|
May 23, 2007
more political bad taste
Lest I appear more out of my gourd than usual, I should stress that looking at the face of vegan professor T. Colin Campbell was a bit of a revelation for me yesterday. I realized that political preference can be a taste. This is not an easy thing to contemplate, but I think it's true. People spend an awful lot of time trying to change each other's preferences, and they forget that in matters of taste, there can be no disagreements. (Well, I suppose anyone can dispute anything, but the ancient wisdom holds that taste-based disputes are a waste of time.) Not very often have I experienced an insight so simultaneously comforting and unsetlling. To think that it took a disagreement over food! If only other matters were that easy. Examples can be seen everywhere. Earlier this morning, the communitarian views of a minister in the Inquirer made me want to mentally vomit: Last year, when churches in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania were asked to acknowledge the legal end of the Atlantic slave trade in 1808, Taylor thought it was about time to end the trade in silence at her own church.I disagree with the notion of collective guilt, and the idea that all are responsible for the actions of some. I don't think that Reverend Taylor is responsible for slavery, and whether she became an American ten years ago or whether she was descended from slave holders is irrelevant. She did not do it. Nor did I. Nor did anyone alive. Etc. (I've written about this more than a few times.) Sigh. But to the extent that it is an argument, it really is a hopeless one. Individualist thinking and communitarian thinking are like tar and water. Like meat-eaters versus vegans. They just disagree. I can say that the communitarian view is wrong till I'm blue in the face, while communitarians can say the individualist view is wrong till they're blue in the face. This is an argument over taste. Of course, this is my blog, and I like to discuss my tastes here. Suppose I declare, for now and forever -- my love for paella! Yummmmmmmm!
Ick! No, I will not upload pictures of what I don't like -- especially of liver. It would just be too gross, and I don't want to look at them in my own blog. I recognize, though, that there are two sides to this issue. The pro-livers think their pictures are mouth-watering, while the anti-livers think they're disgusting. Again, I share the "Ick!" reaction of the latter, but de gustibus and all that stuff.... posted by Eric on 05.23.07 at 09:57 AM
Comments
I don't entirely agree that you can't debate "people's tastes" in the sense you are using it here. If someone is a vegan because they prefer the vegan diet, they get more enjoyment out of it, then that's that. But most vegans are vegan for philosophical (animal cruelty), "nature" or health reasons. I believe you can have a meaningful discussion about these underlying issues and whether they hold up to scrutiny. I know people have been convinced to become vegetarians or abandon vegetarianism based on such discussions. Vegans are a slightly different breed so reason may not sway them, but interesting and fruitful discussions can still be had. tim maguire · May 23, 2007 11:13 AM There is the novelty factor. I think people are often willing to try or consider new things and new ideas. But once they decide to like or dislike the things or ideas, the taste factor sets in, and it's unlikely to be easily changed -- especially by someone else. I realize the food analogy doesn't apply across the board, but I do think political tastes are surprisingly stubborn -- especially when they go to an individual's general philosophy. (Not trying to announce a new rule here; just remarking on something I noticed. Ever tried arguing logically about guns with someone who hates them?) Lord deliver. Eric Scheie · May 23, 2007 11:47 AM You are missing the boat when it comes to both liver and boiled eggs. Boiled eggs should be sliced over salad so that there is enough yolk to go with each slice. Slices with no yolk are unfit for human consumption and should be fed to disliked animals, such as cats that don't kill mice, but just sit around next to their dish. Goose liver, anyway, makes an excellent spread. And it is useful for attracting kittens, which are very nice with the right sauce. But tastes, as they say, differ. Socrates · May 23, 2007 01:42 PM You are discriminating against diabetics, you glucose-crat. Bleepless · May 24, 2007 10:06 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2007
May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Are you now, or have you ever been, an AGWOSC Denialist?
The storm before the calm Feynman Lectures An Introduction To Blogging Women In Art Republicans Support Hillary For President Defeated By Pornography Thompson Will Run Hurried Midwest highlights Lubos Motl Looks At Sun Spots
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The pro-livers think their pictures are mouth-watering, while the anti-livers think they're disgusting.
So, are you a pro-liver or an anti-liver? Are you instead a pro-choicer? Do livers have a soul? Do they go to Liver Heaven? Is Liver Hell really nothing more than a frying pan?