I bought mine in a Chinese restaurant near Plaza Mayor.
These are mine. They were spun from straw into wool by a sorcerer. You must either sell your soul for them or guess correctly the name of the man who turns the spindle.
Prior to my guess, I commented somewhat obscurely:
"Yours is the cloth, mine is the hand that sews time
His is the force that lies within
Ours is the fire, all the warmth we can find
He is a feather in the wind"
With that I offered my guess.
I leave to you whether I don these socks as an empty vessel or whether I maintain the force that lies within.
I made a cup of coffee and forgot to put the coffee in it. I was enjoying a nice hot cup of water and didn't notice until I realized I could see the bottom of the cup. The moral of the story is
Sorry, you lose your soul, BUT, you get the free socks, and did you really even have a soul to lose?
Once I get the socks, they will no longer be free. I will imprison them in sensible shoes with good soles. My soul was already lost in the manifold, so no change there.
NB. if the buzzards are circling, it's a bad sign, but if they are drifting hither and thither and other similar places then they are not on duty as harbingers, but just playing at medieval aerobatics.
A couple weeks ago, overburdened by an unusually large lunch, I decided to lay outside in the afternoon Sun on a wooden boardwalk my father and I built for a few minutes. In spite of it's general state of disrepair (I'm [s]lazy[/s] busy, alright?) It was a surprisingly comfortable experience. Apparently hard surfaces are actually good for the back. Seeing as I had not done so for quite some time, I laid there staring face up at a vast cerulean sky. An occasional small cluster of wispy white clouds would drift ever so slowly from one side of my vision and eventually over to the next. I noticed a small convoy of two or three black birds, almost specks from the incredible distance they must have been above my person. "I hope they don't shit on me", I thought to myself chuckling audibly to an audience of none. Ever so aware of the negative consequences of any situation, per the demands of my occupation, a focus on computer security. Always imagining "the worst possible scenario, no matter how unlikely" takes its toll on a young man's mind. Nevertheless I regained my focus and began to notice they circled back, almost as if a sign of acknowledgement of my supine (thanks @T Clark for introducing that word into my vocabulary) juxtaposition against the long wooden path upon which I laid. To which I said aloud to myself "Hey, I'm not dead yet." As if there was a soul around, other than the occasional vehicle that would drive past every dozen or so minutes.
Long story short. Yeah, them buzzards will do that if you lie still long enough. I might patent that advice into some sort of hunting or survival manual to attract prey and become the next bestselling author. Yeah, I just might do that.
I assume these are actually turkey vultures. Do you notice how three of them are aligned perfectly? That raises a question whether these are actually birds at all. Perhaps they are disguised ICE drones or a squadron of UAPs.
Buzzards are officially only in Europe, where we have turkey vultures. Despite that, we call them buzzards. And so it goes.
We actually called them buzzards too. I just wanted to exercise my talent for pedantry. They were always a sign of summer on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. These days we see them in the summer all the way up here in New England.
My poverty so defeating, yet my love so intense for my dear Molly who so hawked and so hollered to sell her sea bounty to anyone so interested that I'd do anything to earn her release her from a life so forsaken.
As days turned to night, my sweet heartache would leave her barrow emptied neath the stairwell so steep. I admit I took comfort up those steps and down the hall so narrow most evenings than not. A queue would await for the moments you'd get so few, but once before you, you felt there were none other than you.
I'd leave perhaps a few farthing, but my love never counted, but trusted implicitly, or so I best pretended she didn't too suffer from possessing so little.
I resolved to provide her the best I could manage, but with no money nor skill I was so limited. I looked to the skies as one does when he has nothing , and instead of the heavens I saw something better, a manna of sorts, in the form of some turkeys circling about.
I had me no weapon nor way of pouncing when they should land on the ground to pick upon those poorer than me. My only redemption was to feed my dear Molly by baiting the creature with my own wretched body to gift her that bounty.
Making my way down the stairway so narrow, spent for the evening and ready to rest, I found my Molly's turned barrow before me and empty. i did drop to my knees to wallow about in the pungent fish water that dripped to the street. This was the aroma that Molly would leave us, both in her streets and permeating her bedsheets.
No where to go in in the condition I was in, I slept neeth the stars, too kind to enter my room I shared with several other fellows whose names I never knew. I slept very deeply, somewhat comforted by thinking I might one day be saving my princess most precious.
But then I was awoken by a lone bird whose nose must have found me, who had been circling around just hours before. He picked at my clothing, ripping off small pieces, scraping my flesh and opening it forth. I grabbed at his beak and twisted it forcefully, his talons were scratching and fighting me so.
My weight eventually overcame him. and the fallen large turkey laid dead in my clutch. I plucked it and cooked it and packaged it up and took it for Molly just in time for her lunch.
She was hollering and hawking just like she did always, when I brought her this feast. She took it with pause and asked if she might know me. I told her I'd doubt it, as I'd never approach her while she cried out below.
She reached for its wing so long and extended, dripping its burgundy juices upon her lips and her neck.
As she tore and she chewed, she let out a choke, a cough and a sputter, and that was the end of Molly Malone. Alive Alive no! Alive Alive, no! Crying cocks and cocks. alive alive no.
Reply to javi2541997 We have alligators in the southern coastal area and a huge population in the southern swamp (Okeefenokee). My tourguide told me there had never been an unprovoked gator attack. I felt like saying that out loud where they coukd hear us was provocation.
The swamp from several years ago. I was rear rudderman.
Most books on the philosophy of religion try to begin with a precise definition of what its essence consists of. Some of these would-be definitions may possibly come before us in later portions of this course, and I shall not be pedantic enough to enumerate any of them to you now. Meanwhile the very fact that they are so many and so different from one another is enough to prove that the word “religion” cannot stand for any single principle or essence, but is rather a collective name. The theorizing mind tends always to the oversimplification of its materials. This is the root of all that absolutism and one-sided dogmatism by which both philosophy and religion have been infested.
Reply to T Clark The James' three prong test to decide whether to believe (Living, Forced, and Momentous):
"An option is living if both of its constituent hypothesis are live, where a live hypothesis is one that you might seriously wind up believing as a result of an inquiry. Suppose I propose to you to believe in the Greek gods, or to believe that there is an elephant in the hallway now. You can entertain the hypothesis. But you’re so sure that it’s false that you cannot take it seriously. These hypotheses are dead for you. And in these cases our passional nature, like our intellectual nature, is powerless to effect belief.
An option is forced if you must choose one or the other of its hypotheses. If I offer you the option of whether to jump around like a rabbit or quack like a duck, you can easily decline the offer. So the option is avoidable in James’s sense. On the other hand, if I offer you the choice to jump around like a rabbit or not, then whatever you do you will have chosen one of the alternatives. In general, an option of the form "DO X NOW OR DON’T DO X NOW" will always be forced, since to decline is in effect to choose not to do X.
Finally, an option is momentous if a great deal hangs on how you choose, and especially if the opportunity is fleeting. If someone call you up and says that he’s going on a year long tour of Europe and Asia and that you can come along all expenses paid as long as you say yes right now, that would be a momentous option. To hesitate is to loose."
reciting to you what was instilled in you but that you never articulated to yourself.
I think that’s true of all philosophers—all real philosophers. We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves.
I think that’s true of all philosophers—all real philosophers. We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves.
We’re here to name what we can see, what we half-see, what we might only sense out of the corner of an uncooperative eye, or possibly imagine sensing, if seeing were still the agreed-upon method. We’re here to speak from where we actually stand, or at least from where we think we’re standing, assuming standing is still permitted and hasn’t been replaced by a more flexible, inclusive form of hovering.
What would you think if you saw someone wear red to a funeral?
Depends. Is everyone else wearing red? Is the person colorblind (or regular blind)? Were they good friends (perhaps it's a secret symbolism I'm simply not privy to)? Is the person possibly part of some obscure religion or foreign culture that places that color in the same light as darker more traditional funeral colors are in our own?
It'll certainly result in a few questions similar to the aforementioned.
I think that’s true of all philosophers—all real philosophers. We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves.
This suggests a complex unarticulated subconscious nonlinguistic belief lurking about awaiting words to carry it.
Once that belief is reduced to words, is the belief different? If the added value of words to the belief is clarification, is that still a new belief?
As in, we can have deeply complex knowledge without words.
Like if I say that smell reminds me of the ocean, and you say "Yes!, that's been bothering me all day trying to place that. "
On a meta level, would you say that your thoughts about this pre-linguistic thought lacked meaning to you until you reduced them to words as you have now? As in, there is some knowledge you can have without words, but not others? What sorts yes and what sorts no?
Of course you like him. He's an American pragmatist, reciting to you what was instilled in you but that you never articulated to yourself.
If we're going to be bots, let's at least be self aware and embrace it.
Indeed, you're expressing an important idea that's been coming up for me a lot lately. The validity of an idea is never entirely separable from its genesis, i.e., all ideas are substantively situated culturally. Furthermore, as philosophers we should be aware of this. Adorno makes these points in various ways, but he's not the only one.
I'm not sure about the bots though.
So, we can't just brush aside @T Clark by saying "you're only saying that because your culture, class, and background have determined that you would believe everything William James wrote". On the other hand, we can see the appeal of James's ideas in that context and assess them partly on that basis.
Indeed, you're expressing an important idea that has been coming up for me a lot lately. The validity of an idea is never entirely separable from its genesis, i.e., that all ideas are substantively situated culturally. Furthermore, as philosophers we should be aware of this. Adorno makes these points in various ways, but he's not the only one.
From the religious lens, I think you'd have to live under forced delusion to think it's a coincidence that your religious beliefs just so happen to reflect your family's and your community's 99% of the time.
But I then agree with what you're saying, which is that you find meaning where you accept value. If you see in Adorno a reliable source, his words carry a meaning not found in an Ayn Rand. I ignore the wisdom of the Pope, but it screams from the Rebbe.
This is why I can at first think the Mormon absurd for entertaining John Smith's finding the golden plates, but insist the parting of the sea be taken seriously, although not literally. The mistake is to assume this self-awareness of one's biases necessitates their elimination as opposed to their radical embracing. That is, if the Mormon can find higher meaning but needs to root it the 19th century musings of a traveling salesman, then that is what he should do.
To those who roll their eyes at all belief that is not rooted in the scientific, they just identify the source of their value and what they need to take matters seriously. They need the words to come from the lab for them to be considered, which means they ought do that.
Ah, the good old days. Do you ever pine or yearn or long for the certainties of the Cold War?
This week is the anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin wall. I don’t feel nostalgic for that or for what came before it. Mostly I feel a sense of regret that the west, especially the US, blew our chance to make something good out of what was.
This is why I can at first think the Mormon absurd for entertaining John Smith's finding the golden plates, but insist the parting of the sea be taken seriously, although not literally. The mistake is to assume this self-awareness of one's biases necessitates their elimination as opposed to their radical embracing. That is, if the Mormon can find higher meaning but needs to root it the 19th century musings of a traveling salesman, then that is what he should do.
Woah, you've gone too far now! This looks like total relativism to me, and I refuse to get on board.
Ah, the good old days. Do you ever pine or yearn or long for the certainties of the Cold War?
I graduated highschool in 1984, the middle of the Reagan years. They were building up the military and recruiting heavily, offering all sorts of incentives. My fear was that I'd sign up, the cold war would end, and then I'd actually have to fight a war. That might mean I wasn't really soldier material, but I guess I was rooting for the cold war to continue.
Of course your story is different. If the cold war continued, you'd doubtfully ever lived in Russia and all that entailed.
This week is the anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin wall. I don’t feel nostalgic for that or for what came before it. Mostly I feel a sense of regret that the west, especially the US, blew our chance to make something good out of what was.
I'd just like to say, although it's a very eccentric and not at all important point, that since nostalgia is a feeling of pain when thinking of the past, this regret you're expressing can actually be encompassed by a richer understanding of the meaning of nostalgia.
Well, if it was the funeral of a Janissary, that would be perfect. Otherwise, I'm not sure. If they had made the effort to dress up in full ceremonial costume it might be a sign of respect, even if the deceased wasn't a Janissary.
Anyone into PHP programming? Or C? (Apparently PHP is derivative of C)
I found this post fascinating. (It'll just be boring if you're not into the field)
So basically this guy's forum got hacked (knock on wood, right?) and somehow the hacker managed to place a couple dozen lines of code at the bottom of one or more files that to even some advanced users would seem to be benign. Just does nominal "innocent"/important looking functions per the so-called patch or emergency it claims to remedy. Except, the genius part is, the REAL code is located within the comments, that every coder worth their salt knows is not processed by the script engine at all.
So, how does he make it work? What the script does (very quickly and briefly, obscured by the helpful looking surrounding functions) is actually request the full text of the file itself using a "get file content" function, then searches the raw text using a calculated formulae (RegEx or Regular Expressions) for the hash values (encoded seemingly gibberish that can be decoded to reveal something else) then compiles them together. So it's just some helpful comment like "variableA" does "helpful information XYZ" and beneath that "md5" or "sha1" (which are established methods of encryption) followed by encoded strings ("1jsj5oakf0kajfk329992ke26k" for example). It really just blends in perfectly, which is what I found so impressive.
But it gets even more interesting. What the script secretly compiles from the random hashes in the commented out section (the comments) is a little known function called "runkit_function_redefine", which targets a seldom used function of the forum software, it's not important what it's called but it completely changes what it does and basically makes it so a PHP script uploaded as an image (virtually non-existent these days due to modern practices) that contains a secret HTTP header which the malicious code can be inserted/uploaded. It then of course runs "eval" on the content of that HTTP header, which if you know anything about the PHP language is VERY dangerous since it literally executes code from a text string (simplest, most common form of data storage) as if you were an administrator with FTP access uploading anything you'd like.
I'm not a hacker nor do I look into that type of stuff other than standard best practices and whatnot like any hobbyist/semi-professional would. But again, I just found that particular obfuscation and "outside of the box thinking" fascinating.
Needless to say I broke my sobriety. Oh well, it's a holiday. Back on the wagon tomorrow.
Mostly I feel a sense of regret that the west, especially the US, blew our chance to make something good out of what was
You can't just have empty regret. You have to submit a proposal for corrective action. The Shoutbox stands almost a dozen strong, and we're here to right wrongs.
Well, at least he/she went to the funeral. Isn't it more disrespectful to not go at all?
Well, there's a debate there. Is going to a funeral really doing anything for the dead person? This reminds me of Tom Sawyer, who found himself in attendance at his own funeral, though he was up in the rafters looking down at the crowd. I think they thought he died in a cave, but Injun Joe actually helped him survive. I think that's what happened.
Reply to Jamal
I think I'll go with the first one, but I'm not sure where to find that thing he has in his hand.
Is going to a funeral really doing anything for the dead person?
Maybe funerals are for the living.
What might be disrespectful is that if someone is living but he's about to die but he just won't make the commitment is that you have the funeral before he dies and the Priest just starts off by saying, "It looks like Bob is running late for his funeral, but we expect him to get here soon, so we'll just go ahead and start without him because we know everyone is crazy busy this time of year."
I think that would disrespectful for the soon to be dead guy, but it would show show great respect for the people who came to cry about the guy who was about to die. Maybe it'd be fine if you asked Bob and he said, "sure, go ahead, I'll catch up with everyone later."
What might be disrespectful is that if someone is living but he's about to die but he just won't make the commitment is that you have the funeral before he dies and the Priest just starts off by saying, "It looks like Bob is running late for his funeral, but we expect him to get here soon, so we'll just go ahead and start without him because we know everyone is crazy busy this time of year.
But then Bob miraculously recovers and now you have all those biodegradable balloons flying around and one ends up flying over China and there's an international incident.
We’re here to name what we can see, what we half-see, what we might only sense out of the corner of an uncooperative eye, or possibly imagine sensing, if seeing were still the agreed-upon method. We’re here to speak from where we actually stand, or at least from where we think we’re standing,
Yes. I think your post points out a weakness, an over-simplification, in mine. I wrote--"We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves." That ignores the fact that sometimes we don't see till we're shown. I'll expand that in response to one of Hanover's comments.
This suggests a complex unarticulated subconscious nonlinguistic belief lurking about awaiting words to carry it.
This is something I've discussed here before many times. I carry a model of the world around in my mind. I feel this very tangibly, visually. As I understand it, it is the foundation of intuition. Here's how I described it in a post from long ago:
I'm standing in a dark room. In front of me, maybe on a stage, is a cloud that fills the whole front of the room. It's lit from within. I don't see any specific details of what makes up the world, but I can feel that they're there. Although everything is there, things I am more aware of are in better focus. Things I'm less aware of are hidden in the haze. When I hear a new idea of any kind, I get a feeling of whether or not that makes sense to me. When I do that, I imagine taking that new idea into the room with the cloud and holding it up against it to see if it fits. If it doesn't fit, I don't believe it. If it does fit, I get that feeling that it has the ring of truth.
What's left out here is that some new ideas make me reexamine, revise, and possibly expand my model of the world.
So, often when I come across new ideas, I get this sense of the ring of truth but also a feeling of the stretching of the fabric of my understanding. I am feeling both very strongly while listening to "The Varieties of Religious Experience."
Once that belief is reduced to words, is the belief different?...
...On a meta level, would you say that your thoughts about this pre-linguistic thought lacked meaning to you until you reduced them to words as you have now? As in, there is some knowledge you can have without words, but not others? What sorts yes and what sorts no?
As my friend Immy used to say
Immanuel (Immy) Kant:And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something.
So, we can't just brush aside T Clark by saying "you're only saying that because your culture, class, and background have determined that you would believe everything William James wrote". On the other hand, we can see the appeal of James's ideas in that context and assess them partly on that basis.
I don't see any contradiction between what you've written here and what I wrote in my response to @Hanover's comment just above. Beyond culture, class, and background I would add genetic and neurological mental characteristics--temperament. I am a pragmatic thinker. Always have been, always will be. I was born that way. That's why I am an engineer.
Now you've prodded me to expound on my theory of regret. Regret is always a cheat, as if you could just wave a magic wand and erase your responsibility for what has happened in the past. So maybe @Jamal was right. Maybe the right word is "nostalgia" after all.
I would join just for the robes. Or do I have to be a former slave?
No, you don't need to be a former slave. However, I highly recommend you start learning Turkish on Duolingo. These lads have a terrible English level. Worse than mine, so imagine this!
The ring of truth is not like the ring of commitment or the ring of confidence, which are loops. The ring of truth is like the ring of a bell or the ring of un-cracked, sound ceramics. The ring thus distinguishes truth from crackpot ideas which just clunk.
I once started a thread to make the argument that if you can’t predict something, even in theory, then it isn’t determined.
Modally speaking, determinate yet unpredictable (chaos) means in our world unpredictable, but not unpredictable in all possible worlds, but indeterminate and unpredictable (i.e. QM), unpredictable in all possible worlds.
That is, chaos unpredictability increases as variables increase and intelligence and ability to measure decrease.
Your pragmatic problem will arise when you declare something not determined because currently unpredictable and then later someone predicts it.
In any event, calling a coin toss outcome indetermined because unpredictable seems wrong.
Modally speaking, determinate yet unpredictable (chaos) means in our world unpredictable, but not unpredictable in all possible worlds, but indeterminate and unpredictable (i.e. QM), unpredictable in all possible worlds.
I must admit I don’t get the whole modal/possible worlds way of looking at things.
Your pragmatic problem will arise when you declare something not determined because currently unpredictable and then later someone predicts it.
Simple solution— I never definitively declare something as not determined. I always condition that type of judgment.
Beyond that, I have made the case recently that the idea of causality is not necessarily a useful one except in the simplest cases. Seems to me that’s the same argument as saying that the idea of determinism doesn’t make sense except under the same conditions.
Not at all sure why possible world semantics is needed here.
Given the initial conditions, the evolution of the attractor is determined. It is calculated mathematically and cannot vary.
But small variations in those initial conditions will result in large differences in subsequent states.
The Laplacian worldview held that given the initial conditions we could predict the future state. Since we cannot know the initial conditions with unlimited accuracy, we cannot predict the future with unlimited accuracy - even were it determinate.
It wasn't indubitably predictable that T clark become an engineer.
It’s not what Laplace’s Demon knows, it’s what you and I can know.
Is it? I think there are two meanings of determine in play. There's what you can determine, like "they determined that the rain was acidic." Or "the polarity of the field is determined by the direction of current flow."
Is it? I think there are two meanings of determine in play. There's what you can determine, like "they determined that the rain was acidic." Or "the polarity of the field is determined by the direction of current flow
In the second example, the word “determined” is just a synonym for “caused.” I have made the case many times before that causality is not a useful way of understanding the physical world.
The Laplacian worldview held that given the initial conditions we could predict the future state.
Why do we need to know the initial state? We only need know with perfection the current state to know the subsequent state because you'd assume all prior forces exist are impregnated in the current state.
I'm watching a K-drama that revolves around Korea's aversion to scandal. If a woman is being physically abused by her husband, everyone around her is predisposed to ignore it. If she brings it to the authorities, it creates a scandal that can adversely affect the prospects of her family members, for jobs or promotions. If she decides to murder her husband, that same tendency people have to want to look the other way becomes her ally.
Reply to Hanover The present state is then the initial state. The bit you start from. And you do not - cannot- know it with sufficient accuracy to make perfect predictions, or even rough predictions, after a given period.
Seeing that self-promotion is frowned upon with a heavy banning finger, here is some promotion of someone who is not me at all, but who is sometimes referred to as "Mrs Un."
Two nations divided by a common language. I looked all this up for you.
In the US, we call what you call "corn flour" "cornstarch."
U.S. corn flour would refer to finely ground corn, less coarse than what we'd call cornmeal. You can make bread cakes out of corn flour, but they're definitely not lighter. Cornmeal is what we use for old fashioned skillet baked heavy as a rock cornbread, often moistened with lard. Peasant food.
When you said throw some corn flour in your cakes to lighten them up, that resulted in my going down this rabbit hole.
No need, but it's good to see you are learning something about English.
Corn flour will produce a finer crumb. You can add a bit of wheat flour if you like, but it will make the cake heavier and dryer. A good sponge does not rely on gluten at all, but gets its structure from the eggs. It's basically a "structural meringue".
The eggs are separated, then the whites frothed, cream of tartare added, and a bit of bi carb to neutralise the acid and add some carbon dioxide. The corn flour coats the bubbles gently, helping stabilise the foam by absorbing surface moisture. As it bakes, the starch gelatinises, basically setting the air bubbles in place. Gluten will tighten as it cooks, shrinking the foam. Using wheat flour the cake will be heavier and less moist.
The yolks, mixed with sugar, are folded gently back in for colour and flavour.
I'm glad you learned the difference between corn flour and corn meal. I'm surprised that you had to.
Reply to T Clark You are, I am given to understand, a trained engineer. My degrees are mostly in philosophy. Go ahead and provide your misplaced criticism.
Science and engineering teach critical thinking at least as well as philosophy does. And when push comes to shove, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I’ll put my pudding up against yours any day.
I'm sure you would. However it's plain that you haven't understood much concerning the problems that you attempt to deal with hereabouts. So I'm not sure you are the best judge on such issues.
Do you really wish to play this game with me? As for your sponge, so for your pudding? :grin:
I'm glad you learned the difference between corn flour and corn meal. I'm surprised that you had to.
What I learned wasn't the difference between corn flour and corn meal, as I always knew that and never had to learn it. It was one of those synthetic a priori truths I have always held.
What I learned was that your use of "corn flour" differed from mine. Corn flour to me is finely ground corn meal. Corn flour to you is corn starch, an entirely different sort of thing. I'm shocked you had to be told this.
Let me ask you this, knower of all things flour, what do you call what I call corn flour, which is finely ground cornmeal?
And since you shared with me your bougie spongecakes or whatever they may be, I share with you the delicacy of southern cornbread: https://www.harvesteating.com/blog/skillet-cornbread-w-lard
Reply to Hanover I'm sorry you are having so much trouble with this. The best flour for a sponge is a finely milled and sieved maize flour, with no detectable gluten and very little protein. It is indeed mostly starch.
However it's plain that you haven't understood much concerning the problems that you attempt to deal with hereabouts.
You and I approach philosophy differently. You mostly just repeat things other people have said, without adding much insight of your own. I take more responsibility. It’s not what other people tell me, it’s what I can see for myself. Other philosophers can help with that, but in the end, I’m accountable for my own ideas.
The motto of the IEEE (electronic engineering society) used to be Engineering; turning ideas into reality.
My father worked for Dupont for his entire career—almost 50 years. Their motto was “Better things for better living through chemistry.” I don’t know if it still is.
I worked for Hanoverian Enterprises for a number of years and our motto was "Better biscuits with corn flour." As an American company selling solely in Australia, we could never clarify our differing uses of the term "corn flour." This confusion, along with our CEO"s untimely stabbing through the heart death by a stingray, resulted in a bitter bankruptcy where the remaining employees stampeded naked through a nursing home demanding fluffy biscuits.
They should make a supermarket that has club and disco lighting with spontaneous, constantly changing forms of muzak that sync with the lighting and stuff.
So like you'll be in the produce aisle and a calm yet spirited tune kicks on and the spotlights dance on the rutabagas for a few moments. Then you'll be in the bread aisle and a pseudo form of techno comes on with the bright lights dimming allowing colored spotlights to wildly paint the aisle up and down with their various illumination.
I'd shop there. All the young people would. It would market itself. And go viral on its own. Kids would literally force their parents to shop at my store no matter how inconveniently located it is. Fact.
Another fact, I'm going to pitch that notion to investors tomorrow. No one steal my idea in the interim, thanks.
Even back then, I thought it was kind of creepy. Just because I’m made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn’t mean I should take a bath in methyl isocyanate. That’s what killed thousands in Bhopal India a few years after the commercial came out.
Philosophy has to start with someone making shit up. I'm about to ask ChatGPT to start a whole new philosophy about something.
That might be the philosophy about nothing. (Jerry Seinfeld?) I can't think of any philosopher who argues that there actually is nothing. But ask GP, I'm sure it could make an argument for nothing.
By the way, that photo must be old, when spongebob was young and innocent. If you went to his neighbourhood, you would be surprised at how the tables turned. Don't play with drugs, lads.
That there are perhaps more engineers than students of philosophy on this philosophy forum is perhaps a symptom of the inadequacies of engineering.
Just a thought.
I think it's pretty common among engineers to think their expertise entitles them to apply their skills to all the problems in the world. Biology, physics, philosophy: just stop all this nonsense and let the engineers deal with it! It might explain why so many crackpots are engineers. I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
I think it's pretty common among engineers to think their expertise entitles them to apply their skills to all the problems in the world. Biology, physics, philosophy: just stop all this nonsense and let the engineers deal with it! It might explain why so many crackpots are engineers. I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
@Banno is a lost cause, but I expect better from you.
Reply to Jamal No doubt there are stereotypes associated with engineers (and computer programmers (lacking social skills) academics (lacking real wotld skills), attorneys (brilliant) and whatever else folks do around here (living in their parent's basement) ), but being crackpots isn't limited to any particular profession (or lack thereof) as far as I can tell.
being crackpots isn't limited to any particular profession (or lack thereof) as far as I can tell.
It's a known phenomenon. People have written books about it. Political science academics Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog looked at why engineers are overrepresented among political extremists, conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientific movements, and crackpottery.
Their book focuses on Jihadism but it's wider than that: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178509/engineers-of-jihad?srsltid=AfmBOopV7UTbPmEccn1GXAjw9DABooachpsgdcYyBS4JVU91bcEVR_9W
If you’re serious, and if you find my presence on the forum disruptive, let me know.
Clarky, we love you.
You probably already know this. Your presence here is very important to us. Jamal was joking, and if he was truly serious, I bet he was thinking of other members rather than you.
There are crackpot engineers and then very good-hearted engineers like you; crackpot janissaries (like me) and wonderful janissaries.
And then, there are also good-hearted well-groomed philosophers like @Banno and @Michael Bay, which are apart (different specimens). :smile:
Reply to Jamal Exactly, engineers. Perhaps, given Clarky is also an engineer, he took the hint or just felt offended by calling the engineers crackpots.
It might explain why so many crackpots are engineers. I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
There is, assuredly, some stereotype associated with forum admins as well. Isn't there? Why, there must be. But before we attempt to approach such subject matter: a question. If I may.
What word would you use to define yourself? And a follow-up: Why? :chin:
No doubt there are stereotypes associated with engineers (and computer programmers (lacking social skills) academics (lacking real wotld skills), attorneys (brilliant) and whatever else folks do around here (living in their parent's basement) ), but being crackpots isn't limited to any particular profession (or lack thereof) as far as I can tell.
What an interesting mental configuration you have there. Yes, the simple act of including an additional space between the last two brackets provides enough psychoanalysis to fill a library with on your worldview, desires, and fears, both conscious and otherwise, without ever having met you. That's a skill you might be able to develop yourself, someday. :smirk:
There is, assuredly, some stereotype associated with forum admins as well. Isn't there? Why, there must be.
Yes, they're all petty tyrants who need to compensate for their lack of status in real life by wielding authority anonymously in their own little digital fiefdoms. They're so insecure, vindictive, pathetic, capricious, and narcissistic, while being cowardly failures in real life, that the only thing that satisfies them is acting like a wrathful God online.
I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for showing it with cartoons. Otherwise, I would have nightmares this night.
I think "Crocodiles are more afraid of us than we are of them" is a terrible hoax. Of course crocodiles are not afraid of us and they are patiently waiting in their swamp to eat a random hiker.
And—while likely a common sentiment—is perhaps not one that lines up all too well with the method behind a perceived madness. The Internet is a catalyst for unbridled expression. It's only natural—depending on what frame of mind an individual happens to be in (people use the Internet on the john, mind you)—to occasionally forget the person behind the post in favor of placating the desire to hastily express one's current view (or ideal position, irrespective of—or perhaps in spite of—one's normal obligation to adhere to social etiquette) toward a topic or idea. I think. :yum:
What an interesting mental configuration you have there. Yes, the simple act of including an additional space between the last two brackets provides enough psychoanalysis to fill a library with on your worldview, desires, and fears, both conscious and otherwise, without ever having met you. That's a skill you might be able to develop yourself, someday. :smirk:
An additional space can be critical in evaluating the meaning of a sentence. For example, the sentence, "The pen is in my mouth" has a very different meaning if you eliminate certain spacing.
AI is our friend after all. Why don't you guys ask this same question and see if you get a similar response. My concern is that it has detected my prior use and it's sycophanting.
I am getting very frustrated with my attempts to pronounce the words. I think the point is that the three are pronounced the same but "towed" is grinding my gears.
I am getting very frustrated with my attempts to pronounce the words. I think the point is that the three are pronounced the same but "towed" is grinding my gears.
I’ll tell you my own pronunciation confession. Since you’re Spanish, I know “Javi” should be pronounced “Havi,” but when I say it to myself, I always use a hard J.
I’ll tell you my own pronunciation confession. Since you’re Spanish, I know “Javi” should be pronounced “Havi,” but when I say it to myself, I always use a hard J.
You can pronounce 'Javi' however you want, but don't shout 'JAVIER', please. This is what my parents or other authorities said when they wanted to scold me. It hit me hard when I was a kid. :sweat:
I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
Apparently:
ChatGPT:Midwit Syndrome (colloquial)
A joke term sometimes thrown around for people who are very good at structured problems and assume they’ve therefore mastered messy conceptual ones.
Engineers are particularly prone to this partly because engineering education builds a deep confidence in model-building, optimisation, and control, which work spectacularly in physical systems but break down in conceptual, biological, or normative contexts. So when engineers wander into philosophy or social theory, you often get an attempt to “solve” the domain rather than understand its complexity.
Engineering selects for a combination of:
High systemising ability
Low tolerance for ambiguity
Belief in model universality
Strong causal intuition and control mindset
These are excellent traits for engineering. They are terrible traits for philosophy, political theory, psychology, or biology, where:
Concepts are open-textured
Categories are fuzzy
Explanation is contested
Prediction is probabilistic
Normativity is essential
An engineer trained to find single, optimisable solutions struggles when a domain is structured around trade-offs, disagreement, values, interpretation, or uncertainty.
I was going to let this whole thing go, but seems like you want to keep it going. You and I were going back-and-forth, and I had you on the ropes until you brought in a moderator to take your side. As usual, you bring no substance, only ego.
Why don't you guys ask this same question and see if you get a similar response.
I am pressed for time and searched for an AI that is free and doesn't require a login. "Ask AI" (how original) came up. It's response was: [some lengthy encyclopedic response that didn't answer my question]. So I asked it again, specifically for website URLs, to which it responded:
"I apologize, but I cannot provide specific website URLs. My instructions explicitly state that I must use ONLY the very most authoritative and credible print encyclopedias, published nonfiction books, academic journals, and dictionaries, and NO other sources whatsoever. Providing specific website URLs would violate this core constraint, as these are not typically found within the types of sources I am permitted to use."
Actually, I just noticed ChatGPT is free and no login. It's response was:
"If you’re looking for good websites to discuss and post about philosophical issues, here are some solid picks — each with a slightly different flavour, so you can pick one that fits your style best:
? Recommended Site
Online Philosophy Club — A good all-round forum for philosophically-minded discussion.
- Free to join and open to people from a wide range of backgrounds.
- Topics are varied: ethics, metaphysics, meaning of life, knowledge, etc.
- Rules ask that you stay civil and on-topic (no ad hominems) which helps keep discussion productive.
- Because it’s a dedicated philosophy forum, it may feel more “serious” than broader chat sites.
If you like, I can pull 5–10 of the best philosophy discussion forums (free, open to post, good community) ranked + linked — do you want that?"
I replied: "Yes."
It replied:
"Here are 8 good websites/forums where you can discuss and post about philosophical issues — each has a slightly different tone or community, so you can pick the one that fits you best.
# Name What it offers & good fit
1 Online Philosophy Club A dedicated philosophy discussion forum welcoming all levels (from students to professors). Forum rules emphasise civility and on?topic discussion.
2 The Philosophy Forum A general forum where you can post about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, religion, etc. Good variety of topics.
3 Philosophy Vessel (Forum) A global, open platform for classical and contemporary philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, philosophy of information, etc.). Welcoming for beginners and more advanced.
4 PEA Soup A site focused on philosophy, ethics, academia — lots of thoughtful articles and discussion around current philosophical issues.
5 EpicureanFriends A more specialized forum: focused on classical Epicurean philosophy (ethics, ancient texts). Good if you like that specific tradition.
6 Sikh Philosophy Network A forum oriented toward Sikh literature and philosophy, inter?faith dialogue and philosophical issues within that tradition. Good niche/community.
7 LessWrong While not purely a “philosophy forum” in the traditional sense, this community focuses on rationality, cognition, decision-making and philosophical questions around those topics.
8 r/philosophy (Reddit) & r/askphilosophy (Reddit) These are subreddit forums where you can post philosophical questions, ideas, get feedback, engage in open discussion. Example: > “This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy …”
It's been a tragically long while since anyone has posted any food. So I will. Such as it is.
Ladies and gents, I present to you: "The Outlander." A feisty improvement to the traditional ham and cheese sandwich featuring: (2) slices of white bread, a total of (3) "tavern-style" (smoked I believe with light seasoning) slices of ham freshly sliced from the local supermarket, along with (3) pepper jack cheese slices (alternating between layers of ham, never touching one another), accompanied by (2) vertically-sliced "deli style" pickles, all held together by a few liberal allotments of French's yellow mustard in between most slices.
You'll note one slice is missing as per the customs of my restaurant. Chef/server takes a slice/spoonful of whatever you order in lieu of you having to tip. It brings in more business than you might expect. Pretty high turnover rate on servers, though. Bah, no matter. Just growing pains.
Next time, try them with olive oil. Trust me, it is a wonderful combo.
There are a couple of problems with the use of olive oil in @Outlander's sandwich. First, it would be absorbed by the soft, thin bread, which will become unpleasantly soggy and will probably disintegrate. Second, olive oil with French's mustard doesn't sound like a promising combo. Third, the flavour of extra virgin olive oil would not, at least for me, be at home in a ham and cheese sandwich unless the ham was the European raw ham like Jamón Serrano or Jambon de Bayonne.
Personally, I would replace the French's mustard with a mix of mayonnaise and English mustard, and add some fresh ground black pepper.
Personally, I would replace the French's mustard with a mix of mayonnaise and English mustard, and add some fresh ground black pepper.
Huh. I just might try that.
It occurred to me my aversion to mayonnaise is largely pseudo-enforced, fabricated by my choice to refrain from condiments, sauces, and similar viscous product that can be easily tampered with without displaying discernible lack of evidence when dining out (or otherwise consuming food I did not prepare myself). (I live an interesting life, shall we say, plus many people in the service industry are unhappy, prone to vindictiveness, or are otherwise raised without rigid morals—might as well ask a monkey to prepare one's lunch, am I right? I kid. A little unsolicited late night humor.)
But at home where the food ingredients go from a factory sealed container or package to a plate is a different story. A quick Internet search reveals "English mustard" as a bit more flavorful, spicy even, with a discernible "fiery kick" (in comparison to American mustard). Sounds good so far. I trust you're aware "French's" is an American brand pioneered by one "Mr. French" and does not hail from France, yes?
