NationStates Jolt Archive

Of the things you've tasted in your life(not necessarily food) what had the weirdest taste. In either the sense of being unable to identify it as something similar or in sense of the taste being simply strange. I ask because I can't seem to get rid of the taste of some really bad candy right now.

Pretty much anything Korean. In a good way, though, sometimes.

Caribou meat. A few people defended it the last time I mentioned it, but I still say there's just something weird about it.

Those were the first to spring to mind.

My friend Byron says: A petrified girl's eyeball.

still moving squid taste good (korean) not so much taste as the fact it is still moving. some other octopus and fish they serve like that. I like it though.
for shock factor among Yanks and Euros dog meat. but it is a pretty normal tasting meat.

Flan.
Shudder.

Earwax.

for shock factor among Yanks and Euros dog meat. but it is a pretty normal tasting meat.

You know in Albania and Switzerland they eat dog meat, so Europeans aren't gonna be that amazed. I've never tasted anything really weird, but I've eaten some strange tasting grapes.

You know in Albania and Switzerland they eat dog meat, so Europeans aren't gonna be that amazed. I've never tasted anything really weird, but I've eaten some strange tasting grapes.

I'd have no problem eating dog meat, or horse meat, or any non-human animal meat.

I'd have no problem eating dog meat, or horse meat, or any non-human animal meat.

Even chimps and gorillas?

Even chimps and gorillas?

Yes, although it should be stated for full disclosure that I do not accept evolution, so recognize no common ancestry.

Yes, although it should be stated for full disclosure that I do not accept evolution, so recognize no common ancestry.

Whether or not we share the same ancestor, they are almost human and have complex thoughts and feelings.

Whether or not we share the same ancestor, they are almost human and have complex thoughts and feelings.

I deny that they have souls. Thus, I have no problem eating them. It is the presence of a soul which grants a creature the right to life, in my view, and since the great apes lack such, they have no right to life, and I have no moral problem eating their flesh, or even hunting them for food.
Further, I would deny that there is any such thing as being almost human. In my view, what makes a being a human is the presence of a soul, which is an either/or proposition, not a spectrum. Humans have a soul; thus I would not eat human meat. Apes lack a soul; thus I would have no problem eating ape meat.

I deny that they have souls. Thus, I have no problem eating them.

I also deny that the have souls. I still have problems eating them. Surely the fact they're on the brink of extinction should put you off as well?

I also deny that the have souls. I still have problems eating them. Surely the fact they're on the brink of extinction should put you off as well?

But for me, the whole nature of a being's right to life is determined by the presence or absence of a soul. I have no problem eating the flesh of a creature that never possessed a soul.
No, in fact, I would have no moral problem if the great apes were hunted to extinction for food.

But for me, the whole nature of a being's right to life is determined by the presence or absence of a soul. I have no problem eating the flesh of a creature that never possessed a soul.
No, in fact, I would have no moral problem if the great apes were hunted to extinction for food.

I think that's a real shame. You think it's OK to hunt thinking, intelligent beings to extinction for food? That's awful.

I think that's a real shame. You think it's OK to hunt thinking, intelligent beings to extinction for food? That's awful.

I think it is OK to hunt beings which do not have souls. All else is superfluous to me.

I think it is OK to hunt beings which do not have souls. All else is superfluous to me.

Even if they can think at an almost human level?

Even if they can think at an almost human level?

Perhaps I should use an example to make my position crystal clear:
Suppose there were a being, identical to a human being in every way except that it did not possess a soul. I would have no moral problems whatsoever with killing that being, harvesting its flesh, cooking it and consuming it in a meal, even if that being were completely unique and had never before been seen and would never again be seen.
Of course, this presupposes that I have knowledge that the being in question has no soul, which I cannot imagine how I might come about about such knowledge, but if I did in fact know it had no soul, I would have no moral problem with eating it.

I think that's a real shame. You think it's OK to hunt thinking, intelligent beings to extinction for food? That's awful.
Don't bother with Sancta. It's a troll.

Don't bother with Sancta. It's a troll.

I challenge that assertion, Kamsaki-Myu. I am simply engaging in a discussion on my personal morality in regards to eating certain animals. I in no way intend to anger or prompt to improper behaviour anyone on this thread. Nor am I here claiming that my personal belief should be adopted by anyone; I am merely describing my own morality as it exists. Such is hardly the action of a troll.

And, as a minor aside, the proper shortened form of my name is Nicea, the noun, not Sancta, the adjective modifying it.

Perhaps I should use an example to make my position crystal clear:
Suppose there were a being, identical to a human being in every way except that it did not possess a soul. I would have no moral problems whatsoever with killing that being, harvesting its flesh, cooking it and consuming it in a meal, even if that being were completely unique and had never before been seen and would never again be seen.
Of course, this presupposes that I have knowledge that the being in question has no soul, which I cannot imagine how I might come about about such knowledge, but if I did in fact know it had no soul, I would have no moral problem with eating it.

