Matching wine to vegetarian dishes

[chooch]

I have a more discerning palate than the vegetarians I have encountered, yes.

Are you claiming to be able to reliably discern more flavours?
Or something even more nebulous?

 

[Athos]

Are you claiming to be able to reliably discern more flavours?
Or something even more nebulous?

The former.

For instance, I could tell the difference between pheasant and partridge far more readily than any vegetarian.

 

[story]

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.

I think the area of disagreement is becoming fairly diminished. Perhaps, after all, we are merely arguing about semantics.

I agreed with you way back in post 24 on page 1 that the ability to appreciate a range of stimuli depends on exposure to and education about those stimuli.

I'm arguing with your apparent assertion that the absence of meat in a diet would render the innate sense of taste less discerning, or less able to discern.

Using my analogy as quoted above: I agree that if a person is going to understand and appreciate (say) Matisse's blurry late paintings, or Rothko's blocks of colour, then they must be able to see and also have some kind of aesthetic sense, much of which depends on cultural context as much as anything else.

Iit is perfectly reasonable to suppose that a person who does not, or even has never eaten meat, is just as equipped as any meat eater to discern the whole range of tastes and flavours that they might encounter: in other words, not in the least retarded. Whether or not they then develop the aesthetics necessary to become a gourmet is indeed a matter of education and exposure.

Your statement that a vegetarian palate is retarded (by which I suppose you meant undeveloped, hindered, delayed in development) suggests that you believe that a person who does not eat meat has not the ability to be a gourmet. It is this that I dispute.

 

[story]

The former.

For instance, I could tell the difference between pheasant and partridge far more readily than any vegetarian.

But that's not a question of the ability to discern.

It may be that a vegetarian does not know which is the partridge and which the pheasant, but I strongly believe that they would be able to discern the difference.

 

[story]

Are you claiming to be able to reliably discern more flavours?
Or something even more nebulous?

It is an odd assertion, is it not...

 

[mr steev]

Fucking hell. I've been veggie for 20 years and I've never heard this one before LOL Twat

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.

Sad innit.
I don't think there's ever been a thread (even on Suburban) about vegetarian issues without some twat spouting shit, or hilarious 'mmm bacon' posts.

 

[Athos]

I think the area of disagreement is becoming fairly diminished. Perhaps, after all, we are merely arguing about semantics.

It would seem so.

I agreed with you way back in post 24 on page 1 that the ability to appreciate a range of stimuli depends on exposure to and education about those stimuli.

That's agreed, then.

I'm arguing with your apparent assertion that the absence of meat in a diet would render the innate sense of taste less discerning, or less able to discern.

I didn't make any such assertion.

Using my analogy as quoted above: I agree that if a person is going to understand and appreciate (say) Matisse's blurry late paintings, or Rothko's blocks of colour, then they must be able to see and also have some kind of aesthetic sense, much of which depends on cultural context as much as anything else.

That's agreed, then, too.

Iit is perfectly reasonable to suppose that a person who does not, or even has never eaten meat, is just as equipped as any meat eater to discern the whole range of tastes and flavours that they might encounter: in other words, not in the least retarded.

Yes, but someone who only eats bread is just as equipped to discen the flavour of bread as anyone else. However, they are not as well equipped to discen all the other tastes and flavours. As such, their palate is retarded.

Whether or not they then develop the aesthetics necessary to become a gourmet is indeed a matter of education and exposure.

Which is what I was trying to say all along.

Your statement that a vegetarian palate is retarded (by which I suppose you meant undeveloped, hindered, delayed in development) suggests that you believe that a person who does not eat meat has not the ability to be a gourmet. It is this that I dispute.

Yes, by retarded I suppose hindered or under-developed would have been a better way of putting it. I do not belive that a person who does not eat meat can have as well rounded a palate as one who does (all other things being equal). He will never have acquire the ability to discern certain flavours, for example.

And I suppose it depends partly upon your definition of a gourmet. If you take it to mean a connoisseur of food, then I would dispute that a vegetarian could ever be labelled as such. How can you be a connoisseur of food when you refuse to partake of such a large, and to most of the culinary world fundamental, proportion of it?

 

[Athos]

But that's not a question of the ability to discern.

It may be that a vegetarian does not know which is the partridge and which the pheasant, but I strongly believe that they would be able to discern the difference.

Which is what I'm disagreeing with. In my experience, vegetarians have very undiscerning palates.

 

[Athos]

It is an odd assertion, is it not...

Not in the context of what this thread started out as - wine appreciation.

 

[mr steev]

In my experience, vegetarians have very undiscerning palates.

What experience is this?

 

[Athos]

Fucking hell. I've been veggie for 20 years and I've never heard this one before

Glad to have widened your horizons.

 

[Athos]

What experience is this?

As I've said all along - the ones I've come accross.

 

[mr steev]

As I've said all along - the ones I've come accross.

Come across how? Met down the pub?

 

[Athos]

Come across how? Met down the pub?