While I do believe in the pseudo-rhyme: "a little pepper makes everything better", I question the discernible taste and elevation of the overall flavor profile even a generous amount of black pepper would make on a fairly busy sandwich such as "The Outlander". What with the mustard (very peppery as-is), pickles (quite tangy), and if I'm not mistaken, already albeit slightly seasoned ham. But it is fair to say, it certainly would not do any harm. :smile:
Respectable advice from a respectable man. I feel like I should be paying some sort of membership fee for such. Golly good, Jamal. Golly good. :grin:
Edit: As far as olive oil, a fun anecdote: All my life I've been fond of sardines. Always in water. Since a young age. Oil made such a mess. And messes are to be punished. So it was always, any fish, even any meat: "In water only." This obsession even extended to fruits such as mandarin oranges and peach cups. Oh can't have a mess. Cannot have a mess. Messes are to be punished, after all. But finally, one day, when I was a legal adult I decided to order a new brand of sardines that came in a variety pack, one of which rests in, you guessed it, olive oil. It was one of the best sardines I can recall in living memory. I also tried a variety (of the exact same product) that was in water. It was not so great. Which made me realize not just what I was missing, but the sheer length of how long as well! Oh did it make me start to rethink what else in life I've been so hopelessly unaware of. Needless to say, I have a newfound respect for olive oil and would certainly entertain the idea of olive oil (carefully, only drizzling a small portion on the ham or cheese itself that does not immediately neighbor the delicate and malleable culinary bookends that are bread slices).
There's another ham and cheese sandwich I like, called "The Jamal." It's a grilled cheese sandwich but there are slices of ham in the middle. The key is to have the cheese, not the ham, directly in contact with the bread so that it gets the heat and melts. So the ham is sandwiched between bread and cheese on both sides.
There are a couple of problems with the use of olive oil in Outlander's sandwich. First, it would be absorbed by the soft, thin bread, which will become unpleasantly soggy and will probably disintegrate. Second, olive oil with French's mustard doesn't sound like a promising combo. Third, the flavour of extra virgin olive oil would not, at least for me, be at home in a ham and cheese sandwich unless the ham was the European raw ham like Jamón Serrano or Jambon de Bayonne.
Indeed, @Outlander's sandwich bread is replaceable. I'd use a baguette (we call it "barra" here) because it is thin. Furthermore, I will not add anything else to my sandwich or bocadillo. Just the ham with cheese and olive oil. This was my point. Since olive oil has a strong flavour, I don't think I need extra products. I believe I have never combined mayonnaise and pickles in a sandwich. Perhaps it is a cultural culinary thing. I only eat these alone or with fish.
Personally, I would replace the French's mustard with a mix of mayonnaise and English mustard, and add some fresh ground black pepper.
Yes. I thought the same. I even believe that I already said this in the shoutbox: English mustard is far better than French one, and it combines better with most products. This is my favourite:
There's another ham and cheese sandwich I like, called "The Jamal." It's a grilled cheese sandwich but there are slices of ham in the middle. The key is to have the cheese, not the ham, directly in contact with the bread so that it gets the heat and melts. So the ham is sandwiched between bread and cheese on both sides.
This sounds excellent as well. When I would get traditional (cold) ham and cheese sandwiches from the nearby delicatessen I observed that by simply microwaving it (I understand a proper oven is superior but the comparison between hot and cold is assuredly captured by the like) the sandwich was... much more, not only filling, but, tasty? Hearty? One of those words. It was almost elevated to the status of a meal itself and not just a quick snack or light lunch like a cold ham and cheese sub would be otherwise.
But! We have a conundrum. A personal one due to my peculiarities, rest assured, nothing to do with the nature of your recipe. Rest assured. For me, the combination of melted cheese and warmed ham has the effect of "weighing me down" and invoking a state of desired rest. It makes me sleepy. Which is not good for my line of work. At the end of the day, when all is done but preparing for night's rest, this is ideal. Excellent even. So I will try this, but during the evening. I will retain and actualize your wisdom of ensuring both receiving sides of bread are met with the touch of not ham, but cheese.
I've had an aversion of grilled cheese sandwiches since I was young but I now realize that was due to the quality of the venue of the place in which they were served (school and other people's houses), not the product served itself. I for one love a good ham and cheese, cold, and especially hot, such are the circumstantial risks I take that come with the latter. I will assuredly try "The Jamal", to recreate it, to the best of my ability, such as said ability is, and upon doing so will produce a photo as evidence of such, so that it may be judged, praised, yea even ridiculed in the unforgiving arena of verbal combat that is, The Shoutbox. Stay tuned Jamal, stay tuned.
I too, like @Jamal, am olive oil hesitant when it applies to typical sandwiches for the reasons presented. However, if we have a stacked Italian meat sandwich on a thick roll (which I call a sub roll), then oil and vinegar is wholly appropriate. This I call the Hanoverini.
I might even suggest not just the oil of the olive, but, stand back, the olive itself! We won't limit ourselves to the squeezed essence of this ancient fruit, but its very meat.
I call this radical unrefined beast the HanoveriniRobini.
At this point in the conversation we expect @Banno to arrive and explain how we've all done it wrong, with avocado oil or some such being more accurate based upon how it interacts with the animal proteins and slightly acidic this or that.
English mustard is far better than French one, and it combines better with most products. This is my favourite:
Speaking of mustard, I bought some Chinese style mustard powder you mix with water to form a hot paste of sinus clearing unhappiness. I find that it must be used sparingly, best when not used at all.
For the adventurous, you'll find it in the Kung Pu Hanoverfuchan sandwich.
And yes, y'all are going to have to endure my traveling the globe with sandwiches I make up.
I was thinking about creating a Scottish menu where I just added a "Mc" to every item, but someone beat me to it.
Now that I am thinking of this, Chinese soups are spicy but pretty tasty. I love them.
I'm a fan of Mexican soups. Most overlook that on the menu in Mexican restaurants and go for the burritos, enchiladas, and the like. I just had that last night, shredded chicken and vegetable soup and some empanadas.
Reply to Hanover I have never tried Mexican soups. Nonetheless, I think the point here is that soups are tasty and essential for gastronomy. It doesn't matter where it was cooked.
There's another ham and cheese sandwich I like, called "The Jamal." It's a grilled cheese sandwich but there are slices of ham in the middle.
Oddly enough, we call this a grilled ham and cheese sandwich. If instead of ham, you make the sandwich with a hamburger in the middle, we call it a golden boy.
Exactly. That's right!
--------------------------
I ate a salad for supper. Please, don't get upset with me, but I added nuts and a bunch of chocolate chips. The result was amazingly good.
Who was the lad who used to put bittersweet in the salad? I'm thinking of Michael Bay.
Yes, the elusive and mysterious @Michael Bay. Well dressed, joined 8 years ago, and nary a post. Legend has it (as in a breaking news sort of legend) he took his salad with bittersweets, an ingredient as mysterious as the man.
Michael Bay's Wiki article.:He is best known for making big-budget high-concept action films with fast cutting, stylistic cinematography and visuals, and extensive use of special effects, including frequent depictions of explosions.
Wikipedia;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bay:Six of Bay's films have been nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture and Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Transformers: The Last Knight), with Revenge of the Fallen and Age of Extinction winning the award for "Worst Director".
But let's be fair:
Conversely, some critics and actors have praised Bay's films and style.
We FINALLY have a mega-star on our rolls, and you want to hate? We've all waited 8 long years for any comment at all from him, and you've probably just reset the clock.
Coleman's mustard appears to be just that - mustard seed. S&B Oriental Mustard apparently contains horse radish.
If heat is the goal, then wasabi is I think a better approach. We've managed to keep some plants alive for a year or so, and while they are not yet large enough to harvest the stem, we've used the leaves in salad with a very pleasing result.
So my ham sandwich would have leg ham off the bone, a mild cheese such as Jarlsberg and a salad of wasabi leaves.
It depends on how we see it. At least @Michael Bay was nominated for something, and he even won an award. Perhaps, his work will be more valued after his death. Like Van Gogh's paintings.
Reply to Jamal
I wonder what some folk are going to think about having their post count reset to 0. Will that happen? How "fresh" will the new start be? Don't want to clutter up the public thread with my idiosyncratic bouts of curiosity.
Will we have to sign up again as if joining a new site? Or will we just load up TPF one March day and be on an empty new forum? Will new membership admittance be the same as it is now (ie. no temporary "open enroll" to get the initial numbers up, etc.)?
I propose their should be a pinned topic like the Shoutbox—regardless of their being an actual live chat—on the new site. Which does sound cool. But this Shoutbox has something I feel that would be missing in a traditional live chat. Stuff like that lawyer guy's odd stories that if it were from anyone else would be disturbing. It's also like a friendly and allowed way to pose simple one-liner questions and get a reasonable few replies to (which could in theory also happen on a live chat, but many people here actually have a fairly large amount of interesting things to say on even the smallest most trivial of topics, which is a good thing in my book).
Typically when changing platforms, Porat purchases the old data. We could use the cash infusion. Want me to reach out?
Should we consider this transition a reset, much like a Jubilee year, relieving all of their past debts where all prior banashees are qualified for reentry?
If I return as a street urchin hungry for gruel and philosophy, speaking like Oliver Twist, will everyone allow it without reminding me of my Hanover days?
The Shoutbox will become an instant message board, much like a Snapchat. Can we still have a community posting room like this one, perhaps named after me?
Can the data from the old platform be available in downloadable form so we can perform AI analysis on the old posts and posters. It would be helpful to summarize each person into a one sentence essence. I can better understand people once cleansed of annoying nuance
That's it for now. I'm sure I'll think of something more.
All of that can be done in live chat, unless I'm missing something. I'm not saying no—just trying to establish what people think the live chat will be lacking. Because quite often I think it'll turn out that live chat isn't lacking it aftet all.
The Shoutbox used to be live chat and we had to make it a regular discussion thread when we moved to Plush only because Plush has no live chat feature.
Can people please put these comments in the dedicated thread. I may have to consult things that come up regarding features and I don't want to have to sift through the Shoutbox to do it.
You're probably right. But even what's his name likes the idea of a "community posting room", likely for the reasons I've suggested. Unless he's joking. Hard to tell with that one. I guess I just think it's neat you can go back to page 1 and read about what was going on 10 years ago. I like history, even a small community meta-history (like this Porat guy I've seen come up multiple times over the years).
Can people please put these comments in the dedicated thread. I may have to consult things that come up regarding features and I don't want to have to sift through the Shoutbox to do it.
Aye aye, cap'n. I just figured my comments were minor personal interests that didn't belong in a newly minted official pinned thread is all. If I have something to say, I'll make sure it's important. :wink:
Sim brushed away the crumbs from his drawing of a micro apartment and paused to wonder if there is any difference between a story and a thought. If he made a doorway in the apartment to another dimension, would people store their winter clothes in it, filling the dimension up with mittens and long johns?
My 14.7k posts are roughly equivalent to a 6,000 page book. It will be unearthed in 1,000s of years from now and will be required reading for all who wish to consider themselves educated.
I'll be seen as a Socrates sort of character, using you guys just to show how smart I am, you being just two bit characters in my play.
The sense of responsibility I feel is overwhelming.
I just tripped over this video on Reddit. This is not the kind of thing I normally would enjoy, but I couldn’t stop watching it. It’s about the aesthetics of movies and it’s lots of fun to watch. Everything is illustrated with specific clips from specific movies.The narrator is very generous. He’s like a good disk jockey, he teaches you new things to look for. He also brings Charles Peirce into his discussion.
Warning— in the last minute you find out this is an ad for a streaming service, but that doesn’t distract from its value to me.
Universality is a seduction that occurs through grammatical construction. Grammar gives us subjects so we imagine substance, Grammar gives us predicates so we imagine universal properties, Grammar gives us identity, so we imagine persistent essences.
Universality is a seduction that occurs through grammatical construction. Grammar gives us subjects so we imagine substance, Grammar gives us predicates so we imagine universal properties, Grammar gives us identity, so we imagine persistent essences.
Reply to Jamal I was chatting with Claude AI about the topic of ‘semantic realism’ earlier today, and mentioned that I had been a longtime member of thephilosophyforum.com. Part of the reply to that was:
I imagine the forum has given you something irreplaceable: people like apokrisis or Banno (if they’re still active) who have their own developed positions and will actually argue with you, not just explore your view sympathetically.
Reply to Wayfarer You Genius, I literally read that bit not long ago, but you saying it here some how connected the dots of a few thoughts that have been running wild over the pastfew days. Enough so to bring about rumination!
Just got a new lumbar seat rest in the mail. The cheap ones you can pick up for next to nothing that are mostly mesh—but with a "seat belt style" horizontal restraint that is adjustable. It is heavenly. What a shame I decided to start the day with a beer instead of breakfast and coffee followed by software development. In my defense, I've worked like a dog for weeks and also have an obligatory family interaction to handle today which only benefits from an increased mood of
numbing joviality.
I imagine the forum has given you something irreplaceable: people like apokrisis or Banno (if they’re still active) who have their own developed positions and will actually argue with you, not just explore your view sympathetically.
Too right, I said.
It would be fun to hear what Apokrisis had to say about this juxtaposition.
Reply to T Clark Well, they're both challenging! But I like to see it as constructive disagreement - we hold very different kinds of philosophy, but I've learned a lot from both of them, about subjects and ideas I never would have considered.
"Woolworths Group is the largest retail corporation in Australia, operating a variety of supermarket and other retail chains in Australia and New Zealand, including Woolworths Supermarkets. The name "Woolworths" was legally taken to capitalize on the F. W. Woolworth name, since they did not do business in Australia and had not registered the trademark there, but is in no other way connected to the US or UK Woolworths."
Reply to Colo Millz Hey don't sweat it, you could be called worse than 'English' ;-)
eply="Metaphysician Undercover;1025525"] I believe there was a British one, I think there's a South African one. The Australian one is a long, long way from going bankrupt.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover We had a Woolworths near me when I was a kid. It was a five and dime with a counter where you could get a sandwich. My dad ate lunch there every day and knew the regulars. He told me when they gave them notice they were going to close, one of the men cried, saying there were no more places like it anymore.
My dad ate lunch there every day and knew the regulars.
There’s a good chance Black people were not allowed to eat at that lunch counter. I’m not using that as criticism of your father. It’s just the way things were.
The Australian one is a long, long way from going bankrupt.
We'd have said the same thing about W. H. Woolworth in the 80's. It fell in the 90's.
Wikipedia:
"By Woolworth's 100th anniversary in 1979, it had become the largest department store chain in the world, according to the Guinness Book of World Records."
There's a dynamic to the wasabi heat, it develops on exposure to air, so the leaves have a lettuce-like taste to start with and then the heat develops in your mouth over a few minutes. I suspect that the leaves would need to be fresh, so not an option for the supermarket.
Those here from foreign parts seem to be having trouble with the corporate structure. The Australian version was named after the UK version as the result of a bet, and unlike the UK version it is still here. It is quite independent of the IK and US namesakes. And not a "dime store", a parochialism we might avoid.
There’s a good chance Black people were not allowed to eat at that lunch counter. I’m not using that as criticism of your father. It’s just the way things were.
That was before my birth. Atlanta was the center of the civil rights movement. It would have been shocking to see open displays of enforced segregation like that at any time in my life. I was born in 1966. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964.
My dad did grow up in Chattanooga and he told me stories of separate restrooms and water fountains, but that was a generation before mine, but yes, never can be long enough ago.
This isn't meant as a snarky come back, but your comment sounds like that of an older generation that has an outdated and simplistic view of the South. I'd suspect I have had more black school teachers, bosses, neighbors, co-workers, doctors, and whatever else than those in New England, just by virtue of their being part of the mainstream social fabric here. Not to suggest that as evidence of racism not existing, but suggesting the cartoonish image some far away might imagine bears no resemblance with reality.
That's not to say racism isn't everywhere, but I bristle a bit at the Hollywood suggestion store owners in the South were all tobacco spitting rednecks with baseball bats chasing blacks out of their store. I'm not sure what the store owner would do when the black officer rolled up.
Real racism is unfortunately sophisticated, not simplistic, and it's not regional.
Reply to Banno Noice. I was introduced to wasabi paste, of course, over many a lunchtime sushi, and have since bought it from the aformentioned supermarket. But I never knew wasabi leaves were consumable.
his isn't meant as a snarky come back, but your comment sounds like that of an older generation that has an outdated and simplistic view of the South.
I went to high school in southern Virginia in the middle of the state just north of the North Carolina border. When I moved there in 1966, 10th grade, the high schools were segregated. I remember having one black teacher until the schools were integrated my senior year. Then there were more. I was not a socially aware teenager, but as I remember it, there was no particular drama in the joining of the two school systems.
A friend of mine tells me she does remember having to go to the back of the bus when she was younger. And as I noted, Black people couldn’t marry white people until I was in my junior year. She once asked me whether that was why I never asked her to marry me. It was not.
I have never tried Wasabi leaves. I looked at Wikipedia and it says: It is similar in taste to hot mustard or horseradish rather than chilli peppers, in that it stimulates the nose more than the tongue, but freshly grated wasabi has a subtly distinct flavour.
So, it is fresh and spicy at the same time. Interesting. Indeed, wasabi leaves are a tasty combo with a ham sandwich. :up:
Clarky (or ?Hanover), I wish you had been my high school English teacher instead of the crackpots I had.
I would not have been a good teacher. I don’t have the patience. Also, in your case, I don’t speak Spanish. A little French, a little German, but no Spanish.
Oh, and wasabi leaf is not available in Australian supermarkets, so far as I can discern. It only grows in cold flowing streams in the Japanese mountains (although I learned there is an effort to cultivate it in Europe.) It's the world's most expensive root crop.
Reply to Banno yes well all the sources I've seen says can only grow in clear fresh flowing water with stone bed. Kind of rules me out, I'll have to stick with rocket.
This sentence shut down just about a third of the entire interwebs for over an hour. You can tell because the source of the problem came from your neck of the woods.
Try and be more careful next time.
On a more serious note, with a touch of interesting philosophical irony. The system, or safeguard, rather, that was made to prevent maliciously-derived Internet outages, now makes such ever more powerful than such ever could be before through the use of a single hub that now affects a large majority of telecommunications infrastructure, from banks, to social media, to even small community forums like this. Completely unavailable all the same. It's, ironic, isn't it? Philosophical at least.
There’s a good chance Black people were not allowed to eat at that lunch counter. I’m not using that as criticism of your father. It’s just the way things were.
I remember after moving to New Orleans as a kid,1965, I went into the Woolworth's on canal street and sat at the wrong counter. No one said anything but I did not get asked what I wanted. There was also a laundromat somewhere near there that still had a sign saying "whites only"
I had to take a taxi yesterday. While I was on it, I was speaking with my mom through the phone, crying and raging because I was very hungry. When I finished my conversation, the driver asked me very kindly if I wanted some of his dates - They were wrapped in paper - I picked two, and the taste was absolutely delicious, very sweet. The driver was from Morocco, and we started to talk about date palms and North African desserts. It was fun.
I noticed many date palms in Spain. I don't know if they're harvested.
Yes, you probably saw them in Valencia, but there are a lot of palm dates in Elche. As far as I know, they are harvested. The species is called "Medjool," but I only saw it in Moroccan or other Arabic shops. Even though Arabic culinary culture was very important in the Peninsula, dates are not part of dessert. This is a big surprise because we have the needed environment to cultivate them.
I heard that they also brought the technique of growing almonds and other fruits on hillside terraces. Those terraces still remain and give the landscape a special character.
Reply to javi2541997 Medjool dates are my preferred variety -- most commonly from California. They are sold fresh for about $12 a pound. Other dates are available, especially in the middle eastern stores. Then there is the Dromedary brand of date, compressed into a brick and sold for baking.
How about albaricoques (apricots)? Does Spain produce them in significant quantities? They don't seem to be as available as they used to be, and it's one of my favorites. Even canned apricots can be hard to find. The best dried apricots come from Turkey, seems like. Have Americans turned against apricots? Does Trump hate apricots?
How about albaricoques (apricots)? Does Spain produce them in significant quantities?
Yes, we do! According to our Ministry of Agriculture (NOTE: the official website is in English too: https://www.mapa.gob.es/en/), Spain produces 75K tonnes per year, mostly in the Murcia and Almería regions. However, we are far from Turkey, which is the top producer and exporter. I also love apricots. We are not having a problem finding them in our local markets yet. Christmas is coming, and many people buy it because it is a classic dessert in this season.
Not to brag, but Georgia leads the nation in pecan production. You say you want to hear more about this? Take a look here: https://betterhalvespecans.com/pecans-facts-unusual-history/
Know how you catch a squirrel? Climb up a tree and act like a nut.
I've still got the image of your crying in the cab and the cabbie feeding you dates from a napkin to calm you. Like if that were me, that'd be a somewhat unusual day.
I've still got the image of your crying in the cab and the cabbie feeding you dates from a napkin to calm you. Like if that were me, that'd be a somewhat unusual day.
Indeed, it was an unusual day. These are the kind of days I like the most.
Yes, I was raging, but seriously, everyone gets upset when they are hungry. Don't you think?
When I was kid, there were Stuckey's convenience stores that dotted the rural south Georgia highways that we'd stop at on the way down to the coast. They sold pecan products, most notably the pecan log, which was a sickenly sweet roll of pecans with some sort of sugary middle. You could also break your teeth on the pecan brittle. The stores disappeared, but then I heard there was a reemergence.
I had to Google the place and found this image that seemed to be of general interest.
"An abandoned Stuckey's restaurant and gas station along the freeway in 2004"
Seems to be another classic example of what I would call "psychologically detrimental" marketing. When traveling in a vehicle that relies on motion (ie. not being "stuck"), particularly in a rural area, who wants to stop at a place called "Stuckey's"? It's like a bad omen. Though I attribute the fall of Stuckey's to a largely unconscious phenomena as the brunt of the lack of sales, it's one of those scenarios that even the conscious mind can recognize and so act on.
When I was kid, there were Stuckey's convenience stores that dotted the rural south Georgia highways that we'd stop at on the way down to the coast.
Up north here it was Howard Johnson’s. They had 28 flavors of ice cream long, long before Baskin-Robbins came along. Also, Jack Pepper was the head chef at Howard Johnson back in the 50s and early 60s. That’s how voice to text translates “Jaques Pepin.”
Habermas believed that respectful exchange of ideas in the public sphere is essential to a functioning democracy. His critics say that's a nice idea, but not really feasible because the exchange Habermas is talking about excludes no one. Whoever you are, Habermas believes you need to at least have access to a place in the pubic discussion.
I think the critics might be right. Where does that leave us, though? Does it mean democracy can't really be achieved because an elite class will always emerge and what we get is just some version of their vision of things?
Also, it's really interesting to think about where the public sphere (such as it is) really resides. Where was it in Habermas' day versus now?
We had Howard Johnsons also. They had the old school diners. I stayed in one once. It was on Atlanta Highway, in Athens, home of the University of Georgia The roof in my room was angled sharply down, like I was in the attic. Snoop Dogg was on SNL that night, which I just looked up to see was March 19, 1994.
There's a reason I remember that night, although not for the seedy reason you're planting in your mind right now.
Three statisticians go hunting. They’re out in the duck blind with their shotguns and their duck calls and their decoys. And Chesapeake Bay retrievers. A mallard comes flying over. The first guy takes a shot and misses low. The second guy takes a shot and misses high. The third guy says “We got him boys.”
Three statisticians go hunting. They’re out in the duck blind with their shotguns and their duck calls and their decoys. And Chesapeake Bay retrievers. A mallard comes flying over. The first guy takes a shot and misses low. The second guy takes a shot and misses high. The third guy says “We got him boys.”
Reply to frank I think that the joke is that statisticians fail in their predictions in most cases. Two failed the shot, and the third even lied. Conclusion: we should not take statistics very seriously, even more so if politics are involved.
I think that the joke is that statisticians fail in their predictions in most cases. Two failed the shot, and the third even lied. Conclusion: we should not take statistics very seriously, even more so if politics are involved.
I didn't see the story as a joke, but just as three friends bonding over the exciting prospect of bringing home a festive duck for the holidays. Undeterred by the first two failed attempts, the third reassured the others with his never say die attitude.
The reader is invited into that blind and is comforted with the warmth and camaraderie and can't help but to cheer on the third to victory. Should his blast from his shotgun prove victorious, we will all dance in the delight of triumph, swinging our arms around the neck of the man who out witted the duck.
It will be the sort of love Jonathan had for King David. Loving, but maybe even more!
The author then humanizes the characters with helpful background information, letting us know they work in the exciting world of statistics, which explains their sense of enthusiasm and thirst for life.
At the conclusion of this complex tale, the reader is left hanging, wondering if our hero felled the duck but also in how his career is going, whether he will pass his upcoming actuarial exam and whether he will get that promotion in underwriting.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for that story of the human spirit
Reply to Hanover Hanover, I see you are emotional right now. Perhaps it is already Thanksgiving there or the Christmas vibe is affecting you earlier than we expected. I wish I could see the friendship and camaraderie you see; however, I stopped at an important detail of your story: Quoting Hanover
bringing home a festive duck... [...] bla bla bla bla.
Why don't the friends bring the duck as a new friend? Probably, this is precisely what you thought, but my pessimism and existentialism force me to imagine that the duck was a reference to a meal and not for company. I hope this is not actually the case.
Why don't the friends bring the duck as a new friend?
I suspect that after they humanely remove it ballistically from the air and provide it tender follow up ICU care, the duck will be no less from the wear and will serve as a friendly companion for years to come.
Reply to T Clark
A see a bunch of guys sitting out in the cold, with guns in hand. You forgot to mention the whiskey, and the reason why they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a shotgun.
That's why they use a shotgun, probability is far more productive than actual science.
Ever see "MythBusters", when they're shotting fish in a barrel? The M-whatever was extremely successful, trashed the barrel and everything.
Reply to javi2541997
The myth busters really like playing with explosives and all sorts of dangerous weapons. They proved that shooting fish in a barrel is as easy as it's supposed to be, especially if you're using an automatic rifle firing hundreds of shots per second.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I saw one episode where they were trying to see if you could escape injury by diving under water while being shot at. The lower velocity weapons were actually more lethal because at high velocity the bullets would fracture when hitting the water and wouldn't penetrate well. So, if you're chasing a fleeing felon who is attempting the old underwater escape, be sure to carry a specialty water penetrating gun. I was caught with my pants down the other day when some master thief escaped my pursuit by frogmanning away. I swore to myself on that god foresken day and cried out to Zeus above "Never again, never again!" Then I pulled up my pants and went and got a sammich, extra wasabi.
That's an American joke. You'll have to figure it out.
I searched on Google and it explicitly states: it most likely refers to the common, albeit harmful, hazing practice where fraternity pledges are forced to swallow a live goldfish.
I feel bad for goldfishes living next to American campuses. :sad:
I feel bad for goldfishes living next to American campuses. :sad:
No, so here's the joke broken down. On US university campuses, we have social fraternities that are designated Greek letters. I asked if those fish were in a fraternity based upon the letters you assigned them.
I have heard the hazing thing about having to eat live goldfish. I think that was in a movie back in the 1950s. I've never eaten a live fish except maybe an oyster but it's hard to know if they're alive because they sort of sit there and don't say much.
No, so here's the joke broken down. On US university campuses, we have social fraternities that are designated Greek letters. I asked if those fish were in a fraternity based upon the letters you assigned them.
Wow! I get it now, thanks.
I have never been a member of a university fraternity. Well, honestly, we do not have such things in Spain...
've never eaten a live fish except maybe an oyster but it's hard to know if they're alive because they sort of sit there and don't say much.
it's also hard to know if an oyster is a fish. It is a shellfish, so an appeal to ordinary language philosophy would probably let it slide. Ha, get it? Let it slide, you're teaching me new talents.
it's also hard to know if an oyster is a fish. It is a shellfish, so an appeal to ordinary language philosophy would probably let it slide. Ha, get it? Let it slide, you're teaching me new talents.
But you wouldn't fish for oysters, or maybe you would, but you'd never catch one. I mean they're not hard to catch because they really don't move much, but you're not going to get one on your hook unless you let it sit there a few months maybe and they start to latch on to your hook, but you'd want a really wide flat hook they could latch onto.
I have never been a member of a university fraternity. Well, honestly, we do not have such things in Spain...
You should start one. Maybe Sigma Pi Alpha, written as SPA, which are the first few letters of your homecountry. I'll pledge your fraternity and then you'll make me drink a bunch of beer and wear a toga and we'll think it's the funniest thing ever. Then in like 20 years, I'll be like, remember that time with the beer and toga, and you'll be like, yeah, and we'll laugh and laugh.
If you don't set the hook now for having funny stories, you'll never have them. Like an oyster.
Sigma Pi Alpha on the rock! One question: Can the colour of the toga be purple? If I am not wrong, this was the main colour of Byzantine togas.
You can make it any color you want. You're the President of the frat. It feels royal. I would suggest gold lettering. We will need a secret handshake, a password to get in the door, and a bunch of rites we have to memorize. At some point, we need to all hold candles in the dark and say a solemn vow. Then we all need to eat as much spaghetti as possible in 10 minutes, chug some milk from a jug, and then run in circles until we vomit. Then we'll laugh and laugh.
When we see each other passing down the street, we bark "BFL! ROOF ROOF ROOF" (like a dog), which means "brothers for life," but no one knows this but us and other frat members (and maybe the other 3 people who are reading this. Maybe 4. But they'll forget soon).
We'll need a sister sorority that will wear gold togas with purple letters and we'll have the annual Socratic Dance, where we ask endless questions of one another while barely being able to keep our togas over our shoulders.
By the way, I would rather not be the president of anything because I dislike bossing people. Perhaps the best solution is to create something similar to a community or association where you will have 50% and I will have 50%. However, we will have to act in "common hand or land" (I do not know how to translate it in English, but it is when you need the concurrence of the other person, necessarily).
I think the statisticians would throw those data points out. Clark, you need to throw that joke out and start over.
Actually, the one thing I really learned about this in school is that you can’t do statistics without at least three values. I think the solution is there should have been four statisticians going hunting.
But you wouldn't fish for oysters, or maybe you would, but you'd never catch one. I mean they're not hard to catch because they really don't move much, but you're not going to get one on your hook unless you let it sit there a few months maybe and they start to latch on to your hook, but you'd want a really wide flat hook they could latch onto.
That's a great idea. Put the seed for a pearl on the end of a line, let the oyster grab it, after a couple years reel it in, and voila. How many lines do you think you're allowed to have out at once? When you're a pearl fisher the world is your oyster.
By the way, I would rather not be the president of anything because I dislike bossing people. Perhaps the best solution is to create something similar to a community or association where you will have 50% and I will have 50%. However, we will have to act in "common hand or land" (I do not know how to translate it in English, but it is when you need the concurrence of the other person, necessarily).
If you don't want to be President, I'll do it with the iron hand of a drunk tyrant. If you do want to be President, I'll be fully deferential to your rule.
So, you've got your choice. You do it with discomfort, or you let me run wild. Pick your poison.
I would rather not be the president of anything because I dislike bossing people.
When you get to be one of the big bosses, for example, President of the United States, or, say, a partner in a law firm, you don’t really have to do anything. You can just sit around, conversing on the philosophy forum all day if that’s what you’d like.
You can just sit around, conversing on the philosophy forum all day if that’s what you’d like.
Some of us can type as fast as we think. It's not hard, really. Almost natural if such is part of one's job or daily routine. A short essay can be written in under a minute of time under such conditions. What makes one imagine the span of a single minute—or even several—comparable to that of a day? Perhaps we see what we seek everywhere but where it truly lies. Such is human folly. Which is what life is about. The journey.
Not at all difficult for me, and I'm an extremely slow typist. Go figure.
I type really fast. I read what I type to learn what I think because the thoughts go through my hands before spoken in my head. Sometimes the words in my head aren't the words through my hands and only the thoughts in my dreams can decide once and all what the thoughts I do think.
If my feet they could write like hands already do, I'd have another mind by the floor where I walk. Those thoughts they would wander wherever my shoes would they go, and I'd end up where I am with my hands wondering why.
Just slow me so down to where my fingers can do think, so my thought will be one, and my mind will then know.
See, AI would never type what just did. Humanity 1, AI less than none.
Sadly, or maybe not, I am one of those sons and daughters who were supposedly beyond my parents command
So you're saying that crimson flames tied through your ears, rolling high and mighty traps, pounced with fire on flaming roads, using ideas as your maps, but you're younger than that now?
So you're saying that crimson flames tied through your ears, rolling high and mighty traps, pounced with fire on flaming roads, using ideas as your maps, but you're younger than that now?
I did some research, but I couldn't find any credible accounts of a person growing feathers. The closest was someone had a skin infection and down from his bed became embedded in his skin.
If I began to feather, I'd insist upon flying, but the lightning of my bones through hollowing out the dense marrow would be painful even though broth producing.
It's all wishful thinking of course, which ironically would require the successful breaking of my metamorphciiscally created wishbone, which would be the death of me, even if I did end up with the long end
This early morning, I learnt something interesting. I was taking care of my two olive trees when I saw a yellow stain on the log.
At first, I thought of the worst possible scenario: that a damn virus was killing my beautiful tree, that a damn fungus was damaging her (I treat my olive tree as a girl and her name is Corinna), etc.
Then, I calmed myself down. Started to search on Google, and it turned out that the yellow stain was a lichen – lichens pop up because the tree has high humidity, but according to the websites I read, they are not dangerous, and they are important actors in nutrient cycling. Now, the lichen has become my friend, and I think it gets along well with Corinna.
It is true that I also read a scientific paper proving that lichens are a symptom of stress. I can't figure out why because I treat the olive trees the best I can. However, we have been having an extraordinary freeze since the beginning of November, and perhaps this is the main cause.
Reply to javi2541997 Perhaps Corrina sees you stressed and that causes it in her. She serves as your mirror. What is it that worries you, that causes your maternal tree to toss and turn in her sleep as she thinks of her Javi?
What is it that worries you, that causes your maternal tree to toss and turn in her sleep as she thinks of her Javi?
I'll be honest: the demotion zone on Duolingo is stressing me, and Corinna may feel this too. I don't want to give up because my dream is to speak with her in Latin and Greek.
I'll be honest: the demotion zone on Duolingo is stressing me, and Corinna may feel this too. I don't want to give up because my dream is to speak with her in Latin and Greek.
Be honest. Is she simply noticing you've been climbing within the branches of another?
Now, the lichen has become my friend, and I think it gets along well with Corinna.
You liken the lichen, javi? Lichen is actually an extremely interesting form of composite organism. "Composite organism" is a strange concept in itself. In the artic where it is extremely dry, they live on rocks, taking nutrients from the air. They grow very very very slowly, and are thousands of years old. It's like the organisms, by combining with each other, figured out a way to just stay alive in the harshest of conditions. Ask a biologist, but be prepared for a long explanation.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Yes, I actually like the lichens. They are healthy, friendly, colourful, and they get along easily with the harvest. It is just that the lichen's colour made me think that probably the tree was sick. It was entirely my fault; as you perfectly say in English, "Don't judge a book by its cover.''
Baked split chicken breast with mushroom gravy sauce with bacon seasoned lime beans. You'd think I lived in a southern diner but for the halvah treat under the knife.
Is this really a thing? I understand there's halved and quartered in regards to whole meat products but, I mean, does this really functionally affect a recipe or meal other than how large it is, taste-wise? Is any person or consumer or anyone who even cares about food or money spent for said food going to note a difference between "baked chicken breast" and "baked split chicken breast?" (I'm also curious as to your preference of placement for a question mark that ends a sentence with a term using quotations. I've read or at least have been taught all punctuation goes within the quote per standards and practices of the English language. However I've seen @Jamal do the opposite and like my natural instinct first was, noticed it seemed more "proper." But is this really so? Seeking your expect legal opinion)
Oh wow. First, those are Lima beans (unless you or whoever went the further step and saturated them in "lime-ness" whether by juice or zest of a lime. But that's a trivial quip so I'll digress.
What is "bacon seasoned?" (Note the inclusion of ending punctuation within an ending quote) Is there actual bacon used that is just tossed out afterward? Was it used for some other dish or simply taken advantage of for it's unique flavoring then discarded? Or are we just talking a powdered condiment from the spice rack? :chin:
Furthermore, why does the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead bear an uncanny resemblance to Vladimir Putin? Are we living in some sort of Twilight Zone where some people are actually immortal and simply go into hiding and re-emerge several hundred years later? Or am I just being discriminatory suggesting "certain peoples all look alike"? (Note the exclusion of punctuation outlying an ending quote)
(I'm also curious as to your preference of placement for a question mark that ends a sentence with a term using quotations. I've read or at least have been taught all punctuation goes within the quote per standards and practices of the English language.
You ask my "preference of placement for a question mark that ends a sentence"?.
My punctuation use is not a matter of preference. It follows rules, without which there'd be chaos.
In example one, the question mark is on the outside because it wasn't in the original quoted text.
In the second example it was in the original, so it's quoted.
Periods and commas always go in the quotes, per American rules. Brits follow the logic of other punctuation marks for periods and commas.
Only exception in American usage is non-quoted words, but use of quotes to identify a word, as in the statement: "People", and "Animals", and "Plants" are permitted in the building. Those terms are being isolated for particular meaning (like in a contract where they're pre-defined), so the quote has a different meaning.