2 points, point 1, how do you know chimps and gorillas don't have souls, point 2, would you kill and eat it even if was in terror and knew exactly what you were doing?

2 points, point 1, how do you know chimps and gorillas don't have souls, point 2, would you kill and eat it even if was in terror and knew exactly what you were doing?

I know they don't have souls because I am an adherent to the Catholic faith, which teaches that only human beings have souls.
Yes.

I know they don't have souls because I am an adherent to the Catholic faith, which teaches that only human beings have souls.
Yes.

And your answer to question 2?

And your answer to question 2?

The first sentence was my answer to question 1.
"Yes." was my answer to question 2.

I challenge that assertion, Kamsaki-Myu. I am simply engaging in a discussion on my personal morality in regards to eating certain animals. I in no way intend to anger or prompt to improper behaviour anyone on this thread. Nor am I here claiming that my personal belief should be adopted by anyone; I am merely describing my own morality as it exists. Such is hardly the action of a troll.
This assertion is based on an evaluation of the Nicea Sancta account's overall posting history, rather than merely in response to a single opinion. Posts from this account have a propensity to express a particular world view in an exaggerated and unflattering manner, whilst being confident in such assertion, and consequently, it is my opinion that the account is formed in the intention of

a) extracting incriminating testimony (aka - flamebaiting) from those who disagree with that world view for political or ideological convenience, and/or
b) hardening popular opinion against that world view to accelerate its decline

I'm just preventing people from responding one way or the other to the account's use.

This assertion is based on an evaluation of the Nicea Sancta account's overall posting history, rather than merely in response to a single opinion. Posts from this account have a propensity to express a particular world view in an exaggerated and unflattering manner, whilst being confident in such assertion, and consequently, it is my opinion that the account is formed in the intention of

a) extracting incriminating testimony (aka - flamebaiting) from those who disagree with that world view for political or ideological convenience, and/or
b) hardening popular opinion against that world view to accelerate its decline

I'm just preventing people from responding one way or the other to the account's use.

My worldview is as it is; it is not exaggerated. If others find it unflattering, that is unfortunate, and I apologize if my beliefs have offended others, including yourself. Such was not my intent. I merely speak as I believe; I can do no other.
I do not intend to flamebait, and welcome those who disagree with me, that I might perhaps convince them that my admittedly unpopular worldview is, in fact, consistent and logical.
I certainly do not intend to harden popular opinion against my worldview; such would hardly be in my interest, and I cannot see why I might be accused of this.

This assertion is based on an evaluation of the Nicea Sancta account's overall posting history, rather than merely in response to a single opinion. Posts from this account have a propensity to express a particular world view in an exaggerated and unflattering manner, whilst being confident in such assertion, and consequently, it is my opinion that the account is formed in the intention of

a) extracting incriminating testimony (aka - flamebaiting) from those who disagree with that world view for political or ideological convenience, and/or
b) hardening popular opinion against that world view to accelerate its decline

I'm just preventing people from responding one way or the other to the account's use.

I must admit, Kamsaki, that, although the majority of us on this board disagree with his worldview, that he's/she's not exactly being much of a troll. Nicea, to my knowledge, hasn't engaged in any kind of flamebaiting or "I said this 10 pages ago, learn to read" kind of argumentation or strawmen or ad hominem or the abuse of logical fallacies and the like. At least, from what I've seen, Nicea has been willing to debate in a civil tone.

Granted, his/her worldview seems fairly narrow to me, but I'm sure the thought is reciprocated.

"Yes." was my answer to question 2.

Then you're a sick fuck.

I must admit, Kamsaki, that, although the majority of us on this board disagree with his worldview, that he's/she's not exactly being much of a troll. Nicea, to my knowledge, hasn't engaged in any kind of flamebaiting or "I said this 10 pages ago, learn to read" kind of argumentation or strawmen or ad hominem or the abuse of logical fallacies and the like. At least, from what I've seen, Nicea has been willing to debate in a civil tone.

Granted, his/her worldview seems fairly narrow to me, but I'm sure the thought is reciprocated.

Thank you for this defense. In Kamsaki-Myu's defense, I have, on occasion, allowed my emotions to get the better of me, and have responded in a less than proper manner. For this, I have been duly chastened by the moderators, and I apologize to those I have offended. If Kamsaki-Myu's problem with me has its origins in these posts, I have no recourse but to ask for forgiveness and offer my assurances that such tactics will not again be employed.

Then you're a sick fuck.

It is unfortunate that you consider me such, but again, try to understand my point of view. I believe that the sole qualification for a moral right to life is the possession of a soul. If a being does not possess a soul, it follows, that being does not possess a right to life. Since the great apes, regardless of their intellectual capacity, do not possess a soul, in my view, they do not therefore possess a moral right to life. There is, therefore, in my view, nothing morally wrong with killing a great ape, nor in consuming their flesh.

