Matching wine to vegetarian dishes

[dessiato]

I'm glad someone else said that...

It doesn't take much effort to run a spell-checker does it?

 

[Athos]

What a dick, really.

Thank you for furthering the debate. Prick.

 

[chymaera]

It doesn't take much effort to run a spell-checker does it?

Is there a spool chucker on this system? (I would also point out being critical of people's spelling on a social bulletin board is bad netiquette.)

 

[Athos]

I can't help but think that if Athos was as educated as he claims to be he would be able to spell.

First, I didn't claim to be anything. Secondly, I take it that, if all you can find to criticise in my post is the spelling, you agree with the content? That sort of pedantry is pathetic and childish.

 

[Dillinger4]

Thank you for furthering the debate. Prick.

No, you are wrong.

Saying this without anything else is probably the best way to 'debate'.

As is using words like 'retarded'.

 

[Dillinger4]

First, I didn't claim to be anything. Secondly, I take it that, if all you can find to criticise in my post is the spelling, you agree with the content? That sort of pedantry is pathetic and childish.

 

[Athos]

No, you are wrong.

Saying this without anything else is probably the best way to 'debate'.

As is using words like 'retarded'.

I wrote "you are wrong" in reponse to story's assertions that my arguments were ignorant and uninformed. What else could I say? His were ad hominem remarks that I disagred with. There was no need for him to make them, and no real point in me trying to engage with them. They didn't form the substance of the debate, where I let my arguments speak for themselves, in opposition to other people's arguments.

 

[Athos]

As is using words like 'retarded'.

When something isn't fully developed, it is retarded. But, in any case, I did acknowledge much earlier on that I could have used a less perjorative term.

 

[story]

Agreed. But then I don't see much that you've offered much evidence for your position, either.

Oh for heaven's sake...

The sense of taste is an oral chemical sense in mammals that is involved in the choice of foods. Initial transduction of taste stimuli occurs in taste buds, which are distributed in four discrete fields in the oral cavity. Medications can affect the taste buds and ion channels in taste-bud cell membranes involved in stimulus transduction. The sense of taste gradually declines with aging, with bitter taste most affected. Neural circuits that mediate taste in primates include cranial nerves VII, IX, and X, the solitary nucleus in the brain stem, the ventroposteromedial nucleus of the thalamus, and the insular-opercular cortex. The central taste pathways process taste information about sweet, salty, sour, and bitter stimuli serially and in parallel.

Link

The sense of taste in higher animals functions in several processes, among which are: control of ingestive behavior, onset of specific appetites, and reinforcement in learning situations. The particulars of this chemical sense, thus, have meaning in the area of nutrition.

Review of Some Nutritional Aspects of the Sense of Taste


There are others....

An unsubstantiated assertion, which I dispute.

See above

I think that the ability to discern flavours is, at least in part, something that is cultivated. Do you deny that a palate can be trained, and that this requires exposure to different flavour sensations?

No, I don't disagree with this. But this is not what you said in your first statement.

You're wrong.


I did offer discourse - I explained my reasoning. As to whether I meant any offence, I suppose you'll just have to believe me or not - it's your perogative.

Well, yes you did, once you were challenged on your subjective statement.

As for whether you meant any offence, I'm sure you didn't intend to cause any. As I said, I wasn't offended by the statement that vegetarians have retarded palates. I found it to be a stupid statement, but not personally offensive.

You're wrong (again).

Which is why I made the point about the need to continually exercise the palate - having once eaten meat is not enough.

Many vegetarians have eaten meat for many many years.

I disagree that a palate must be "continually exercised" any more than the other senses need to be exercised. Certainly the body and its sense likes variety, and becomes accustomed to and thus bored with a narrow range of stimuli. That is not the same as a limited palate. And it is equally true of meat eaters as of anyone else.

Are you really suggesting that Hindus, who are generally speaking vegetarian, and who have developed some of the most interesting and subtley flavoured dishes avaialable, all have limited ability to taste?

And the Japanese, whose cuisine is known for its elegance and subtlety, and who traditionally eat little or no meat, have a restricted sense of enjoyment when it comes to food?

Oh it's absurd! Your argument is self-evidently nonsense.

On what basis could that be argued?

The same spurious basis for your argument - subjective opinion.

You are, of course entitled to think that. But you're wrong.