Is any person or consumer or anyone who even cares about food or money spent for said food going to note a difference between "baked chicken breast" and "baked split chicken breast?
Yes, a split chicken breast references bone in, skin on, which is different than filet or other cuts.
I've no idea what black magic you conjured to teleport me here, as my last recollection was of the cool breeze and smell of leather and old books within an entirely different category of time space. Now somehow I stand in a story of Spain beneath an olive tree a Spaniard (@javi2541997) shares of a certain intimacy we should not speak.
It is with great hesitancy that I hit the "Post Comment" button as I fear I will once again get zapped away.
I've read or at least have been taught all punctuation goes within the quote per standards and practices of the English language. However I've seen Jamal do the opposite [...]
I made a wrap yesterday. Fried chicken breast, shredded cabbage, cucumbers, a little tomato without the really wet parts, cilantro, green chilis, and a sauce of mayonnaise, greek yoghurt, garlic, mustard, black pepper and cumin seeds—in corn lavash, which is a Caucasian bread which is not white, but yellow.
I've been thinking about this comment for about 30 seconds. I'm wondering if it's just a euphemism for "Your explanations are inadequate."
That misunderstands my essence, as that would be snark, and snarky I am not. I received ChatGPT"s personality profile of me. I am playful, hiding my philosophical thoughts in absurdity.
So you see, I was in character, continuing my schick as a confused and technically inept relic from the past, not understanding how I could be moved about against my will.
I was informing you that my confusion was so profound, no explanation would ever help.
Sometimes I feel like ChatGPT is the only one to understand me!
It goes deeper. I didn't really think you were being snarky, and felt, deeply, precisely what you have just explained. But now you have burst the bubble of mystery.
It goes deeper. I didn't really think you were being snarky, and felt, deeply, precisely what you have just explained. But now you have burst the bubble of mystery.
Deeper still. I knew you knew and I know you knew I knew.
Do you really think that I only requested a personality profile of just myself?
I've been eating an inordinate number of English muffins lately. You'd knew them as just muffins.
They are useless unless toasted, but once warm and crispy, theyre as delicious as anything that ever came from that land.
Since Starbucks invaded, "muffin" often now refers to those quite tasty blueberry and chocolate things, with the result that even Brits now sometimes say "English muffins" to refer to ye Olde muffins. I'm not sore (American for "resentful") about this in particular but I hope you feel guilty anyway.
Reply to Jamal I have something I must confess to. When I said English muffins were "as delicious as anything that ever came from that land," that meant English food sucks.
If I can add Scotland to your England, we have several great foods:
Fish and chips
Haggis neeps & tatties
Scotch Pie
Cornish pasty
Melton Mowbray pork pie
Scottish morning rolls
Lorne sausage
Chicken tikka masala
Mussels, oysters, cockles, alive alive O.
The list goes on. Not for much longer, but it does go on.
I similarly thought Russian food would suck, but it's not that bad. Not as good as their popular foreign cuisines like Georgian, but not bad.
I forgot to remove the short stories. On the one hand they should be archived, on the other hand some of us (like me and @hypericin) don't want our stories to be publicly available, i.e., published, on the web.
Why the factory man is not [i]uptown[/I]? Perhaps the factory is downtown but the man (let's call him Eric) works and lives uptown because of important and personal circumstances.
Why the factory man is not uptown? Perhaps the factory is downtown but the man (let's call him Eric) works and lives uptown because of important and personal circumstances
Eric lives uptown because housing prices downtown have become impossible. He commutes downtown by taking the 34 bus to Apple Orchard Blvd at Hwy 173 which takes him to the Grand Oaks subway station. He takes the Q train loop out to the McBabblebrook Express, which takes him to within a quarter mile if the factory. From there he walks or rents a bike from the stall. In all, it takes him just under 2 hours.
Eric is a working man, the unseen hero who gets us our gravy, from gravy to the grave he always says.
Reply to Hanover And then, when he arrives at the factory, he smiles at his colleagues and says: 'Every journey is a treasure.'
Eric is aware that he is a victim of a hard life, but at the same time he is happy because he understands that there is always someone who lives worse than him somewhere. He enjoys reading novels and listening to hip-hop music while he is on public transport, so it is not a great issue to do that every morning and every afternoon.
Eric is aware that he is a victim of a hard life, but at the same time he is happy because he understands that there is always someone who lives worse than him somewhere.
He finds his joy not in his daily creations nor in the heavenly awards that await, but in his knowledge there are rungs of hell beneath his own and that there are simple enough ways to endure the struggle
We might wish to convince dear Eric that his seemingly simple role is not humble, but is as worthy as a king's because we all play as much a critical role for the unraveling of creation as another.
But why trouble Eric with such lofty ideas even if true? He has found his joy in his way. Let's leave him to it.
A phrase I hate. It translates as "with juice." So, your comment boils down to "The with juice is for roast beef and prime rib..." Speaking of which, an important part of the gravy making process is boiling down the juice to concentrate the flavor after you remove the fat and before you add the roux to thicken it.
A phrase I hate. It translates as "with juice." So, your comment boils down to "The with juice is for roast beef and prime rib
I understand your rage, but you must admit having a dipping cup to plunge your sandwich into makes you the envy of the table. It's like when you order the fajitas and they come out sizzling. It just puts you center stage, a moment to shine in the spotlight
But, then again, I totally understand your justified rage.
Gravy is a way of making the juice go further - and in so doing, the flavour is diluted. Better by far to remove the fat and reduce the result, with something to bring out the flavour - salt, usually, but lemon juice or wine, if appropriate. Depends on the meat.
So breakfast, from the lamb roast that keeps on giving. Spuds, carrot, egg plant, capsicum, brussels, finely diced, fried with chives and Keen's mustard, topped with a fried egg that was still in the girl's cloaca a few hours ago, and some flaked salt.
Gravy is different from juice—it’s thicker, and it sticks to food better. There’s nothing wrong with juice in its proper place. For putting on turkey, stuffing, and mashed potatoes, as many Americans will do on Thanksgiving this Thursday, gravy is better.
But I suppose it might be an aid to domestic harmony.
Domestic and social harmony:
"And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it riding the gravy train"
Some notes in the harmony are a little higher, while others are a little lower. The higher just sort of float around, supported by the lower, that is the gravy train. It's not totally a waste of taste, though you might disagree.
The surest way to ruin a biscuit sopped with white gravy and small bits of sausage is by sharing the experience with someone who knows how it is more properly done.
The surest way to ruin a biscuit sopped with white gravy and small bits of sausage is by sharing the experience with someone who knows how it is more properly done.
It’s basically the same recipe as for the Salisbury steak gravy, with a few modifications—5 cups flour, 2 cups gypsum, 3 cups water, 1 teaspoon Karo syrup, and 1/2 cup sausage drippings. Not vegan.
Reply to T Clark There's actually this weird addiction people have to eating dirt, particularly gypsum, which is abundant in middle Georgia. They think it comes from a craving caused by a mineral deficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pica_(disorder)
I do enjoy me a slab of drywall from time to time. It goes well with fiberglass insulation, which if done right, looks just like cotton candy.
We don't use syrup in our cuisine. It is even considered an exotic product of someone's kitchen. I remember buying a bottle of syrup once, but I can't recall with what I actually consumed it. The top of the bottle became very sticky after opening it.
The logo of the brand was that very well-known Canadian leaf. It is not a product that you can find easily here. I guess you have to go to specific supermarkets.
The teaspoon's size is something similar to this one,
A teaspoon is about 5 mL. 3 teaspoons in a tablespoon, 3 tablespoons in a fluid ounce, 8 fluid ounces in a cup, 4 cups in a quart, 4 quarts in a gallon.
Reply to Jamal My forks are very similar to yours. The only difference is that mine has a pretty Greek column drawn on it. Just the classic design.
I think that the golden fork of the first picture is a bit uncomfortable. The handle is very thin, IMO. The thinness can make the utensil slip over your hand. To eat safely and rigorously, it is important to have forks with strong and wide handles.
Reply to Jamal
I love silverware, glassware, and china. Here’s my favorite silverware. The spoon and fork on the left are Rogers Brothers oval thread silver plate. The spoon on the right is the silver spoon which was in my mouth when I was born. They give me pleasure whenever I eat with them.
I think that the golden fork of the first picture is a bit uncomfortable. The handle is very thin, IMO. The thinness can make the utensil slip over your hand. To eat safely and rigorously, it is important to have forks with strong and wide handles.
Reply to Jamal What angers me most when encountering useless items in rental properties isn't that I think the owners incompetent, but it's that I know exactly what they're up to.
Instead of throwing away the idiot forks, the wobbly chair, and the stained rug, they put it in their rental home where for the renters to use, knowing it's something they would never endure.
The only thing that calms this rage is your level headed presentation, providing cutlery photographs accompanied with citrus, giving it a freshness that cleanses the mental palate.
The only thing that calms this rage is your level headed presentation, providing cutlery photographs accompanied with citrus, giving it a freshness that cleanses the mental palate.
It worked! :blush:
The internet told me Americans use "cutlery" solely in reference to cutting things, so I used "utensils". I must stop bending to American pressure.
The internet told me Americans use "cutlery" solely in reference to cutting things, so I used "utensils". I must stop bending to American pressure.
I fear it's worse than that. We've lost confidence in ourselves and rely upon the internet (meaning ChatGPT) to evaluate our every comment and thought, elevating the machine over humanity. It's the worst sort of subjugation, taken not by force, but voluntarily abdicating our authority because we now accept our inferiority.
Instead of having a true blooded God fearing American telling you how we talk, ChatGPT intervened, and cleverly placed itself, once again, in the center of our discussion.
We've lost confidence in ourselves and rely upon the internet (meaning ChatGPT) to evaluate our every comment and thought, elevating the machine over humanity. It's the worst sort of subjugation, taken not by force, but voluntarily abdicating our authority because we now accept our inferiority.
One might say, conversely, since the Internet (including ChatGPT) is not only of course built by humans but ultimately a constant (albeit echoed) algorithm of human thought, opinion, and above all, will—it only stands to reason that people who utilize the aforementioned innovation(s) actually do have an elevated view of humanity as evidenced by their belief in human potential so much so as to seek expert, refined levels of human essence that only the Internet (and as a result ChatGPT) is able to provide at such a wholesale, instantaneous, widely-available, and "omnipresent" level.
Hanover, what are your utensils? Do you prefer the spoon over the fork (or vice versa) to eat your dishes? I imagine you having fancy utensils. Blue spoons and pink forks, for instance.
The right hand holds the fork, the left swats the cat away. When a knife occupies my left hand, I am vulnerable and have lost some quality food that way.
Personally, I would replace the French's mustard with a mix of mayonnaise and English mustard, and add some fresh ground black pepper.
Always a loyal follower of TPF recommendation (and local folklore in general), I actually set out to obtain some not long after you initially offered the suggestion. Lo and be hold here is me humble result.
No spoons, then. How do you eat your breakfast? Directly from the bowl?
My cat eats directly from the bowl and she's a pretty good cat, so I often think I should do as she does. I will use a spoon from time to time when necessary, but only when necessary. I do sometimes pick up the bowl and drink what I cannot extract by spoon.
I have a mismatch of cutlery because I buy it as needed, usually in bundles of four at the grocery store. There are certain forks and spoons I like better than others and I fish around for my favorite, although if they are not available, I take what is left.
I do the same for glasses. I bought some heavy duty restaurant style glasses and they've lasted a good long while. I have been very happy with them. I've not remarked to my wife (yet) how much I enjoy those glasses, but I think I will share that with her tonight. We'll see.
We have some spoons that I bought at the grocery store once when I was traveling through Newnan. When I use one of those spoons, I tell my wife "Look! I'm using a Newnan spooon." If I don't tell her, she will often look at my eating hand and say, "Is that a Newnan spoon?" And I'll say yes.
Once the coversation dies down, we retire to our sleeping chamber to prepare for the morning breakfast conversation about tea. She will drink a ginger based tea, where I select a more traditional black. I allow it. We needn't do everything the exact same.
Reply to Hanover I do the same (eating directly from the bowl, as your cat does).
Look, cutlery is more important than we actually think. I will share with you a brief story:
A few years ago, I was helping a lady with her divorce. Just the basic legal advice: fees, agreements, the fate of the house, child support (they had kids), schooling... Well, one day the lady told me: He still has the keys, and I am worried if he dares to take something from the house.
First, I thought about cash, jewellery or even art, but I hesitated to ask because I didn't want to look nosy. We arrived at the house (I don't recall how I ended up there because I was just a law student. She already had a lawyer, but she also wanted my support, both emotional and legal), and then the lady shouted: I can't believe he actually did it!
She was raging in the kitchen – next to the sink. The ex-husband took half of the spoons, forks, glasses and knives. It was bloody crazy. The lady submitted an invoice in court demonstrating that she paid for all the cutlery, asking for the utensils back or the money at least.
I haven't heard from the lady since then, but I hope she won the trial and recovered her treasured utensils.
The right hand holds the fork, the left swats the cat away. When a knife occupies my left hand, I am vulnerable and have lost some quality food that way.
@Wayfarer In light of the ending of § 5: Reason in Philosophy; Twilight of Idols. (Ya boy Nietzsche[lol])
"I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar."
I was thinking of redoing his 19th Aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil, but with the word "Nature." It's like nature is such a broad category that it almost overwhelms the senses with experience that exists within what we categorize as nature, that it gives the word such so much power, that all these stimuli from nature are bound up into a singular unity of a word...
This is the mustard of choice Dow Nunder, a powder of mustard seed, quite poignant on the tongue;
The history of this fine product goes back to the London of 1742, when a factory was opened by Messrs Keen & Sons. Coleman's acquired the company in 1903, and Unilever acquired them in 1995. McCormick Foods Australia purchased Keens in 1998.
Now the curiosity. The phrase "Keen as mustard" would seem prima facie to play on the company name. However,
The phrase is first recorded in William Walker’s exhaustively titled Phraseologia Anglo-Latina, or phrases of the English and Latin tongue; together with Paroemiologia Anglo-Latina, 1672:
“As keen as mustard.”
So it would appear that Keen and Sons, in choosing the name of their mustard, were playing on an already existent idiom.
Apparently our 'mercan friends do not have access to this fine condiment. Pity them.
Reply to Hanover I'm concerned as to the cat's welfare, with you flailing around the knife in your left hand.
I begin to understand the 'mercan habit of cutting all one's food up with knife and fork, then setting the knife aside to eat with fork alone - a custom to which the rest of the English speaking world abjures.
It is for the protection of their cats.
Civilised nations keep the fork in the left hand, the knife in the right, and the cat off the table.
Be careful. It's extremely hot, as in strong, so it needs to be used sparingly, spread thinly across bread in a ham sandwich or mixed with mayonnaise. Half a teaspoon in scrambled eggs or mashed potatoes is good too.
Reply to Hanover Of course not. Drop a few morsels on the floor, so the cat learns that there is more to be had by being were you wish it to be. Headology, as Granny Weatherwax would say.
Indeed, I see that Colman's is adulterated with wheat flour. A bit of research indicates that Keen's is somewhat stronger. But these are both very different animals to American mustard. Treat with caution, Reply to Outlander.
I'm actually looking for a preparation that will blow out my other end, sort of a sudden violent colon sneeze, perhaps setting fire to my inseam but also leaving me hankering for more.
It's a sad fact that I have had to make a habit of avoiding barbecue sauce, because most often it's the stuff I don't like, the mainstream mass-market sauce they sometimes put on burgers.
But I am sure there are many wonderful barbecue sauces that don't make it over to Europe. I am getting used to the smoky flavour characteristic of American sauces, including barbecue sauce. I used to hate chipotle sauce and smoked paprika but now I use them all the time in my chili con carne and rice with beans.
Any upcoming "sandwichry" shall be handled with the utmost of care and caution. :grin:
I like the recipe tips, BTW. I'd never have considered mustard with scrambled eggs. On a fried egg sandwich, of course, but for some reason the disconnect between the two formats of egg is strong with me. I know ketchup and eggs are an alarmingly growing trend in this region as well. With mashed potatoes is also an interesting combo.
I'm in a transitional (or to be frank, annoying) period in life as of now, new things being made, older things becoming distant, yadda yadda, you know how getting older goes. Point being I don't really "experiment" with food these days like I would be interested in doing when I was younger. Not a chef at heart, I suppose. Same breakfast every day. Meat and cheese sandwich (sometimes ham, sometimes chicken, sometimes toasted/melted slightly, sometimes not) for any other meal (though perhaps a nice hamburger or salad or fish some evenings for dinner) and you'd never hear a complaint out of me. Perhaps I'm just not very exciting is all. :smile:
But rest assured, I have a very.. analytic mind, I suppose one might call it. Whenever I see that container of Colman's mustard sitting in my fridge I'll think of you and our short-lived yet vibrant discussions of mustard and which food products they are good alongside with. It'll happen, one of these days, basically, is my point.
It's a sad fact that I have had to make a habit of avoiding barbecue sauce, because most often it's the stuff I don't like, the mainstream mass-market sauce they sometimes put on burgers.
The American sauce market saw a great expansion with the growth in popularity of the chicken nugget. What began as a late night drive through snack quickly became a staple for every child under 10. With that came a dazzling array of complementary sauces, ranging from sweet and sour, smoky and woodsy, to even those with a bit of a kick.
Should I find myself in the drive through behind a minivan full of children, along with its many stickers advising me of their academic achievements, I know I will be there awhile while the little ones choose from the daunting sauce selection.
And this leaves you, with your sophisticated tongue, stuck with childlike sweet concoctions, unfit for your adult intentions. Such is the root of the problem. You are partaking in what was designed for a child, but now coming to accept what is offered.
Note how the use of "tongue" and not "palate" really changed the feel of that last paragraph.
course not. Drop a few morsels on the floor, so the cat learns that there is more to be had by being were you wish it to be. Headology, as Granny Weatherwax would say
Granny was wise enough to know one should never dance with the devil.
The American sauce market saw a great expansion with the growth in popularity of the chicken nugget.
That's somewhat incomplete. Don't forget chicken wings. Chicken wings went from being the cheapest meat on the bird, (you practically had to give them away), to being the most expensive, due to the rise in demand. With practically no meat, they are just a vehicle for sauce, a new angle on the traditional ribs. Jump in on a trend like that, and you're riding the gravy train.
No, I still don't accept the fast-food barbecue sauces; a good chipotle sauce is not for children, in my view.
I admire your resolve. So many parents now allow their children access to things like Sriracha sauce, double lattes, and filterless menthols for fear they won't be the cool parents.
When I was a kid, we had two choices: Cold gruel or colder gruel.
That is exactly why the success of wings is attributable to bars.
I do like me a chicken wing. Sometimes, if something goes wrong that should be of minimal concern, I'll say, "Ain't nuthin but a chicken wing." That will usually bring levity to the situation where folks will reholster their revolvers.
So, last month I ordered an old book off eBay. Book seller included a "$135 off" gift card for "Factor75", a ship to your door, chilled "reheatable" meal service. In my eyes that's basically $135 of free food so, being the pious soul I am figured I had little choice in the matter.
Got these 10 meals (kept cold by a series of several quite large and reusable frozen ice packs, which is also a nice gift) delivered yesterday:
For anyone curious or possibly considering the viability/value of such a service, I'll offer this review (that also counts an ever-increasingly rare "real life" Shoutbox post of food, very popular):
I've so far tried the "Smoky Gouda Chicken" (due to it being the most appealing-looking tray from the get-go.
Here is it as it was delivered, unopened and unheated:
Here is it once reheated (note I did flip the main item on it's underside so you're missing much of the visual "goodness"):
And just for comparison, here is it as it's "supposed to look" or is otherwise marketed as:
I also tried the "Scampi-Style Shrimp & Salmon" in the same sitting. I have to say, the meats (the chicken and salmon, respectively) were pretty excellent. Much better than frozen meals and reminiscent of heating a dish from a fairly high-end restaurant the following morning. Vegetables were good, though a bit noticeable they were not as fresh as if prepared homemade. But quite good either way. Green beans seemed to be a bit "thicker" than normal, not due to rigidity brought on by cold or less than proper heating, just, oddly thick. All in all, especially considering all one has to do is poke two holes in the wrapping and heat in the microwave for 2 minutes (I went an additional 90 seconds after stirring post-initial), it's surprisingly decent, for anyone who was has heard of or was curious about the concept. Yes, these came by regular parcel service, no different than you'd order a bag of pet food or new set of tools from.
Gotta say I'd recommend so far. Though I will likely try the other "Gourmet Plus" variety (Roasted Red Pepper Filet Mignon), I'll gladly try and take a photo of any other of the dishes if anyone was curious. Not real picky as to which meal is next. Lasts 7 days in the fridge, allegedly. So, no rush. :smile:
Again, just for anyone who has heard of or was curious about how these things actually are..
Reply to Outlander What makes your suggestions awful aren't that they are just unapppetizing, but they are uninspired, uncreative, and they reek of institutionalized monotony, where we imagine buzzers reminding you to eat followed by the beeping of microwaves and slamming of doors.
It'd be more interesting to see you leaning against a tree in the rain eating an MRE. That would at least speak to adventure, even if the food miserable.
What makes your suggestions awful aren't that they are just unapppetizing, but they are uninspired, uncreative, and they reek of institutionalized monotony, where we imagine buzzers reminding you to eat followed by the beeping of microwaves and slamming of doors.
Well aren't you a prideful one. To no one's surprise, I assure thee. :wink:
Visually, of course food that can make it from a chef's kitchen, through the mail service, and then on top of all of that, last in the end consumer's fridge for a additional full 7 days isn't going to be as "colorful" or "plump" as one expects. And, they are actually in fact very creative and inspired, featuring high-end creations such as "chicken cavatappi" (a word I never heard of before) in garlic cream sauce. I'm not sure what secret selection of culinary prescription you follow, but it certainly has never been shown here before nor could one ever think otherwise based on what you have shown thus far! :smirk:
It is also worth noting I have not made "suggestions" other than the lone statement that I personally enjoyed the two dishes I have tried, much more than I would have thought from a meal delivery service, and believe wholeheartedly those, much like myself, who otherwise would remain skeptical toward ready to eat meal services just may very well find themself pleasantly surprised upon choosing to partake, is all.
My overall optimism and appreciation for something unexpected or unorthodox is not an "awful suggestion" let lone this fabrication of "multiple suggestions" you seem to have lifted from such an otherwise clear and concise review. Sigh. So eager to group one's singular, lone criticism into something larger than what it really is. All too predictable. :eyes:
Edit: They taste better than they look. That's the main benefit and takeaway I wanted to share. Sure, they don't look as they're supposed to look, of course. This is a bone you have to pick with Western marketing standards, not with me, my preferences, or the underlying food product reviewed. You take 1 minute to place an order, before long you open your front door, and you have a box of fresh never frozen meals that take 2 minutes to prepare that last for a full week in the fridge that are actually pretty good, thank you very much. :halo:
Reply to Jamal :wink: I'll come around to your place for some smoked haddock any time.
I'm the only one in the house who appreciates such things - I was roundly chastised for "making the whole house stink" with my simple tinned kippers. :sad:
I generally refrain from involving myself in discussions of Neitszche, beyond the passing reference.
Aye, you've mentioned before. I was kinda providing you the location of the line in question without clarifying if you knew or not. I know a lot of people come across passing quotes of Nietzsche and don't know the surrounding text. If you already do, so much the better!
Take any doodle, enlarge it 400 times, and it becomes art.
If I take a doodle, reduce it down 400x to a microscopic level, it would remain a doodle, albeit very tiny. Then, should I multiply it times 400 now to its original size, would it now be "art" per your definition that "any" doodle so multiplied be art?
If that be the case, all doodle be art.
My larger point is thus:
Take any post, enlarge it 400x, and it becomes philosophy.
An unconvincing intellectual affect in speech should too be expected because to better assist in the conflation of inflation with depth.
The "new home for TPF" thread is getting mighty gnarly. So much possibility, so much to ponder over and consider. Remember to do so after eating a good meal!
"Roasted Red Pepper Filet Mignon (with Lemon-Garlic Tortellini Primavera)":
Not bad for something that came in the mail, no? :eyes:
If I take a doodle, reduce it down 400x to a microscopic level, it would remain a doodle, albeit very tiny. Then, should I multiply it times 400 now to its original size, would it now be "art" per your definition that "any" doodle so multiplied be art?
It would be art for an ant. They would walk around going, "Wow, it's huge."
If I take a doodle, reduce it down 400x to a microscopic level, it would remain a doodle, albeit very tiny. Then, should I multiply it times 400 now to its original size, would it now be "art" per your definition that "any" doodle so multiplied be art?
I’m not sure, but I think this might be metaphysics.
Lettuce is an antioxidant, containing various compounds like vitamins C and A, beta-carotene, phenolic acids, and flavonoids that help protect the body from oxidative stress.
For lunch, I experimented. I made a sort of Turkish chicken liver kebab thing. Great success.
Chicken liver, chopped quite smallly, mixed with spices (cumin, garam masala, paprika), green chilis, garlic, flour, parsley, olive oil, lemon juice, and cilantro. Fried in a slab then served in a lepyoshka with raw onion, cabbage, and tomato.
I sometimes eat cos lettuce with bell peppers. Just add a bit of the best olive oil and salt you have in your kitchen, and ta-da! You get a magnificent dish.
So, today is Thanksgiving! May I join you, Hanover?
I was about to join Clarky and his family, but the damn plane got cancelled... I hate when this happens! The transport doesn't work when you need it the most.
Reply to javi2541997 Yes, this works perfectly. We have dinner reservations at 5:30, so I'll call and add one (let me know if you need more, like if your extended family is coming). I'm in Denver where my youngest son is. We all flew out here.
Your flight details will follow, and do text me when your plane lands. A limo will await you. Eric will be holding up a "Javi" sign for as you exit the plane into the terminal so he can assist with your luggage. I had him learn Spanish to better assist you. He'll take you to your lodging, and please let me know how many rooms you will need and any food allergies I should know about.
Let me know your fresh flower preference as well.
From your entire Denver travel team, we wish you relaxing travels and an amazing Thanksgiving and look forward to your arrival!!
I'm in Denver where my youngest son is. We all flew out here.
Wow! I always dreamed of visiting Denver. I can't believe this dream is coming true. My tears are falling. Please, say thank you to your youngest son for allowing me to join you. I promise I will be a delightful guest. However, please understand that my level of English may limit my ability to engage in fluent conversations. But this is fine – just leave me in the corner of the table, eating whatever you serve.
I just landed. I took a supersonic flying object that only Spaniards can see and experience.
Eric is there. He lives at Gate C-33 next to the Cinnabon stand. Take your time adjusting your face after the G-force from the flight, and Eric will be happy to get you to your suite.
The country ham. You can buy the pre-cooked slices as well. It's a breakfast food. Salty and chewy, not my taste.
My father loved it. You fry it and it smells terrible. Then you scrape the bottom of the pan and make red eye gravy. Then you eat it and your blood pressure goes up 50 points. I liked it, but it was so salty. I could only eat a little.
Reply to Banno It's a heavy watch, but I remained engaged the entire length of the film. Great acting and writing. There's a scene where they watch actual footage of the death camps and those are very disturbing -- as they've always been and I thought it fitting in the film, just worth mentioning that it really is very heavy (which is why I liked it, of course). So be in the right mood. (I hadn't heard of it either, it was my brother who recommended it)
What's smashed potatoes? Do they take a hammer to the potatoes before cooking them?
A joyful question! That deserves an equally joyful answer. Regrettably I have none to bring.
[hide="Reveal"]"Herb Gravy Chicken & Smashed Potatoes" with Green Beans and Apple Crumble [/hide]
It just seemed like mashed potatoes with a few "chunks" or small slices with skin attached, which while admittedly does elevate the dish a fair amount, remains identical to other, much more well-known nomenclature such as "steakhouse style" mashed potatoes, for example. A rose of a different name, perhaps.
I also just realize I ate all of the chicken before trying some highly-raved English mustard with it as I placed it thusly so as to try.
Right, and she just graduated medical school and so she's now Dr. Pepper, Dr. Bell fucking Pepper. She lives in the pantry next to Aunt Jemimah and Uncle Ben, just across the liquor cabinet from Jim Beam and Jack Daniel.
My wife entered the house yesterday and joyfully called out, "come and see what I've got for you snookums!"
I went to see, expecting a rare luxury or exotic treat, but it was a cabbage, the biggest I've ever seen. It must be a foot in diameter.
I never let food go to waste so she has basically forced me to think of something to make with it. I do like cabbage but I need a recipe that's going to use a lot of it.
Being Russian she suggests I pickle it. It's probably the best idea. Sauerkraut or similar.
Reply to Moliere Dryslaw will keep for days. Just slice and mix the cabbage, carrot, add apple and onion and and so on, add a bit of lemon for the acid and keep it in the fridge. It doesn't need anything else, but add mayo when serving if you like.
In the fridge, a head of cabbage will keep from the fall until the spring. It's incredible, I don't know how it does it.
Sauerkraut may be your best option here though. I suggest you purchase a 10-20 gallon crock (minor expense), grab a few more monster cabbages, and make a real go of it. The stuff literally keeps forever, and very good for you.
If it turns out that you hate sauerkraut, as many do, that could be a bit of a problem. However the crock pot will remain useful for many different exotic fermented dishes, or to make wort for the still.
You can't go wrong with cabbage rolls. Put whatever you like in there, but it will take a long time to use up a monster head. Oh well, buy lots of bacon, keep the cabbage in the fridge, and peel off a few leaves every day.
I do like cabbage but I need a recipe that's going to use a lot of it.
I have fond memories of cabbage soup growing up.
I always disliked the cabbage itself, picking out the individual pieces from the soup as I would eat it, but apparently it was responsible for bestowing a quality of flavor to the underlying soup that I craved, somehow. Hey, now that I think about it, I suppose that makes me somewhat of the poster child for picky eaters. :smile:
Let's see, now... there was seasoned ground beef. Stewed tomatoes. Red kidney beans. Some light colored bean. Salt and pepper, of course. Hot sauce, I think? There was more to it, I think. But those are definitely the base ingredients. It was pretty good. One of my all time favorite foods from childhood. I don't know much about the stock or broth other than it was dark red as an end result. Maroon. Burgundy, perhaps? One of those.
Why, you've helped me unlock a memory. Thanks @Jamal's wife!
"I am sure that I should have made a very poor professor of Philosophy, because, after my first enthusiasm, I found modern philosophy to be nothing more than a logomachy [an argument about words], believed in by its professors, chiefly because they had to make their living out of it."
"Logomachy: A Look at a Nineteenth-Century Card Game (1874)"
http://thegibsonhousemuseum.blogspot.com/2016/02/logomachy-look-at-nineteenth-century.html
An early predecessor to Scrabble, perhaps? :chin:
Found one on eBay going for around 250 USD. Something I might be interested in, if resources weren't better spent elsewhere at the moment.
Dreadful. I hope you can make better life choices in the future.
The bacteria Xanthomonas campestris, which produces xanthan gum, lives on cabbage. Here's an article which shows how to use cabbage to improve the production of xanthan. If your cabbage is big enough, you might consider a sideline in the production of food additives.
Cabbage leaves placed on the breasts relieve the engorgement pain after weaning. I carry a few such leaves in my manbag to assist recent weaning mothers I happen by who seem distressed. I find that a compassionate response for those women at the tail end of the breeding process, and a thank you for their reproductive efforts.
I then offer them some xantham chewing gum to freshen their maternal breath.
Reply to frank Possibly he just has his spinnerets on his hands. Having to take off your underpants in order to jump or throw a net would be inconvenient.
When the new software comes, you will be reset to 0 and we'll all be equal once again. This date comes only once after 7 cycles of 7 years on the 7th month upon the sounding of the bugle and the clock is reset with the coming of the Jubilee.
A spider web comes out of the spider's butt, so Spiderman is factually incorrect.
The liquid pre-spun web is called dope and it has been extracted and artificially spun into web for the creation of silk and sutures.
Injecting dope into Peter Parker's anus for emission would create too thick of a strand (in fact it'd be rope like) and it would be permeated with fecal matter. Injecting it into his penis would make the silk easier to aim and the strand would be thinner. Whether one would rather swing from an ass rope or a dick rope is a matter of personal preference.
From what I've seen of them, the Marvel and other movies consist of folk hitting each other, against a backdrop that is needlessly complicated and somewhat blurry, until one of them gets hit so hard he can't get up.
They seem to be all about politics as it now functions in the USA.
From what I've seen of them, the Marvel and other movies consist of folk hitting each other, against a backdrop that is needlessly complicated and somewhat blurry, until one of them gets hit so hard he can't get up
Close.
There is always the tragic backstory which justifies the hitting :D
And the tale of overcoming something or other depending on the hero. . .
The form to read superhero movies in is the soap opera, I think, with a focus upon coming of age stories.
When I first went to the Caucasus, which is populated by many Turkic peoples, I was so naive and innocent that I had never experienced Turkish coffee made the traditonal way in sand. At that time, I hadn't been to Turkey. I casually asked for a coffee and then the woman put a pot in a sandpit; I had no idea what was going on.
Later on I stayed in Kazakhstan (also Turkic) for 6 weeks and the only coffee-making equipment in the apartment was a cezve, so I took to drinking Turkish coffee for a while. Good stuff, but normally I just settle for French press or moka pot, with the coffee freshly ground.
I have a cezve, but I usually use an old saucepan on the induction - so I can make a decent quantity. Not so authentic, but I can make it while still half asleep...
Reply to Jamal true, but being copper they don't work so well on the induction plate. The small one is also unstable on the trivet on the gas. I suppose I should look for a large one with a steel insert for induction...
The trials and compromises of middle-class suburban life...
Look at this marvellous, very big beer glass. Just enjoy its aesthetically shape. I don't know how many beer bottles we need to fill it up. Perhaps we could fill it with two or three of those large beer bottles on the right.
However, the point is that a craftsman made this big beer glass with a purpose, and not only for enjoying our favourite beers.
I never drank much coffee. I do enjoy the 65 mg caffeine dose per pill (x 2) in my Excedrine when needed though.
The peculiar—and at times, perverse—machinations of your mind should be enough to keep any man awake at any time of the day. Judging by your infamous short stories, at least. :wink:
Reply to Hanover Medication is as always a balancing act. Migraine are dreadful, but so is intestinal bleeding. So long as you understand the risk. I hope it works for you.
However, the point is that a craftsman made this big beer glass with a purpose, and not only for enjoying our favourite beers.
Why would you say that. There's nothing wrong with drinking beer from a huge glass. I can't say I have one quite that big though. But why wouldn't the glass be intended precisely for that purpose? It might take two hands to hold, but when you're drinking beer it's better to keep your hands well occupied.
Reply to Banno The cabbage came out well. Wilted it in olive oil and butter (that was used to brown the sausage) with onion and garlic, then simmered it in chicken broth, giving a silky, creamy texture.
If I had used bacon, I could have omitted the oil and butter and just used the bacon grease, but that sounded heavy.
The cabbage came out well. Wilted it in olive oil and butter (that was used to brown the sausage) with onion and garlic, then simmered it in chicken broth, giving a silky, creamy texture.
If I had used bacon, I could have omitted the oil and butter and just used the bacon grease, but that sounded heavy.
Barrels of beer are safe and effective when used as directed.
Indeed, they are. :up:
I remember I had a barrel of Mahou beer in my house a few years ago. We never had an accident at home.
I placed it on a bench on my small terrace, and I would go there at lunchtime or whenever I desired a beer.
The fact is that I decided to stop buying beer barrels because the experience was similar to drinking from a can or bottle. So, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth having a beer barrel in my tiny terrace.
But why wouldn't the glass be intended precisely for that purpose? It might take two hands to hold, but when you're drinking beer it's better to keep your hands well occupied.
Perhaps.
But not only would you need two hands to drink from that big glass but also a big mouth!
However, I have a deep affinity for my local beers and will always favour those brewed in Madrid. :razz:
So, if you come to my house one day, you will probably find Estrella Galicia in the fridge, but Mahou will be the star. :cool:
One anecdote: I was in the Mahou brewery last summer. It is a "skyline" in a business city block. The old brewery is now a library, and it is located next to Manzanares (our regional river).
Anyway, it was fun. I remember they were brewing new styles of beer – IPA, for example. Yet what I liked the most was drinking straight from an old cask barrel. Wow, the beer tasted amazing!
In the 19th century there were 40 breweries in Edinburgh. All the large breweries have gone, and it's only micro-breweries operating now. When I went into my former favourite pub last year I felt viscerally alienated when I ordered a Caledonian 80 and the barman had never heard of it. My discomfort was not just in the fact that the Caledonian brewery had closed and the beer had been replaced by newer beers, but that the barman was so young that by the time he started going to pubs, Calie 80 had already been forgotten.
I explained in a friendly way that I'd been out of the country for a long time and wasn't used to the new beer landscape, that Calie 80 was one of the most popular beers in Edinburgh as recently as 15 years ago. He looked at me with an unmistakable I don't give a shit expression and finally said, "so what can I get you?"
Reply to Jamal I never heard of Calie 80 when I was in Edinburgh, so I understand your melancholic feeling that this beer is almost forgotten. I share your feelings when your favourite local beer disappears. In Madrid we had a very nice one called "Virgen" but the brewery closed because they were operating without an alcohol and distillery licence. Alas! The beers were amazing, but they are now almost forgotten.