It is unfortunate that you consider me such, but again, try to understand my point of view. I believe that the sole qualification for a moral right to life is the possession of a soul. If a being does not possess a soul, it follows, that being does not possess a right to life. Since the great apes, regardless of their intellectual capacity, do not possess a soul, in my view, they do not therefore possess a moral right to life. There is, therefore, in my view, nothing morally wrong with killing a great ape, nor in consuming their flesh.

But you said you wouldn't mind killing a soulless human being, even if they were in terror and knew what was coming. That makes you sick.

But you said you wouldn't mind killing a soulless human being, even if they were in terror and knew what was coming. That makes you sick.

Perhaps, under your consideration. However, if it were actually the case that, as I believe, the only qualification for a moral right to life were the possession of a soul, then, assuming this were the case, my position would be justified, wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps, under your consideration. However, if it were actually the case that, as I believe, the only qualification for a moral right to life were the possession of a soul, then, assuming this were the case, my position would be justified, wouldn't you agree?

In a way, yes.

In a way, yes.

Then let us come to an agreement by saying that, if your view of morality is true, my position would be untenable and yours would be proper, and if my view were true, then my position would be proper. No need for any name calling or ill feeling.

Then let us come to an agreement by saying that, if your view of morality is true, my position would be untenable and yours would be proper, and if my view were true, then my position would be proper. No need for any name calling or ill feeling.

OK, great. I apologise for calling you a sick fuck, but I still think it's quite nasty.

OK, great. I apologise for calling you a sick fuck, but I still think it's quite nasty.

Apology accepted. I appreciate your view, and can understand how my own position would, to one not inclined as I am, appear disconcerting.

Thank you for this defense. In Kamsaki-Myu's defense, I have, on occasion, allowed my emotions to get the better of me, and have responded in a less than proper manner. For this, I have been duly chastened by the moderators, and I apologize to those I have offended. If Kamsaki-Myu's problem with me has its origins in these posts, I have no recourse but to ask for forgiveness and offer my assurances that such tactics will not again be employed.
Reading over said history again, it does seem as though I have allowed your negative comments in certain instances to tarnish your overall standing, and the fact that we disagree almost universally and with equal fervor has encouraged that. So I apologise for jumping the gun and withdraw the accusation, at least for now.

On the topic at hand, allow me to contribute two things:

1) I fail to see where "soul" and "life" can be so easily distinguished. What is a soul, if not that which gives life its properties above and beyond a simple mechanical system? And, that being the case, where does the arbitration between beings of spirit and those without lie?

2) Your position can only be justified basis for action if posession of a soul can be objectively verified. Couldn't your stance theoretically be capable of justifying killing anything and everything other than yourself? And if so, would you hesitate in doing so?

Reading over said history again, it does seem as though I have allowed your negative comments in certain instances to tarnish your overall standing, and the fact that we disagree almost universally and with equal fervor has encouraged that. So I apologise for jumping the gun and withdraw the accusation, at least for now.

On the topic at hand, allow me to contribute two things:

1) I fail to see where "soul" and "life" can be so easily distinguished. What is a soul, if not that which gives life its properties above and beyond a simple mechanical system? And, that being the case, where does the arbitration between beings of spirit and those without lie?

2) Your position can only be justified basis for action if posession of a soul can be objectively verified. Couldn't your stance theoretically be capable of justifying killing anything and everything other than yourself? And if so, would you hesitate in doing so?

Apology accepted, and I apologize in turn for giving you cause to doubt my nature.

I would say, in response to 1, that the soul is that immaterial component given by God which grants a being awareness of God, of its responsibilities to God, and of its responsibilities to others.

To 2, I would say that the possession of a soul has been sufficiently established for my understanding by the Scriptures and the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is the classification of which beings have souls which determines which beings have a moral right to life, but it is the Christian Faith which determines which beings I accept as having souls. Thus, the beings which have no moral right to life are determined by an agency outside that of my own whim and reasoning and, since I believe this agency to be directed by the infallible God Himself, such a designation is not arbitrary.

I know they don't have souls because I am an adherent to the Catholic faith, which teaches that only human beings have souls.

I'm an adherent of the Soheranian faith, which teaches that you don't have a soul.

Should we kill and eat you for food?

I'm an adherent of the Soheranian faith, which teaches that you don't have a soul.

Should we kill and eat you for food?

If the Soheranian faith teaches that the moral right to life of a being is dependent upon its possession of a soul, then yes, according to your faith, you would be morally blameworthy in killing me, harvesting my flesh, and consuming it for your meals.

If the Soheranian faith teaches that the moral right to life of a being is dependent upon its possession of a soul,

Well, unfortunately it doesn't believe in anything so absurd.

But I'm not interested in "according to [my] faith", I'm interested in according to you. You have said that a being's right to life is dependent on its having a soul. You have further suggested that mere faith is the only standard of justification necessary for concluding the non-souledness of a being.

So if I have faith that you lack a soul, am I justified in killing and eating you?

So if I have faith that you lack a soul, am I justified in killing and eating you?
The obscure sort of logical sense is that "Within that faith, yes" has the potential to be a correct response if indeed the faith does say that lacking a soul is how to distinguish between food and fellow.