No. That's why I made that point about lovers of junk food having retarded palates, too.




Don't be too hard on yourself.

Nowhere have you offered any reasoning or argument for your views.

This is a waste of time. You are digging in with our viewpoint, apparently for the sake of it.

Stubborn.

I disagree with you, I've offered my reasons for that.

No time to go round in circles or any pushing and shoving

 

[subversplat]

Well blimey. What's the correct wine to serve with an arse on a platter?

 

[Athos]

Nowhere have you offered any reasoning or argument for your views.

This is a waste of time. You are digging in with our viewpoint, apparently for the sake of it.

Stubborn.

I disagree with you, I've offered my reasons for that.

No time to go round in circles or any pushing and shoving

Ditto.

 

[Dillinger4]

Well blimey. What's the correct wine to serve with an arse on a platter?

I think a hearty Spanish red does the trick.

*takes a sip and sits back*

 

[Dillinger4]

Ditto.

Very sophisticated argument you have got going there.

 

[dessiato]

First, I didn't claim to be anything. Secondly, I take it that, if all you can find to criticise in my post is the spelling, you agree with the content? That sort of pedantry is pathetic and childish.

bit like you then really

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Aren't you overlooking the fact that, by definition, vegetarians have retarded palates? It'd be like a guide to opera by someone who doesn't listen to the strings or woodwind section of an orchestra.

Crap analogy. That's like saying the white stripes are shit because they don't use a bassoon and every other instrument ever invented. A good meal does not have to contain meat.

 

[Athos]

Very sophisticated argument you have got going there.

It's exactly the same as story's i.e. we've both set out our views (which we've both conceeded are largely bsed upon subjective opinion) and see no point in going round in circles; I think he's wrong, and he thinks I'm wrong. Not much more to say, really.

 

[Athos]

bit like you then really

Marvellous stuff. Keep it coming, won't you.

 

[Athos]

No, I don't disagree with this. But this is not what you said in your first statement.

Since you've edited this post after my first reply to it, I would just add that this is not true. It is what I was saying, all along.

And your links to the biological stuff are redundant: my point was never that vegetarians have no sense of taste, rather that they often have less discerning palates.

 

[Athos]

A good meal does not have to contain meat.

I never said that it does. You've made a non-point.

 

[Herbsman.]

I wondered how long it would take for some dickhead to come and hi-jack this thread with some bollocks about vegetarian diets being 'inferior'...

It's typical of any message board really. And it's quite sad that to have a decent discussion about vegetarian food you have to join a forum specifically for vegetarians.

 

[Athos]

I wondered how long it would take for some dickhead to come and hi-jack this thread with some bollocks about vegetarian diets being 'inferior'...

It's typical of any message board really. And it's quite sad that to have a decent discussion about vegetarian food you have to join a forum specifically for vegetarians.

If a measure of superiority is the potential for diversity, a vegetarian diet is, by definition, inferior.

 

[story]

It's exactly the same as story's i.e. we've both set out our views (which we've both conceeded are largely bsed upon subjective opinion) and see no point in going round in circles; I think he's wrong, and he thinks I'm wrong. Not much more to say, really.

Well....

My argument is based on the fact that we all have a broad and sensitive sense of taste. I have posted some links. They are hard science, and limited in the sense that they only look at one aspect of taste. I could post links to more general views, but they would not be hard science.

Your argument does indeed seem to be purely subjective.

Think of the other senses - vision, for instance. Some people are long or short sighted, others are colour blind, or experience other types of impairment. Setting these aside, everyone can see. Whether or not we use our vision to appreciate something is down to personality, education, culture, exposure and so forth.

You seem to be arguing that if a person is not shown (say) the colour red, they are thus rendered unable to discern the colour red.

I am saying that since we have receptors for the colour red, anyone can see it regardless of previous exposure.

Unless of course you are saying that the sense of taste is materially and neurologically something very different to any other sense, such as vision...

The sense of taste is one of the oldest. It has therefore had plenty of time to evolve. It being one of the oldest senses, it is also clearly one of the most useful; it developed as a primary aid to survival, and we've not dispensed with it.

Modern cuisine and its attendant culture is a pretty recent development. Your argument seems to suggest that a cultured palate is a modern development, something that has sprung up in the last few millenia, and is exclusive to meat eating humans.