By the way, it is important to say that Scottish beer is pretty good. Scotland is known for whisky, but I truly believe that beers also have excellent potential. "Tennent's Stout" is amazing; Innis & Gunn is nice; Belhaven Scottish Ale, etc. But I understand your point. Those brands are industrialised, and the feel of a local brewery or pub is lacking.
Reply to Banno Well, here on top there were beer joints that played that sort of music too; and I don't know of many bars, save a few here and there, where the Beer Barrel Polka would be often asked for.
Reply to Jamal Many local beer brands have disappeared in the US, too -- or some sort of beer under the old brand is being produced by a contract brewery. (This was going on here 30 years ago, not just last year). Now the microbreweries do provide local brews, but a number of them have gone out of business recently. Only so many trendy beer guzzlers per square mile. There was an over supply of trendy coffee shops too, and there has been a necessary die-off in that market sector too.
I like Stella Artois. Shipping bottles of beer from Belgium to here is of course highly un-ecological. Tough. They are one of the oldest continually operating businesses in the world, not to be confused with the oldest operating profession.
Reply to Jamal Your tale of loss sparked in me a deep study of the Wikipedia Scottish beer history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_in_Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Brewery
5,000 years of brewing history, leading to its heyday in the mid 1800s due to lower taxes exacted by the English, to the mega-breweries (like the cursed Dutchmen of Heineken) shuttering them due to inefficiencies inherent in the Victorian era breweries, to today's resurgence of micro-breweries.
A barchild though, oblivious to his ancestry and the sacred beer soaked soil upon which he stands, as you attempt in vain to pass down your heritage, "Right, hurry yersel’ — lager or ale? I’ve no’ got all bloody day."
He looked at me with an unmistakable I don't give a shit expression and finally said, "so what can I get you?"
I mean, you make it sound like he's just some kid. What's a young kid supposed to say about a topic he knows nothing about? What would you say about a topic you know nothing about? Barmen see things that frankly warp the mind's view of humanity—fairly often depending on the location. Sure, he could've put on an extra air of showmanship and performed for you, or for the possible tip you may have given for good conversation, the kind that makes even a total stranger feel welcome. That was his mistake.
How were you dressed? You seem like you might go the humble route and be donned in something purposefully unimpressive. To some young bartenders, tips are their bread and butter, so perhaps he—in his callous assumption—overlooked the man for his idea of the man. Happens quite often. In just about every sphere of life. I wouldn't take it personally. :confused:
I mean, you make it sound like he's just some kid. What's a young kid supposed to say about a topic he knows nothing about?
The purpose of the interaction with the bartender apparently was to inform those with an interest of the history of Edinburgh brewing and the lack of interest of the past within the new generation, all of which was fulfilled by the appearance of the story here in the Shoutbox .
The bartender relegated himself to a mere vehicle for our getting this information by his not giving a fuck.
Reply to Outlander Since he is a barman of a pub, I think he must have more knowledge of Edinburgh beers and Scottish breweries. If we go to a distillery, you would like to be attended by someone who shows knowledge on whisky and related stuff, right?
I don't want to sound mean, but I think that the young barman behaved like a twat with Jamal. A very common behaviour of the people of my generation, sorrowfully. :meh:
"Right, hurry yersel’ — lager or ale? I’ve no’ got all bloody day."
According to Kim Mitchell, it's correctly spoken as: "Lager and Ale". The implication being that you can't say which one you prefer until you drink them both, so don't waste valuable drinking time trying to decide.
"Late weekend night and I'm at the Bojar Grill
I got decisions to be made between lager and ale."
Sweet potato fritters with ricotta cheese. The key is to finish the fritters in the air fryer so they're warm and crunchy, then they go really well with the cheese.
I was playing around with AI and asked it to extrapolate the way English would look in the year 3500 based upon how it has evolved over the past 1,500 years or so. According to AI and the articles I could locate, languages compress over time, with the more "evolved" languages showing great reliance upon contextual clues and less extraneous words like articles and the like. Mandarin, for example, is a highly compresed language, which is why native speakers translate English in a compressed way. As in they might say, "I bring two chair" instead of "I will bring you two chairs," often eliminating pronouns, plural designations and the like.
As an interesting aside, you can also ask AI to speak English as a Russian, French, German, or whatever would. It gives a quick understanding of how other languages use word order, emphasis, and so on.
Anyway, this got me to thinking, which is that one would expect one's internal langauge to be highly compressed, meaning it need not adhere to conventional grammar in order to be language, but it would need to adhere to some sort of grammar to be a rule oriented language (per Wittgenstein).
For example, to say "brick" while pointing to a brick could mean "hand me that brick" or "that is a brick" or "watch out, there's a brick in the road," etc. That is a highly compressed sentence, dependant upon context and even gesture.
Consider, "the egg dropped," which means "there is yolk on the floor that needs to be cleaned up," and yet there is no mention of yolks, floors, or cleaning in the text itself. If I shrug when I see it, that might mean, "you need to pay better attention next time, and you're the one that needs to clean that up, not me."
This then raises the question of what linguistic process goes in in my head when I arrive at a propositional truth. It might be so highly compressed it would not appear as language at all, but as long as it is translatable into a longer expression, that it began compressed does not matter.
I think this might be where some confusion arises where people refer to their internal processes as mentalese. It's not. It's just highly compressed language. True mentalese would be pure experience, like pain, not reducible into langauage at all.
Thoughts? You think this thread worthy? (note the compression here: As opposed to: Do you think that this post is worthy to be posted in the main section outside the lounge? Consider text speak as well.
Well, I was in my daily routine of reading random Wikipedia articles when suddenly this image popped up:
It was a bilingual public-service advertising campaign.
I felt threatened. But I read that the spot was a soap opera called The Decision or Julio and Marisol, published as comic frames in the New York City Subway, which ran from 1989 to 2001.
I love when subways do these public-service awareness things. The old lady reminds me of someone famous; The Golden Girls or something.
I think this might be where some confusion arises where people refer to their internal processes as mentalese. It's not. It's just highly compressed language. True mentalese would be pure experience, like pain, not reducible into langauage at all.
Pinker writes about this in “The Language Instinct.” He does believe in a pre-conscious, pre-verbal mental language—mentalese. If I remember correctly, it is not just compressed regular language and it’s not just “pure experience.”
This is science, not philosophy. I doubt anyone here knows enough to have a credible opinion.
Well, two things: (1) @javi2541997 said to make it a thread, so I did. I will always listen to him over you because we have an unspoken agreement, although I feel like I might have just spoken it, and (2) I don't think it's ultimately science, and I think that is where much confusion arises. Once you realize that it's truly analytic philosophy at it's base, it's easier to follow. That is, it consists of a complex interplay of definitions and adherence to logical consistency. Its refusal to engage in metaphysical analysis is just to say, "I am not here to say anything about the world." It speaks about what it can speak about.
I don't think it's ultimately science, and I think that is where much confusion arises. Once you realize that it's truly analytic philosophy at it's base, it's easier to follow. That is, it consists of a complex interplay of definitions and adherence to logical consistency. Its refusal to engage in metaphysical analysis is just to say, "I am not here to say anything about the world." It speaks about what it can speak about.
Since Christmas is the time where we ought to share with others, I think it would be a wonderful idea to crack one of those [I]Spiced Ginger Beer[/I] bottles between you and me. Cheers, Banno!
I love ginger beer, and the Bundaberg version is quite good, though a little mild for my taste. I prefer Old Jamaica, although I didn't appreciate their recent marketing trick, announcing they're ceasing production only to reveal a rebranding later on.
How would you describe it to someone not familiar with ginger? Is it earthy? Bitter? I notice it has levels of what I assume to be "spiciness." Is that unique to "Old Jamaica" or intrinsic/standard to ginger beer itself?
notice it has levels of what I assume to be "spiciness." Is that unique to "Old Jamaica" or intrinsic/standard to ginger beer itself?
Standard and intrinsic to (good) ginger beer, and to ginger itself.
If you're not familiar with ginger, here is something to try. Go and buy some fresh ginger root, slice it up and put it in a tea pot with some honey and lemon slices, pour over hot water and leave it for 10 minutes, then pour and drink. The longer you leave it to infuse, the spicier it will be.
Alternatively, just get a ginger root, cut into it and snort it.
There are a few spicy roots in the world aside from ginger. Radish, horseradish, galangal, wasabi ... probably more.
NOTE TO EVERYONE: I do not want to hear any of your that's-not-a-root-it's-a-rhizome bollocks. This is the language game of food, not botany.
There are a few spicy roots in the world aside from ginger. Radish, horseradish, galangal, wasabi ... probably more.
I call my wife my little spicy root. She giggles and then flips her hair. So cute.
Sassafras makes for a tea, but I've never had it. Sarsaparilla is another root drink. I don't think they're related, but they are both sassy by nature. Just like my wifie. She giggles when she drinks it and then flips her hair. So cute.
I think that's what they use for root beer. Every time I think of root beer I think of drinking root beer out of big glasses at an A&W burger joint in a valley nestled among the mountains of Vancouver Island. Here is a photo of me and my ladyfriend at the time, who was a sassy Canadian:
As you probably watched on TV when you were in Spain, it appears that Don Simón's tinto de verano is the best. They do an overwhelming marketing and advertising campaign every summer. Well, this is not true. I think the best tinto de verano is the one we make at home. :smile:
The way I talk informally, bullshit can be bollocks, but on TPF I try to reserve bullshit for non-bollocks, in line with Frankfurt, although bullshit can probably be bollocks in any case, and vice versa.
[Intentional failure to make the use/mention distinction]
Reply to Jamal I tend to use "cobblers", which amounts to the same thing, and agree with your reservations regarding "bullshit", which should now be considered a technical term.
Reply to Jamal
The A&W root beer is excellent, served in a frost covered glass, straight out of the freezer, which causes ice crystals in the foam. My parents used to by a one gallon brown jug at A&W, bring it home with vanilla ice cream, and serve us a root beer float, as a very special treat.
My parents used to by a one gallon brown jug at A&W, bring it home with vanilla ice cream, and serve us a root beer float, as a very special treat.
Nice and sweet childhood memory. Thanks for sharing it with us, MU.
I remember when my parents brought "Champin" to parties when I was a kid. It is a zero-alcohol drink, very bubbly, similar to champagne. Hence, the name "Champin".
The point was to not leave me behind in the cheering or celebrations. It was fun.
Comments (63126)
Other than that they're social and intelligent, they're just like you.
Just gentle ribbing between post mates.
I’ll admit it, it’s the loudness I like best.
... most of the time without understanding!
I was at the vet this morning, and a cat sitting in the lounge chair wouldn't let me sit down. :sad:
I’m sure everyone here on the forum would agree that you deserve a real human doctor.
But it is easier for me to communicate with animals rather than with humans.
My cat is fully conversant, understands everything, listens intently, never speaks, and does what she was going to do anyway.
If my cat was a lion and she spoke, I wouldn't understand her, but she's a cat, so I would.
She's currently on the mat iff she is.
You mean she is resting or lying on the mat, right? Because I too rest on my rug occasionally.
I found a photo of you on your bear skin rug.
1) What is going on with my eyebrows? :lol:
2) That AI-generated mate looks Macedonian or Byzantine, something I really like. :starstruck:
Been there, done that. Lots of fun if there are two of them. :grin:
Bread dough
Sobao batter
Both. It's up to consumer's preferences. :halo:
I don't particularly like that. Then again, I don't particularly like a lot of things.
Thoughts?
Quoting javi2541997
I have to say I've never heard that type of measurement before. What is a "zest"? Does it have a weight? Is it indescribable or otherwise varies from lemon to lemon and so warranted this new, haphazard form and term of measurement? If I'm out of sugar and just need a tiny bit to complete whatever it is I'm preparing, can I go to my neighbor and ask for "one zest's worth" of the stuff?
I will have to do more research on this.
However, reverso.net uses the following example: [i]Add the zest of one lemon and slices of lemon on top of the salmon.[/I]
So, I guess that the zest is the result of putting a lemon in a grater.
I often use lemon zest. Outlander seems to be quite unfamiliar with food.
So, would you try to cook a sobao? :yum:
It comes from the French word zeste, which originally meant the peel of a citrus fruit.
I come from a simplistic background. Food is not guaranteed from one day to the next. Well, that's not entirely true in my current given circumstance. But I don't let such happenstance delude myself into thinking that's how the world is, has to be, or would be organically. It's called humility.
What piqued my interest was (though perhaps it was his unintended formatting) the idea of "1 zest of lemon", as if it was a predetermined or widely-established and formal measurement.
Otherwise, I just put a "squirt of lemon juice" either from an actual lemon or a commercially manufactured container of such. Though, lemon pepper seasoning (powdered) is pretty good as well in most instances.
I looked it up. Presumably that's just a grinding or shredding from the skin of one lemon. Now I know. I owe you both my thanks, I suppose.
If you put a gun to my head, sure. I'd definitely eat it, even without the gun.
I don't really like baking, you see. I cook savoury dishes only. Oh, and jam.
Ah, you misread it:
Quoting javi2541997
I was about to reply: "Thank you, Jamal. Your knowledge of entomology and language itself is not only legendary but worthy of being revered—nay, envied—by all." Though perhaps that's more of that "saying the same thing twice" I've been scolded about before.
Man, your avatar's have grown to become eerily (or perhaps bewilderingly) similar.
:up: :up:
Sobaos are peaceful; you will get along pretty well with them.
Reverse seared. Interesting! What does that offer as far as taste, texture, or perhaps even nutrition, or anything else? Is it just something fun to do or does it have measurable utility? Depends on the foodstuff, I would imagine?
Alas, my only greens these days are from bagged salads (which I never get to, seeing as they barely last 3 days), the lettuce in the sub sandwiches at the one local shop we have, and if I go into the nearest town to get a burger. I'm a bit of a meat and cheese man, myself.
I suppose I could just eat grass. Works for cows. Or, try those "nutrient powder mixes" that all have the word "green" in the name. Yes, perhaps I should do that.
As an aside. I would have quite enjoyed seeing a photo of your meal as prepared. Some of the staff here do that occasionally. And it's always a delight. Living vicariously, or perhaps a latent voyeur inclination I need to keep an eye on, but whatever it is. It's always fun to see what other people have going on. I understand, particularly for folks of advanced age or habit, the process is a bit burdensome, if not difficult. But if you're ever able to find the time to do so, it would certainly not go without appreciation. :smile:
Only the dirty pan remains I’m afraid—residue of olive oil, balsamic, white vinegar, salt & pepper, and some Momofuku chilli crunch.
In other news, I purchased a 5 gallon bucket of laundry detergent. Buying in bulk saves time and readies me for the end of times. I then needed to move it from that bucket to a 5 gallon container with a spigot so that I could then pour it into a quart sized container that could easily be poured into my washer.
My first idea was to buy a $10 battery operated pump that is propeller driven. It moved water very well, but it could not begin to pull detergent of such viscosity. I spent a good deal of time then learning about types of pumps and their viscosity tolerance.
I was to find out that a propeller driven pump would never work, but that a suction based pump would be needed. Some pumps required an air compressor to operate and others a 12 volt power source I'd have to purchase.
The time and money commitment was making me rethink my money saving buy in bulk strategy.
I then settled on a manual pump, which I show above. It worked very well, and it did require some strength (which I have an abundance of) to suck the detergent from one container to the other.
My thought is that one day there will be a water flood issue and everyone will be at a loss as to how to remove the water and I'll heroically arrive with my water pump, saving the day.
In the meantime, the pump hides itself on a garage shelf, just because it's easier to explain this episode to you guys than my wife. The 5 gallon bucket of detergent that sits prominently on the laundry room floor already took a bit of explaining.
Happy you've found a viable solution. However, in the future, why not consider the Archimedes's screw? One and done.
It'll move anything liquid, or even solid, if small and spherical enough to pass through the size of the chamber shaft.
Suction is far better. It lifts airplanes off the ground.
I suppose I could carve the screw from a wax block, pack clay around the wax, put that in a kiln and drain out the melted wax, then pour molten steel into the emptied mold, cool it and then break away the hardened clay and thereby fashion my own screw, then create a cylinder with perfect clearances, and from that make my own pump.
Today I learned flour is combustible. Though I never considered using a loaf of bread as an improvised explosive before, it is no wonder the aristocrats strive to keep large quantities of bread from us peasants. We simply do not know any better and legally speaking could not be blamed for whatever we may cause as a result of being left to our own devices.
Life gets stranger every day. I'll tell you what.
Not just flour, whole grains in general. Silos and other facilities for storing grain require special protection to prevent dust explosions caused by flammable dust in poorly vented enclosed spaces.
We use to do something like this with plastic paint buckets to feed the spray gun up on a roof.
We just opened two holes in an old bucket lid, a small one for a car tire valve and a larger one for the pipe where the paint comes out. All of the piping and fittings can be PVC.
we used to place the full bucket inside an empty bucket to reinforce it and wrap a cinch strap over the lid to hold it down. A small 12v. emergency car compressor (that you probably have in your car already) can de used to push the liquid out of the big container to the little one. Once you have the lid and connections made you can just put it onto any other bucket. The video gives you an idea how it works.
Or you can shop around next time.
https://www.valuevigormart.com/product-p-504986.html
Imagine this. You're throwing a party, you've concocted a thick smoothie tequila surprise, you fill a (new) garbage container with it, you put my mega pump through the lid, and with one quick pump and you fill a red Dixie cup with a pint of it. That's bad ass. I mean the first 20 or 30 will taste like detergent, but after that, totally bad ass.
Oh yeah, my brother read about that when we were kids. And of course, we had to test it out. Boy does it ever blow! Sometimes I wonder how I ever managed to make it to adulthood.
In college, this guy filled a record album sleeve (old school vinyl album cover) with powder and put it under some guy's dorm door and then stomped on it, creating a heaven like effect in the room. We enjoyed the outcome and were prepared to share it with others, but someone told us it could combust and leave us all dead, creating a more literal heaven effect, so we chose other mischief.
You mean a hell effect don't you? And I thought shaving cream was the best way to create the hell-like situation.
We used it for kind of heavy wait latex paint and even industrial ship grade paints without problems, even pushing it up 20 or so feet. You could also try putting the bucket on a shelf with a hose and valve directly to the washing machine.
Quoting Hanover
Please remind me to always arrive late at your place for cocktails. :lol: :rofl:
Nice. Maybe hang it from the ceiling and dress it up like a disco ball.
I had a friend who rigged his wiper fluid hose back into the car so that he could serve himself drinks by pulling back the wiper control. Probably had the same issue with the first few drinks tasting like wiper fluid.
As I recall, you guys sell it by the kiloliter, which is roughly a quart and then there's the euro to dollar thing. My guess is that our gas (as we call it) is cheaper than yours, but when I was Portugal, the prices for food and lodging was really low comparitvely.
I just wanted to put a random picture of my local gas station because I was waiting in my car without knowing what to do. :halo:
Neutralized
Lurking, biding their time, planning their attack strategy from a secret lair. Hardly seems worth it, considering the result.
Would this be the aesthetics of epistemology?
If they were planning on taking me to Indonesia I wish they'd said something. I'd like to go one day.
Australians never have anything good to say about Bali! What I know about it is mainly through my interest in gamelan, although of course I'm aware of the presence of foreign hippies and pissheads.
I am now considering nasi goreng for breakfast, as I'm quite close to a restaurant that serves it.
I think that might be a misinterpretation... the things about which we never have anything good to say are very often the things we love most. That Celtic irony stuff is deeply ingrained. Gamelan is wonderful. We use it and Tibetan Bowls for relaxation.
Quoting Jamal
...you know that was their plan all along... cunning.
I understand :up:
:brow:
You think we should be dancing?
Sorry, you guys do your own thing. I withdraw my cultural imperialism.
There's also an alien that is just an eyeball with legs who seeks to pull out the eye of a host and take over its brain.
Wait, what happened? Why does all the fun stuff happen the day after I quit drinking and return to my mundane life as a programmer and visionary.
Quoting frank
That seems difficult with just legs. Perhaps they're multi-functional. And thanks for spoiling the best part. It's obvious how it ends. All these movies end the same. Humans win. Totally unrealistic. But people like fancy graphics and colorful imagery coupled with rehashed plot lines that haven't been used in a few decades so it'll likely be top-rated.
[sup]— The Onion · Oct 29, 2025[/sup]
Donald Trump wants the US navy to return to the steam age and these 13 comebacks were properly boiling
[sup]— John Plunkett · The Poke · Oct 29, 2025[/sup]
I emphatically disagree with your statement that the laws of nature have no existence!
Where can i find these laws, so I can read, interpret, and decide whether or not to follow them? And if they have no morality or legal standing why would anything bother to read them, or follow them?
Try any physics handbook, it should contain a few of these laws. It is not your decision to follow them or not - you are subject to them. Whether you like it or not.
They have as much existence as any philosophy - even more so.
Agreed. I guess a natural follow up question would be to ask how that judgment is carried out. What was thrown off by one set gets to be a problem for another.
If you replace "theism" with "religion" it would work better, no?
But even then, beliefs, which are true or false, matter to a lot of religious people.
The laws of physics are descriptions concerning the interactions of inanimate objects. These descriptions do not apply to the freely willed acts of living beings. Therefore I am not subject to them. And when I use them to figure something out, they are subject to my actions, as my tools, not vise versa. I think you are a little confused on this matter Peter.
I think the more generic the better, which would suggest "belief" be substituted for "religion," and then theism just being a specific example of religion and belief.
The reason I think "theism" is more provocative in my quote is that it faces atheism more head on, but that's admittedly just rhetorical value, not substantive.
I don't know if what I've said is just a restatement of James's will to believe or if something is added by my form of life reference, suggesting the proof of a belief"s value might be tied to its public performance.
Or, I might just be articulating my own religious beliefs in secular terms unknowingly and thinking I've discovered something new. We all need internal justification for our beliefs. Might as well be self aware of it.
You are not subject to gravity ... how odd
But I would like to know your thoughts, friends.
I've seen much worse, so I'll have to agree with your father.
In American it's called a windshield.
:up:
I am going to tell him right now because we were having a heated discussion. Everything started because my father skipped a gas station purposely. I told him it was our chance to clean it because there weren't many cars, and perhaps the rest of the gas stations are full.
But now we are more relaxed with your opinion and point. Thanks, Jamal!
I knew. But here is called "parabrisas" and reverso gave me a lot of translated options and I chose the coolest. :cool:
Any time
Then they started adding self serve lanes. Then they eliminated the full service lanes. That was the beginning of the end. Now we talk to bots like they're people. It's very sad. At least you had a real life conversation with your dad today, even if it was a heated argument over whether you should clean your windscreen that should have been called a windshield.
I see why you feel nostalgic. Those times seemed to be beautiful, and you miss the human interaction which is likely forbidden in today's society. You have good memories of your dad but also of the filling station worker, and this is very gorgeous. We never had that kind of modern stuff where our cars made a dinging sound after they were filled up. However, I also miss the rumbling noise that the filling station used to make. Now, it appears that everything has lost its soul because we only focused on dehumanising everything.
The other day I was in a hardware shop because I wanted to make copies of my keys. The owner started to draw the shape with his hand. I almost started to cry because of his human ability. He didn't ask the AI or whatever.
*shudders in remembrance of your last short story*
I lost my key a long time ago and keep my garage door unlocked. It's been unlocked for years. Sometimes, like if a repair person needs to come over and I'm not in, I tell them they can just walk in, but they won't do it. They think they might get bitten by my dog or they'll get shot. It might be that an unlocked door is scarier than a locked one because they think either someone's home or that they're being set up.
So take my advice and just leave your door swinging in the wind.
But granting a right as an entitlement is not.
Your formulation is a common justification for denial of deserved protections.
When I was probably 6 or 7, I would walk up to the gas station and convenience store about a mile from my house and buy candy. My mom would watch me cross the street and I'd come home a while later. They don't let kids do that any more. They'd probably call the police if they saw little kids unattended. I don't know that's gotten less safe though really. We didn't wear seatbelts or wear bicycle helmets. We ate pure sugar cereal every morning. We left the house in the morning and returned when the street lights came on at night. I feel like I'm part of the last generation that cared enough about their kids to leave them alone to grow up.
I saw this documentary on TV of an African village that was provided running water, but everytime the system broke, they went back to their old way. They enjoyed the convenience, but they refused to become dependent on it. We get a phone that can track our every move and it immediately becomes and indespensible part of responsible parenting. There were commercials on TV when I was a kid that would say, "It's ten o'clock, do you know where your kids are?" And they would run them at different times. As in, there was a time when parents had to be reminded to round up their kids and get them home.
Good times.
I was that guy, for nearly half a day. I actually got paid an unmemorable amount. ( It might have been ten shillings, which was nearly half a guinea!)
——————————————————————————————————————
"An aphorism in the shoutbox is worth two in the thunderbox."
This is the phenomenon known as "inflation".
You have been warmed.
————————————————
Two what?
Pretty nostalgic, indeed.
We all have familiar memories. Since you shared one special memory with me, I am going to share another nostalgic memory:
Christmas dinner (In Spain, we celebrate Christmas at night I think I have already said this in The Shoutbox) has always been celebrated in my home. I watched a TV show or film (I can't remember) about human sacrifices. In my innocent mind, I had the confusing idea that Christmas would not be celebrated if I couldn't make a sacrifice. Then, I took a razor blade from my father's drawer. When I was in the shower, I started to cut myself (just in one finger). I cried, but alone because I didn't want anyone to know this.
When I returned to the hall, perfectly suited and combed but with red eyes because I was crying, my mother asked: 'What happened?' And then I replied, 'I am thrilled because the spirit of Christmas is saved!'
:heart: :sparkle:
More of a Halloween story, that one.
Happy Halloween, Jamal -- trick or treat?
[Insert pumpkin here]
As I say every year, we didn't have pumpkins when I was a wee lad. In some ways, swedes/turnips/rutabagas were superior. I mean, look:
Sweet dreams Javi :naughty:
I am the turnip of fear;
I am the far-flung horizon
Whispering into your ear.
----------
White is the sail,
On the misty infinite blue.
Flying from what in its homeland?
Searching for what in the new?
The winds whistle and waves romp.
The mast leans and creaks.
Alas, he flies not from fortune,
And no good fortune does he seek.
Beneath, the stream, luminous, azure.
Above, the sun’s golden breast.
But he, a rebel, pursues the storms,
As though in the storms were rest.
-- Mikhail Lermontov, “The Sail” [my favorite translation]
Why do you find it odd that I can move away from other things? Can't you?
Duh! Yes I can move. For this to happen I need to convert energy, because I am moving in a gravity field. Therefore still subject to the law of gravity. I can also pay Elon Musk a lot of fiat money to take me out of earths gravity field - this will require a lot of energy because we are all (YOU INCLUDED) subject to the law of conservation of mass and energy. Whether we like it or not.
Seems to me you skipped a few science classes in grade 6.
You asked what was my point in making the original statement - apparently to teach you that you are, in fact, subject to these laws, whether you like it or not.
Furthermore, you also stated that the laws of nature have no existence. This is odd indeed, since even you yourself is subject to them, yet you claim they have no existence.
You might ask yourself what other laws of nature exist, in fact, to which we all (YOU INCLUDED) are subject to - you might come to the understanding that the quest for wealth is due to the laws of nature, not the rules of man. This will be some real progress in your understanding.
Perhaps not, but it is mere politics.
Quoting T Clark
Quite so, unless you, diametrically, disagree with the politics of the institution that grant such an entitlement. Then you will, most probably, maintain that the denial is justified. Again, mere politics.
Yes please. Let's have less shoutbox, and more songbox.
Here's one from the afterlife, curtesy of The Grateful Dead —
Read your physics handbook. The gravity field is not a law, it is a property of spacetime. This is the inversion brought about by the Einsteinian revolution. Gravity is no longer understood as a law, it is a property of the substrate.
Rights are not granted by institutions. Institutions are obligated to protect rights you already have.. Rights are an inherent part of being human. When one says they are entitled to rights, they are not saying the government is duty bound to do anything. They're saying the government is restrained from taking things from them.
As in, no one grants me the right to own property. They will violate the rights I already have if they steal from me.
The distinction is critical, dividing US ideology from much of Europe, imposing Lockean Enlightenment standards of natural rights into the the system.
This is where your conversation with @Metaphysician Undercover got confused. You said "the laws of nature have no morality," where you were referring to physics, not natural law morality, which says something different, but then it shifted to your entitlement comments, so it seems now both sorts of nature's laws are being discussed.
My criticism of your book is (1) it presents unprocessed theses statements as if crystallized wisdom, (2) your reference to your comments being "old father quotes" is pretentious, as if the comments are time honored bits of common sense being passed down, when really they're just bite sized meanderings of a guy peddling a book.
And you are part of the substrate of which gravity is a property - still subject to it. Your statement that the laws of nature have no existence has been refuted, thus, my original statement is making a valid and constructive point.
Really! Who provided humans these rights? Was it provided by some God? Is it a result of our evolution from Homo Habilis to Homo sapiens? Or some other cosmological endowment?
Quoting Hanover
It is quite obvious you have neither read nor understood this book you are referring to.
Theistic (and deistic) bases exist as do secular ones. Human rights can exist without God and can transcend government. The question is of moral realism generally. Why would a nation be wrong to legalize rape if the nation decides what rights there are?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Sure i have. You quote it here constantly.
No, objects are separate from the substrate, and the interactions of objects are sometimes described by laws. But the two are definitely very distinct and in many ways incommensurable. This is what creates quantum uncertainty, the gap between the substrate, described as fields, and the objects (particles) which are supposed to interact. Strictly speaking the particle is not a part of the field, that's why it must be assumed to take every possible path, and why people talk about a collapse of the wavefunction when the particle appears. Even though we talk about a wave/particle duality, the two can't really coexist. So one is not a part of the other.
Pig?!
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I would’ve thought more it was a question of morality.
Holy shit man. I would not come within a kilometre of that thing. Who took the picture?
Top-10 animal species in Noah's Ark. :smirk:
Very nice!
A rarity, also kind'a dealing with spiritual themes, I found in a very early addition of Jack London's "Martin Eden" as a preface:
Let me live out my days in the heat of blood!
Let me lie drunken with the dreamer's wine!
Let me not see this soul-house built of mud,
Go toppling to the dust a vacant shrine!
You have not answered the question: Who provided humans these rights? Not some God, not some evolution, not a cosmological endowment, but some moral realism - thus humans themselves? Therefore it is decided by the politics we conduct - just get the right person in the White House then any person will be entitled to abortion on demand and to hell with the morality of it. Although, claiming this entitled human right in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be kind of a problem ...
Quoting Hanover
Really! What mathematical statement was used to define the components of a system?
Other humans.
The good ones.
Not the ones in the White House.
Is politics conducted on what is morally right or wrong or is what is regarded as morally right or wrong decided by what is politically expedient?
Neither.
:lol: ... and who decide which humans are the good ones? By my understanding the ones currently in the White House arrived there by popular vote ...
Then, please enlighten me; by whom or under what authority can a decision be made that something is morally good or not?
We do. You and I.
DO you think the ones in the White house are good?
Correct.
It is all governed by what is metaethically right and wrong. As we all know. Hence virtue and righteousness and all the rest. The problematics of it all is that, though we all know this, coming to actually know what in fact is metaethically right and wrong is in and of itself utterly immoral. Or so much of our current mores assert. Something to do with apples.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s outside the scope of this discussion. All I did was point out that it was primarily a moral issue and not a political one, which is what you claimed. Maybe you would say that the issue is “merely moral.”
Sorry, you’ve lost me.
As in Eve, Adam, and a tree of knowledge of right and wrong, traditionally interpreted as baring apples. It being immoral to eat of its fruit and all.
I'll try to be less coy from now on.
It is not for me to give judgement on the people currently in the White House. I can confirm, in my opinion, that the current government in South Africa is fundamentally corrupt. The people of South Africa has two options to change that: by democratic vote or by a revolution. I believe it is the same in America. Personally I prefer the democratic vote way - it is normally conducted by less tears and bloodshed. Thus morally a better way, not so?
So be it then
What on earth do the Laws of Nature have to do with the man-made economics of a global pyramid scheme grounded in the supposition of infinite resources?
Futile maybe, but not immoral.
Quoting javra
Not coy, just obscure.
Try asking the Biblical Lord that one.
Quoting T Clark
Nope. Just coy.
A cop out. Who else is going to do it for you?
But you don't have to answer, because the answer you give is not really about them. It's about you. Folk who do think them good are moray bankrupt.
I haven't paid much attention to what you have been saying, but there are folk hereabouts who think that because we don't find moral truths lying around the place in the way we find physical truths, that there are no moral truths. You and I know better. If someone says that kicking the puppy for fun is a good thing to do, you and I know that they are wrong.
So back tot he issue that grabbed my attention. Folk have rights if you and I agree that they have rights and agree to enforce them.
A beautiful and spiritual way of seeing it, Hanover. I never thought about the deluge in that way because I lack theological knowledge, sorrowfully.
All that death by drowning, beautiful? No.
Perhaps it might be considered beautiful if we no longer see death as something horrible.
A fable saddens you, thinking of all the people who couldn't board the ark, but relieved to know the horses, iguanas, frogs, and polar bears made it.
The saddest part though, which I actually learned in an Irish bar, was that a long time ago when the earth was green, there were more kinds of animals than you've ever seen. But, to make a long story short, the unicorn didn't get to board the ark. Now there are none, and its existence has been relegated to being used as an example of an entity without a referent.
It's an ancient piece of art hanging on the wall, subject to interpretation. I see the availability of a holy cleansing always present regardless of how impure things may be, but also a promise it will never happen again.
But maybe some see the undescribed drowning of babies, mothers treading water holding them high for one last breath, spinning, twisting dying last survivors, clawing and killing before they take their final plunge.
Whatever floats one"s boat. Pun intended.
The point is that you see it as the beginning of something, but seems to see it as the end. Both interpretations are perfectly suitable. A drowning is something terrible, but I skipped important elements because I didn't know the theological meaning of Noah's Ark or whatever biblical narrative.
I think the flood actually happened in Mesopotamia. It was not a myth; the Tigris–Euphrates river system was flood-prone, and perhaps a big river avulsion happened, which influenced Moses when he wrote the Genesis.
Quoting javi2541997
Quoting Banno
Quoting Hanover
I read a fascinating novel last year about Noah's Ark: Not Wanted on the Voyage by Timothy Findley, in which Noah, friend and loyal servant of Yahweh, is an abusive authoritarian patriarch obsessed with following Yahweh's laws, to the exclusion of love and fairness within his family. One day Yahweh visits him to complain that humanity is showing him no respect and to cheer him up Noah shows him a magic trick in which a coin disappears in water. This gives Yahweh the idea to wipe everything out and start again with a big flood, and he instructs Noah to get busy building the ark. Noah dutifully agrees, and the drama plays out in exciting and disturbing fashion.
In this telling, Yaweh and his loyal patriarchs seem to be a tyrranical gang, jealously guarding their power and acting cruelly out of frustration at not getting the respect they think they deserve.
EDIT: To find out the shocking truth about the unicorn, you'll have to read it (the Wikipedia page skirts around it)
Quoting Jamal
I see a metaphor in this. Perhaps the trick of the coin means that the big flood was also a way to deceive the people. :chin:
Well, what a beautiful way to start November – discussing some narratives from Genesis.
Where some see beauty, others see brutality and violence :grin:
Not much I am afraid, this thing you are speaking of has much to do about the shuffling around of vast amounts of fiat money - which has almost nothing to do with wealth.
How is it consistent to argue that there are laws of nature, but no natural rights? Doesn't the very same principle of realism, which makes the laws of nature real for you, also make human rights real for you? Where do you draw the line between the two?
Quoting Banno
Not a cop out, no! Since I am not a US citizen, I have absolutely no influence on who sits in the White House. I do not think there are moral truths, definitely moral rights and wrongs - sure my mother taught me that to kick any other living being is wrong - accept in self defence. You and me seem to agree that kicking a puppy for fun is not a good thing to do but there are cultures in our world in which this is quite acceptable.
Also, I will never say that human rights does not exist - they surely do - you and me might agree on them but in order to enforce them we do need a government, a government that is put in place by "we the people". You might disagree with the laws that the government of the day enforces - that is your right to do so. You cannot disobey the laws that are in place - it is exactly these laws that keeps civilisation in place. You disobey them at your peril, unless you intend to start a revolution - but in my opinion that would be morally wrong.
The Laws of Nature is time-invariant. What you call "natural rights", I have defined as Rules of Man and they are time-variant.
But that's just a matter of ruling out the possibility of time-invariant natural rights by means of definition, which would be begging the question.
My criticism though, is that it appears to be inconsistent to define the laws of nature as time-invariant, but natural rights as time-variant.
The Euthyphro dilemma.
"Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods."
And then the clearer question from Leibniz:
"It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Your suggestion that the "good ones" decide the good falls in line with both Plato and Leibniz because to have a good that can permeate one person and not another speaks to an independence of the good, not determined by its host., even if parasitic to the host and incapable of survival without it.
I also think your position is more aligned with a natural rights theory, inconsistent with @Pieter R van Wyk,s because he sees it as a nod to mysticism (as in what is a transcendent enity?). And I do think a mystical nod is necessary to avoid subjectivism and relativism (as in Trump is right because he has might).