The question to ask is more "If I do not have faith that I lack a soul, yet you do, is your eating me justified to me? And if not, does that matter?"

The obscure sort of logical sense is that "Within that faith, yes" has the potential to be a correct response if indeed the faith does say that lacking a soul is how to distinguish between food and fellow.

This would be a logical response, yes, but not a particularly likely one--not from a reasonable person, anyway. Its conclusion is that essentially anyone is justified in murder, as long as they first commit themselves to a convenient faith.

The question to ask is more "If I do not have faith that I lack a soul, yet you do, is your eating me justified to me?"

Of course not, but what difference does this make to him?

Well, unfortunately it doesn't believe in anything so absurd.

But I'm not interested in "according to [my] faith", I'm interested in according to you. You have said that a being's right to life is dependent on its having a soul. You have further suggested that mere faith is the only standard of justification necessary for concluding the non-souledness of a being.

So if I have faith that you lack a soul, am I justified in killing and eating you?

If your faith does not have the tenet that the moral right to life is dependent upon having a soul, then you lack justification for killing and eating a human being on the basis that you believe it has no soul. Instead, you must provide other justification as to why killing and eating a being which you believe lacks a soul is morally justified.
True, I believe a being's right to life is dependent upon its having a soul. However, I said that my faith was sufficient justification for me to determine whether a being has a soul.
So, you see, in order for the analogy to work, it is not sufficient that your faith state that I have no soul; you must provide additional justification as to why the possession of a soul is relevant to whether or not it is moral to kill and eat that being. If your faith has no such tenet, such a justification is lacking.

The obscure sort of logical sense is that "Within that faith, yes" has the potential to be a correct response if indeed the faith does say that lacking a soul is how to distinguish between food and fellow.

The question to ask is more "If I do not have faith that I lack a soul, yet you do, is your eating me justified to me? And if not, does that matter?"

If you are, in this instance, a great ape, and lack the Catholic faith, which says that you lack a soul, and that it is therefore not morally improper to kill and eat you, then doubtless my killing and eating you would seem to be a gross moral failing on my part. In fact, my actions would doubtless seem horrifically immoral to you, presuming you had a concept of morality.
No, I would say that it does not matter, since the criterion, according to my faith, is not the understanding or moral opinion of the other, but rather the possession or lack of a soul.

It is the classification of which beings have souls which determines which beings have a moral right to life, but it is the Christian Faith which determines which beings I accept as having souls. Thus, the beings which have no moral right to life are determined by an agency outside that of my own whim and reasoning and, since I believe this agency to be directed by the infallible God Himself, such a designation is not arbitrary.

Therefore the christian faith decides which beings can be killed (i.e by having no soul)? could this be extended to non believers and members of other religions?

Carrot juice.

A few Spanish dishes.

This weird Chinese drink I had.

My ladyfriend's... um... yessss....

*snip*

I'm not concerned with whether my conclusion follows from my premises. What I want to know is whether you would deem those premises to be correct, even if they were applied to you.

Does anyone who does not believe you have a soul speak truth if she states that she has no duty to avoid killing you? What about other human beings? Can any murderer get away with it morally by committing herself to the belief that her victim has no soul?

Therefore the christian faith decides which beings can be killed (i.e by having no soul)? could this be extended to non believers and members of other religions?

No, since all beings which possess souls have a moral right to life, and all human beings have souls, even those of other faiths. The status of that soul, it's being in immortal danger or being saved for eternity, has no bearing on the moral right to life of the being; it is not a saved soul which grants a being a moral right to life, but merely a soul. Thus, non believers and members of other religions have the right to life, just as does the Christian.

No, since all beings which possess souls have a moral right to life, and all human beings have souls, even those of other faiths. The status of that soul, it's being in immortal danger or being saved for eternity, has no bearing on the moral right to life of the being; it is not a saved soul which grants a being a moral right to life, but merely a soul. Thus, non believers and members of other religions have the right to life, just as does the Christian.

What about people on death row?


And anyway, isn't this about weird tastes?

Another one that involves my ladyfriend. Her sweat. It tastes salty, sorta garlicish, but unlike anything else I've tasted.

I'm not concerned with whether my conclusion follows from my premises. What I want to know is whether you would deem those premises to be correct, even if they were applied to you.

Does anyone who does not believe you have a soul speak truth if she states that she has no duty to avoid killing you? What about other human beings? Can any murderer get away with it morally by committing herself to the belief that her victim has no soul?

No. The belief that a person has no soul is only one component. It must be accompanied by the belief that the presence or absence of a soul is relevant to the moral right to life. If the person in question has no such belief, then their belief that a given being lacks a soul is irrelevant.
Given that my faith states that only beings with a soul have a moral right to life, it does not follow that, according to my faith, anyone who does not believe that a given being lacks a soul is justified in killing that person; the reason they believe the given being lacks a soul must be brought into question. If a person so believes because their own faith, different from mine which states that only ensouled beings have a moral right to life, says so, then the justification is not present, because my faith has no recognition of the justification of their own. If, however, a person so believes because their own faith is identical to mine, then justification is therefore present for their actions, in my view of them.