Some of them, yeah. Others are friends (of mine, or, more often than not, my wife).

 

[mr steev]

Do you only allow your wife to drink cheap plonk cos she can't appreciate a good one?

 

[Athos]

Do you only allow your wife to drink cheap plonk cos she can't appreciate a good one?

No. My wife has exquisite taste in wine (and men).

And the idea that I could disallow her from doing anything is ludicrous!

 

[mr steev]

No. My wife has exquisite taste in wine (and men).

But I thought you said she was a vegetarian (obvioulsy with a retarded pallette)

 

[Athos]

But I thought you said she was a vegetarian (obvioulsy with a retarded pallette)

No. I didn't. She's not. I said that some of her friends are.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

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?

As much as Athos is being a donut on this thread I would just like to point out that veggies would have an extraordinarily hard time in Japan, perhaps more than maybe anywhere else in the world.

 

[Athos]

As much as Athos is being a donut on this thread I would just like to point out that veggies would have an extraordinarily hard time in Japan, perhaps more than maybe anywhere else in the world.

Thay have a harder time at Chez Athos!

 

[mr steev]

No. I didn't. She's not. I said that some of her friends are.

Oh sorry, misread.
So you're experience of vegetarian pallates comes from your wifes friends. That's ok then

 

[Athos]

Oh sorry, misread.
So you're experience of vegetarian pallates comes from your wifes friends. That's ok then

Probably not a statistically significant proportion from which to extrapolate a sweeping generalisation about approximately a billion people, I'll concede. But, hey-ho. Just callin' it how I see it.

 

[mr steev]

Probably not a statistically significant proportion from which to extrapolate a sweeping generalisation about approximately a billion people, I'll concede.

No, it isn't

 

[Athos]

No, it isn't

No, but once you've said something silly, sometimes you just defend it, don't you?

 

[story]

As much as Athos is being a donut on this thread I would just like to point out that veggies would have an extraordinarily hard time in Japan, perhaps more than maybe anywhere else in the world.

I'm sure that's true in modern Japan; but it is also the case that they have a well developed tradition of meat-free cuisine (due to the Buddhist influence). Apparently, meat was pretty much frowned upon until fairly recently.

Fish and seafood is of course another matter...

I was more referring to the way that they will have half-a-dozen different preparations of the Ume plum, or scores of different kinds of miso or fermented soya, each subtly different from the other.

But I take your point that the Japanese are not veggie-friendly.

 

[story]

I didn't make any such assertion.

Well your statement that the palate of a vegetarian is retarded - are these materially different in content?

Yes, but someone who only eats bread is just as equipped to discen the flavour of bread as anyone else. However, they are not as well equipped to discen all the other tastes and flavours. As such, their palate is retarded.

Of course they are. Just because a person does not eat meat (or looks at Matisse, or touches silk, or....) does not mean that they are unable to taste its flavour when they do experience it.

If someone has not been exposed to a Matisse, they are not therefore incapable of discerning a van Gough; if a person has never worn silk, it doesn't make them somehow insensible to the sensation of satin on their skin.

It's an absurd premise.

Which is what I was trying to say all along.

Yes, by retarded I suppose hindered or under-developed would have been a better way of putting it. I do not belive that a person who does not eat meat can have as well rounded a palate as one who does (all other things being equal).

This last sentence is a very different proposal to the following sentence:

He will never have acquire the ability to discern certain flavours, for example.

There is a world of difference between a well-rounded and developed aesthetic ability (the former sentence), and a inability to discern different flavours (the latter sentence).

That's like saying that because someone has not been taught to dance or play a musical instrument, they are incapable of recognising that someone is dancing or playing music.

And I suppose it depends partly upon your definition of a gourmet. If you take it to mean a connoisseur of food, then I would dispute that a vegetarian could ever be labelled as such. How can you be a connoisseur of food when you refuse to partake of such a large, and to most of the culinary world fundamental, proportion of it?

Well this is based on you own subjective view. I disagree, but I cannot argue that you are wrong. Such matters are so entirely subjective that it would be impossible even to design a study that might start to answer the question. Like trying to know whether men or women derive the greater pleasure from sex.

 

[story]

ringo: apologies for the massive derail.



Maybe a mod should re-title this thread, and then you can start another one

 

[ringo]

That's alright, kept me entertained all day.

 

[chooch]

The former.
For instance, I could tell the difference between pheasant and partridge far more readily than any vegetarian.

Maybe so, in the same way that anyone is more likely to be able to shakily identify minor differences in any class of sensory experience they regularly seek out. It's still a fair way to go from that to 'vegetarians have a retarded palate', and I still see next to no relevance to wine.
I'm assuming (rashly, based on my experience of meat-eaters) that you don't regularly eat the range of non-meat foods of many developed world vegetarians, so while you may be able to claim to identify a partridgey tang in the wine, you may be less able to detect a seitan undertone, a hint of nero di toscana or a note of toovar dhal. But that's to be expected.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Fish and seafood is of course another matter...

Um, but fish etc are animals - meat.