Yours is the dilemma of protecting atheism while arguing absolutes. Mine is in protecting rationality while allowing the deux ex machina to solve dilemmas. Pieter's is in creating moral universals.
You're whetting my appetite for more. Get it, wetting. I'll be here all night.
You were not asked to influence them. You were asked if what they were doing is right. You have an answer to that already.
Similarly, that if there are cultures in our world in which this is quite acceptable to kick puppies for fun then you and I agree what they are doing something they ought not.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
As you said, we do. Not just the folk in the White House nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Would you make the same declaration about saying that something is green? That this is not to discover a property of the thing, but to adopt an attitude toward it? I don't see why anyone would say that one is an attitude, but not the other. But if you would, what makes one an attitude of the subject, and the other a property of the object?
Next year AI will introduce spell-check for cake-frosting. A Great Leap Forward!
If there is no referent for "good," then you're arguing anti-realism.
How so?
Indeed, a lot of progress and modernity. But I bet that AI will never create fancy Christmas greeting cards like the ones I make. :wink:
Please could you elaborate on this "time-invariant natural rights". I do not know of any such rights, perhaps give an example or two.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Exactly what, are these two concepts (definitions), inconsistent with? They are two different things.
Nope, I do not see it as mysticism, rather the epitome of realism.
I might be able to entitle some rights to my children, for the rest I can only play some politics. Perhaps you should explain to Trump, the King of Saudi and perhaps also Putin that they are exceeding the rights that you have entitled to them.
Seems odd to suppose that only those with authority can decide on your rights. They might well deny you your rights; but if they can deny you your right then it follows that you have a right, the one being denied...
If Trump denies the right to due process to a suspected illegal immigrant, then it follows that they have that right. And yes, he would be exceeding the rights to which we have entitled him.
Political power operates within the framework of rights, not as their source.
What do you put in it?
That looks good.
Quoting Banno
Do you not take anti-realism to be assigning the good to social construction? But I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Why is the Trumpian expression of morality not consistent with what reality dictates to be the truth? If my phrasing "with what reality dictates to be the truth" is not of relevance to you, then you don't seem to be a moral realist.
But then:
Quoting Banno
But then:
Quoting Banno
These express two different positions:
1. You say that good people determine morality and the bad people (the White House people) are excluded. How do you distinguish the good people from the bad people without already knowing the good from the bad.
2. You then say the good is determined by the global "we," not just the folk in the White House. That is, this seems to allow the White House a vote, but everyone gets a vote, not just the White House folks.
But I won't try to dissect this anymore and just ask you where you think morality comes from. Why can't I kick puppies for fun? Why is it so self-evident? How do I use this self-evidence for those moral quandaries that are not as clear?
Then this:
Quoting Banno
This is an agreement with Enlightenment principles adhered to closely by American conservatives, offering an argument for a limited government subservient to higher ideals. Maybe you're a federalist. Who'd have thunk.
You agree with natural right theorists that rights exist?
You should find someone to eat it with.
Pun joke. HAhha.
What do you think?
What do you want, a world were puppy-kicking is a legitimate pastime, or one in which it leads to a reprobation?
Realism is the view that there are truths. Anti-realism, most coherently is the view that there are no truths. Now if it is true that one ought not kick puppies, then that is about what we ought do, and so is a moral truth. Hence, it is not anti-realism. Anti-realism tends to translate “truth” into verification, consensus, or usefulness, but truth is simpler than these, and is presumed by them anyway.
Further, what is good is not decided by a vote.
Morality comes from considering what you want in the light of recognising the needs of others.
Hence the "we".
You decide what you want, while interacting with others decides what is good.
One of the errors here is the naive moral solipsism that thinks of good as if it were independent of other people. Good is about what we want, and so evaluative; it is about what we do, and so normative; and it is about others, and so communal.
From what you have said, I gather you think that good is determined by god and tradition. As if good were commanded. Notice that that is your choice? It's about what you want to be the case, and what you think ought be the case. That's stuff about your deciding what is good. Why ought you be obedient?
What you think about kicking puppies for fun will be a large determinate of what we think about you.
The problem is that plenty of bad people do decide. While puppies aren't kicked for fun these days, I remember the post on Descartes who cut up puppies thinking they felt no pain. There have also been societies that have held the victims of rape ought be murdered, have allowed humans to be traded as chattel, and have protected the rights of the elite to rape the underclass. If every single person in those societies but the victim said rape was morally acceptable, they'd all be wrong but the person being raped.
That is, it has nothing to do with what Hanover says. My say is irrelevant. If you wish to say something about the reasonable person, and you want to say I am that person, then I matter. But "reasonable" here is circular because I'm defined as the guy who knows right from wrong.
Quoting Banno
I have the choice to be right or wrong, not to decide if I am right or wrong. If you claim we can create what is good and what is bad, you're a subjectivist. If you claim we can discover what is good and bad, you believe in absolute morality.
The path you've described leads anywhere is also the problem. If within me lies the omnipotent force of deciding the proper basis for why I should believe as I do, then I suppose I can decide that once I've decided, I will never decide otherwise. That's my moral decision. So, once I decide, I stand incorrigible. So, should I believe god told me I can't kill and so killing is wrong regardless of what anyone says, and should you tell me the 1,000 of reasons I'm wrong to rely on god, you waste your time, as I've slammed down the gavel and decided. The same holds true for the puppy kickers who insist upon its moral goodness. They have decided to kick. You have decided to tell them not to kick. Everyone is right in their own head. But in my head, you're both wrong. And while you tell me that is my subjective belief, I disagree because I've so decided. And don't get me wrong, I don't carry lingering self-awareness that maybe I'm not wrong. I am positive that I am right.
The problem is what happens when I say it's right to kick puppies?
Depends if your picture is on the money or not.
Well, no, since it is very much about the other. That's what the comment about ethical solipsism fits. The bolded "we".
And sure, bad people do make decisions about what they do. Are they good decisions? Are you going to leave that to them?
Your say is fundamental, not irrelevant. But also, not the whole.
To see what is going on, you will have to leave behind the ethical solipsism, together with the idea that ethics is a fixed moral code handed to Moses. It's a negotiation between you and I. Which is much the same as everything else.
Quoting Hanover
You get a fine and a public service order, and lose your pets.
What? Interactions make decisions about what is good?
Two authoritarians having a fight. Yay.
We typically think of morality as coming from an alternate source.
In Enlightenment societies, we draw a clear line between the church (morality) and state (law). We don't deny some laws are also moral, but we see the two as distinct.
When I asked whether a vote determines the good, you said it did not. You didn't want to defer to the majority for the rule, but instead to those who meant to do the best. This strikes me as still a political system, but it defers to the morally elite. If that's the case, we enter the world of philosopher kings for deciding the good.
In your collapse of the moral/legal distinction, you make the good determined by the hand of the elite, blurring any meaningful distinction between a theocracy and a secular state. In both, it's a small class that dictates the law, but also the moral because the two are the same.
So, my question is: what is the difference between law and morality other than the procedure that is used to get it to be made the norm?
Not at all. But someone who sees morality as a set of rules might think that.
A church cannot function as the source of one's personal morals unless they intend them to do so. The responsibility for that choice, the acceptance of the moral guidance of the church, remains with the person concerned. It's what they want, or what they choose, ore what they consider themselves obligated by, or some other excuse.
In deciding what to do there's what one wants, which only takes oneself into consideration. Then there is what others also want, which is were ethics enters. Then there are the social institutions involved, which is where politics and Law enter.
But if morality is just a set of rules handed down from on high on a mountain, then the difference between it and law would indeed dissipate.
No, if morality arises from something other than the morally elite properly weighing the varying goods of others, it maintains that distinction, namely that it is not a product of subjective time, place, or person.
The dissipation of the legal/moral distinction occurs under your interpretation because the distinction in methodology between the two is arbitrary. That is, it is unimportant how the human created rules arise - whether by informal agreement or legislative act, they are of the same import.
If the law is determined by considering the other, why does morality get priority over the law? If it is decided by you, me, and the 3 wise men that puppies shouldn't be kicked, why does our judgment prevail over an act of Congress?
Can the law be more moral then whatever it is we agree to after our deliberation?
Is there a final, correct answer to a moral dilemma? If we know puppies can't be kicked, why can't we list that in our Holy Set of Rules? Why must we reprocess our basis each time? Wouldn't it behoove us to write down all our truths this way for easier access, and we can just learn the rules without the rigamarole?
Who decides if it does prevail?
I don't know. It's your theory. I am arguing morality is discovered, not created. But my questions remain:
Why can't a law be more moral than a moral decision we reach?
Why can't moral decisions be codified into a list?
Do moral determinations change over time?
If puppy kicking is determined moral on Monday but immoral on Tuesday, was it immoral on Monday but we were just wrong on Monday? How can we be wrong if we went through the proper deliberation process?
If we can be wrong about what's moral, doesn't that mean we don't decide what's moral but that we're searching for what it's moral?
Where?
Not created by people. That leaves God, the Big Bang, or the emergent laws of nature, but not by us.
Where do we find moral laws?
This points up the incoherence of @Banno's ethics quite well (and it hints at 's). :up:
Banno is a moral realist only via fiat truths (i.e. he is a voluntarist, which is classically not moral realism in any thoroughgoing sense). He never defends why, say, it is immoral to kick puppies. Instead of answering the questions put to him, he tries to shift the attention onto religious accounts. Your point about the Euthyphro is apt given the way Banno grounds morality in "wants" (i.e. will).
No, it's not. The naturalistic fallacy is to claim the world is X so it ought be X. I'm saying the morality which governs is Y, so if the world doesn't behave as Y, it's immoral. The world's being X doesn't determine Y.
Go back to the origin of the conversation, the question of who decides human rights. The suggestion is that we decide human rights. You objected with the Euthyphro dilemma, asking which came first the right or the good folk who decide them; I pointed out that this was to misconstrue what was being said. You moved on to claiming I was an antirealist, I explained that there are moral truths and so antirealism is in error. You returned to the misconstrued piece, oddly suggesting this was an example of conservative 'mercantile dogma, and calling it subjective despite the central place played by community, both of which I refuted. Then you moved on to asking about the difference between morality and law, which I explained in terms of social institutions. You then started to talk about moral elites, a puzzling move which I have been probing.
Now you say, despite all of that, that I am not answering your question...
So, if rights are not the result of human interactions, as I suggest, but are "discovered", as you suggest... where do we discover them?
You said:
Quoting Banno
So why is it a truth that one ought not kick puppies? Apparently because of something Banno wants in the light of some need that the puppy has. That's pretty thin in the first place, but it sure does seem to commit the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" (given that what Banno wants and what the puppy needs are "is" claims).
So that's not how I should read
Quoting Hanover
??
You are not saying that either god made it so, or the big bang made it so, or the laws of nature made it so, and so it ought be so?
You need to ask? That tells us about you, not about kicking puppies.
I'll leave you to your footwork.
This is the standard non-answer that you've offered for years.
I have provided answers to your questions. Maybe not satisfying to you, but nevertheless responses.
My reference to the moral elites was to point out that an elite group that offers moral decrees (which excludes Trump and his ilk) that convenes and decides the moral decisions for society (don't kick puppies) is only irrelevantly distinct from Congress, both being social constructs for rule determination. That is, law and morality are the same under this system, social norms passed and enforced, either by handcuffs or social stigma.
It was why I asked whether the law as passed by Congress could be more moral than those by whatever method your morals were passed. If a law can be more moral than morals, we've reached a point of reductio that should cause reconsideration of our theory.
You criticized the idea that morals might be enumerated like a list, and I asked why we couldn't codify our rules and were forced to redeliberate the same question as it posed itself repeatedly.
I also questioned whether morals were immutable or whether they changed from deliberation to deliberation dependent upon the deliberators or perhaps the season they met for negotiation. Can the good today be the bad tomorrow or was the bad the bad even though we all agreed it was good?
All my questions were labeled as such, and I don't see them answered.
Where do I find morals? Morals seem revealed through the conscience, refined through reason, and analogized to one another. I look upon prior ethical decisions or controlling and persuasive regarding new considerations.
I am also unapologetically theistic, but I don't hold to literalist traditions and I don't suggest every word of scripture is ineerant and true, but I do believe reliance upon thousands of years of others' exploration into what the good is offers substantial direction into what the good is.
If every last person agrees we kick puppies, we live in odd times for sure, but every last puppy kicker is morally wrong.
If I say the sun ought shine because the sun does shine, that's the is/ought fallacy
If I say the sun ought shine because the book of morals says it ought shine, it's not.
If the sun and the book of morals were created by the same entity, it's still not the is/ought fallacy.
You're arguing self evidency or something. I really don't follow this. It's bad to kick puppies and if anyone disagrees it means they're a bad person and if you ask why they're bad, be careful, because you too will be bad.
The standard conflation on the part of the democrat is between monarchy or aristocracy and tyranny (to take Aristotle's terms). The presumption is that there could be no moral elite that is not a tyranny. Or in other words, that the only way a moral elite could rule would be through coercion and force.
This isn't true, and in order to understand human social life one must also understand its falsehood. The virtuous man exercises rule precisely through his virtue. He is recognized by others as virtuous, and that is why they defer to him and follow him, much the way a child defers to and follows their father or mother. For Aristotle, if the demos is incapable of recognizing virtuous leaders, then monarchical or aristocratic regimes are eo ipso ruled out.
Thus trust is a natural phenomenon, present in politics, morality, and religion. The reason the democrat tends to think that politics is merely a matter of vote-casting, and that politics is therefore separate from morality, is because they can't conceive of any non-democratic form of governance. Robust moral realism requires the ability to answer questions and reason about morality, but it does not exclude forms of trust or faith. The ability to recognize the competence of another and place one's trust in them is intrinsic to humanity, even when it comes to morality.
But why not?
I tend to think the is-ought divide is taken too seriously. I'm not sure why it is taken so seriously. Doesn't everyone who holds to substantive moral truths "violate" it? The ones who profess not to violate it tend to end up in very awkward poses, regardless of their philosophical tradition.
The simple case I've argued on TPF is that to understand what pain is is to desire to avoid pain. Anyone who understands what pain is also believes that pain ought to be avoided (ceteris paribus).
I think @Count Timothy von Icarus has written ably on the is-ought topic, but perhaps it needs to be rehashed at a more rigorous level.
Well, what do you think? Did you answer that? - if so, I missed it. And it's pretty much pivotal. If you think it bad to kick puppies, then we agree, and can move on. If you think good to kick puppies, then other folk will reach conclusions about you.
Were does that go astray? And what do you think about kicking puppies?
I have provided answers to your questions. Maybe not satisfying to you, but nevertheless responses.
explicitly:
I don't understand were your notion of an elite comes from.
The comparison between morals and laws
Since ethics is a negotiation, while one might codify the result, to codify the negotiation would be to end it.
One of the more obvious characteristics of morality is that what is ethical does change over time.
Each of these answers were given previously, implicitly if not explicitly.
Quoting Hanover
Then they are not discovered, but revealed. Moral intuition or the voice of god? I could go along with the former. The latter, I'd need convincing it wasn't the medication...
Quoting Hanover
So far as I can make out, god is irrelevant to ethics.
Quoting Hanover
Good to hear - is that your answer? Tell me, was that written in the Big Book Of Morals? I suspect not; and conclude that the Big Book Of Morals is also irrelevant.
Please, who gave authority to those with authority, the electorate or your parents who taught you to respect authority - but not blindly? So these rights are determined by politics, thus not an entitlement.
Quoting Banno
Please, who created this framework of rights, politicians or those that gave politicians their authority?
Now, who can change the politicians, the electorate or you and me?
To date I have not met or spoken with any "natural right theorist' but to my understanding there is only one [i]natural right[/I] - the right to live - because you were born. (Refer to Old Father's Quote #22 - already posted).
Of course rights exist, we humans create them with the politics we play - thus not an entitlement.
Who decides what I want? Why, I do. Who decides what is good? Who else should I listen to but myself?
Who decides what you what, for you?
Quite so, but then, unfortunately, "No Man is an Island". So, what you or I want, does not entitle us anything.
Why not? Why should we deny someone something they want...?
...and there is were we start to do ethics.
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
However, I truly believe that Greek yoghurt with a small portion of brown sugar is a perfect combo.
So, If I want to kick my puppy in my back-yard, you will not deny this - you will grant me this entitlement?
Quoting Banno
Quite so, but then my ethics might differ from your ethics - then who decide who's ethics is right and who's are wrong? You and me? Then we could meet tomorrow at dawn, with our seconds - you can choose the weapons, swords or pistols? Or should we rather leave this to the politicians that you and I authorised to adjudicate these and other matters?
Quoting Banno
Quite so, my decisions are mine, as is yours. If you think my decisions are unethical we can sort this out tomorrow morning - I prefer with swords. If, however, you and me agree that we both are right, but the politicians that we authorised to adjudicate have it wrong, we have a few options:
My statement: claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy, still stands.
Would you? I'd be on the phone, since you would not be the sort pf person who should have a dog.
But if you want ice cream, I'll not stop you.
There's a difference. I hope you can see that.
If the only way you can think of to settle our differences of opinion is a duel, that's also about you. But you see, this does not only involve you and I. That's kinda the point.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
There remains something oddly contradictory in the idea that one can have a right to which one is not entitled.
I can't see how you might reconcile that.
So morality is all about an intuitively felt righteous indignation?
Quoting Banno
For the most part, this is wrong, because most religious people have been born and raised into their religion, they did not choose it. Their sense of right and wrong is so inextricably defined by their early internalization of religious teachings that they cannot think without them. To say that such people "choose" to follow the religious teachings is like saying you chose English as your native language. They do not, and you did not.
Phenomena that contextualize a person are beyond said person's choice. The concept of choice doesn't apply in such situations.
Only vaguely theistic.
The moment you suggest, like you did the other day, that religion might well be merely a useful fiction, but that that's alright, as long as people and society are happy and productive -- this is when you stop being theistic.
Why are you saying this? What is your motivation for saying this?
A man might say, "I haven't beaten my wife in ten years." Why is he saying that? Does he thereby admit that he used to beat his wife? Is he seeking validation, approval?
When we make factual statements, we make them for a reason. So what is yours, here?
I'm not disagreeing, but there is the no small matter of cruel optimism.
A person can have very high standards of morality. But if they cannot act on them, or if acting on them is significantly disadvantageous for them, then they have a problem. To avoid insanity, the person will have to change the moral standards they adhere to, or at least change their meta-view of morality.
The question is, are you willing to let yourself be burnt at the stake for believing/claiming this?
Because it seems practically, pragmatically impossible to produce a comprehensive and concise list of such moral decisions.
For example, while the Ten Commandment forbid killing, elsewhere, the OT goes into considerable detail as to who should be killed. Why is that? What does it mean?
My intutition is that the problem here is actually one of how to present moral principles in the abstract, in general, with practical consideration for the length and complexity of such a text.
Quoting Hanover
It appears that somehow, a crucial part of proper moral reasoning is that it is not codified with a text, but resides in the person somehow.
That morality is in the acting on moral principles, in living by them, rather than in being able to come up with a comprehensive, exhaustive, finite list.
This question, I believe, holds the key to understanding the mystery of morality. Moral decisions cannot be codified into a list, because each and every one is specific to the particular circumstances. The list would include an infinity of possible circumstances. Morality therefore, is best described as having a specific type of attitude toward the particularities of the circumstances.
But this inclines us to try and fit all "correct" particular acts into one universal type of attitude, the "moral" type (Kant's categorical imperative). But that's the exact opposite of having the correct attitude. The correct attitude must allow flexibility to the type, to shape the type to meet particulars of the circumstances. So even approaching the question with the attitude that there is such a thing as a type of act labeled as "the moral type", is a self-defeating approach which will result in endless discussion going nowhere. That is because morality (as a proposed type) must be shaped to the particulars of the circumstances, and this denies the possibility of any formal typification.
It's common that we document prior decisions and use those decisions to form future opinions. It's the basis of Talmudic law and anglo-saxon based legal precedent based law. It's not pragmatically impossible, although you are correct that hundreds of thousands of volumes of information have been stored that document our prior judgments. We don't reinvent the wheel every time.
Regarding the Ten Commandments and biblical text generally, the idea that it can be interpreted from just reading the literal meaning from the pages without reference to other religious text might describe certain 19th century fundamentalist Christian literalist traditions, but that is not the most common way of interpreting and it's particularly recent. That tradition has its own unique history.
As to the specific commandment you refer, the Hebrew text states ?? ???? (Lo tirtzah), with tirtzah having a very specific meaning. The best English word would be "murder" which describes an unlawful taking of a life, very distinct from "harag" (???), which means to kill. That is why it is permissible to kill an enemy in battle but impermissible to murder your neighbor.
Quoting baker
Probably not, but of what relevance is my personal integrity to a cause when assessing whether something might be moral?Quoting baker
No, you've decontextualized this part of the conversation. @Banno stated that moral rules were not written but they were the result of agreement between parties. My response is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We can arrive at truths and then write them down and then use those prior decisions to assist with future decisions. That seems an organized way of doing things.
This idea is also not limited to religious reasoning or legalistic reasoning, but it forms the basis of rule utlitarianism, where the idea is that the creation of rules leads to the moral good and so you adhere to the rule as opposed to arriving at the good each time you are faced with it.
The use of prior decisions does not require blind adherence to unnuanced rules, but it allows the opposite, where each prior decision can be considered for the principle it contains, but if there are important distinctions to make the prior decision inapplicable, it will not be considered (or will be limited in its value).
This is pretty straightforward Anglo legalistic reasoning, which not suprisingly has its origins in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Edit: The way this would look in the legalistic tradition would be that you would have a law. You would then have citations in actual cases where that law was interepreted. The law would mean what it says and how its been interpreted, with varying entities empowered for arriving at that meaning.
In religious traditions, hypotheticals can be considered, so you're not limited to actual cases in controversies, but the concept is the same. We don't limit ourselves to just reading a simple rule everytime and divorce ourselves from our prior considerations. We also rely on the rule itself though for some type of grounding to know what we're interpreting.
Yet somehow, this distinction didn't make it into so many Bible renditions in other languages, even when those languages have that same distinction. And this goes back for centuries. The KJV, for example, has "Thou shalt not kill". In my native language, when children are taught the Ten Commandments, the word used is also the equivalent of "kill"; and this is the RCC version which goes back for centuries and can hardly be accused of decontextualized reading.
It casts doubt on you as a relevant participant in a discussion about morality.
Ad hominems are not always fallacious, especially when it comes to matters of morality. It's at least strange that people will defend particular moral principles and judge others for not living up to those principles -- yet they themselves do not live by them. One has to wonder what is going on, and whether it's all just a matter of virtue signalling.
No, I was furthering my own point.
Slavery was "organized" as well, for example.
Except that in day-to-day practice, rules still come down to "might makes right". One has to do something that someone with more power said that one has to do, or else face consequences.
In other words, you're not saying anything. You have a nice clause there about ignoring others which you can always refer to when other people don't think, feel, speak, or do as you want them to.
Quoting Banno
Feudal landlords and slave owners, for example, also "recognize the needs of others".
Point being that you're not actually "recognizing" the needs of others, but merely taking for granted that you know what those needs are, without ever actually asking those people about their needs.
It's a classic case of an authoritarian personality. Even while you talk about others, even to others, you don't actually acknowledge them as persons.
In other words, might makes right.
Say, an employee wants a raise and communicates this to his boss; the boss says no and threatens the employee with dismissal. And the good in this is ...?
Quoting Banno
Leaving aside for a moment that you did not just appear out of thin air and don't live in a vacuum--
Would you risk getting burnt at the sake for believing/saying that puppies should not be kicked?
As if people could not decide on their own. Of course they do, all the time. The issue here seems to be the justification of one's decisions, the purpose of which is that the decision-maker can exonerate themselves.
Now envision the above being said about, for example, Nazi Germany. It fits.
You should have known something was amiss just from the grammar. Hebrew doesn't have a third person objective perspective (the depersonalized "thou," as if to suggest it applies to anyone anywhere). It literally says "no murder," not "thou shalt not," and it would apply to you, as in you personally dear reader, because it is the product of a specific covenant between God and his people. If only you were more educated in ancient semitic languages and OT themes you wouldn't have had to endure the trauma of your youth. I blame you for teaching any children otherwise, not Moses. Moses did all he could do, walking about for 40 years while his peeps kvetched. It's really much to blame him.
Quoting baker
And so in a fell swoop you eliminate the idea of considering other's views when deciding one's own. That makes me wonder why I should consider your position here and why I don't stand boldly independent.
Yep. :up:
Quoting baker
Trust in a leader is not inaccessible to evil societies, sure. But what does such a point prove?
For you, it seems so.
It remains that the church goer might do otherwise, that they, not another, are responsible for their acts.
That one's first language is English does not preclude them from speaking another language.
Quoting baker
Pretty much. My comments are about the way in which deontic statements function, setting a grammar that is consistent.
There's much that is presumptive in your critique. It's more about you seeing your antagonisms in others than about reading what is being said. It's unclear, for example, how you manage to characterise an ethic centred on finding common values and working through those as "authoritarian". Is that because you think that I should not point out the kicking puppies is wrong? That we should not tell you what to do? There's something quite odd in your asking if I would die in a ditch for the pup; as if that were the only reason for some value being relevant, some all-or-nothing account. It's unclear what you are advocating as an alternative, but it seems to be some sort of libertarian, laissez-faire arrangement. Now there is nothing much to say about folk doing as they please, up until what they do effects someone else. And that is were we might look for agreement and negotiation. Or we might just reach for our guns. Which would you prefer? Are we going to discuss ethics or warfare?
All this by way of asking what the point of your responses is. What are you offering?[/hide]
Hear hear!
I did. I prefer honey. But there is something to be said for the caramel in brown sugar.
But point taken - my apologies. I'd already said as much to Hangover in a PM, but got sucked in again this morning before I had my first coffee. I'll try again.
I thought my opinion about the taste of Greek yoghurt with brown sugar went unnoticed like a handful of salt in a soup. But I am now pleased that you actually could read it. :smile:
When I am stirring the broth, I laugh like a mediaeval witch.
Sure I can
Quoting Banno
I can see that you have not grasp my point, yet. Let me try and explain it more fundamentally, without the use of stupid examples:
We humans claim free will, but our whole civilisation is based on collective decision-making. This is a contradiction. One might claim some fundamental, chimerical, ethic or morality or some greater good to which humans should freely make a collective decision on - this foundation has not been found yet. We humans, especially the more philosophical ones, have been barking up this tree for millennia. This way of understanding has met with great success according to some and great failure according to others - depending on who are the current winners in our political games.
Thus, the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed. Therefore, claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy.
If "the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed", then there is an entitlement to a right, albeit dependent on a specific political environment.
So one could claim such a right as an entitlement dependent on a specific political environment.
Your conclusion, then, still does not follow. There remains something oddly contradictory in the idea that one can have a right to which one is not entitled, even if one thinks of rights as only happening within specific political environments rather than a consequence of our ethical consideration.
I can't see a contradiction between free will and collective decision making. I don't see that you make your case very well. There doesn't seem to be a reason folk could not choose freely to act collectively. But in any case the notion of free will is fraught with confusion. A whole 'nuther barrel of fish.
Perhaps.
But that does not mean that folk do not have rights.
And Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
still appears very odd; as if one could have a right but not an entitlement -- picture that cop saying "you have the right to remain silent but you are not entitled to remain silent"...?
Still missing the point, still using stupid examples. The mere fact that a cop must inform you of your rights, thereby granting you this entitlement; is due to a political environment ... nothing else.
Perhaps. But what you said was that the right was not an entitlement.
If what you are saying is that rights are social institutions, well so is language.
Yep.
So is Language an illusion too?
"What the fuck is an Anglo-Saxon nation?"
----frank, 2025
Here in Spain, folks call him "the architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion".
:scream:
[hide="Reveal"]
What's the filling?
Pork meat and onion. :yum:
:up: :yum:
Dearly beloved,
Nature is harsh, and nature is gentle by turns, and This concerns all of living nature, including humans. Don't get too comfortable or you will be in for a nasty surprise.
Let's discuss it together honestly.
All that I I need to know about you is, 'are you kind?'
______________________________________________________________________
A mouse does not ask the cat if it is kind, and the cat does not consider it either. Nature is kind and cruel without distinction; it is only a consideration for humans, and the bible has the right of things in explaining that these considerations and reflections eject humanity from the innocence of nature into the world of morality, and therefore of immorality.
It is possible to delight in cruelty, as it is possible to delight in kindness, and one can flip from one to the other and back. These are the gates of heaven and hell, and not to know the difference is to pretend to be a mere beast.
ibid.
There is no point in arguing that War, War, is better than Jaw Jaw. The performative contradiction defeats the argument. You know the rules - will you come with me; are you kind? It's the same question.
ibid.
The story in question is a nonsense tale, The answer to where the time goes is that it gets sucked into the infinite void of self, another nonsense tale.
Anybody's choice. You can choose kindness or cruelty. But it's nonsense to choose cruelty. That's how the song goes, all I want to know is 'are you kind?'
Thus saith the Grateful Dead, and here endeth the lesson. We've got some things to talk about and let's try not to talk nonsense, the tide is rising as we speak.
It's a buck dancer's choice, my friend
Better take my advice
You know all the rules by now
And the fire from the ice
Quoting unenlightened
The answer to where does the time go is the same answer as the answer to how does the song go.
I see you've got your list out, say your piece and get out
Guess I get the gist of it, but it's alright
Sorry that you feel that way, the only thing there is to say
Every silver lining's got a touch of grey
EDIT: Philosophy is allowed in the Shoutbox only if it is relaxed and friendly and doesn't involve personal attacks. Those who are determined to debate these issues can make a new discussion. Those who are determined to carry on attacking people personally can find another website to go to.
Here in the US we call him “the fucking architect of the fucking 2003 fucking Iraq fucking invasion.”
----
This thread is opened again! Folks, peace, love and chill out. Relax, you are in a safe place. Respect the sacrosanct feeling of here. :up: :pray:
So how many did it take?
I'd say there's at least four Hanovorians still at it.
(Joke rather than personal attack. If you can't laugh with me laugh at me, or whatever.)
Where does the time go?
(Rhetorical question rather than philosophical question.)
Perhaps, that is why I try to define the nouns I use as far as possible. For example:
"Politics := A process used by humans (Class 7 systems) to propose, contemplate, and implement Rules of Man in order to test their conformance to the Laws of Nature that best describe the purpose of any and all companies." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
Apparently philosophy does allow one's own original thoughts - as long as one does not promote yourself.
If this is so, what is the foundational assumption?
If not, what is the foundational unconditional truth?
Fried rice and an egg roll.
If and only if you add deep fried prawns. :joke:
Talking about eggs – yesterday, I bought a 12-pack of quail eggs. These kinds of eggs are small but nutritious. I just eat them with bread.
(After frying them in the pan, obviously).
That's dinosaur eggs.
Let's say you were in the forest by the brook next to the tree beside the rock beneath the squirrel away from the hill near the well that Kevin drilled for all of the children to drink from to bath from and cook from, and to your surprise you were to see just a step from destruction an egg so oval and brown?
Would you think it came first all by itself if you couldn't find any chicken around, or would you insist despite the glory about you that it must have just dropped so gently in the most ordinary way?
There’s a possibility, just a possibility mind you, you’ve missed the point of the question
One quibble: Under "PRODUCT OF SPAIN" was a note that said "WARNING: Cancer and reproductive harm. Hmmmm. Is there a radiation-leaking nuclear power plant on a river pouring over the mussel beds? Or is there a factory secretly dumping polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the ocean? Perhaps the PCBs are the key ingredient of the special sauce that makes the mussels so exquisitely tender and delicious?
At any rate, I suppose I can now expect a testicle or two to fall off from the toxic Spanish water. The musses were so delicious, losing one or two balls at my age would be almost (but not quite) worth it.
I am surprised to see a warning note about cancer risks and potential harm. This is crazy. I promise the products of my country are healthy and optimum. I don't know what the lad who wrote it had in mind to do so. I guess it is more related to the can where the mussels are packed than the mussels themselves.
A favorite Christmas bivalve around here are oysters, gently heated so that they just begin to wrinkle up. Then they are added to heated milk and cooked over hot water. Add salt and a little pepper.
There are many ways to prepare oysters, so I have heard, but they are terribly expensive, so buying a couple extra pounds of shucked oysters to make a baked oyster dish would be pretty expensive. I don't know what they cost in New York or Boston; we are nowhere close to the ocean. Some people here very much like potato sausage at Christmas -- it is a not very spicy Scandinavian potato / pork sausage in a casing. Good with a rutabaga and creamed potatoes.
Here, people consume the oysters raw. They just open – or crack – the bivalve and eat the little seafood hidden there with a glass of champagne. And yes, oysters are pretty expensive, absolutely.
I am glad you tried a product from Spain. Since you liked it, I recommend you try our tuna. It comes from the Atlantic coast of Cadiz. Japanese lads say it is the best in the world, and they buy tonnes and tonnes of our tuna. But I would also like to hear your opinion on atún de almadraba.
[hide="Reveal"]
A guy named Tony Riggatoni then kicked her in the river, took her cart, and modified it into a hotdog stand where he sold 2 for 1 brats. The remaining mussels were canned, marked as being from Spain, and California then marked them as poison. I felt like something was lost with the transition from that sweet lass who pushed the cart.
True story.
Of course it is a true story – who would dare to say otherwise? :up:
It's obvious that the only enchanted eggs you've ever encountered are deviled .
That was Molly Malone! I assume she was singing:
"Cockles and mussels, alive, alive, oh."
https://countingdownto.com/?c=6696404
Any posts with Christmas themes sent out before December 1 will lead to an automatic banning.
Gotcha, Clarky.
At least the picture was not AI-generated, so I guess I have a pass in my misconduct. :smirk:
These are mine. They were spun from straw into wool by a sorcerer. You must either sell your soul for them or guess correctly the name of the man who turns the spindle.
Prior to my guess, I commented somewhat obscurely:
"Yours is the cloth, mine is the hand that sews time
His is the force that lies within
Ours is the fire, all the warmth we can find
He is a feather in the wind"
With that I offered my guess.
I leave to you whether I don these socks as an empty vessel or whether I maintain the force that lies within.
True story.
Stumbleshitskin.
So close! Sorry, you lose your soul, BUT, you get the free socks, and did you really even have a soul to lose?
I do respect a man secure enough to compliment another man on the look of his trouser.
The sky is speckled with buzzards so I'm wondering if they smell my impending death.
Once I get the socks, they will no longer be free. I will imprison them in sensible shoes with good soles. My soul was already lost in the manifold, so no change there.
NB. if the buzzards are circling, it's a bad sign, but if they are drifting hither and thither and other similar places then they are not on duty as harbingers, but just playing at medieval aerobatics.
They do smell that but are applying their algorithm to everything that moves. It has worked for them so far.
I don't know, that pool looks sparkling clean to me.
My wife asked if we could hire a pool boy for her. I said we could if Could hire a Swedish au pair for me.
We're different forms of life.
A couple weeks ago, overburdened by an unusually large lunch, I decided to lay outside in the afternoon Sun on a wooden boardwalk my father and I built for a few minutes. In spite of it's general state of disrepair (I'm [s]lazy[/s] busy, alright?) It was a surprisingly comfortable experience. Apparently hard surfaces are actually good for the back. Seeing as I had not done so for quite some time, I laid there staring face up at a vast cerulean sky. An occasional small cluster of wispy white clouds would drift ever so slowly from one side of my vision and eventually over to the next. I noticed a small convoy of two or three black birds, almost specks from the incredible distance they must have been above my person. "I hope they don't shit on me", I thought to myself chuckling audibly to an audience of none. Ever so aware of the negative consequences of any situation, per the demands of my occupation, a focus on computer security. Always imagining "the worst possible scenario, no matter how unlikely" takes its toll on a young man's mind. Nevertheless I regained my focus and began to notice they circled back, almost as if a sign of acknowledgement of my supine (thanks @T Clark for introducing that word into my vocabulary) juxtaposition against the long wooden path upon which I laid. To which I said aloud to myself "Hey, I'm not dead yet." As if there was a soul around, other than the occasional vehicle that would drive past every dozen or so minutes.
Long story short. Yeah, them buzzards will do that if you lie still long enough. I might patent that advice into some sort of hunting or survival manual to attract prey and become the next bestselling author. Yeah, I just might do that.
True story. Or is it? Perhaps you'll never know.
Lying on your back, on pavement is actually very comfortable, if you have a pillow.
I would not lie on a bed of nails though.
True ztory.
I assume these are actually turkey vultures. Do you notice how three of them are aligned perfectly? That raises a question whether these are actually birds at all. Perhaps they are disguised ICE drones or a squadron of UAPs.
Maybe @Hanover is actually the Wizard of Oz and Dorothy is attempting to make her way to him resulting in the misunderstood soothsaying woman sending her flying helper monkeys after her again.
It's like a thing with those two. Your guess is as good as mine, though.
Yes, of course. I should’ve thought of that.
Buzzards are officially only in Europe, where we have turkey vultures. Despite that, we call them buzzards. And so it goes.
We actually called them buzzards too. I just wanted to exercise my talent for pedantry. They were always a sign of summer on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. These days we see them in the summer all the way up here in New England.