What about people on death row?

People on death row do, in fact, have a moral right to life. The point can be debated whether their actions have been sufficient to waive that right (I personally do not believe this is possible) but that is a separate issue.

On that note, I am going to bed. I look forward to continuing this conversation tomorrow. Good night.

People on death row do, in fact, have a moral right to life. The point can be debated whether their actions have been sufficient to waive that right (I personally do not believe this is possible) but that is a separate issue.

So you are against capital punishment?

Your screen name seems to be latin, which would suggest Roman Catholicism. Excuse me if I assume too much, but this would be consistent with their official position regarding the death penalty.

If a person so believes because their own faith, different from mine which states that only ensouled beings have a moral right to life, says so, then the justification is not present, because my faith has no recognition of the justification of their own.

Whatever your faith believes, this is not a rational distinction. The significance that your faith has for you is simply that it is yours: the same holds true for anyone else who has faith. If that's good enough justification for you, it must be good enough justification for anyone else.

The weirdest thing I've tasted so far was either was the phlegm I coughed up yesterday or my mom's cooking.

I deny that they have souls. Thus, I have no problem eating them. It is the presence of a soul which grants a creature the right to life, in my view, and since the great apes lack such, they have no right to life, and I have no moral problem eating their flesh, or even hunting them for food.
Further, I would deny that there is any such thing as being almost human. In my view, what makes a being a human is the presence of a soul, which is an either/or proposition, not a spectrum. Humans have a soul; thus I would not eat human meat. Apes lack a soul; thus I would have no problem eating ape meat.

Nice how your beliefs let you compartmentalize things so easily, huh?

As for me, I'm not sure. I've tasted a lot of strange things, but then again, my sense of taste is rather...different.

Damn, it's morbidly fascinating to read how this seemingly innocent thread derailed because of the ramblings of an extinction-friendly creationist troll and the irate responses of a fellow European. Why can't we just agree to stop feeding the trolls? It's not like they aren't obese enough already...

Yes, although it should be stated for full disclosure that I do not accept evolution, so recognize no common ancestry.

how exactly do you justify "not accepting evolution"? I mean its been observed, creatures do evolve.

There was an odd sesame seed soup/drink/custardy thing (but sweet) I had in Hong Kong; it was actually quite nice, but I'd never had something like it before.

Any of the endless quantities of gases that come up from the stomach when one burps. Sometimes they'll taste like food products you haven't eaten for years!

That's more a case of 'weirdest stomach'.

So what do souls taste like?

Mentioning this doesn't have any use, but I happen to believe everything has soul. Yes, even rocks. And no, no mistake in my English there. I do eat.

The weirdest thing I ever tasted (by accident, of course) was liquid orangeflower soap. Not the most disgusting thing ever, but very weird.

Even chimps and gorillas?

i want to go to India and try the dish where you eat the brains out of a live chimp.

i want to go to India and try the dish where you eat the brains out of a live chimp.

No chimps in India, you're thinking of the monkeys in Indiana Jones.

I wouldn't be surprised if Greed And Death thinks the Indiana Jones movies are documentaries, Adunabar.

I wouldn't be surprised if Greed And Death thinks the Indiana Jones movies are documentaries, Adunabar.

They're not? :eek:

The taste of bile.

The weirdest taste is definitely Robitussin with codeine. It's like fake cherry with fake mint. It also brings back horrific childhood memories.

Of the things you've tasted in your life(not necessarily food) what had the weirdest taste. In either the sense of being unable to identify it as something similar or in sense of the taste being simply strange. I ask because I can't seem to get rid of the taste of some really bad candy right now.

bad in what way?

weirdest taste?

hmmm...

Li Hing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_hing_mui)Mui (http://www.crackseedcenter.com/Category.aspx?categoryID=28) powder. weird taste, but once you aquire it...
damn, my mouth is watering just thinking about it... seriously...
great on fruits, terrible in a drink (yes, they had a Li Hing Mui drink...)

Celery has a weird taste to me. not a bad taste, just a plesantly weird taste.

Perhaps I should use an example to make my position crystal clear:
Suppose there were a being, identical to a human being in every way except that it did not possess a soul. I would have no moral problems whatsoever with killing that being, harvesting its flesh, cooking it and consuming it in a meal, even if that being were completely unique and had never before been seen and would never again be seen.
Of course, this presupposes that I have knowledge that the being in question has no soul, which I cannot imagine how I might come about about such knowledge, but if I did in fact know it had no soul, I would have no moral problem with eating it.

Well, seeing as your only basis for determining if someone or something has a soul is whatever the Catholic church decides, it should be fairly easy for you to gain such knowledge.
It's not as if that needed much research, or evidence, or sense.

