Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The staff ate it later

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 313 posts

Re: The staff ate it later

#271

Post by saagarjha »

SapporoChris wrote: post #196
sethammons wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One whale takes much more time and energy than the equivalent food that comes from chicken. Much, much, much more efficient to eat chicken. Whales would entirely disappear if harvested at the same similar rates calories consumed.

If it takes a little more effort to reduce suffering for animals then I'm okay with that. However, I do not support unsustainable hunting. Please have some charity and don't imply such.

What is your solution to the problem posed above then?

Re: The staff ate it later

#272

Post by saagarjha »

hollerith wrote: post #266
chithanh wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my understanding it is mostly a cultural thing that makes people reject insects. I am unaware of any objective measure by which are insects are terrible foods.

And how many of your meals have included insect food?

Why ask this question?

Re: The staff ate it later

#273

Post by cardiffspaceman »

throw0101d wrote: post #232
mikepurvis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joshua 6:27 KJV: "The Lord was with Joshua and his Triumph was heard throughout the land." https://www.google.com/search?q=trumph+motorcycle

I own a Street Triple, so do not object to his search, but it should also be remembered: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Motor_Company

The old Chrysler manufacturer had a Plymouth division with a set of Fury models so I was ready chuckling before I clicked through.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Fury

Re: The staff ate it later

#274

Post by hollerith »

saagarjha wrote: post #272
hollerith wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many of your meals have included insect food?

Why ask this question?

If I heard somewhere that insects are good people food, I certainly wouldn't go repeating that assertion in public without having tried eating insects at least once.

It is unethical profess a belief in public, especially an unusual belief, but neglect to test that belief when a test would be inexpensive and straightforward.

It is also unethical to propose a radical change to society with only very tenuous basis in reality: people should be able to demonstrate knowledge (and not just knowledge about what beliefs will prove popular or fashionable) before they engage in public policy discussions. If the person I'm discussing with hasn't tried eating insects at least once (preferably a lot more often) he is doing us all a disservice in even engaging in a public discussion of the topic unless perhaps he has deep professional-level knowledge of the nutritional value of insects and the effect of nutrients and anti-nutrients on human health (and "insects are high in protein" alone doesn't begin to be enough knowledge).

Trolling is widely believed to be anti-social. It is approximately just as anti-social to try to whip up a public discussion of some radical social or economic change or some radical change in our daily lives with as little grounding in reality as this discussion of insects as food.

Re: The staff ate it later

#275

Post by saagarjha »

hollerith wrote: post #274
saagarjha wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why ask this question?

If I heard somewhere that insects are good people food, I certainly wouldn't go repeating that assertion in public without having tried eating insects at least once. It is unethical profess a belief in public, especially an unusual belief, but neglect to test that belief when a test would be inexpensive and straightforward. It is also unethical to propose a radical change to society with only very tenuous basis in re…

I think it would be nice to have socialized healthcare in my country. I have never been covered by socialized healthcare. Am I trolling by expressing that opinion because I have a PPO plan through my employer?

Re: The staff ate it later

#276

Post by hollerith »

saagarjha wrote: post #275
hollerith wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I heard somewhere that insects are good people food, I certainly wouldn't go repeating that assertion in public without having tried eating insects at least once. It is unethical profess a belief in public, especially an unusual belief, but neglect to test that belief when a test would be inexpensive and straightforward. It is also unethical to propose a radical change to society with only very tenuous basis in re…

I think it would be nice to have socialized healthcare in my country. I have never been covered by socialized healthcare. Am I trolling by expressing that opinion because I have a PPO plan through my employer?

There are no ways[1] to obtain info relevant to public policy discussions about a nationwide healthcare system anywhere near as easy as, "the net is full of misinformation, so I should at least try eating insects to make sure I even can without getting sick".

[1] Or more precisely I havent been able to think of any ways.

Re: The staff ate it later

#277

Post by xeonmc »

williamdclt wrote: post #231
krapp wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context, "European" means "white." Jesus probably did not look like the bearded white hippie commonly depicted in Western (primarily American and British) iconography. Spaniards, Egyptians, Greeks and Levantines may or may not look similar (seems a bit broad, like the geographical definition of "European") but they also don't often look like "white people." Especially not in Egypt or the Levant.

Never heard of spanish people or greeks not being considered "white".

It's euphemism for "Aryan".

Re: The staff ate it later

#278

Post by swat535 »

bambax wrote: post #161
Y_Y wrote: post #2

> Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret arts. For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. - Exodus 7:1-12 (NIV) Many moons ago I had a girlfriend who worked on an nationally broadcast afternoon show where they often had guest chefs demonstrating dishes, so I wo…

Not sure what the quote has to do with anything here, but it's a as good an opportunity as ever to say that large parts of the "Old Testament" draw most of its inspiration from the code of Hammurabi ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"), the Epic of Gilgamesh (which gave us, notably, the story of the deluge, and the dark role of the serpent) and Ancient Egypt, to which it owes, among many others, the concept of…

There are at least 2 ancient pagan flood stories: The Gilgamesh Epic and the Atrathasis Epic, both originating in ancient Mesopotamia. Because both sources predate the source of Noah's story, many scholars have concluded that Noah's flood story was borrowed from these. However, consider the following objections:

- When a historical event is retold to different audiences over time, the story generally becomes more mythical and embellished, and poetry and exalted language are used. It is the opposite when Noah's and the pagan stories are compared. Noah's story is simpler and told in a straightforward narrative, while the pagan stories are told in a more mythical and embellished style.

- Noah's story is monotheistic, and the characters are ethically moral. The pagan stories are polytheistic, and the characters are ethically capricious. The pagan gods are implied to be selfish, jealous of each other and lie to each other. Moreover, in the Atrathasis Epic the gods discover that due to the flood, they have wiped out their only source of food (people's sacrifices) implying that they depend on humans.

- The shape of the ark in Noah's story is the only one that can be considered seaworthy, being rectangular and in dimensions similar to more modern cargo barges. The pagan stories describe an ark that is round or cubic, which would make an ark less stable for floatation and also more vulnerable to damage/overturning by wave impact.

It is therefore more likely that Noah's story with its later source is faithful to the actual historical event; while the pagan stories are versions modified to suit the polytheistic religion/culture of their audiences. At the same time, it is remarkable that the pagan stories confirm that a history changing flood did occur.

Re: The staff ate it later

#279

Post by chithanh »

hollerith wrote: post #266
chithanh wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my understanding it is mostly a cultural thing that makes people reject insects. I am unaware of any objective measure by which are insects are terrible foods.

And how many of your meals have included insect food?

Here in the EU, insect powder is now an approved food additive.

https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/novel-food/authorisati...

As I don't closely read labels of everything I eat, probably I consumed it inadvertently already. Otherwise, I don't eat meat.

Re: The staff ate it later

#280

Post by chithanh »

cylemons wrote: post #165
keiferski wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is mostly just proximity and framing. A hurt wild animal is alive and right in front of you. Meat from the grocery store is a prepackaged product that isn’t mentally associated with the bloody process behind the scenes required to get it there. The commercial aspect is pretty dependent on this distancing. Case-in-point: I once stayed in a small town in Morocco for a few weeks. There wasn’t a grocery store nearby,…

Also a matter of purpose, killing animals for food is more acceptable than killing them for sport or entertainment

In the developed world and large parts of the developing world, meat is consumed for entirely hedonic reasons (ie. for pleasure). I would not consider this materially different from killing for sports or entertainment.
Post reply on HN