Please excuse me for attempting to extrapolate your argument from your opening statement, but you don't actually seem to have an argument.

 

[Herbsman.]

If a measure of superiority is the potential for diversity, a vegetarian diet is, by definition, inferior.

Whatever.

Why not just stick to answering the OP's question instead of being a prick?

 

[Athos]

Well....

My argument is based on the fact that we all have a broad and sensitive sense of taste. I have posted some links. They are hard science, and limited in the sense that they only look at one aspect of taste. I could post links to more general views, but they would not be hard science.

Your argument does indeed seem to be purely subjective.

Think of the other senses - vision, for instance. Some people are long or short sighted, others are colour blind, or experience other types of impairment. Setting these aside, everyone can see. Whether or not we use our vision to appreciate something is down to personality, education, culture, exposure and so forth.

You seem to be arguing that if a person is not shown (say) the colour red, they are thus rendered unable to discern the colour red.

I am saying that since we have receptors for the colour red, anyone can see it regardless of previous exposure.

Unless of course you are saying that the sense of taste is materially and neurologically something very different to any other sense, such as vision...

The sense of taste is one of the oldest. It has therefore had plenty of time to evolve. It being one of the oldest senses, it is also clearly one of the most useful; it developed as a primary aid to survival, and we've not dispensed with it.

Modern cuisine and its attendant culture is a pretty recent development. Your argument seems to suggest that a cultured palate is a modern development, something that has sprung up in the last few millenia, and is exclusive to humans.

Please excuse me for attempting to extrapolate your argument from your opening statement, but you don't actually seem to have an argument.

As I've already said, my point is not that vegetarins have no sense of taste, but, rather that they often have a less discening palate, because they've not been regularly exposed to as wide a range of tastes.

Your analogy with eyesight is a good one. Whilst everyone can see a painting, not everyone can appreciate art; similarly, although everyone can taste, not everyone has a discerning palate. In my experience, vegetarians fall into the latter category.

If you really can't see my argument, you are not very perceptive. I suspect it more likely that you are being disingenous.

 

[dessiato]

If a measure of superiority is the potential for diversity, a vegetarian diet is, by definition, inferior.

I would like to draw your attention to your use of the conditional here. In your earlier posts you equate use of the conditional to making statement of bald fact. This is not the case.

Your pedantry in earlier posts, your insistence on using inappropriate language while at the same time making the implication that you are of some sort of superior being based solely on the consumption of meat, is pompous.

I would suggest that your post here argues against some of your own posts, in that your refusal to accept the diversity of taste that leads some to choose not to eat meat would imply that you are not open to accepting that people are diverse in their tastes. In this case, by your definition, making you inferior.

If you are genuinely the sort of person you suggest you are, then you will be able to see that everyone has the right to choose whether to eat meat or not, and that doing so does not in any way lessen them.

The original post was asking about availability of information about wines for none meat eaters.

 

[Athos]

Whatever.

Great comeback.

Why not just stick to answering the OP's question instead of being a prick?

Why not just fuck off?

 

[dessiato]

Whatever.

Why not just stick to answering the OP's question instead of being a prick?

Seems a good choice, bet he doesn't though.

 

[Dillinger4]

It seems like he can't help being a prick.

 

[Athos]

I would like to draw your attention to your use of the conditional here. In your earlier posts you equate use of the conditional to making statement of bald fact. This is not the case.

What? Actually, don't bother.

Your pedantry in earlier posts, your insistence on using inappropriate language while at the same time making the implication that you are of some sort of superior being based solely on the consumption of meat, is pompous.

I haven't implied that I'm a superior being.

I would suggest that your post here argues against some of your own posts, in that your refusal to accept the diversity of taste that leads some to choose not to eat meat would imply that you are not open to accepting that people are diverse in their tastes. In this case, by your definition, making you inferior.

I haven't refused to accept the diversity of taste. I wouldn't deny anyone's right not to eat meat.

If you are genuinely the sort of person you suggest you are, then you will be able to see that everyone has the right to choose whether to eat meat or not, and that doing so does not in any way lessen them.

I don't recall suggesting that I'm any sort of person. I agree that people have the right to choose. I have never said otherwise.

 

[dessiato]

Great comeback.




Why not just fuck off?

I think this post of yours might just suffice to reply to this:

Marvellous stuff. Keep it coming, won't you.