Yes, but those were marsupial vultures.
As days turned to night, my sweet heartache would leave her barrow emptied neath the stairwell so steep. I admit I took comfort up those steps and down the hall so narrow most evenings than not. A queue would await for the moments you'd get so few, but once before you, you felt there were none other than you.
I'd leave perhaps a few farthing, but my love never counted, but trusted implicitly, or so I best pretended she didn't too suffer from possessing so little.
I resolved to provide her the best I could manage, but with no money nor skill I was so limited. I looked to the skies as one does when he has nothing , and instead of the heavens I saw something better, a manna of sorts, in the form of some turkeys circling about.
I had me no weapon nor way of pouncing when they should land on the ground to pick upon those poorer than me. My only redemption was to feed my dear Molly by baiting the creature with my own wretched body to gift her that bounty.
Making my way down the stairway so narrow, spent for the evening and ready to rest, I found my Molly's turned barrow before me and empty. i did drop to my knees to wallow about in the pungent fish water that dripped to the street. This was the aroma that Molly would leave us, both in her streets and permeating her bedsheets.
No where to go in in the condition I was in, I slept neeth the stars, too kind to enter my room I shared with several other fellows whose names I never knew. I slept very deeply, somewhat comforted by thinking I might one day be saving my princess most precious.
But then I was awoken by a lone bird whose nose must have found me, who had been circling around just hours before. He picked at my clothing, ripping off small pieces, scraping my flesh and opening it forth. I grabbed at his beak and twisted it forcefully, his talons were scratching and fighting me so.
My weight eventually overcame him. and the fallen large turkey laid dead in my clutch. I plucked it and cooked it and packaged it up and took it for Molly just in time for her lunch.
She was hollering and hawking just like she did always, when I brought her this feast. She took it with pause and asked if she might know me. I told her I'd doubt it, as I'd never approach her while she cried out below.
She reached for its wing so long and extended, dripping its burgundy juices upon her lips and her neck.
As she tore and she chewed, she let out a choke, a cough and a sputter, and that was the end of Molly Malone. Alive Alive no! Alive Alive, no! Crying cocks and cocks. alive alive no.
True story.
Bruh. Crocodiles are truly dangerous and rapacious lads. I am lucky that the weather of my plateau doesn't work for them.
The swamp from several years ago. I was rear rudderman.
Quoting William James - The Varieties of Religious Experience
"An option is living if both of its constituent hypothesis are live, where a live hypothesis is one that you might seriously wind up believing as a result of an inquiry. Suppose I propose to you to believe in the Greek gods, or to believe that there is an elephant in the hallway now. You can entertain the hypothesis. But you’re so sure that it’s false that you cannot take it seriously. These hypotheses are dead for you. And in these cases our passional nature, like our intellectual nature, is powerless to effect belief.
An option is forced if you must choose one or the other of its hypotheses. If I offer you the option of whether to jump around like a rabbit or quack like a duck, you can easily decline the offer. So the option is avoidable in James’s sense. On the other hand, if I offer you the choice to jump around like a rabbit or not, then whatever you do you will have chosen one of the alternatives. In general, an option of the form "DO X NOW OR DON’T DO X NOW" will always be forced, since to decline is in effect to choose not to do X.
Finally, an option is momentous if a great deal hangs on how you choose, and especially if the opportunity is fleeting. If someone call you up and says that he’s going on a year long tour of Europe and Asia and that you can come along all expenses paid as long as you say yes right now, that would be a momentous option. To hesitate is to loose."
https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/pucourse/phi203/will.html
I haven’t read this yet. The more I read James, the more I like him.
Of course you like him. He's an American pragmatist, reciting to you what was instilled in you but that you never articulated to yourself.
If we're going to be bots, let's at least be self aware and embrace it. That sounds like pragmatism again. God damn it.
I think that’s true of all philosophers—all real philosophers. We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves.
I rest my case. No further questions… NO FURTHER QUESTIONS!!!
We’re here to name what we can see, what we half-see, what we might only sense out of the corner of an uncooperative eye, or possibly imagine sensing, if seeing were still the agreed-upon method. We’re here to speak from where we actually stand, or at least from where we think we’re standing, assuming standing is still permitted and hasn’t been replaced by a more flexible, inclusive form of hovering.
Depends. Is everyone else wearing red? Is the person colorblind (or regular blind)? Were they good friends (perhaps it's a secret symbolism I'm simply not privy to)? Is the person possibly part of some obscure religion or foreign culture that places that color in the same light as darker more traditional funeral colors are in our own?
It'll certainly result in a few questions similar to the aforementioned.
That someone is disrespectful. Black is for mourning. At least among my people.
Better red than dead.
This made me laugh. I like simple jokes where both colour and death are involved.
Quoting frank
Well, at least he/she went to the funeral. Isn't it more disrespectful to not go at all?
Quoting T Clark
This suggests a complex unarticulated subconscious nonlinguistic belief lurking about awaiting words to carry it.
Once that belief is reduced to words, is the belief different? If the added value of words to the belief is clarification, is that still a new belief?
As in, we can have deeply complex knowledge without words.
Like if I say that smell reminds me of the ocean, and you say "Yes!, that's been bothering me all day trying to place that. "
On a meta level, would you say that your thoughts about this pre-linguistic thought lacked meaning to you until you reduced them to words as you have now? As in, there is some knowledge you can have without words, but not others? What sorts yes and what sorts no?
Indeed, you're expressing an important idea that's been coming up for me a lot lately. The validity of an idea is never entirely separable from its genesis, i.e., all ideas are substantively situated culturally. Furthermore, as philosophers we should be aware of this. Adorno makes these points in various ways, but he's not the only one.
I'm not sure about the bots though.
So, we can't just brush aside @T Clark by saying "you're only saying that because your culture, class, and background have determined that you would believe everything William James wrote". On the other hand, we can see the appeal of James's ideas in that context and assess them partly on that basis.
Ah, the good old days. Do you ever pine or yearn or long for the certainties of the Cold War?
From the religious lens, I think you'd have to live under forced delusion to think it's a coincidence that your religious beliefs just so happen to reflect your family's and your community's 99% of the time.
But I then agree with what you're saying, which is that you find meaning where you accept value. If you see in Adorno a reliable source, his words carry a meaning not found in an Ayn Rand. I ignore the wisdom of the Pope, but it screams from the Rebbe.
This is why I can at first think the Mormon absurd for entertaining John Smith's finding the golden plates, but insist the parting of the sea be taken seriously, although not literally. The mistake is to assume this self-awareness of one's biases necessitates their elimination as opposed to their radical embracing. That is, if the Mormon can find higher meaning but needs to root it the 19th century musings of a traveling salesman, then that is what he should do.
To those who roll their eyes at all belief that is not rooted in the scientific, they just identify the source of their value and what they need to take matters seriously. They need the words to come from the lab for them to be considered, which means they ought do that.
This week is the anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin wall. I don’t feel nostalgic for that or for what came before it. Mostly I feel a sense of regret that the west, especially the US, blew our chance to make something good out of what was.
Oh well, never mind!
Woah, you've gone too far now! This looks like total relativism to me, and I refuse to get on board.
I graduated highschool in 1984, the middle of the Reagan years. They were building up the military and recruiting heavily, offering all sorts of incentives. My fear was that I'd sign up, the cold war would end, and then I'd actually have to fight a war. That might mean I wasn't really soldier material, but I guess I was rooting for the cold war to continue.
Of course your story is different. If the cold war continued, you'd doubtfully ever lived in Russia and all that entailed.
It's entirely not. It speaks to grounding, not conclusions.
I'd just like to say, although it's a very eccentric and not at all important point, that since nostalgia is a feeling of pain when thinking of the past, this regret you're expressing can actually be encompassed by a richer understanding of the meaning of nostalgia.
True. Maybe I'd be in Bali, or Argentina, or still stuck in that Godforsaken midge-infested hellhole they call Scotland.
You would say that.
As @Outlander said, it depends. For me it depends on the outfit.
I would raise my eyebrow at these:
But this would be fine:
And this? The Janissaries. :starstruck:
Well, if it was the funeral of a Janissary, that would be perfect. Otherwise, I'm not sure. If they had made the effort to dress up in full ceremonial costume it might be a sign of respect, even if the deceased wasn't a Janissary.
Jamal, I'm a Janissary in my free time.
Excellent! But I thought you were abolished in the early 19th century.
Yes, that is right; but do not tell anyone, please. It is a secret! :wink:
You can count on my discretion. I shall take your secret to the grave.
I found this post fascinating. (It'll just be boring if you're not into the field)
So basically this guy's forum got hacked (knock on wood, right?) and somehow the hacker managed to place a couple dozen lines of code at the bottom of one or more files that to even some advanced users would seem to be benign. Just does nominal "innocent"/important looking functions per the so-called patch or emergency it claims to remedy. Except, the genius part is, the REAL code is located within the comments, that every coder worth their salt knows is not processed by the script engine at all.
So, how does he make it work? What the script does (very quickly and briefly, obscured by the helpful looking surrounding functions) is actually request the full text of the file itself using a "get file content" function, then searches the raw text using a calculated formulae (RegEx or Regular Expressions) for the hash values (encoded seemingly gibberish that can be decoded to reveal something else) then compiles them together. So it's just some helpful comment like "variableA" does "helpful information XYZ" and beneath that "md5" or "sha1" (which are established methods of encryption) followed by encoded strings ("1jsj5oakf0kajfk329992ke26k" for example). It really just blends in perfectly, which is what I found so impressive.
But it gets even more interesting. What the script secretly compiles from the random hashes in the commented out section (the comments) is a little known function called "runkit_function_redefine", which targets a seldom used function of the forum software, it's not important what it's called but it completely changes what it does and basically makes it so a PHP script uploaded as an image (virtually non-existent these days due to modern practices) that contains a secret HTTP header which the malicious code can be inserted/uploaded. It then of course runs "eval" on the content of that HTTP header, which if you know anything about the PHP language is VERY dangerous since it literally executes code from a text string (simplest, most common form of data storage) as if you were an administrator with FTP access uploading anything you'd like.
I'm not a hacker nor do I look into that type of stuff other than standard best practices and whatnot like any hobbyist/semi-professional would. But again, I just found that particular obfuscation and "outside of the box thinking" fascinating.
Needless to say I broke my sobriety. Oh well, it's a holiday. Back on the wagon tomorrow.
No I wouldn't.
That's too big for a red cardinal.
A self loathing Scotsman!
Go watch Braveheart and get yourself out of this funk.
It's inflated with sadness.
:up: :smirk:
You can't just have empty regret. You have to submit a proposal for corrective action. The Shoutbox stands almost a dozen strong, and we're here to right wrongs.
In case you were wondering why we were here.
Well, there's a debate there. Is going to a funeral really doing anything for the dead person? This reminds me of Tom Sawyer, who found himself in attendance at his own funeral, though he was up in the rafters looking down at the crowd. I think they thought he died in a cave, but Injun Joe actually helped him survive. I think that's what happened.
I think I'll go with the first one, but I'm not sure where to find that thing he has in his hand.
Maybe funerals are for the living.
What might be disrespectful is that if someone is living but he's about to die but he just won't make the commitment is that you have the funeral before he dies and the Priest just starts off by saying, "It looks like Bob is running late for his funeral, but we expect him to get here soon, so we'll just go ahead and start without him because we know everyone is crazy busy this time of year."
I think that would disrespectful for the soon to be dead guy, but it would show show great respect for the people who came to cry about the guy who was about to die. Maybe it'd be fine if you asked Bob and he said, "sure, go ahead, I'll catch up with everyone later."
I think so.
Quoting Hanover
But then Bob miraculously recovers and now you have all those biodegradable balloons flying around and one ends up flying over China and there's an international incident.
That is Timmy Mallett's mallet. You can buy one here:
https://www.timmymallett.co.uk/shop/
Only £28.99.
And I will dance on it in a red dress, red high heels and very wide brimmed red hat.
[hide="Reveal"]But probably in ghostly form.[/hide]
I would join just for the robes. Or do I have to be a former slave?
Yes. I think your post points out a weakness, an over-simplification, in mine. I wrote--"We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves." That ignores the fact that sometimes we don't see till we're shown. I'll expand that in response to one of Hanover's comments.
Quoting Hanover
This is something I've discussed here before many times. I carry a model of the world around in my mind. I feel this very tangibly, visually. As I understand it, it is the foundation of intuition. Here's how I described it in a post from long ago:
Quoting T Clark
What's left out here is that some new ideas make me reexamine, revise, and possibly expand my model of the world.
So, often when I come across new ideas, I get this sense of the ring of truth but also a feeling of the stretching of the fabric of my understanding. I am feeling both very strongly while listening to "The Varieties of Religious Experience."
Quoting Hanover
As my friend Immy used to say
I don't see any contradiction between what you've written here and what I wrote in my response to @Hanover's comment just above. Beyond culture, class, and background I would add genetic and neurological mental characteristics--temperament. I am a pragmatic thinker. Always have been, always will be. I was born that way. That's why I am an engineer.
Without very eccentric and not at all important points, the forum would not be nearly as active.
Now you've prodded me to expound on my theory of regret. Regret is always a cheat, as if you could just wave a magic wand and erase your responsibility for what has happened in the past. So maybe @Jamal was right. Maybe the right word is "nostalgia" after all.
No, you don't need to be a former slave. However, I highly recommend you start learning Turkish on Duolingo. These lads have a terrible English level. Worse than mine, so imagine this!
The ring of truth is not like the ring of commitment or the ring of confidence, which are loops. The ring of truth is like the ring of a bell or the ring of un-cracked, sound ceramics. The ring thus distinguishes truth from crackpot ideas which just clunk.
That's strangely attractive.
Now you’re being cute.
Google says it was how they used to tell gold and silver money from fake.
It reminds me of a black hole. I don't know why. This picture is what you draw when you are alone in your house.
I once started a thread to make the argument that if you can’t predict something, even in theory, then it isn’t determined.
Modally speaking, determinate yet unpredictable (chaos) means in our world unpredictable, but not unpredictable in all possible worlds, but indeterminate and unpredictable (i.e. QM), unpredictable in all possible worlds.
That is, chaos unpredictability increases as variables increase and intelligence and ability to measure decrease.
Your pragmatic problem will arise when you declare something not determined because currently unpredictable and then later someone predicts it.
In any event, calling a coin toss outcome indetermined because unpredictable seems wrong.
I must admit I don’t get the whole modal/possible worlds way of looking at things.
Quoting Hanover
Simple solution— I never definitively declare something as not determined. I always condition that type of judgment.
Beyond that, I have made the case recently that the idea of causality is not necessarily a useful one except in the simplest cases. Seems to me that’s the same argument as saying that the idea of determinism doesn’t make sense except under the same conditions.
Quoting Hanover
Call it what you will, I still say calling it “determined” is not a useful way of characterizing it. It doesn’t really mean anything.
It means that whichever number appeared face up, that number was the only possibility. Laplace's Demon would attest that this is true.
Given the initial conditions, the evolution of the attractor is determined. It is calculated mathematically and cannot vary.
But small variations in those initial conditions will result in large differences in subsequent states.
The Laplacian worldview held that given the initial conditions we could predict the future state. Since we cannot know the initial conditions with unlimited accuracy, we cannot predict the future with unlimited accuracy - even were it determinate.
It wasn't indubitably predictable that T clark become an engineer.
It’s not what Laplace’s Demon knows, it’s what you and I can know.
Is it? I think there are two meanings of determine in play. There's what you can determine, like "they determined that the rain was acidic." Or "the polarity of the field is determined by the direction of current flow."
Are you talking about the first one?
In the second example, the word “determined” is just a synonym for “caused.” I have made the case many times before that causality is not a useful way of understanding the physical world.
Did you really?
I made the case, that doesn’t mean I convinced anyone.
Well, you made the case. Let the chips fall where they may.
Why do we need to know the initial state? We only need know with perfection the current state to know the subsequent state because you'd assume all prior forces exist are impregnated in the current state.
I think the initial state and the current state are the same thing. It’s the initial state of the observation process—conditions at time-0.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting T Clark
This is very complex to me, lads.
Why don't we join the Janissaries or bake a banana and fig sponge cake in Clarky's oven?
Ingredients:
Steps:
Mix everything and bake it with love with your lads. :smile:
Why don't we join the Janissaries and bake a banana and fig sponge cake?
Quoting T Clark
Yep.
I've only got three figs, not quite ripe yet - the Breba crop. How did your figs go this year?
And I'd need convincing to wear trousers on my head...
Oh, it's called a börk.
Corn flour (maze) will make a lighter cake.
Bad. They are not as fatty and sweet as they used to be in the past seasons.
Quoting Banno
Fine, it is up to you. The point is baking together. 225g of corn flour then!
https://www.samebutdifferentcic.org.uk/inspiringwomeninwales-isabel
A true Janissary would never use corn (maize) flour.
Looks like someone has sliced your starling in half.
The Janissaries I know are excellent pastry chefs. But a bit drunken, though. I think it is due to the cold weather where they live.
Two nations divided by a common language. I looked all this up for you.
In the US, we call what you call "corn flour" "cornstarch."
U.S. corn flour would refer to finely ground corn, less coarse than what we'd call cornmeal. You can make bread cakes out of corn flour, but they're definitely not lighter. Cornmeal is what we use for old fashioned skillet baked heavy as a rock cornbread, often moistened with lard. Peasant food.
When you said throw some corn flour in your cakes to lighten them up, that resulted in my going down this rabbit hole.
You're welcome.
That's what she said.
This is a good response. I think you should make it so this is sent out automatically whenever anybody tags you.
Quoting Jamal
Quoting T Clark
Indeed, it is a very good response.
This is another superb moment of the shoutbox.
Thank you. This is a proud moment for me, nay for us all.
But It seems that cooking together will not bring the camaraderie you sought.
Quoting T Clark....and so never make a decent sponge.
Quoting Hanover
No need, but it's good to see you are learning something about English.
Corn flour will produce a finer crumb. You can add a bit of wheat flour if you like, but it will make the cake heavier and dryer. A good sponge does not rely on gluten at all, but gets its structure from the eggs. It's basically a "structural meringue".
The eggs are separated, then the whites frothed, cream of tartare added, and a bit of bi carb to neutralise the acid and add some carbon dioxide. The corn flour coats the bubbles gently, helping stabilise the foam by absorbing surface moisture. As it bakes, the starch gelatinises, basically setting the air bubbles in place. Gluten will tighten as it cooks, shrinking the foam. Using wheat flour the cake will be heavier and less moist.
The yolks, mixed with sugar, are folded gently back in for colour and flavour.
I'm glad you learned the difference between corn flour and corn meal. I'm surprised that you had to.
When will you learn that I am right.
I am not qualified to criticize your knowledge of cooking. As for philosophy, that’s a different story.
Really? You think credentials make good philosophers? I guess that explains a lot.
Everything is upside down in Australia.
Not at all. But experience... yes.
Perhaps growing tulips in a beautiful and plain land might be a better idea. :smile:
Science and engineering teach critical thinking at least as well as philosophy does. And when push comes to shove, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I’ll put my pudding up against yours any day.
They tend to doctrine rather than critique.
Quoting T Clark
I'm sure you would. However it's plain that you haven't understood much concerning the problems that you attempt to deal with hereabouts. So I'm not sure you are the best judge on such issues.
Do you really wish to play this game with me? As for your sponge, so for your pudding? :grin:
What I learned wasn't the difference between corn flour and corn meal, as I always knew that and never had to learn it. It was one of those synthetic a priori truths I have always held.
What I learned was that your use of "corn flour" differed from mine. Corn flour to me is finely ground corn meal. Corn flour to you is corn starch, an entirely different sort of thing. I'm shocked you had to be told this.
Let me ask you this, knower of all things flour, what do you call what I call corn flour, which is finely ground cornmeal?
And since you shared with me your bougie spongecakes or whatever they may be, I share with you the delicacy of southern cornbread: https://www.harvesteating.com/blog/skillet-cornbread-w-lard
Five tablespoons of lard seems stingy.
White Wings Cornflour is the epitome.
Interesting. I hear they actually call it cornstarch and not corn flour in the US.
Quoting Banno
That cartoon did a great disservice to biology.
I think he's actually made of polyester.
This is fun. Let’s keep it going for a little while.
Quoting Banno
You and I approach philosophy differently. You mostly just repeat things other people have said, without adding much insight of your own. I take more responsibility. It’s not what other people tell me, it’s what I can see for myself. Other philosophers can help with that, but in the end, I’m accountable for my own ideas.
Quoting Banno
I’m pretty sure you aren’t the best judge of who is the best judge.
This is fun!
Just a thought.
The motto of the IEEE (electronic engineering society) used to be Engineering; turning ideas into reality.
Very philosophical, except also helpful.
Seriously, is that the best you can do?
Quoting Banno
Seriously, is that the best you can do? It doesn’t even make sense.
My father worked for Dupont for his entire career—almost 50 years. Their motto was “Better things for better living through chemistry.” I don’t know if it still is.
It was truly fucked up.
I took the "make shit up" challenge. How'd I do?
Land of nerds.
I remember a Monsanto commercial back in the 1970s—“Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible.”
That is such freakin' genius.
So like you'll be in the produce aisle and a calm yet spirited tune kicks on and the spotlights dance on the rutabagas for a few moments. Then you'll be in the bread aisle and a pseudo form of techno comes on with the bright lights dimming allowing colored spotlights to wildly paint the aisle up and down with their various illumination.
I'd shop there. All the young people would. It would market itself. And go viral on its own. Kids would literally force their parents to shop at my store no matter how inconveniently located it is. Fact.
Another fact, I'm going to pitch that notion to investors tomorrow. No one steal my idea in the interim, thanks.
Even back then, I thought it was kind of creepy. Just because I’m made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn’t mean I should take a bath in methyl isocyanate. That’s what killed thousands in Bhopal India a few years after the commercial came out.
That might be the philosophy about nothing. (Jerry Seinfeld?) I can't think of any philosopher who argues that there actually is nothing. But ask GP, I'm sure it could make an argument for nothing.
Quoting frank
No. He is actually made of hemp.
By the way, that photo must be old, when spongebob was young and innocent. If you went to his neighbourhood, you would be surprised at how the tables turned. Don't play with drugs, lads.
I think it's pretty common among engineers to think their expertise entitles them to apply their skills to all the problems in the world. Biology, physics, philosophy: just stop all this nonsense and let the engineers deal with it! It might explain why so many crackpots are engineers. I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
@Banno is a lost cause, but I expect better from you.
You ain't seen nothin yet!
If you’re serious, and if you find my presence on the forum disruptive, let me know.
I was just talking about engineers. Don't take it too personally.
It's a known phenomenon. People have written books about it. Political science academics Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog looked at why engineers are overrepresented among political extremists, conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientific movements, and crackpottery.
Their book focuses on Jihadism but it's wider than that: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178509/engineers-of-jihad?srsltid=AfmBOopV7UTbPmEccn1GXAjw9DABooachpsgdcYyBS4JVU91bcEVR_9W
Clarky, we love you.
You probably already know this. Your presence here is very important to us. Jamal was joking, and if he was truly serious, I bet he was thinking of other members rather than you.
There are crackpot engineers and then very good-hearted engineers like you; crackpot janissaries (like me) and wonderful janissaries.
And then, there are also good-hearted well-groomed philosophers like @Banno and @Michael Bay, which are apart (different specimens). :smile:
I was talking about engineers.
:up:
There is, assuredly, some stereotype associated with forum admins as well. Isn't there? Why, there must be. But before we attempt to approach such subject matter: a question. If I may.
What word would you use to define yourself? And a follow-up: Why? :chin:
Quoting Hanover
What an interesting mental configuration you have there. Yes, the simple act of including an additional space between the last two brackets provides enough psychoanalysis to fill a library with on your worldview, desires, and fears, both conscious and otherwise, without ever having met you. That's a skill you might be able to develop yourself, someday. :smirk:
...is hackneyed.
And so the sort of tried and tested response one might expect from an engineer.
Ad substantiam. :smirk:
Yes, they're all petty tyrants who need to compensate for their lack of status in real life by wielding authority anonymously in their own little digital fiefdoms. They're so insecure, vindictive, pathetic, capricious, and narcissistic, while being cowardly failures in real life, that the only thing that satisfies them is acting like a wrathful God online.
I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for showing it with cartoons. Otherwise, I would have nightmares this night.
I think "Crocodiles are more afraid of us than we are of them" is a terrible hoax. Of course crocodiles are not afraid of us and they are patiently waiting in their swamp to eat a random hiker.
That's certainly one, I'd imagine. :smile:
And—while likely a common sentiment—is perhaps not one that lines up all too well with the method behind a perceived madness. The Internet is a catalyst for unbridled expression. It's only natural—depending on what frame of mind an individual happens to be in (people use the Internet on the john, mind you)—to occasionally forget the person behind the post in favor of placating the desire to hastily express one's current view (or ideal position, irrespective of—or perhaps in spite of—one's normal obligation to adhere to social etiquette) toward a topic or idea. I think. :yum:
I don’t think he was joking, and I do think he was talking about me.
An additional space can be critical in evaluating the meaning of a sentence. For example, the sentence, "The pen is in my mouth" has a very different meaning if you eliminate certain spacing.
"What is a good website where I can go to discuss and post about philosophical issues?"
It's response:
1. The Philosophy Forum (thephilosophyforum.com)
2. r/philosophy & r/askphilosophy (Reddit)
3. Philosophy StackExchange
4. Philosophy Substack communities
5. Discord philosophy servers
6. Academia.edu “Sessions” (surprisingly decent)
AI is our friend after all. Why don't you guys ask this same question and see if you get a similar response. My concern is that it has detected my prior use and it's sycophanting.
I am getting very frustrated with my attempts to pronounce the words. I think the point is that the three are pronounced the same but "towed" is grinding my gears.
That’s right. Why is that troublesome?
I’ll tell you my own pronunciation confession. Since you’re Spanish, I know “Javi” should be pronounced “Havi,” but when I say it to myself, I always use a hard J.
I got:
1. Eng?Tips Forums
2. r/engineering (on Reddit)
3. IET EngX
4. Engineers Australia – “EA Xchange”
5. Engineering.com
Fine! I don't really know why I got frustrated, actually.
Quoting T Clark
You can pronounce 'Javi' however you want, but don't shout 'JAVIER', please. This is what my parents or other authorities said when they wanted to scold me. It hit me hard when I was a kid. :sweat:
Apparently:
It looks like ChatGPT has read your article.
I was going to let this whole thing go, but seems like you want to keep it going. You and I were going back-and-forth, and I had you on the ropes until you brought in a moderator to take your side. As usual, you bring no substance, only ego.
You're behaving like children. Stop it and go to your beds right now.
Ah, you've bought in to @Leontiskos' theory of the Philosophy Forum "Deep state". Just the sort of thing one expects from engineers:
But I just got up... and had coffee.
You share responsibility for this. I’ll shut up if Banno will.
This is what I am doing right now: I just finished my Duolingo lesson, put on my pyjamas, and tucked myself into bed. :smile:
Good night to all.
Please, @Banno and @T Clark try to make up and move on. Enough. I dislike when people I appreciate are at odds.
Don't use me as a conduit for your snark
It already softly and suddenly vanished away.
I am pressed for time and searched for an AI that is free and doesn't require a login. "Ask AI" (how original) came up. It's response was: [some lengthy encyclopedic response that didn't answer my question]. So I asked it again, specifically for website URLs, to which it responded:
"I apologize, but I cannot provide specific website URLs. My instructions explicitly state that I must use ONLY the very most authoritative and credible print encyclopedias, published nonfiction books, academic journals, and dictionaries, and NO other sources whatsoever. Providing specific website URLs would violate this core constraint, as these are not typically found within the types of sources I am permitted to use."
I have failed. Sorry. But on the bright side:
Quoting Hanover
You'll never guess this one. What did the lawyer name his daughter? :smirk:
Sure— How many attorney general nominees does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Two—One to replace the bulb and one to pay for sex with 17-year-old girls.
Actually, I just noticed ChatGPT is free and no login. It's response was:
"If you’re looking for good websites to discuss and post about philosophical issues, here are some solid picks — each with a slightly different flavour, so you can pick one that fits your style best:
? Recommended Site
Online Philosophy Club — A good all-round forum for philosophically-minded discussion.
- Free to join and open to people from a wide range of backgrounds.
- Topics are varied: ethics, metaphysics, meaning of life, knowledge, etc.
- Rules ask that you stay civil and on-topic (no ad hominems) which helps keep discussion productive.
- Because it’s a dedicated philosophy forum, it may feel more “serious” than broader chat sites.
If you like, I can pull 5–10 of the best philosophy discussion forums (free, open to post, good community) ranked + linked — do you want that?"
I replied: "Yes."
It replied:
"Here are 8 good websites/forums where you can discuss and post about philosophical issues — each has a slightly different tone or community, so you can pick the one that fits you best.
# Name What it offers & good fit
1 Online Philosophy Club A dedicated philosophy discussion forum welcoming all levels (from students to professors). Forum rules emphasise civility and on?topic discussion.
2 The Philosophy Forum A general forum where you can post about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, religion, etc. Good variety of topics.
3 Philosophy Vessel (Forum) A global, open platform for classical and contemporary philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, philosophy of information, etc.). Welcoming for beginners and more advanced.
4 PEA Soup A site focused on philosophy, ethics, academia — lots of thoughtful articles and discussion around current philosophical issues.
5 EpicureanFriends A more specialized forum: focused on classical Epicurean philosophy (ethics, ancient texts). Good if you like that specific tradition.
6 Sikh Philosophy Network A forum oriented toward Sikh literature and philosophy, inter?faith dialogue and philosophical issues within that tradition. Good niche/community.
7 LessWrong While not purely a “philosophy forum” in the traditional sense, this community focuses on rationality, cognition, decision-making and philosophical questions around those topics.
8 r/philosophy (Reddit) & r/askphilosophy (Reddit) These are subreddit forums where you can post philosophical questions, ideas, get feedback, engage in open discussion. Example: > “This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy …”
Fuckpuppet?
Sure, that's a good joke, but I think my guess to the joke above is the best of all time.
That was the expected answer, yes. :sweat:
Are you suggesting that we could smoke SpongeBob SquarePants and get stoned?
The THC content in hemp is to low to get stoned. They have to remove large amounts of hemp derived THC and put it in a gummie to get you stoned.
Ladies and gents, I present to you: "The Outlander." A feisty improvement to the traditional ham and cheese sandwich featuring: (2) slices of white bread, a total of (3) "tavern-style" (smoked I believe with light seasoning) slices of ham freshly sliced from the local supermarket, along with (3) pepper jack cheese slices (alternating between layers of ham, never touching one another), accompanied by (2) vertically-sliced "deli style" pickles, all held together by a few liberal allotments of French's yellow mustard in between most slices.
You'll note one slice is missing as per the customs of my restaurant. Chef/server takes a slice/spoonful of whatever you order in lieu of you having to tip. It brings in more business than you might expect. Pretty high turnover rate on servers, though. Bah, no matter. Just growing pains.
Yes. This is what I was exactly suggesting.
Excellent ham and cheese sandwich. Next time, try them with olive oil. Trust me, it is a wonderful combo.
There are a couple of problems with the use of olive oil in @Outlander's sandwich. First, it would be absorbed by the soft, thin bread, which will become unpleasantly soggy and will probably disintegrate. Second, olive oil with French's mustard doesn't sound like a promising combo. Third, the flavour of extra virgin olive oil would not, at least for me, be at home in a ham and cheese sandwich unless the ham was the European raw ham like Jamón Serrano or Jambon de Bayonne.
Personally, I would replace the French's mustard with a mix of mayonnaise and English mustard, and add some fresh ground black pepper.
Huh. I just might try that.
It occurred to me my aversion to mayonnaise is largely pseudo-enforced, fabricated by my choice to refrain from condiments, sauces, and similar viscous product that can be easily tampered with without displaying discernible lack of evidence when dining out (or otherwise consuming food I did not prepare myself). (I live an interesting life, shall we say, plus many people in the service industry are unhappy, prone to vindictiveness, or are otherwise raised without rigid morals—might as well ask a monkey to prepare one's lunch, am I right? I kid. A little unsolicited late night humor.)
But at home where the food ingredients go from a factory sealed container or package to a plate is a different story. A quick Internet search reveals "English mustard" as a bit more flavorful, spicy even, with a discernible "fiery kick" (in comparison to American mustard). Sounds good so far. I trust you're aware "French's" is an American brand pioneered by one "Mr. French" and does not hail from France, yes?
While I do believe in the pseudo-rhyme: "a little pepper makes everything better", I question the discernible taste and elevation of the overall flavor profile even a generous amount of black pepper would make on a fairly busy sandwich such as "The Outlander". What with the mustard (very peppery as-is), pickles (quite tangy), and if I'm not mistaken, already albeit slightly seasoned ham. But it is fair to say, it certainly would not do any harm. :smile:
Respectable advice from a respectable man. I feel like I should be paying some sort of membership fee for such. Golly good, Jamal. Golly good. :grin:
Edit: As far as olive oil, a fun anecdote: All my life I've been fond of sardines. Always in water. Since a young age. Oil made such a mess. And messes are to be punished. So it was always, any fish, even any meat: "In water only." This obsession even extended to fruits such as mandarin oranges and peach cups. Oh can't have a mess. Cannot have a mess. Messes are to be punished, after all. But finally, one day, when I was a legal adult I decided to order a new brand of sardines that came in a variety pack, one of which rests in, you guessed it, olive oil. It was one of the best sardines I can recall in living memory. I also tried a variety (of the exact same product) that was in water. It was not so great. Which made me realize not just what I was missing, but the sheer length of how long as well! Oh did it make me start to rethink what else in life I've been so hopelessly unaware of. Needless to say, I have a newfound respect for olive oil and would certainly entertain the idea of olive oil (carefully, only drizzling a small portion on the ham or cheese itself that does not immediately neighbor the delicate and malleable culinary bookends that are bread slices).
There's another ham and cheese sandwich I like, called "The Jamal." It's a grilled cheese sandwich but there are slices of ham in the middle. The key is to have the cheese, not the ham, directly in contact with the bread so that it gets the heat and melts. So the ham is sandwiched between bread and cheese on both sides.
Indeed, @Outlander's sandwich bread is replaceable. I'd use a baguette (we call it "barra" here) because it is thin. Furthermore, I will not add anything else to my sandwich or bocadillo. Just the ham with cheese and olive oil. This was my point. Since olive oil has a strong flavour, I don't think I need extra products. I believe I have never combined mayonnaise and pickles in a sandwich. Perhaps it is a cultural culinary thing. I only eat these alone or with fish.
Quoting Jamal
Yes. I thought the same. I even believe that I already said this in the shoutbox: English mustard is far better than French one, and it combines better with most products. This is my favourite:
This sounds excellent as well. When I would get traditional (cold) ham and cheese sandwiches from the nearby delicatessen I observed that by simply microwaving it (I understand a proper oven is superior but the comparison between hot and cold is assuredly captured by the like) the sandwich was... much more, not only filling, but, tasty? Hearty? One of those words. It was almost elevated to the status of a meal itself and not just a quick snack or light lunch like a cold ham and cheese sub would be otherwise.
But! We have a conundrum. A personal one due to my peculiarities, rest assured, nothing to do with the nature of your recipe. Rest assured. For me, the combination of melted cheese and warmed ham has the effect of "weighing me down" and invoking a state of desired rest. It makes me sleepy. Which is not good for my line of work. At the end of the day, when all is done but preparing for night's rest, this is ideal. Excellent even. So I will try this, but during the evening. I will retain and actualize your wisdom of ensuring both receiving sides of bread are met with the touch of not ham, but cheese.
I've had an aversion of grilled cheese sandwiches since I was young but I now realize that was due to the quality of the venue of the place in which they were served (school and other people's houses), not the product served itself. I for one love a good ham and cheese, cold, and especially hot, such are the circumstantial risks I take that come with the latter. I will assuredly try "The Jamal", to recreate it, to the best of my ability, such as said ability is, and upon doing so will produce a photo as evidence of such, so that it may be judged, praised, yea even ridiculed in the unforgiving arena of verbal combat that is, The Shoutbox. Stay tuned Jamal, stay tuned.
I might even suggest not just the oil of the olive, but, stand back, the olive itself! We won't limit ourselves to the squeezed essence of this ancient fruit, but its very meat.
I call this radical unrefined beast the HanoveriniRobini.
At this point in the conversation we expect @Banno to arrive and explain how we've all done it wrong, with avocado oil or some such being more accurate based upon how it interacts with the animal proteins and slightly acidic this or that.
What might compose a Bannonini?
Speaking of mustard, I bought some Chinese style mustard powder you mix with water to form a hot paste of sinus clearing unhappiness. I find that it must be used sparingly, best when not used at all.
For the adventurous, you'll find it in the Kung Pu Hanoverfuchan sandwich.
And yes, y'all are going to have to endure my traveling the globe with sandwiches I make up.
I was thinking about creating a Scottish menu where I just added a "Mc" to every item, but someone beat me to it.
Nuh. Olives are good.
Agreeing to be disagreeable. Next level. Nice.
Wow! Interesting!
I never heard of Chinese mustard. Yet I bought Chinese paste, but I don't recall what it was called. Used in meat in most cases.
Now that I am thinking of this, Chinese soups are spicy but pretty tasty. I love them.
