/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>4444959
>himalayan rock salt

enjoy your overpriced NaCl with gipsum...

>>4441040
as with bolognese, one thing to do to make it more "patrician" would be using tagliatelle or fetuccine. Also more suitable would be using fusilli ("Fusilli con Polpettine").
Spagetti are not unheard of in the south, but tagliatelle or fusilli are nicer. Making a soffrito for the tomato sauce will also make it nicer and more "patrician".

Meat balls with peas and pepperoni is also an alternative.

An vegetarian alternative btw, is not only tofu balls or falafel, but also polpette de melanzane, common in liguria and made of eggplant! (pic related)

wth? Do you people live in the jungle or why do you get food poisoning/roaches from one day old food?

>>4422754
not a britbong here but:

beans + toast = complete protein

>>4425434
I knew about jumping cheese but this is silly:

>People consuming it reputedly run the risk of the larvae, which can remain unaffected by stomach acids, taking up residency in the intestines and boring through their flesh.

>>4412258
Then good luck, too, and be critical.

I don't agre on the religion part, please reconsider the arguments I made for it.

The thing is that my conception is NOT "western". It is "enlightened".

The philosophy of enlightenment says that we should criticize everything and construct all our views from scratch, using ratio.

was fun discussing with you!

>>4412225
not totally.

some things of the broad spectrum of "gender feminisms" hold truth, too.
Women being treated badly even when equal in the law is a problem, too. It's similar with racism. And I also agree with abolishing all gender norms, the same as some gender feminists.


I'd say the 1st (legal) and 2nd (social) waves of feminism were good. Only the 3rd is shite, which postulates weird things about men and women and is also mostly postmodern.

>>4412219
shite I just burned my burrito.

anyways:
feminism is the radical notion that women are people. - Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

all feminism =/= weird differential feminism which says all men are evil and logic is manly

>>4412198
>>4412201

I would "force" my ethical system on other people of course and by definition, because ethics is the system which directs my actions and my actions of course can affect other people.

also I very strongly feel that islamism, radical christianity or fascism are bad, and thus I will try to work against them. on the other hand I will work pro feminism, equality of homosexuals etc. because my ethics tell me its right.
I don't want to not have an opinion on these matters just because my belive system is ultimately not provable (because nothing is).

>>4412185
possibly, yes.

but we would have to call science faith based, too then.

>>4412171
diagramm to illustrate what I meant with the roots.

Deontology needs to refer back to a lot of singular, unconnected rules when assessing different situations, whereas Utilitarianism can in all situations refer back to its one rule (or two rules, if you split up equality and maximation of happyness).

I also added the rule "do not be homosexual", to show how deontological systems, especially religious ones, often have rules that are strongly dependent on the culture and do not cater to universal human needs.

>>4412162
I am not religious.

And what makes me prefare my theory compared to religions is simply that it:
1. makes less basical ethical rules (as explained above, individual decisions all come down to one "root", whereas religions are deontological and decisions may lead down various "roots".)
2. makes use of less metaphysical entities (I only postulate the "foreign mind", time and world continuity whereas religion has those + gods, wonders, live after dead etc.)
3. these metaphysical entities are combinable with science.
4. those things combined make it more intuitive
5. the basal principles of it are ideas shared by all human cultures and everything else is logically deduced from these principles. this makes it less cultural/random than believing for example in Christianity.

3. is very important to me. An ethical system which is incompatible with science is nothing I would ever consider.

So as I said, we have no logical reason to assume my ethical position, but if we want to choose an ethical system after all, I have "pseudo-arguments" which will very strongly motivate the reader to choose this system over religion or an deontological ethic like the Kantian one.

>>4412086
considering that would mean animal cruelty
<--- ethical argument

and sick creature meat
<--- technological argument


>>4412130
>So to clarify more, you're basically saying you think all living things universally ought to have a right to life, because intuitively you notice they seem to want to have life. The most important thing is for maximal happiness.

yes

>I know you say you *feel* this, but aside from feeling what reason should all things be happy?

There is no further reason. Keep in my that we are on the border of possible arguements here (given the problem of ultimate justification).
I have to make a "dogmatic abortion", because the only other option would be infinite regress. But my dogmatic abortion is based on this feeling which I think every human being can understand.

>Because if it's just a feeling, everything is just a personal truth

As I said, ultimate justification and so on, at some point (even in science, were we have to agree on time and some form of world continuity) we have to set axioms if we want to say anything. So every ethical system has to have a basis. But I think that almost all humans in the world will agree to the basic principles of my ethical system, which are basal, and not derived ("maximize happiness", "equality" instead of "you should not kill", "you should not eat pork", "you should not fuck before marriage". etc) this is called consequentialist, as opposed to deontological.