On topic, I've tasted a good number of weird things. I still haven't decided if I like raw live oysters or not. People keep telling me hey taste like sperm, but I don't think so, really. Especially not if you put a bit of lemon juice on them.

As for bad taste, nothing beats Christian imagery.

On topic, I've tasted a good number of weird things. I still haven't decided if I like raw live oysters or not. People keep telling me hey taste like sperm, but I don't think so, really. Especially not if you put a bit of lemon juice on them.

As for bad taste, nothing beats Christian imagery.

I can't help but point out that you may be accidentally giving away certain personal information with this post. I thought you ought to know, just in case you happen to care.

On topic, I've tasted a good number of weird things. I still haven't decided if I like raw live oysters or not. People keep telling me hey taste like sperm, but I don't think so, really. Especially not if you put a bit of lemon juice on them.

As for bad taste, nothing beats Christian imagery.

Lemon juice on sperm? :eek2: :D

Lemon juice on sperm? :eek2: :D
That's what I thought, Cabra must have very understanding boyfriends if they're willing to let her put citrus next to the tip of their penis. I know I wouldn't, not even if my refusal was to be a deal breaker.

Yes, although it should be stated for full disclosure that I do not accept evolution, so recognize no common ancestry.

Why not? You accept the catholic position in regards to whether animals have souls yet reject them in regards to evolution?

Nail Varnish.

I thought those of the Judeo-Christian faith were supposed to be responsible stewards of the earth?

liver! eewwww...unmistakable or unforgettable no matter what kind whether its chopped liver or patee. Eeewww...lol :)

Also the flavor I enjoy after I please my lover.

liver! eewwww...unmistakable or unforgettable no matter what kind whether its chopped liver or patee. Eeewww...lol :)

Also the flavor I enjoy after I please my lover.:$ Your reply FTW.

I thought those of the Judeo-Christian faith were supposed to be responsible stewards of the earth?A little off topic for the thread.

:$ Your reply FTW.


Thank you so much over there, Arianovia! :) :wink:


P.S.
:fluffle: heehee :$

You know, there a six billion plus homo sapiens on thus planet. Maybe we need few homo and more sapiens aboout our species.
I am a paid up member of the Right to Laugh organisation!

A little off topic for the thread.


I agree. Don't even know where this came from.

I agree. Don't even know where this came from.

It was off topic, it just bounced into my head when I was reading all the mess with the other guy with the souls and the christianity and such...


Sorry...

I'll try to think of something weird that I put into my mouth..

Lemon juice on sperm? :eek2: :D

On the oysters! :p

Li Hing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_hing_mui)Mui (http://www.crackseedcenter.com/Category.aspx?categoryID=28) powder. weird taste, but once you aquire it...

Aha, so that's why that "dried plum" someone once gave me tasted so odd. I assumed it had been treated with some chemical to preserve it.

Wasabi, just because it tastes so.. fresh and clean.. and spicy. Mmm.

Worst had to be the "candy" I had in Chinatown.. Dried fish with some kind of seed stuck to it.

tripe. (mouthpuke)

Some type of fish jerky these Vietnamese guys had.

So gross.

It is unfortunate that you consider me such, but again, try to understand my point of view. I believe that the sole qualification for a moral right to life is the possession of a soul. If a being does not possess a soul, it follows, that being does not possess a right to life. Since the great apes, regardless of their intellectual capacity, do not possess a soul, in my view, they do not therefore possess a moral right to life. There is, therefore, in my view, nothing morally wrong with killing a great ape, nor in consuming their flesh.

I am sorry that your faith teaches this (that, supposing souls exist, only humans possess them), as I think that Catholicism is the greatest institution ever created in in the West; but I suppose even superb beliefs have their faults.

As for bad taste, nothing beats Christian imagery.

Nonsense.

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/2984916.jpg

http://www.rome-hotels.redflag.info/pictures/vatican-city2.jpg

Nonsense.

http://www.aspiritualguide.net/jesus-bible-14g.jpg

Need I go into further details?

sashimi tuna
this is better than pot
(mostly because im allergic to pot)

Earwax.

Yep, I'm gonna have to go with earwax on this one.

Yep, I'm gonna have to go with earwax on this one.

Yep and I third that.

http://www.aspiritualguide.net/jesus-bible-14g.jpg

Need I go into further details?

Then judging on the basis of this:

http://ebayimages.goantiques.com/dbimages/XGE8669/XGE8669WDG03.jpg

Italian art is in bad taste.

Jellyfish.... not so much the taste, they kinda soak up what they're cooked in, but the texture is just.... bizzare.

sashimi tuna
this is better than pot
(mostly because im allergic to pot)
Curious how does that allergy manifest itself? :)

So you are against capital punishment?

Your screen name seems to be latin, which would suggest Roman Catholicism. Excuse me if I assume too much, but this would be consistent with their official position regarding the death penalty.

I am against capital punishment, for both moral reasons, and the fact that I am opposed to giving the State the ability to put its citizens to death.

I am not Roman Catholic, but Anglican (English Catholic). Quite similar though. The Latin is simply a particular fondness I have for the language.