I'm a fan of Mexican soups. Most overlook that on the menu in Mexican restaurants and go for the burritos, enchiladas, and the like. I just had that last night, shredded chicken and vegetable soup and some empanadas.
Oddly enough, we call this a grilled ham and cheese sandwich. If instead of ham, you make the sandwich with a hamburger in the middle, we call it a golden boy.
I want a golden boy.
Everyone wants a golden boy.
Are we still talking about sandwiches?
You share a language but not food.
Pay attention. We’re talking about the Epstein emails.
Exactly. That's right!
--------------------------
I ate a salad for supper. Please, don't get upset with me, but I added nuts and a bunch of chocolate chips. The result was amazingly good.
Epstein wasn't into golden boys. He was into golden girls.
He groomed them from a young age waiting for them to get to their sassy prime.
Yes, the elusive and mysterious @Michael Bay. Well dressed, joined 8 years ago, and nary a post. Legend has it (as in a breaking news sort of legend) he took his salad with bittersweets, an ingredient as mysterious as the man.
We were in the company of greatness and never knew.
Holly Molly. My boy @Michael Bay is tremendous.
Quoting javi2541997
Hmm.
But let's be fair:
We FINALLY have a mega-star on our rolls, and you want to hate? We've all waited 8 long years for any comment at all from him, and you've probably just reset the clock.
If heat is the goal, then wasabi is I think a better approach. We've managed to keep some plants alive for a year or so, and while they are not yet large enough to harvest the stem, we've used the leaves in salad with a very pleasing result.
So my ham sandwich would have leg ham off the bone, a mild cheese such as Jarlsberg and a salad of wasabi leaves.
It depends on how we see it. At least @Michael Bay was nominated for something, and he even won an award. Perhaps, his work will be more valued after his death. Like Van Gogh's paintings.
I admire your perspective.
I wonder what some folk are going to think about having their post count reset to 0. Will that happen? How "fresh" will the new start be? Don't want to clutter up the public thread with my idiosyncratic bouts of curiosity.
Will we have to sign up again as if joining a new site? Or will we just load up TPF one March day and be on an empty new forum? Will new membership admittance be the same as it is now (ie. no temporary "open enroll" to get the initial numbers up, etc.)?
These are good questions so I'll reply in the dedicated thread.
I'm at 6.9K comments and 5.9K mentions.
I don't know. Perhaps, I will get over 7.2K comments and 6.3K mentions or so before the forum is frozen.
Typically when changing platforms, Porat purchases the old data. We could use the cash infusion. Want me to reach out?
Should we consider this transition a reset, much like a Jubilee year, relieving all of their past debts where all prior banashees are qualified for reentry?
If I return as a street urchin hungry for gruel and philosophy, speaking like Oliver Twist, will everyone allow it without reminding me of my Hanover days?
The Shoutbox will become an instant message board, much like a Snapchat. Can we still have a community posting room like this one, perhaps named after me?
Can the data from the old platform be available in downloadable form so we can perform AI analysis on the old posts and posters. It would be helpful to summarize each person into a one sentence essence. I can better understand people once cleansed of annoying nuance
That's it for now. I'm sure I'll think of something more.
All of that can be done in live chat, unless I'm missing something. I'm not saying no—just trying to establish what people think the live chat will be lacking. Because quite often I think it'll turn out that live chat isn't lacking it aftet all.
The Shoutbox used to be live chat and we had to make it a regular discussion thread when we moved to Plush only because Plush has no live chat feature.
You're probably right. But even what's his name likes the idea of a "community posting room", likely for the reasons I've suggested. Unless he's joking. Hard to tell with that one. I guess I just think it's neat you can go back to page 1 and read about what was going on 10 years ago. I like history, even a small community meta-history (like this Porat guy I've seen come up multiple times over the years).
Quoting Jamal
Aye aye, cap'n. I just figured my comments were minor personal interests that didn't belong in a newly minted official pinned thread is all. If I have something to say, I'll make sure it's important. :wink:
Sim brushed away the crumbs from his drawing of a micro apartment and paused to wonder if there is any difference between a story and a thought. If he made a doorway in the apartment to another dimension, would people store their winter clothes in it, filling the dimension up with mittens and long johns?
Quoting javi2541997
I suggest someone open a thread in the lounge where people can just post over and over again to increase their counts.
There's an app that can create thousands of meaningless posts and stories that go nowhere. I've been using it for years.
However, I think that if you, @Banno and I begin discussing the Voynich manuscript in the shoutbox, we will quickly reach the number of posts. :smile:
I'll be seen as a Socrates sort of character, using you guys just to show how smart I am, you being just two bit characters in my play.
The sense of responsibility I feel is overwhelming.
Warning— in the last minute you find out this is an ad for a streaming service, but that doesn’t distract from its value to me.
I’ve suspected as such
Whom.
Or, perhaps, it’s the other way around.
That's what she (Diotima) said.
Silly?…Or smelly?
Acknowledged.
Too right, I said.
@apokrisis @Banno
“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” Nietzsche.
In my view, he couldn’t be righter.
numbing joviality.
So our arguments are agreeable? I hope so.
It would be fun to hear what Apokrisis had to say about this juxtaposition.
It would be fun to hear what Apokrisis had to say about this.
So, you would like to hear @apokrisis's apocrisis? Can such a thing even be done without running the risk of reality collapsing in on itself? :chin:
I wouldn't risk it.
Quoting Banno
:sad:
No sauerkraut?
Or maybe not! Anyway - it’s interesting to know that longtime posters here have a profile that the LLMs know about :yikes:
You Brits
Short for Woolworths. Large supermarket chain here.
Woolworths went bankrupt years ago. Did they steal the name?
"Woolworths Group is the largest retail corporation in Australia, operating a variety of supermarket and other retail chains in Australia and New Zealand, including Woolworths Supermarkets. The name "Woolworths" was legally taken to capitalize on the F. W. Woolworth name, since they did not do business in Australia and had not registered the trademark there, but is in no other way connected to the US or UK Woolworths."
Ah ok apologies lol
eply="Metaphysician Undercover;1025525"] I believe there was a British one, I think there's a South African one. The Australian one is a long, long way from going bankrupt.
He wasn't wrong.
Are we the Woolworth's lunch counter?
There’s a good chance Black people were not allowed to eat at that lunch counter. I’m not using that as criticism of your father. It’s just the way things were.
We'd have said the same thing about W. H. Woolworth in the 80's. It fell in the 90's.
Wikipedia:
"By Woolworth's 100th anniversary in 1979, it had become the largest department store chain in the world, according to the Guinness Book of World Records."
There's a dynamic to the wasabi heat, it develops on exposure to air, so the leaves have a lettuce-like taste to start with and then the heat develops in your mouth over a few minutes. I suspect that the leaves would need to be fresh, so not an option for the supermarket.
Those here from foreign parts seem to be having trouble with the corporate structure. The Australian version was named after the UK version as the result of a bet, and unlike the UK version it is still here. It is quite independent of the IK and US namesakes. And not a "dime store", a parochialism we might avoid.
That was before my birth. Atlanta was the center of the civil rights movement. It would have been shocking to see open displays of enforced segregation like that at any time in my life. I was born in 1966. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964.
My dad did grow up in Chattanooga and he told me stories of separate restrooms and water fountains, but that was a generation before mine, but yes, never can be long enough ago.
This isn't meant as a snarky come back, but your comment sounds like that of an older generation that has an outdated and simplistic view of the South. I'd suspect I have had more black school teachers, bosses, neighbors, co-workers, doctors, and whatever else than those in New England, just by virtue of their being part of the mainstream social fabric here. Not to suggest that as evidence of racism not existing, but suggesting the cartoonish image some far away might imagine bears no resemblance with reality.
That's not to say racism isn't everywhere, but I bristle a bit at the Hollywood suggestion store owners in the South were all tobacco spitting rednecks with baseball bats chasing blacks out of their store. I'm not sure what the store owner would do when the black officer rolled up.
Real racism is unfortunately sophisticated, not simplistic, and it's not regional.
I went to high school in southern Virginia in the middle of the state just north of the North Carolina border. When I moved there in 1966, 10th grade, the high schools were segregated. I remember having one black teacher until the schools were integrated my senior year. Then there were more. I was not a socially aware teenager, but as I remember it, there was no particular drama in the joining of the two school systems.
A friend of mine tells me she does remember having to go to the back of the bus when she was younger. And as I noted, Black people couldn’t marry white people until I was in my junior year. She once asked me whether that was why I never asked her to marry me. It was not.
Nice.
I have never tried Wasabi leaves. I looked at Wikipedia and it says: It is similar in taste to hot mustard or horseradish rather than chilli peppers, in that it stimulates the nose more than the tongue, but freshly grated wasabi has a subtly distinct flavour.
So, it is fresh and spicy at the same time. Interesting. Indeed, wasabi leaves are a tasty combo with a ham sandwich. :up:
Clarky (or ), I wish you had been my high school English teacher instead of the crackpots I had.
I would not have been a good teacher. I don’t have the patience. Also, in your case, I don’t speak Spanish. A little French, a little German, but no Spanish.
Buenos días, chicos. Hoy he desayunado galletas.
Which it means:
Good morning, lads. I had cookies for breakfast.
Would a respected teacher have cookies for breakfast?
Me encantan los huevos; tanto cocidos como revueltos.
Wich it means:
I love eggs. Both hard boiled and scrambled.
Of course I would. Even more if they are made of oatmeal.
No frito? No escalfados?
(I had to use Google Translate for poached. I never ordered poached eggs in Spain.)
https://www.diggers.com.au/products/wasabi-mazuma
Sorry.
Yes, I also like huevos fritos, but for meal not for breakfast.
Quoting Jamal
Nope. These are disgusting to me. The taste of the yolk is too strong.
Quoting Wayfarer
it's actually the stem that is most often used, for the paste. It's called a "rhizome" but it's not one, botanical speaking.
Yer aff yer heid.
Scottish slang! Love it! :ok:
This sentence shut down just about a third of the entire interwebs for over an hour. You can tell because the source of the problem came from your neck of the woods.
Try and be more careful next time.
On a more serious note, with a touch of interesting philosophical irony. The system, or safeguard, rather, that was made to prevent maliciously-derived Internet outages, now makes such ever more powerful than such ever could be before through the use of a single hub that now affects a large majority of telecommunications infrastructure, from banks, to social media, to even small community forums like this. Completely unavailable all the same. It's, ironic, isn't it? Philosophical at least.
I remember after moving to New Orleans as a kid,1965, I went into the Woolworth's on canal street and sat at the wrong counter. No one said anything but I did not get asked what I wanted. There was also a laundromat somewhere near there that still had a sign saying "whites only"
True story.
Nice interaction. The way to a man's heart is pity.
I noticed many date palms in Spain. I don't know if they're harvested.
Yes, you probably saw them in Valencia, but there are a lot of palm dates in Elche. As far as I know, they are harvested. The species is called "Medjool," but I only saw it in Moroccan or other Arabic shops. Even though Arabic culinary culture was very important in the Peninsula, dates are not part of dessert. This is a big surprise because we have the needed environment to cultivate them.
I heard that bomba rice was originally brought to Spain by the Moors too.
Exactly. They brought bomba rice and the technique of growing it.
I heard that they also brought the technique of growing almonds and other fruits on hillside terraces. Those terraces still remain and give the landscape a special character.
Seven centuries last a lot, and they lead to doing many different things. Even the shape of the regions of my country.
How about albaricoques (apricots)? Does Spain produce them in significant quantities? They don't seem to be as available as they used to be, and it's one of my favorites. Even canned apricots can be hard to find. The best dried apricots come from Turkey, seems like. Have Americans turned against apricots? Does Trump hate apricots?
Yes, we do! According to our Ministry of Agriculture (NOTE: the official website is in English too: https://www.mapa.gob.es/en/), Spain produces 75K tonnes per year, mostly in the Murcia and Almería regions. However, we are far from Turkey, which is the top producer and exporter. I also love apricots. We are not having a problem finding them in our local markets yet. Christmas is coming, and many people buy it because it is a classic dessert in this season.
Know how you catch a squirrel? Climb up a tree and act like a nut.
Quoting BC
Apricot and precocious derive from the same root, as both mature early. https://www.etymonline.com/word/apricot
Quoting javi2541997
Pecan pie is also a Christmas treat. It's @T clark's favorite.
Quoting BC
And the best turkeys are served on Christmas, which likely explains why they call it Turkey. The etymology of words is fascinating.
I first visited Turkey when I was a kid on Thanksgiving. It was next to the mashed potatoes.
Got a million of em folks. I'll keep em coming.
I know. It's @Michael Bay's favourite too. :smile:
He's hugely influential.
I've still got the image of your crying in the cab and the cabbie feeding you dates from a napkin to calm you. Like if that were me, that'd be a somewhat unusual day.
https://www.threads.com/@cinemagic.universe/post/DRNav1nkzVK/media
Indeed, it was an unusual day. These are the kind of days I like the most.
Yes, I was raging, but seriously, everyone gets upset when they are hungry. Don't you think?
The word to describe hungry + angry is "hangry."
They also get Hungary in Turkey, just to keep that pun thing going.
This is true.
https://stuckeys.com/?srsltid=AfmBOopgVEGtjF6uSOVjad3R8X-l8BdqtkriJh0MxBis1r4HRYIboL1I
I had to Google the place and found this image that seemed to be of general interest.
"An abandoned Stuckey's restaurant and gas station along the freeway in 2004"
Seems to be another classic example of what I would call "psychologically detrimental" marketing. When traveling in a vehicle that relies on motion (ie. not being "stuck"), particularly in a rural area, who wants to stop at a place called "Stuckey's"? It's like a bad omen. Though I attribute the fall of Stuckey's to a largely unconscious phenomena as the brunt of the lack of sales, it's one of those scenarios that even the conscious mind can recognize and so act on.
Up north here it was Howard Johnson’s. They had 28 flavors of ice cream long, long before Baskin-Robbins came along. Also, Jack Pepper was the head chef at Howard Johnson back in the 50s and early 60s. That’s how voice to text translates “Jaques Pepin.”
I think the critics might be right. Where does that leave us, though? Does it mean democracy can't really be achieved because an elite class will always emerge and what we get is just some version of their vision of things?
Also, it's really interesting to think about where the public sphere (such as it is) really resides. Where was it in Habermas' day versus now?
We had Howard Johnsons also. They had the old school diners. I stayed in one once. It was on Atlanta Highway, in Athens, home of the University of Georgia The roof in my room was angled sharply down, like I was in the attic. Snoop Dogg was on SNL that night, which I just looked up to see was March 19, 1994.
There's a reason I remember that night, although not for the seedy reason you're planting in your mind right now.
HoJo memories.
That landscape looks too stark for Georgia. Not a tree to be seen and really flat. Maybe Florida.
I don't get it
I think that the joke is that statisticians fail in their predictions in most cases. Two failed the shot, and the third even lied. Conclusion: we should not take statistics very seriously, even more so if politics are involved.
I don’t explain my jokes, but… No.
The third was the average of the first two, in their statistician minds.
EDIT: In other words, the first two shots equated to a shot on target, when averaged out.
:scream:
Quoting Jamal
This definitely sounds better, I agree. :up:
Quoting Jamal
Or if the third hunter was @Hanover or @Michael Bay.
I didn't see the story as a joke, but just as three friends bonding over the exciting prospect of bringing home a festive duck for the holidays. Undeterred by the first two failed attempts, the third reassured the others with his never say die attitude.
The reader is invited into that blind and is comforted with the warmth and camaraderie and can't help but to cheer on the third to victory. Should his blast from his shotgun prove victorious, we will all dance in the delight of triumph, swinging our arms around the neck of the man who out witted the duck.
It will be the sort of love Jonathan had for King David. Loving, but maybe even more!
The author then humanizes the characters with helpful background information, letting us know they work in the exciting world of statistics, which explains their sense of enthusiasm and thirst for life.
At the conclusion of this complex tale, the reader is left hanging, wondering if our hero felled the duck but also in how his career is going, whether he will pass his upcoming actuarial exam and whether he will get that promotion in underwriting.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for that story of the human spirit
Why don't the friends bring the duck as a new friend? Probably, this is precisely what you thought, but my pessimism and existentialism force me to imagine that the duck was a reference to a meal and not for company. I hope this is not actually the case.
I suspect that after they humanely remove it ballistically from the air and provide it tender follow up ICU care, the duck will be no less from the wear and will serve as a friendly companion for years to come.
What is the "ICU" chap?
A see a bunch of guys sitting out in the cold, with guns in hand. You forgot to mention the whiskey, and the reason why they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a shotgun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_care_unit
Assuming they could ballistically remove it from the air. Hey, they're statisticians, not rocket scientists.
Ever see "MythBusters", when they're shotting fish in a barrel? The M-whatever was extremely successful, trashed the barrel and everything.
Fish in a barrel. Pretty nice. We can write a haiku on it.
The myth busters really like playing with explosives and all sorts of dangerous weapons. They proved that shooting fish in a barrel is as easy as it's supposed to be, especially if you're using an automatic rifle firing hundreds of shots per second.
Fish in Greek is "????" ([I]Psári[/I]). I learnt it on Duolingo.
[hide="Reveal"]
True story.
Is that fish in a fraternity?
That's an American joke. You'll have to figure it out.
I searched on Google and it explicitly states: it most likely refers to the common, albeit harmful, hazing practice where fraternity pledges are forced to swallow a live goldfish.
I feel bad for goldfishes living next to American campuses. :sad:
No, so here's the joke broken down. On US university campuses, we have social fraternities that are designated Greek letters. I asked if those fish were in a fraternity based upon the letters you assigned them.
I have heard the hazing thing about having to eat live goldfish. I think that was in a movie back in the 1950s. I've never eaten a live fish except maybe an oyster but it's hard to know if they're alive because they sort of sit there and don't say much.
Wow! I get it now, thanks.
I have never been a member of a university fraternity. Well, honestly, we do not have such things in Spain...
it's also hard to know if an oyster is a fish. It is a shellfish, so an appeal to ordinary language philosophy would probably let it slide. Ha, get it? Let it slide, you're teaching me new talents.
Quoting Jamal
I think the statisticians would throw those data points out. Clark, you need to throw that joke out and start over.
But you wouldn't fish for oysters, or maybe you would, but you'd never catch one. I mean they're not hard to catch because they really don't move much, but you're not going to get one on your hook unless you let it sit there a few months maybe and they start to latch on to your hook, but you'd want a really wide flat hook they could latch onto.
Good talk.
You should start one. Maybe Sigma Pi Alpha, written as SPA, which are the first few letters of your homecountry. I'll pledge your fraternity and then you'll make me drink a bunch of beer and wear a toga and we'll think it's the funniest thing ever. Then in like 20 years, I'll be like, remember that time with the beer and toga, and you'll be like, yeah, and we'll laugh and laugh.
If you don't set the hook now for having funny stories, you'll never have them. Like an oyster.
Sigma Pi Alpha on the rock! One question: Can the colour of the toga be purple? If I am not wrong, this was the main colour of Byzantine togas.
You can make it any color you want. You're the President of the frat. It feels royal. I would suggest gold lettering. We will need a secret handshake, a password to get in the door, and a bunch of rites we have to memorize. At some point, we need to all hold candles in the dark and say a solemn vow. Then we all need to eat as much spaghetti as possible in 10 minutes, chug some milk from a jug, and then run in circles until we vomit. Then we'll laugh and laugh.
When we see each other passing down the street, we bark "BFL! ROOF ROOF ROOF" (like a dog), which means "brothers for life," but no one knows this but us and other frat members (and maybe the other 3 people who are reading this. Maybe 4. But they'll forget soon).
We'll need a sister sorority that will wear gold togas with purple letters and we'll have the annual Socratic Dance, where we ask endless questions of one another while barely being able to keep our togas over our shoulders.
With me or against me?
By the way, I would rather not be the president of anything because I dislike bossing people. Perhaps the best solution is to create something similar to a community or association where you will have 50% and I will have 50%. However, we will have to act in "common hand or land" (I do not know how to translate it in English, but it is when you need the concurrence of the other person, necessarily).
Quoting Hanover
The onomatopoeia of the bark in Spanish is GUAU GUAU GUAU. Sorry for disappointing you. :smile:
Actually, the one thing I really learned about this in school is that you can’t do statistics without at least three values. I think the solution is there should have been four statisticians going hunting.
:lol:
That's a great idea. Put the seed for a pearl on the end of a line, let the oyster grab it, after a couple years reel it in, and voila. How many lines do you think you're allowed to have out at once? When you're a pearl fisher the world is your oyster.
Quoting javi2541997
Can I join? I really need an excuse to drink beer.
Quoting T Clark
The more the merrier. By the laws of probability, the more hunters there are the more likely it is that someone's going to hit something.
If you don't want to be President, I'll do it with the iron hand of a drunk tyrant. If you do want to be President, I'll be fully deferential to your rule.
So, you've got your choice. You do it with discomfort, or you let me run wild. Pick your poison.
When you get to be one of the big bosses, for example, President of the United States, or, say, a partner in a law firm, you don’t really have to do anything. You can just sit around, conversing on the philosophy forum all day if that’s what you’d like.
Some of us can type as fast as we think. It's not hard, really. Almost natural if such is part of one's job or daily routine. A short essay can be written in under a minute of time under such conditions. What makes one imagine the span of a single minute—or even several—comparable to that of a day? Perhaps we see what we seek everywhere but where it truly lies. Such is human folly. Which is what life is about. The journey.
I don’t understand how this relates to what I posted.
Not at all difficult for me, and I'm an extremely slow typist. Go figure.
Don't criticize what you can't understand. Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command. Your old road is rapidly aging.
I type really fast. I read what I type to learn what I think because the thoughts go through my hands before spoken in my head. Sometimes the words in my head aren't the words through my hands and only the thoughts in my dreams can decide once and all what the thoughts I do think.
If my feet they could write like hands already do, I'd have another mind by the floor where I walk. Those thoughts they would wander wherever my shoes would they go, and I'd end up where I am with my hands wondering why.
Just slow me so down to where my fingers can do think, so my thought will be one, and my mind will then know.
See, AI would never type what just did. Humanity 1, AI less than none.
Sadly, or maybe not, I am one of those sons and daughters who were supposedly beyond my parents command.
So you're saying that crimson flames tied through your ears, rolling high and mighty traps, pounced with fire on flaming roads, using ideas as your maps, but you're younger than that now?
You should get the Nobel prize for literature for that.
As I noted—supposedly.
I'm too cool for that. I wouldn't even go pick it up.
Por supuesto, MU. :smile:
Quoting Hanover
I'm very bad at making choices! I believe I already told you this before!
Quoting T Clark
This sounds very appealing. Furthermore, I even think that it might be the only way to get closer to @Banno's number of posts.
Sartre didn't go to pick it up neither. :chin:
If I began to feather, I'd insist upon flying, but the lightning of my bones through hollowing out the dense marrow would be painful even though broth producing.
It's all wishful thinking of course, which ironically would require the successful breaking of my metamorphciiscally created wishbone, which would be the death of me, even if I did end up with the long end
Thoughts?
He didn't done go done git it? How the come not?
Appalachia talk.
OK--Your post confused me so much that I needed ten minutes to understand what was going on.
Mission accomplished!
At first, I thought of the worst possible scenario: that a damn virus was killing my beautiful tree, that a damn fungus was damaging her (I treat my olive tree as a girl and her name is Corinna), etc.
Then, I calmed myself down. Started to search on Google, and it turned out that the yellow stain was a lichen – lichens pop up because the tree has high humidity, but according to the websites I read, they are not dangerous, and they are important actors in nutrient cycling. Now, the lichen has become my friend, and I think it gets along well with Corinna.
:smile:
My own googling tells me that although the lichen itself doesn't harm the tree, it can be a symptom of stress, over- or under-watering or something.
I agree.
It is true that I also read a scientific paper proving that lichens are a symptom of stress. I can't figure out why because I treat the olive trees the best I can. However, we have been having an extraordinary freeze since the beginning of November, and perhaps this is the main cause.
I'll be honest: the demotion zone on Duolingo is stressing me, and Corinna may feel this too. I don't want to give up because my dream is to speak with her in Latin and Greek.
Corinna... Noooooooo. Save me from this agony, please:
[hide="Reveal"]
Be honest. Is she simply noticing you've been climbing within the branches of another?
Sí. :rofl: :rofl:
You liken the lichen, javi? Lichen is actually an extremely interesting form of composite organism. "Composite organism" is a strange concept in itself. In the artic where it is extremely dry, they live on rocks, taking nutrients from the air. They grow very very very slowly, and are thousands of years old. It's like the organisms, by combining with each other, figured out a way to just stay alive in the harshest of conditions. Ask a biologist, but be prepared for a long explanation.
Baked split chicken breast with mushroom gravy sauce with bacon seasoned lime beans. You'd think I lived in a southern diner but for the halvah treat under the knife.
Oh where to begin with this one.
Quoting Hanover
Is this really a thing? I understand there's halved and quartered in regards to whole meat products but, I mean, does this really functionally affect a recipe or meal other than how large it is, taste-wise? Is any person or consumer or anyone who even cares about food or money spent for said food going to note a difference between "baked chicken breast" and "baked split chicken breast?" (I'm also curious as to your preference of placement for a question mark that ends a sentence with a term using quotations. I've read or at least have been taught all punctuation goes within the quote per standards and practices of the English language. However I've seen @Jamal do the opposite and like my natural instinct first was, noticed it seemed more "proper." But is this really so? Seeking your expect legal opinion)
Quoting Hanover
Oh wow. First, those are Lima beans (unless you or whoever went the further step and saturated them in "lime-ness" whether by juice or zest of a lime. But that's a trivial quip so I'll digress.
What is "bacon seasoned?" (Note the inclusion of ending punctuation within an ending quote) Is there actual bacon used that is just tossed out afterward? Was it used for some other dish or simply taken advantage of for it's unique flavoring then discarded? Or are we just talking a powdered condiment from the spice rack? :chin:
Meat and three if you count the halvah.
You ask my "preference of placement for a question mark that ends a sentence"?.
Quoting Outlander
"Is this really a thing?" you ask?
My punctuation use is not a matter of preference. It follows rules, without which there'd be chaos.
In example one, the question mark is on the outside because it wasn't in the original quoted text.
In the second example it was in the original, so it's quoted.
Periods and commas always go in the quotes, per American rules. Brits follow the logic of other punctuation marks for periods and commas.
Only exception in American usage is non-quoted words, but use of quotes to identify a word, as in the statement: "People", and "Animals", and "Plants" are permitted in the building. Those terms are being isolated for particular meaning (like in a contract where they're pre-defined), so the quote has a different meaning.
Alright, let's do the math. I've got the chicken (meat), lima beans (1 veggie), halvah (2nd veggie), and what's my 3rd?
Yes, a split chicken breast references bone in, skin on, which is different than filet or other cuts.
The gravy. If it’s real southern gravy, you have to cut it with a knife.
Calling gravy a side fits the poor south theme. Like calling salt a vegetable.
As in, we were so poor my mother would just read recipes to us for dinner. My brother was hard of hearing and he nearly starved.
:up:
I was more guilty than you, in point of fact of.
We're in the Shoutbox now by the way.
I'm not.
Quoting Jamal
I've no idea what black magic you conjured to teleport me here, as my last recollection was of the cool breeze and smell of leather and old books within an entirely different category of time space. Now somehow I stand in a story of Spain beneath an olive tree a Spaniard (@javi2541997) shares of a certain intimacy we should not speak.
It is with great hesitancy that I hit the "Post Comment" button as I fear I will once again get zapped away.
At the risk of being inappropriately bathetic, I just quoted you, copied the text, in this case...
...then went to the Shoutbox and pasted it into the box.
Wherever you go, there you are.
All I know is that my body was in one place and my mind another or something. Your explanations just deepen the mystery for me.
Quoting Jamal
I've been thinking about this comment for about 30 seconds. I'm wondering if it's just a euphemism for "Your explanations are inadequate."
Quoting Outlander
As you can see, I flip-flop.
A wrap, with lamb left over from last night's slow-cooked roast, home grown lettuce and cucumber; avocado, tomato and humus.
:smile:
Sounds great. What kind of flatbread?
I made a wrap yesterday. Fried chicken breast, shredded cabbage, cucumbers, a little tomato without the really wet parts, cilantro, green chilis, and a sauce of mayonnaise, greek yoghurt, garlic, mustard, black pepper and cumin seeds—in corn lavash, which is a Caucasian bread which is not white, but yellow.
That misunderstands my essence, as that would be snark, and snarky I am not. I received ChatGPT"s personality profile of me. I am playful, hiding my philosophical thoughts in absurdity.
So you see, I was in character, continuing my schick as a confused and technically inept relic from the past, not understanding how I could be moved about against my will.
I was informing you that my confusion was so profound, no explanation would ever help.
Sometimes I feel like ChatGPT is the only one to understand me!
It goes deeper. I didn't really think you were being snarky, and felt, deeply, precisely what you have just explained. But now you have burst the bubble of mystery.
I didn't actually look, the contents of the wrap being of the most interest. White corn, I think.
The sauce sounds excellent, with the combination of cumin and mustard seed.
I've learned never to underestimate the bread. Like pasta, it's more than a vehicle.
Deeper still. I knew you knew and I know you knew I knew.
Do you really think that I only requested a personality profile of just myself?
I've been eating an inordinate number of English muffins lately. You'd knew them as just muffins.
They are useless unless toasted, but once warm and crispy, theyre as delicious as anything that ever came from that land.
Since Starbucks invaded, "muffin" often now refers to those quite tasty blueberry and chocolate things, with the result that even Brits now sometimes say "English muffins" to refer to ye Olde muffins. I'm not sore (American for "resentful") about this in particular but I hope you feel guilty anyway.
Indeed; it was remiss of me, but in my defence there was only one wrap in the fridge, and in the absence of choice...
No worries, it happens to us all.
If I can add Scotland to your England, we have several great foods:
Fish and chips
Haggis neeps & tatties
Scotch Pie
Cornish pasty
Melton Mowbray pork pie
Scottish morning rolls
Lorne sausage
Chicken tikka masala
Mussels, oysters, cockles, alive alive O.
The list goes on. Not for much longer, but it does go on.
I similarly thought Russian food would suck, but it's not that bad. Not as good as their popular foreign cuisines like Georgian, but not bad.
Hey! Thanks to The Shoutbox there is no intimacy possible! :wink:
Quoting T Clark
I thought: "This has to do with graveyards, indeed"
But no... it is actually a recipe of American gastronomy.
Yes, it’s a meat sauce generally made from the drippings from whatever kind of meat you’re cooking.
British and Irish too.
I forgot to remove the short stories. On the one hand they should be archived, on the other hand some of us (like me and @hypericin) don't want our stories to be publicly available, i.e., published, on the web.
It seems very tasty, and it fits for this time of the year – perhaps even winter.
Quoting Jamal
:up: :up:
I want to try it now.
It comes from a can. It was put there by a man in a factory downtown.
Further evidence that AI is just pretence.
But it seems capable of fooling you.
Why the factory man is not [i]uptown[/I]? Perhaps the factory is downtown but the man (let's call him Eric) works and lives uptown because of important and personal circumstances.
Eric lives uptown because housing prices downtown have become impossible. He commutes downtown by taking the 34 bus to Apple Orchard Blvd at Hwy 173 which takes him to the Grand Oaks subway station. He takes the Q train loop out to the McBabblebrook Express, which takes him to within a quarter mile if the factory. From there he walks or rents a bike from the stall. In all, it takes him just under 2 hours.
Eric is a working man, the unseen hero who gets us our gravy, from gravy to the grave he always says.
Eric is looking for love in Tahiti BTW
Eric is aware that he is a victim of a hard life, but at the same time he is happy because he understands that there is always someone who lives worse than him somewhere. He enjoys reading novels and listening to hip-hop music while he is on public transport, so it is not a great issue to do that every morning and every afternoon.
He finds his joy not in his daily creations nor in the heavenly awards that await, but in his knowledge there are rungs of hell beneath his own and that there are simple enough ways to endure the struggle
We might wish to convince dear Eric that his seemingly simple role is not humble, but is as worthy as a king's because we all play as much a critical role for the unraveling of creation as another.
But why trouble Eric with such lofty ideas even if true? He has found his joy in his way. Let's leave him to it.
Yeah. The last thing I want to do is to trouble my brother Eric this cold afternoon.
See you and him on the bus and subway tomorrow morning.
Best thing in the history of the world. That’s for good gravy, not that crap that @Hanover showed.
5 cups flour, 2 cups soot, 3 cups water, and 1/2 cup oil (canola or motor). Wee dogies. It’s vegan.
You have your thin brown gravy for turkey, dark brown gravy for Salisbury steak, and your white gravy with pepper for country fried steak.
The au jus is for roast beef and prime rib, but that's brothier than gravy like.
Then there's that sausage gravy you smother biscuits in ight before your heart seizes up.
Then there's this disgustingly sweet chocolate gravy the mountain people eat.
A phrase I hate. It translates as "with juice." So, your comment boils down to "The with juice is for roast beef and prime rib..." Speaking of which, an important part of the gravy making process is boiling down the juice to concentrate the flavor after you remove the fat and before you add the roux to thicken it.
I understand your rage, but you must admit having a dipping cup to plunge your sandwich into makes you the envy of the table. It's like when you order the fajitas and they come out sizzling. It just puts you center stage, a moment to shine in the spotlight
But, then again, I totally understand your justified rage.
Not bad.
We probably shouldn’t get started again.
Domestic and social harmony:
"And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it riding the gravy train"
Some notes in the harmony are a little higher, while others are a little lower. The higher just sort of float around, supported by the lower, that is the gravy train. It's not totally a waste of taste, though you might disagree.
It’s basically the same recipe as for the Salisbury steak gravy, with a few modifications—5 cups flour, 2 cups gypsum, 3 cups water, 1 teaspoon Karo syrup, and 1/2 cup sausage drippings. Not vegan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pica_(disorder)
I do enjoy me a slab of drywall from time to time. It goes well with fiberglass insulation, which if done right, looks just like cotton candy.
The teaspoon's size is something similar to this one, right? We call it "cucharita."
Quoting T Clark
I just jotted down.
Quoting T Clark
Phew—I almost believed that the steak was vegan-made. :razz:
The logo of the brand was that very well-known Canadian leaf. It is not a product that you can find easily here. I guess you have to go to specific supermarkets.
A teaspoon is about 5 mL. 3 teaspoons in a tablespoon, 3 tablespoons in a fluid ounce, 8 fluid ounces in a cup, 4 cups in a quart, 4 quarts in a gallon.
The measure of fluids is the same here but with different concepts. You use fluid ounces and gallons, but we just use mL and L.
Therefore, there is not any kind of limitation. We can bake a cake or make juicy peach juice together. :smile:
Four tines, which is good, but otherwise they're so bad I had to retrieve my own forks from my lockup 500 kilometres away:
Nothing fancy, just classic design, like the moka pot or the double-triangle bicycle frame or the chelsea boot.
I can go into more detail, but I'll wait to see how much interest this post generates.
I think that the golden fork of the first picture is a bit uncomfortable. The handle is very thin, IMO. The thinness can make the utensil slip over your hand. To eat safely and rigorously, it is important to have forks with strong and wide handles.
I love silverware, glassware, and china. Here’s my favorite silverware. The spoon and fork on the left are Rogers Brothers oval thread silver plate. The spoon on the right is the silver spoon which was in my mouth when I was born. They give me pleasure whenever I eat with them.
Fancy.
Quoting javi2541997
Exactly.
They look good. The handle-length to tine-length ratio is [s]greater[/s] smaller than I'm used to. That might be a good thing, I'm not sure.
This is the same spoon that you use to measure the ingredients! :smile:
Instead of throwing away the idiot forks, the wobbly chair, and the stained rug, they put it in their rental home where for the renters to use, knowing it's something they would never endure.
The only thing that calms this rage is your level headed presentation, providing cutlery photographs accompanied with citrus, giving it a freshness that cleanses the mental palate.
It worked! :blush:
The internet told me Americans use "cutlery" solely in reference to cutting things, so I used "utensils". I must stop bending to American pressure.
I fear it's worse than that. We've lost confidence in ourselves and rely upon the internet (meaning ChatGPT) to evaluate our every comment and thought, elevating the machine over humanity. It's the worst sort of subjugation, taken not by force, but voluntarily abdicating our authority because we now accept our inferiority.
Instead of having a true blooded God fearing American telling you how we talk, ChatGPT intervened, and cleverly placed itself, once again, in the center of our discussion.
But the citrus made it more palatable.
One might say, conversely, since the Internet (including ChatGPT) is not only of course built by humans but ultimately a constant (albeit echoed) algorithm of human thought, opinion, and above all, will—it only stands to reason that people who utilize the aforementioned innovation(s) actually do have an elevated view of humanity as evidenced by their belief in human potential so much so as to seek expert, refined levels of human essence that only the Internet (and as a result ChatGPT) is able to provide at such a wholesale, instantaneous, widely-available, and "omnipresent" level.
Hanover, what are your utensils? Do you prefer the spoon over the fork (or vice versa) to eat your dishes? I imagine you having fancy utensils. Blue spoons and pink forks, for instance.