A logical justification for any form of ethic is impossible. A thing is only rational compared to a certain goals and goals can not be judged rationally, only if we add infinite meta-goals. Thus, while it seem weird that I base my argument on feelings, there is no other way really...

>>4412121
1.let us define intelligence as the ability of an animal to solve different problems and learn new behavior.

2. we let a pig solve a lot of different problems and learn a lot of new behavior.

3. we conclude that the pig is "intelligent". Of course, as everything in science, this is not set. Maybe the problems and new behavior all were very special cases and in general the pig is not as good in "intelligence". Further experiments can try to falsify our theory or increase the degree of it's "bewährtheit"/proven safety.
0/10 for republican on 4chan's /ck/ trying to revolutionize science.

>>4409369
obviously this.

followed by garlic, olive oil, paprika powder

>>4412109
>Nothing in the natural world behaves this way.

Using this descriptive sentence as a normative one would be a naturalistic fallacy (and btw orgininally the ONLY thing that makes the concept of "value-free science").

>Is this your personal belief, or do you believe this applies to everyone else regardless of what cultural context they are from?

I do believe that this law should be universal

>If so, why do you hold that position, is it a religious belief or just a personal feeling?

I try to base the axioms of my ethics on feelings but deduce individual actions/concepts of it logically from those axioms.
Thus my ethics are very similar to utilitarianism and infact I think everyone is somewhat of an "crude/intuitive utilitarianist". This means I favour an ethical system which is based on the thought that fulfilling our desires is a good thing, because it makes us happy, and we have to choose options that make everyone as happy as possible.

I do have the feeling that I want to be alive and from what I see of the actions and utterances of (most) other people and animals I deduce that they want to be alive aswell. And my craving of a certain food feels like a really small gain compared to something, especially something intelligent and aware, loosing their live over it.

>>4412092
I agree totally but it sounded like you are giving a technological argument earlier, and not an ethical one

>>4412090
>intelligence isn't even a scientific fact

Its a theoretical concept used in science and that does not make it not valid.
And we can make very detailed experiments which use operationalizations of that concept to see how intelligent an organism is.
Also as a general rule, large omnivores are more intelligent, because they have to be more intelligent, evolutionary speaking (see also bears, which are even more intelligent)

You obviously know nothing.


>stop trying to push some of those hippy's PETA pamphlet in the head of people that don't know better.

stop trying to push some of those conservative's teaparty pamphlet in the head of people that don't know better.

see I can do the same, but thats no argument.

>>4411528
>It's not really immoral to eat dogs.

wrong.
Our desire to eat a certain food does not outweight the desire of a conscious being to live. While I definitly would value the live of a human somewhat higher than that of a dog, we are not straving here in the first world and we can get all nutritions without eating meat.

>Objective morality is different from what society deems proper some times.

definitly true.

>>4412079
So you would eat a dog than is feed only vegetarian stuff?

>>4411484
this is true btw, pigs are among the most intelligent animals, overall more intelligent than dogs. Of course the dogs will appear more intelligent due to his selection to react to humans and to communicate with humans

>>4411984
pigs are omnivorous, cows occasionally (but rarely) eat small animals to gain minerals and chicken eat insects

also weird to do use something like that as ethical criterion.

I think its unethical to eat animals at our level of technological advancement. Not eating dogs is only a thing of certain cultures. Also because we in the first world threat dogs like humans we feel more compassion for them.

>>4408035
finely chopped celery as in a mirepoix or soffrito will not ruin the texture of a ground meat dish, pleb

Veggie Chili (can be made with meat, too):

-veggie burger ground into pieces or tofu already cut into small pieces or vegetarian bolognese
-Tomato paste
-onions
-celery
-garlic
-kidney beans
-spices (mild red pepper powder, cayenne pepper (those are most important), allspice, garam masala, thyme, cocoa powder (only a little))
-little splash of soy sauce
-a little glass of stock
-olive oil

instructions:
-make soffrito of celery, onions, garlic, olive oil
-flash fry or caramelize it
-add the ground tofu and fry it for a while, too
-extinguish with stock
-add beans, tomato paste, spieces
-simmer for a while, making it less fluid according to taste or add water to make it more fluid
-serve with a last splash of olive oil and salt

optional: adding beer or honey