Whatever your faith believes, this is not a rational distinction. The significance that your faith has for you is simply that it is yours: the same holds true for anyone else who has faith. If that's good enough justification for you, it must be good enough justification for anyone else.

Correct. If someone's own faith states that it is moral to kill any being which does not have a soul, and that faith further states that a given being does not have a soul, and that person is an adherent to that faith, that person is justified in killing that being.

However, the facts that my faith states that it is moral to kill a being which does not have a soul, and that your faith states that a given being does not have a soul do not entail that I view your killing of that being as justified, as my faith does not state that it is moral to kill a being which one believes does not have a soul, but one which does not actually have a soul. Since my faith recognizes the legitimacy of itself, it accepts its own determination as to what has and does not have a soul. My faith, however, does not recognize the legitimacy of another faith, nor its determinations as to what has or does not have a soul. Therefore, I do not view as justified your killing a being which your faith states has no soul, on the basis that my own faith states that it is moral to kill a being which has no soul; if however your own faith contained within it a tenet that it is moral to kill a being which has no soul, then you would be justified, given these two tenets.

Nice how your beliefs let you compartmentalize things so easily, huh?

As for me, I'm not sure. I've tasted a lot of strange things, but then again, my sense of taste is rather...different.

It is my mind which allows me to compartmentalize things so easily, as this is the primary occupation of human beings: our mental activity is engaged primarily in creating conceptual boxes and putting ideas into them.

Damn, it's morbidly fascinating to read how this seemingly innocent thread derailed because of the ramblings of an extinction-friendly creationist troll and the irate responses of a fellow European. Why can't we just agree to stop feeding the trolls? It's not like they aren't obese enough already...

It is amazing to me how quickly people are willing to call a troll those with whom they disagree, simply because they disagree.

how exactly do you justify "not accepting evolution"? I mean its been observed, creatures do evolve.

I deny evolution, not for scientific reasons, but for reasons of faith. My faith in the Scriptures as wholly God-breathed forces me to deny evolution, that is, macro-evolution and Darwinian evolutionary theory, not the adaptation within the species. I am forced to deny that there was any death prior to the fall of Adam, or that there were any beings whatsoever earlier than six days prior to Adam's creation. This leads me, inevitably, to deny Darwinian evolution and evolutionary theory.

Well, seeing as your only basis for determining if someone or something has a soul is whatever the Catholic church decides, it should be fairly easy for you to gain such knowledge.
It's not as if that needed much research, or evidence, or sense.

Research and evidence are largely irrelevant when it comes to non-empirically verifiable qualities. As far as sense, I find it perfectly rational to believe that an all powerful God created a given species of beings in His image, and that part of the favour He bestowed upon them was a participation in His nature, which translates to the possession of a soul, a favour He denied to every other class of physical creature.

Why not? You accept the catholic position in regards to whether animals have souls yet reject them in regards to evolution?

I accept the Catholic position with regards to evolution. What I do not accept is the current Roman Catholic position. I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Anglican Church. I adhere to the belief in the proper meaning of Genesis which has been believed by the Church, by Catholics everywhere for the better part of history. One of the main tenets of the Catholic doctrine is that the closer one gets to the beliefs of the Church during the times of the Apostles and immediately after, with regard to religious matters, the closer they are to the Truth, as the Apostles received the Faith directly from Christ Himself. Now, this belief in the meaning of Genesis has never been an essential doctrine of the Faith, so it may be disagreed with without heresy or schism; however, to part with a religious doctrine of the Catholic Faith is to water down that faith, which I refuse to do.
In short, I reject evolution, not for scientific reasons, but because I have a compelling reason to believe otherwise.

I thought those of the Judeo-Christian faith were supposed to be responsible stewards of the earth?

True. However, as stewards, we are to use the resources of the Earth for the purposes of God and God's glory. Stewardship does not translate directly to preservation of animal species for their own sake. If an animal species is hunted to extinction, but God's glory and purposes do not suffer, the extinction event is not immoral.

These little hard candies that my dentist used to give out when I was a kid. Probably sugar-free, since he was a dentist. Just a very strange, hard to identify taste at first, and then a stinging like you burned your tongue.

I am sorry that your faith teaches this (that, supposing souls exist, only humans possess them), as I think that Catholicism is the greatest institution ever created in in the West; but I suppose even superb beliefs have their faults.

Actually, the Catholic Faith teaches that it must be accepted whole and undilluted; this is part of the essential meaning of Catholic. Thus, any truly "Catholic" belief system can not have any faults, because such faults would invalidate the whole.

Actually, the Catholic Faith teaches that it must be accepted whole and undilluted; this is part of the essential meaning of Catholic.

Which is why I am not Catholic.

Thus, any truly "Catholic" belief system can not have any faults, because such faults would invalidate the whole.

Yet it contradicts itself. For instance, St. Augustine said that it was wrong to put images of saints in churches, or to have any reverence for these images. He also said that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and that God did not actually create the world in 6 days, but that it evolved slowly.