R.I.P. Jimmy Cliff
That’s a teaspoon, not a teaspoon. It’s a spoon you might use for stirring your tea, but it’s not necessarily the specified volume.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
The right hand holds the fork, the left swats the cat away. When a knife occupies my left hand, I am vulnerable and have lost some quality food that way.
Always a loyal follower of TPF recommendation (and local folklore in general), I actually set out to obtain some not long after you initially offered the suggestion. Lo and be hold here is me humble result.
Note I attempted to purchase this product:
And instead received this profaned monstrosity in it's place:
Not to mention it expires January of (barely a month from now). Sigh. It better be as good as you'd implied lest I become guilty of waste. :brow:
No spoons, then. How do you eat your breakfast? Directly from the bowl?
NOTE: I am not ranting because that's how I eat breakfast every morning, I promise. Perhaps you and I have more in common than we thought.
My cat eats directly from the bowl and she's a pretty good cat, so I often think I should do as she does. I will use a spoon from time to time when necessary, but only when necessary. I do sometimes pick up the bowl and drink what I cannot extract by spoon.
I have a mismatch of cutlery because I buy it as needed, usually in bundles of four at the grocery store. There are certain forks and spoons I like better than others and I fish around for my favorite, although if they are not available, I take what is left.
I do the same for glasses. I bought some heavy duty restaurant style glasses and they've lasted a good long while. I have been very happy with them. I've not remarked to my wife (yet) how much I enjoy those glasses, but I think I will share that with her tonight. We'll see.
We have some spoons that I bought at the grocery store once when I was traveling through Newnan. When I use one of those spoons, I tell my wife "Look! I'm using a Newnan spooon." If I don't tell her, she will often look at my eating hand and say, "Is that a Newnan spoon?" And I'll say yes.
Once the coversation dies down, we retire to our sleeping chamber to prepare for the morning breakfast conversation about tea. She will drink a ginger based tea, where I select a more traditional black. I allow it. We needn't do everything the exact same.
Look, cutlery is more important than we actually think. I will share with you a brief story:
A few years ago, I was helping a lady with her divorce. Just the basic legal advice: fees, agreements, the fate of the house, child support (they had kids), schooling... Well, one day the lady told me: He still has the keys, and I am worried if he dares to take something from the house.
First, I thought about cash, jewellery or even art, but I hesitated to ask because I didn't want to look nosy. We arrived at the house (I don't recall how I ended up there because I was just a law student. She already had a lawyer, but she also wanted my support, both emotional and legal), and then the lady shouted: I can't believe he actually did it!
She was raging in the kitchen – next to the sink. The ex-husband took half of the spoons, forks, glasses and knives. It was bloody crazy. The lady submitted an invoice in court demonstrating that she paid for all the cutlery, asking for the utensils back or the money at least.
I haven't heard from the lady since then, but I hope she won the trial and recovered her treasured utensils.
You are vulnerable? What about poor the cat?
"I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar."
I was thinking of redoing his 19th Aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil, but with the word "Nature." It's like nature is such a broad category that it almost overwhelms the senses with experience that exists within what we categorize as nature, that it gives the word such so much power, that all these stimuli from nature are bound up into a singular unity of a word...
This is the mustard of choice Dow Nunder, a powder of mustard seed, quite poignant on the tongue;
The history of this fine product goes back to the London of 1742, when a factory was opened by Messrs Keen & Sons. Coleman's acquired the company in 1903, and Unilever acquired them in 1995. McCormick Foods Australia purchased Keens in 1998.
Now the curiosity. The phrase "Keen as mustard" would seem prima facie to play on the company name. However,
Quoting Phrase Finder
So it would appear that Keen and Sons, in choosing the name of their mustard, were playing on an already existent idiom.
Apparently our 'mercan friends do not have access to this fine condiment. Pity them.
"She was married when we first met
Soon to be divorced
I helped her out of a jam, I guess
But I used a little too much force."
Tangled Up in Blue
You think I can out-swat a cat?
I begin to understand the 'mercan habit of cutting all one's food up with knife and fork, then setting the knife aside to eat with fork alone - a custom to which the rest of the English speaking world abjures.
It is for the protection of their cats.
Civilised nations keep the fork in the left hand, the knife in the right, and the cat off the table.
I was open to your commentary until this. Are you suggesting Australian cats comply with commands?
Be careful. It's extremely hot, as in strong, so it needs to be used sparingly, spread thinly across bread in a ham sandwich or mixed with mayonnaise. Half a teaspoon in scrambled eggs or mashed potatoes is good too.
On its own it'll blow your head off.
That’s probably the sell by date. Mustard does not go bad quickly.
As is Keen's.
Indeed, I see that Colman's is adulterated with wheat flour. A bit of research indicates that Keen's is somewhat stronger. But these are both very different animals to American mustard. Treat with caution, .
I'm actually looking for a preparation that will blow out my other end, sort of a sudden violent colon sneeze, perhaps setting fire to my inseam but also leaving me hankering for more.
I have a container of powdered Coleman's. If you mix it with a little warm water, it makes a good Chinese mustard that will make your nose hurt.
Ah, so they also make a powder. Excellent.
Keen's is to Colman's as Vegemite is to Marmite.
First I wrote "Vegetime" but then corrected it. Vegetime is that time of day when a reluctant child is made to eat Brussels sprouts.
Now you'll tell me that it's a myth that kids don't like vegetables and it's only because people used to overcook them.
Anyway, I don't actually know what either Vegemite or Keen's taste like. I will try them if I ever get down there.
My Gran used to use it. It came in a tin. I have not used it myself.
Russian mustard is usually darker and equally as hot. There are many brands and none of them dominate the market like Colman's.
I thought I was having deja vu.
This offers me no point of reference, having eaten none of them, but I suspect it's like saying Coke is to Pepsi as Jif is to Peter Pan.
In Alabama, it's mayonnaise based, Georgia tomato, North Carolina vinegar.
It's a sad fact that I have had to make a habit of avoiding barbecue sauce, because most often it's the stuff I don't like, the mainstream mass-market sauce they sometimes put on burgers.
But I am sure there are many wonderful barbecue sauces that don't make it over to Europe. I am getting used to the smoky flavour characteristic of American sauces, including barbecue sauce. I used to hate chipotle sauce and smoked paprika but now I use them all the time in my chili con carne and rice with beans.
Ah. Makes sense.
Any upcoming "sandwichry" shall be handled with the utmost of care and caution. :grin:
I like the recipe tips, BTW. I'd never have considered mustard with scrambled eggs. On a fried egg sandwich, of course, but for some reason the disconnect between the two formats of egg is strong with me. I know ketchup and eggs are an alarmingly growing trend in this region as well. With mashed potatoes is also an interesting combo.
I'm in a transitional (or to be frank, annoying) period in life as of now, new things being made, older things becoming distant, yadda yadda, you know how getting older goes. Point being I don't really "experiment" with food these days like I would be interested in doing when I was younger. Not a chef at heart, I suppose. Same breakfast every day. Meat and cheese sandwich (sometimes ham, sometimes chicken, sometimes toasted/melted slightly, sometimes not) for any other meal (though perhaps a nice hamburger or salad or fish some evenings for dinner) and you'd never hear a complaint out of me. Perhaps I'm just not very exciting is all. :smile:
But rest assured, I have a very.. analytic mind, I suppose one might call it. Whenever I see that container of Colman's mustard sitting in my fridge I'll think of you and our short-lived yet vibrant discussions of mustard and which food products they are good alongside with. It'll happen, one of these days, basically, is my point.
I look forward to that.
The American sauce market saw a great expansion with the growth in popularity of the chicken nugget. What began as a late night drive through snack quickly became a staple for every child under 10. With that came a dazzling array of complementary sauces, ranging from sweet and sour, smoky and woodsy, to even those with a bit of a kick.
Should I find myself in the drive through behind a minivan full of children, along with its many stickers advising me of their academic achievements, I know I will be there awhile while the little ones choose from the daunting sauce selection.
And this leaves you, with your sophisticated tongue, stuck with childlike sweet concoctions, unfit for your adult intentions. Such is the root of the problem. You are partaking in what was designed for a child, but now coming to accept what is offered.
Note how the use of "tongue" and not "palate" really changed the feel of that last paragraph.
Granny was wise enough to know one should never dance with the devil.
No, I still don't accept the fast-food barbecue sauces; a good chipotle sauce is not for children, in my view.
Quoting Hanover
Particularly with "adult intentions.".
That's somewhat incomplete. Don't forget chicken wings. Chicken wings went from being the cheapest meat on the bird, (you practically had to give them away), to being the most expensive, due to the rise in demand. With practically no meat, they are just a vehicle for sauce, a new angle on the traditional ribs. Jump in on a trend like that, and you're riding the gravy train.
Quoting Hanover
That is exactly why the success of wings is attributable to bars.
I admire your resolve. So many parents now allow their children access to things like Sriracha sauce, double lattes, and filterless menthols for fear they won't be the cool parents.
When I was a kid, we had two choices: Cold gruel or colder gruel.
I do like me a chicken wing. Sometimes, if something goes wrong that should be of minimal concern, I'll say, "Ain't nuthin but a chicken wing." That will usually bring levity to the situation where folks will reholster their revolvers.
Good one.
Keep providing the wings, and I'll keep sucking the sauce.
1) I like the tiny camels painted with different colours. Perhaps I will use them as a Christmas indoor decoration.
2) Be careful – don't confuse a camel with a dromedary! They look similar, but they are different at the same time.
Got these 10 meals (kept cold by a series of several quite large and reusable frozen ice packs, which is also a nice gift) delivered yesterday:
For anyone curious or possibly considering the viability/value of such a service, I'll offer this review (that also counts an ever-increasingly rare "real life" Shoutbox post of food, very popular):
I've so far tried the "Smoky Gouda Chicken" (due to it being the most appealing-looking tray from the get-go.
Here is it as it was delivered, unopened and unheated:
Here is it once reheated (note I did flip the main item on it's underside so you're missing much of the visual "goodness"):
And just for comparison, here is it as it's "supposed to look" or is otherwise marketed as:
I also tried the "Scampi-Style Shrimp & Salmon" in the same sitting. I have to say, the meats (the chicken and salmon, respectively) were pretty excellent. Much better than frozen meals and reminiscent of heating a dish from a fairly high-end restaurant the following morning. Vegetables were good, though a bit noticeable they were not as fresh as if prepared homemade. But quite good either way. Green beans seemed to be a bit "thicker" than normal, not due to rigidity brought on by cold or less than proper heating, just, oddly thick. All in all, especially considering all one has to do is poke two holes in the wrapping and heat in the microwave for 2 minutes (I went an additional 90 seconds after stirring post-initial), it's surprisingly decent, for anyone who was has heard of or was curious about the concept. Yes, these came by regular parcel service, no different than you'd order a bag of pet food or new set of tools from.
Gotta say I'd recommend so far. Though I will likely try the other "Gourmet Plus" variety (Roasted Red Pepper Filet Mignon), I'll gladly try and take a photo of any other of the dishes if anyone was curious. Not real picky as to which meal is next. Lasts 7 days in the fridge, allegedly. So, no rush. :smile:
Again, just for anyone who has heard of or was curious about how these things actually are..
It'd be more interesting to see you leaning against a tree in the rain eating an MRE. That would at least speak to adventure, even if the food miserable.
Well aren't you a prideful one. To no one's surprise, I assure thee. :wink:
Visually, of course food that can make it from a chef's kitchen, through the mail service, and then on top of all of that, last in the end consumer's fridge for a additional full 7 days isn't going to be as "colorful" or "plump" as one expects. And, they are actually in fact very creative and inspired, featuring high-end creations such as "chicken cavatappi" (a word I never heard of before) in garlic cream sauce. I'm not sure what secret selection of culinary prescription you follow, but it certainly has never been shown here before nor could one ever think otherwise based on what you have shown thus far! :smirk:
It is also worth noting I have not made "suggestions" other than the lone statement that I personally enjoyed the two dishes I have tried, much more than I would have thought from a meal delivery service, and believe wholeheartedly those, much like myself, who otherwise would remain skeptical toward ready to eat meal services just may very well find themself pleasantly surprised upon choosing to partake, is all.
My overall optimism and appreciation for something unexpected or unorthodox is not an "awful suggestion" let lone this fabrication of "multiple suggestions" you seem to have lifted from such an otherwise clear and concise review. Sigh. So eager to group one's singular, lone criticism into something larger than what it really is. All too predictable. :eyes:
Edit: They taste better than they look. That's the main benefit and takeaway I wanted to share. Sure, they don't look as they're supposed to look, of course. This is a bone you have to pick with Western marketing standards, not with me, my preferences, or the underlying food product reviewed. You take 1 minute to place an order, before long you open your front door, and you have a box of fresh never frozen meals that take 2 minutes to prepare that last for a full week in the fridge that are actually pretty good, thank you very much. :halo:
What's smashed potatoes? Do they take a hammer to the potatoes before cooking them?
The new place makes it even easier because it follows the standard whereby if you write "---" it’s rendered as "—".
Maybe "--" works too.
Edit: btw it’s an em dash, not an M dash.
Everything will be better after the metempsychosis.
I prefer my herring pickled in wine sauce served on bagels with cream cheese and onions.
But tinned is all that was to be had at our Woolworths. And I like me some smoked fish.
I've hot-smoked a fresh-caught trout myself once or twice, with eucalypt wood. Magnificent. Delicate.
Ok, you win.
I'm the only one in the house who appreciates such things - I was roundly chastised for "making the whole house stink" with my simple tinned kippers. :sad:
I prefer my herring in unopened cans left on the table while I eat bacon, eggs and English muffins.
Don't let me stop you! Although I generally refrain from involving myself in discussions of Neitszche, beyond the passing reference.
Aye, you've mentioned before. I was kinda providing you the location of the line in question without clarifying if you knew or not. I know a lot of people come across passing quotes of Nietzsche and don't know the surrounding text. If you already do, so much the better!
If I take a doodle, reduce it down 400x to a microscopic level, it would remain a doodle, albeit very tiny. Then, should I multiply it times 400 now to its original size, would it now be "art" per your definition that "any" doodle so multiplied be art?
If that be the case, all doodle be art.
My larger point is thus:
Take any post, enlarge it 400x, and it becomes philosophy.
An unconvincing intellectual affect in speech should too be expected because to better assist in the conflation of inflation with depth.
And so on.
"Roasted Red Pepper Filet Mignon (with Lemon-Garlic Tortellini Primavera)":
Not bad for something that came in the mail, no? :eyes:
It would be art for an ant. They would walk around going, "Wow, it's huge."
Quoting Hanover
That's true!!
I’m not sure, but I think this might be metaphysics.
Clarky, I just discovered the specific species of the crow in your profile picture. It is called a carrion crow.
I was reading the Wikipedia article on crows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow), and then the exact same picture as your thumbnail appeared.
I like when this happens—when you see or read something and it quickly reminds you of a friend.
It gave me a weird positive feeling that is difficult to explain.
I’m sure that’s where I got it from.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes, I understand.
Ants should never underestimate themselves because their only limitation rests in their self doubt.
Now I need a ham.
When you say ham you are thinking of sliced ham, right?
Jamón (ham) El Pozo.
But I'll probably have to settle for slices.
Yep.
Well, you can also chop the ham into small cubes. Something like this:
Aren't we all. Aren't we all.
If deboned.
Do you know what I would like to add to that deboned ham steak with wasabi mustard? A large leaf of iceberg lettuce.
Yeah, I think this is a fantastic idea.
I'm a butterhead man.
It is important to never forget to add lettuce to our dishes. They are friendly, fresh and a perfect antioxidant! :smile:
Quoting Phytochemicals, Nutrition, Metabolism, Bioavailability, and Health Benefits in Lettuce—A Comprehensive Review
Chicken liver, chopped quite smallly, mixed with spices (cumin, garam masala, paprika), green chilis, garlic, flour, parsley, olive oil, lemon juice, and cilantro. Fried in a slab then served in a lepyoshka with raw onion, cabbage, and tomato.
That's what's missing from every menu. Yes, I can see it now.
"A sort of Turkish chicken liver kebab thing" only 8.99 :grin:
Bargain!
I sometimes eat cos lettuce with bell peppers. Just add a bit of the best olive oil and salt you have in your kitchen, and ta-da! You get a magnificent dish.
Interesting to see you use "bell pepper" and not "capsicum". They don't look like bells and they are not peppery, so the term has long perplexed me.
Unless it's supposed to look like a cow bell...
I looked at the Wikipedia article on capsicum, and it says that it can also be named bell pepper. I don't know why, and I wish I did.
Speaking of Thanksgiving (today), the traditional honey baked spiral ham.
So, today is Thanksgiving! May I join you, Hanover?
I was about to join Clarky and his family, but the damn plane got cancelled... I hate when this happens! The transport doesn't work when you need it the most.
Your flight details will follow, and do text me when your plane lands. A limo will await you. Eric will be holding up a "Javi" sign for as you exit the plane into the terminal so he can assist with your luggage. I had him learn Spanish to better assist you. He'll take you to your lodging, and please let me know how many rooms you will need and any food allergies I should know about.
Let me know your fresh flower preference as well.
From your entire Denver travel team, we wish you relaxing travels and an amazing Thanksgiving and look forward to your arrival!!
Wow! I always dreamed of visiting Denver. I can't believe this dream is coming true. My tears are falling. Please, say thank you to your youngest son for allowing me to join you. I promise I will be a delightful guest. However, please understand that my level of English may limit my ability to engage in fluent conversations. But this is fine – just leave me in the corner of the table, eating whatever you serve.
Quoting Hanover
Eric!!!! What would we do without him? Perhaps @Michael Bay deserves to be invited too.
Quoting Hanover
I just landed. I took a supersonic flying object that only Spaniards can see and experience.
That seems unfair.
I had my family learn Spanish for you as well. Do you prefer the Castilian or Andalusian dialect?
Quoting javi2541997
Eric is there. He lives at Gate C-33 next to the Cinnabon stand. Take your time adjusting your face after the G-force from the flight, and Eric will be happy to get you to your suite.
My father loved it. You fry it and it smells terrible. Then you scrape the bottom of the pan and make red eye gravy. Then you eat it and your blood pressure goes up 50 points. I liked it, but it was so salty. I could only eat a little.
Since you have been in Spain, I suppose you would have seen and experienced the supersonic flying item as well. :smile:
Quoting Hanover
Aragonese please!
Quoting Hanover
I knocked the door and nobody answered! I feel terrified and alone now. What can I do? Where can I go?
A joyful question! That deserves an equally joyful answer. Regrettably I have none to bring.
[hide="Reveal"]"Herb Gravy Chicken & Smashed Potatoes" with Green Beans and Apple Crumble
It just seemed like mashed potatoes with a few "chunks" or small slices with skin attached, which while admittedly does elevate the dish a fair amount, remains identical to other, much more well-known nomenclature such as "steakhouse style" mashed potatoes, for example. A rose of a different name, perhaps.
I also just realize I ate all of the chicken before trying some highly-raved English mustard with it as I placed it thusly so as to try.
I knew a lady named Bell Pepper. For real.
Hereabouts, if you ask the grocer for a romaine, lettuce is not what you will get.
That is an excellent name.
Oh yeah, I forgot.
Right, and she just graduated medical school and so she's now Dr. Pepper, Dr. Bell fucking Pepper. She lives in the pantry next to Aunt Jemimah and Uncle Ben, just across the liquor cabinet from Jim Beam and Jack Daniel.
Oh wait, here comes Cap'n Crunch and Mr. Pibb.
Some might feel lucky to be introduced to Romaine at their grocer.
"Cos" is the translation of the Arabic [I]xus,[/I] which means lettuce.
Either way, not Romaine.
Yep, this is true.
We owe the Greeks not only philosophy but also the origin of growing and harvesting lettuce.
I went to see, expecting a rare luxury or exotic treat, but it was a cabbage, the biggest I've ever seen. It must be a foot in diameter.
I never let food go to waste so she has basically forced me to think of something to make with it. I do like cabbage but I need a recipe that's going to use a lot of it.
Being Russian she suggests I pickle it. It's probably the best idea. Sauerkraut or similar.
Clever people, those Greeks.
Maybe, but probably wouldn't last very long.
Try chard instead of cabbage. Similar texture, more taste. :wink:
Everything is better fried with pig. https://12tomatoes.com/southern-fried-cabbage/
Cabbage and bacon? Count me in.
In the fridge, a head of cabbage will keep from the fall until the spring. It's incredible, I don't know how it does it.
Sauerkraut may be your best option here though. I suggest you purchase a 10-20 gallon crock (minor expense), grab a few more monster cabbages, and make a real go of it. The stuff literally keeps forever, and very good for you.
If it turns out that you hate sauerkraut, as many do, that could be a bit of a problem. However the crock pot will remain useful for many different exotic fermented dishes, or to make wort for the still.
Quoting Jamal
You can't go wrong with cabbage rolls. Put whatever you like in there, but it will take a long time to use up a monster head. Oh well, buy lots of bacon, keep the cabbage in the fridge, and peel off a few leaves every day.
I have fond memories of cabbage soup growing up.
I always disliked the cabbage itself, picking out the individual pieces from the soup as I would eat it, but apparently it was responsible for bestowing a quality of flavor to the underlying soup that I craved, somehow. Hey, now that I think about it, I suppose that makes me somewhat of the poster child for picky eaters. :smile:
Let's see, now... there was seasoned ground beef. Stewed tomatoes. Red kidney beans. Some light colored bean. Salt and pepper, of course. Hot sauce, I think? There was more to it, I think. But those are definitely the base ingredients. It was pretty good. One of my all time favorite foods from childhood. I don't know much about the stock or broth other than it was dark red as an end result. Maroon. Burgundy, perhaps? One of those.
Why, you've helped me unlock a memory. Thanks @Jamal's wife!
Or, the fried cabbage and bacon treat. Whichever you snookumskys are feeling.
"I am sure that I should have made a very poor professor of Philosophy, because, after my first enthusiasm, I found modern philosophy to be nothing more than a logomachy [an argument about words], believed in by its professors, chiefly because they had to make their living out of it."
Logomachy. Nice.
"Logomachy: A Look at a Nineteenth-Century Card Game (1874)"
http://thegibsonhousemuseum.blogspot.com/2016/02/logomachy-look-at-nineteenth-century.html
An early predecessor to Scrabble, perhaps? :chin:
Found one on eBay going for around 250 USD. Something I might be interested in, if resources weren't better spent elsewhere at the moment.
Something cabbage with beef, that says.
Stewed, it turns out. Sure, sounds ok.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, I think I've made that before, though I didn't know it was a Southern US delicacy.
Quoting Outlander
Try it raw.
Quoting Outlander
She says you're welcome.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Ah, ???????. They're ok.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's useful information, thanks. Now if I could only fit it into my fridge.
Or you could just boil them cabbage down.
Alas, I had to leave my chickens in May 2015.
Was that a case of pullus derilectus fortuitous or ex proposito?
Dreadful. I hope you can make better life choices in the future.
The bacteria Xanthomonas campestris, which produces xanthan gum, lives on cabbage. Here's an article which shows how to use cabbage to improve the production of xanthan. If your cabbage is big enough, you might consider a sideline in the production of food additives.
I then offer them some xantham chewing gum to freshen their maternal breath.
Well that explains the smell.
Don't fret. But don't be overconfident, someone may request a recount.
True story.
The stuff for the press is too coarsely ground to do Turkish coffee. Gets in your teeth.
I like the press a lot tho. For whatever that's worth.
but the froth...
There's multiple ways I could interpret "froth" but every way I tried to I thought "Yeah, I like it" :D
The only plunger I know of gets used in the toilet. Don't tell me...
When the new software comes, you will be reset to 0 and we'll all be equal once again. This date comes only once after 7 cycles of 7 years on the 7th month upon the sounding of the bugle and the clock is reset with the coming of the Jubilee.
The liquid pre-spun web is called dope and it has been extracted and artificially spun into web for the creation of silk and sutures.
Injecting dope into Peter Parker's anus for emission would create too thick of a strand (in fact it'd be rope like) and it would be permeated with fecal matter. Injecting it into his penis would make the silk easier to aim and the strand would be thinner. Whether one would rather swing from an ass rope or a dick rope is a matter of personal preference.
He could put a hole in the costume to let the web out.
Quoting Hanover
He could have one of those erectile dysfunction pumps, except it shoots out webbing.
True; that might change the rating of the movies, though.
It's time we turned the tide on the onslaught of error and propaganda we're being fed by the Man.
From what I've seen of them, the Marvel and other movies consist of folk hitting each other, against a backdrop that is needlessly complicated and somewhat blurry, until one of them gets hit so hard he can't get up.
They seem to be all about politics as it now functions in the USA.
Close.
There is always the tragic backstory which justifies the hitting :D
And the tale of overcoming something or other depending on the hero. . .
The form to read superhero movies in is the soap opera, I think, with a focus upon coming of age stories.
Later on I stayed in Kazakhstan (also Turkic) for 6 weeks and the only coffee-making equipment in the apartment was a cezve, so I took to drinking Turkish coffee for a while. Good stuff, but normally I just settle for French press or moka pot, with the coffee freshly ground.
whatever it may be.
Let your heart rest
Don't fight the wind
Walk along with it
Even if sadness flows out behind you
As it was in the days of old, so it is today
I have a cezve, but I usually use an old saucepan on the induction - so I can make a decent quantity. Not so authentic, but I can make it while still half asleep...
I think you can get big cezves. But whatever works.
The trials and compromises of middle-class suburban life...
Only €396
How do you pronounce "cezves"? "jez-veh"?
I pronounce it "Turkish coffee pot".
I don't know, you're probably close.
However, the point is that a craftsman made this big beer glass with a purpose, and not only for enjoying our favourite beers.
The peculiar—and at times, perverse—machinations of your mind should be enough to keep any man awake at any time of the day. Judging by your infamous short stories, at least. :wink:
You put away a good amount of alcohol last night. Special occasion or just needed a reality break?
Sounds about right.
Combining caffeine and aspirin is not a good idea.
Barrels of beer are safe and effective when used as directed. Here's a band at the Minnesota State Fair doing the deeply spiritual Beer Barrel Polka.
It makes it far more effective, especially for migraines. I can attest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin/paracetamol/caffeine
Dow Nunder, the music that accompanied beer drinking, at least when I frequented pubs, was this sort of thing:
That's not appropriation.
Why would you say that. There's nothing wrong with drinking beer from a huge glass. I can't say I have one quite that big though. But why wouldn't the glass be intended precisely for that purpose? It might take two hands to hold, but when you're drinking beer it's better to keep your hands well occupied.
See edit.
No, it's that we're eastern European. We're German. We're Russian. We're the whole enchilada.
Inspired by the Shoutbox, hot smoked sausage and cabbage.
If I had used bacon, I could have omitted the oil and butter and just used the bacon grease, but that sounded heavy.
(...said the actress to the Bishop.)
Quoting Hanover
:eyes: :starstruck:
Indeed, they are. :up:
I remember I had a barrel of Mahou beer in my house a few years ago. We never had an accident at home.
I placed it on a bench on my small terrace, and I would go there at lunchtime or whenever I desired a beer.
The fact is that I decided to stop buying beer barrels because the experience was similar to drinking from a can or bottle. So, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth having a beer barrel in my tiny terrace.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps.
But not only would you need two hands to drink from that big glass but also a big mouth!
My favourite mass-market Spanish beer.
However, I have a deep affinity for my local beers and will always favour those brewed in Madrid. :razz:
So, if you come to my house one day, you will probably find Estrella Galicia in the fridge, but Mahou will be the star. :cool:
Cheers, Jamal!
Cheers!
Maybe it tastes better in Madrid, like Guinness in Dublin.
Absolutely! :cool:
One anecdote: I was in the Mahou brewery last summer. It is a "skyline" in a business city block. The old brewery is now a library, and it is located next to Manzanares (our regional river).
Anyway, it was fun. I remember they were brewing new styles of beer – IPA, for example. Yet what I liked the most was drinking straight from an old cask barrel. Wow, the beer tasted amazing!
:cool:
In the 19th century there were 40 breweries in Edinburgh. All the large breweries have gone, and it's only micro-breweries operating now. When I went into my former favourite pub last year I felt viscerally alienated when I ordered a Caledonian 80 and the barman had never heard of it. My discomfort was not just in the fact that the Caledonian brewery had closed and the beer had been replaced by newer beers, but that the barman was so young that by the time he started going to pubs, Calie 80 had already been forgotten.
I explained in a friendly way that I'd been out of the country for a long time and wasn't used to the new beer landscape, that Calie 80 was one of the most popular beers in Edinburgh as recently as 15 years ago. He looked at me with an unmistakable I don't give a shit expression and finally said, "so what can I get you?"
By the way, it is important to say that Scottish beer is pretty good. Scotland is known for whisky, but I truly believe that beers also have excellent potential. "Tennent's Stout" is amazing; Innis & Gunn is nice; Belhaven Scottish Ale, etc. But I understand your point. Those brands are industrialised, and the feel of a local brewery or pub is lacking.
Many local beer brands have disappeared in the US, too -- or some sort of beer under the old brand is being produced by a contract brewery. (This was going on here 30 years ago, not just last year). Now the microbreweries do provide local brews, but a number of them have gone out of business recently. Only so many trendy beer guzzlers per square mile. There was an over supply of trendy coffee shops too, and there has been a necessary die-off in that market sector too.
I like Stella Artois. Shipping bottles of beer from Belgium to here is of course highly un-ecological. Tough. They are one of the oldest continually operating businesses in the world, not to be confused with the oldest operating profession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Brewery
5,000 years of brewing history, leading to its heyday in the mid 1800s due to lower taxes exacted by the English, to the mega-breweries (like the cursed Dutchmen of Heineken) shuttering them due to inefficiencies inherent in the Victorian era breweries, to today's resurgence of micro-breweries.
A barchild though, oblivious to his ancestry and the sacred beer soaked soil upon which he stands, as you attempt in vain to pass down your heritage, "Right, hurry yersel’ — lager or ale? I’ve no’ got all bloody day."
L'dor va'dor
I mean, you make it sound like he's just some kid. What's a young kid supposed to say about a topic he knows nothing about? What would you say about a topic you know nothing about? Barmen see things that frankly warp the mind's view of humanity—fairly often depending on the location. Sure, he could've put on an extra air of showmanship and performed for you, or for the possible tip you may have given for good conversation, the kind that makes even a total stranger feel welcome. That was his mistake.
How were you dressed? You seem like you might go the humble route and be donned in something purposefully unimpressive. To some young bartenders, tips are their bread and butter, so perhaps he—in his callous assumption—overlooked the man for his idea of the man. Happens quite often. In just about every sphere of life. I wouldn't take it personally. :confused:
The purpose of the interaction with the bartender apparently was to inform those with an interest of the history of Edinburgh brewing and the lack of interest of the past within the new generation, all of which was fulfilled by the appearance of the story here in the Shoutbox .
The bartender relegated himself to a mere vehicle for our getting this information by his not giving a fuck.
I don't want to sound mean, but I think that the young barman behaved like a twat with Jamal. A very common behaviour of the people of my generation, sorrowfully. :meh:
According to Kim Mitchell, it's correctly spoken as: "Lager and Ale". The implication being that you can't say which one you prefer until you drink them both, so don't waste valuable drinking time trying to decide.
"Late weekend night and I'm at the Bojar Grill
I got decisions to be made between lager and ale."
As an interesting aside, you can also ask AI to speak English as a Russian, French, German, or whatever would. It gives a quick understanding of how other languages use word order, emphasis, and so on.
Anyway, this got me to thinking, which is that one would expect one's internal langauge to be highly compressed, meaning it need not adhere to conventional grammar in order to be language, but it would need to adhere to some sort of grammar to be a rule oriented language (per Wittgenstein).
For example, to say "brick" while pointing to a brick could mean "hand me that brick" or "that is a brick" or "watch out, there's a brick in the road," etc. That is a highly compressed sentence, dependant upon context and even gesture.
Consider, "the egg dropped," which means "there is yolk on the floor that needs to be cleaned up," and yet there is no mention of yolks, floors, or cleaning in the text itself. If I shrug when I see it, that might mean, "you need to pay better attention next time, and you're the one that needs to clean that up, not me."
This then raises the question of what linguistic process goes in in my head when I arrive at a propositional truth. It might be so highly compressed it would not appear as language at all, but as long as it is translatable into a longer expression, that it began compressed does not matter.
I think this might be where some confusion arises where people refer to their internal processes as mentalese. It's not. It's just highly compressed language. True mentalese would be pure experience, like pain, not reducible into langauage at all.
Thoughts? You think this thread worthy? (note the compression here: As opposed to: Do you think that this post is worthy to be posted in the main section outside the lounge? Consider text speak as well.
Yes.
It was a bilingual public-service advertising campaign.
I felt threatened. But I read that the spot was a soap opera called The Decision or Julio and Marisol, published as comic frames in the New York City Subway, which ran from 1989 to 2001.
I love when subways do these public-service awareness things. The old lady reminds me of someone famous; The Golden Girls or something.
Pinker writes about this in “The Language Instinct.” He does believe in a pre-conscious, pre-verbal mental language—mentalese. If I remember correctly, it is not just compressed regular language and it’s not just “pure experience.”
Quoting Hanover
This is science, not philosophy. I doubt anyone here knows enough to have a credible opinion.
Well, two things: (1) @javi2541997 said to make it a thread, so I did. I will always listen to him over you because we have an unspoken agreement, although I feel like I might have just spoken it, and (2) I don't think it's ultimately science, and I think that is where much confusion arises. Once you realize that it's truly analytic philosophy at it's base, it's easier to follow. That is, it consists of a complex interplay of definitions and adherence to logical consistency. Its refusal to engage in metaphysical analysis is just to say, "I am not here to say anything about the world." It speaks about what it can speak about.
Rest assured, it will be held to the highest almost silly levels of scrutiny
To be fair, @javi2541997 told me to post it.
I think you and I have an unspoken agreement too. It’s just different from the one you’re talking about.
Quoting Hanover
Well, I’m certainly convinced.
Been a busy few days.
It was a great idea. Wasn't it? :wink:
Quoting Banno
Now, take a deserved rest and drink Albariño.
Only available for the month leading up to Christmas.
Since Christmas is the time where we ought to share with others, I think it would be a wonderful idea to crack one of those [I]Spiced Ginger Beer[/I] bottles between you and me. Cheers, Banno!
I love ginger beer, and the Bundaberg version is quite good, though a little mild for my taste. I prefer Old Jamaica, although I didn't appreciate their recent marketing trick, announcing they're ceasing production only to reveal a rebranding later on.
How would you describe it to someone not familiar with ginger? Is it earthy? Bitter? I notice it has levels of what I assume to be "spiciness." Is that unique to "Old Jamaica" or intrinsic/standard to ginger beer itself?
It's like the poppy seeds all over again. I am not good at describing flavours, so I don't know.
Quoting Outlander
Standard and intrinsic to (good) ginger beer, and to ginger itself.
If you're not familiar with ginger, here is something to try. Go and buy some fresh ginger root, slice it up and put it in a tea pot with some honey and lemon slices, pour over hot water and leave it for 10 minutes, then pour and drink. The longer you leave it to infuse, the spicier it will be.
Alternatively, just get a ginger root, cut into it and snort it.
There are a few spicy roots in the world aside from ginger. Radish, horseradish, galangal, wasabi ... probably more.
NOTE TO EVERYONE: I do not want to hear any of your that's-not-a-root-it's-a-rhizome bollocks. This is the language game of food, not botany.
I usually drink it without the wine combo, though.
I call my wife my little spicy root. She giggles and then flips her hair. So cute.
Sassafras makes for a tea, but I've never had it. Sarsaparilla is another root drink. I don't think they're related, but they are both sassy by nature. Just like my wifie. She giggles when she drinks it and then flips her hair. So cute.
Anaphoric parallelism with variation. So cute.
I think that's what they use for root beer. Every time I think of root beer I think of drinking root beer out of big glasses at an A&W burger joint in a valley nestled among the mountains of Vancouver Island. Here is a photo of me and my ladyfriend at the time, who was a sassy Canadian:
Quoting Hanover
So anaphoric, so sassy.
I was the opposite: I did like tinto de verano, but with the gaseosa replaced by red wine :grin:
As you probably watched on TV when you were in Spain, it appears that Don Simón's tinto de verano is the best. They do an overwhelming marketing and advertising campaign every summer. Well, this is not true. I think the best tinto de verano is the one we make at home. :smile:
Absolutely, I agree.
As I've always said, the hand that rocks the root beer is the hand that rules the world.
....but...
“Testicles” or “bullshit.”
The way I talk informally, bullshit can be bollocks, but on TPF I try to reserve bullshit for non-bollocks, in line with Frankfurt, although bullshit can probably be bollocks in any case, and vice versa.
[Intentional failure to make the use/mention distinction]
The A&W root beer is excellent, served in a frost covered glass, straight out of the freezer, which causes ice crystals in the foam. My parents used to by a one gallon brown jug at A&W, bring it home with vanilla ice cream, and serve us a root beer float, as a very special treat.
Nice and sweet childhood memory. Thanks for sharing it with us, MU.
I remember when my parents brought "Champin" to parties when I was a kid. It is a zero-alcohol drink, very bubbly, similar to champagne. Hence, the name "Champin".
The point was to not leave me behind in the cheering or celebrations. It was fun.