Despite its flaws, though, Catholicism invented a wonderful culture, beautiful ceremonies and art, and morals that, if not followed to the letter, are still the basis for Western conduct today (example: male fidelity).

Weird tastes? I have the strangest craving for a certain Spaniard... :p

Which is why I am not Catholic.



Yet it contradicts itself. For instance, St. Augustine said that it was wrong to put images of saints in churches, or to have any reverence for these images. He also said that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and that God did not actually create the world in 6 days, but that it evolved slowly.

Despite its flaws, though, Catholicism invented a wonderful culture, beautiful ceremonies and art, and morals that, if not followed to the letter, are still the basis for Western conduct today (example: male fidelity).

Individual people who are Catholics, that is, members in the Catholic Church, may disagree with certain tenets. This does not, of itself, make those tenets un-Catholic. In the case of the first, this is a piece of doctrine which counters proper, orthodox belief, and should rightly be tossed aside. In the case of the second, although I disagree, it does not counter proper orthodox belief, since the proper meaning of Genesis is not a necessary doctrine of the Faith.

Agreed, although I would say Catholicism espouses those things rather than invented them.

Individual people who are Catholics, that is, members in the Catholic Church, may disagree with certain tenets. This does not, of itself, make those tenets un-Catholic. In the case of the first, this is a piece of doctrine which counters proper, orthodox belief, and should rightly be tossed aside. In the case of the second, although I disagree, it does not counter proper orthodox belief, since the proper meaning of Genesis is not a necessary doctrine of the Faith.

But Catholicism often changes its tenets; which period do you support? 15th century? 11th century? 7th century?

Agreed, although I would say Catholicism espouses those things rather than invented them.

It virtually invented male fidelity, as in it was the first culture to see its practice on a wide basis.

But Catholicism often changes its tenets; which period do you support? 15th century? 11th century? 7th century?



It virtually invented male fidelity, as in it was the first culture to see its practice on a wide basis.

Those tenets which are truly Catholic are positions are positions which do not change throughout time. The Incarnation, the Blessed Sacrament, the uniqueness of Christ, etc. These positions have remained constant, while heretical views have fallen by the wayside, occasionally to resurge, but never to remain.

Iguanas are the strangest taste. And Catholicism needs to change with time somewhat, just as interpretations of the Bible must change over time with the advents of new technology. Saying that the way things used to be is the way they must be now is like saying that, there should be no way to amend the constitution- things must change with the times.

Iguanas are the strangest taste. And Catholicism needs to change with time somewhat, just as interpretations of the Bible must change over time with the advents of new technology. Saying that the way things used to be is the way they must be now is like saying that, there should be no way to amend the constitution- things must change with the times.

Catholicism is not a democratically derived document, created by men and subordinate to the whims of men. It is a doctrine, handed down from God Himself, all of which must be received whole and undefiled. For such a belief structure to "change with time" is to water down the Faith as given by the Source of that Faith, eventually to the point of schism, heresy and heterodoxy.
When it comes to the Faith, the way things used to be is absolutely the way they ought to be. In the entire history of the Christian community, no body of believers has had a closer connection to Jesus Christ, who gave the Faith to the Church, than did the Apostles who established the Church, and their immediate successors. They were the closest to the Source, and they had the Faith closest to correct. Over time, innovation brings about only heresy and heterodoxy, deviations from the true faith as given by Jesus Christ Himself. To bow to social pressure to change a tenet of the Faith is to betray the originator of that Faith.

It is not bowing to social pressure, it is recognizing that the world is very different than it was 2,000 years ago, and many things simply no longer make sense. I am not suggesting any kind of large overhaul to the Catholic Faith, but I find it ridiculous to claim that something can function unhindered 2,000 years after its creation.

It is not bowing to social pressure, it is recognizing that the world is very different than it was 2,000 years ago, and many things simply no longer make sense. I am not suggesting any kind of large overhaul to the Catholic Faith, but I find it ridiculous to claim that something can function unhindered 2,000 years after its creation.

God is not a blind actor, setting things up with no knowledge of the future, to allow them to run their course as they may, and wishing them the best. God has comprehensive knowledge of all events in our future and past, and is capable of developing a body of doctrine and Faith that is consistently relevant to every era of human history.
Anything man-made might well be unable to function for 2000 years unchanged. Anything God-made has no such liability. To change what God has given us is to substitute the vanity of man for the wisdom of God.

I do not feel that a god would have any need to make their teachings unchanging while their creations change freely- God created man, and man is very different from 2,000 years ago, so why can the faith, also created by god, not change as well?

Also, the Christian, especially the Catholic Faith has changed massively over time from the original teachings of Jesus Christ, so why is change now any different from the radical changes that occurred at the Council of Nicaea? As I said before, I do not propose a change to the central tenants of the religion, so any change now would be less than the changes at Nicaea. As we all know, the Changes there are accepted in the modern church- The words written there,

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance. He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, and sat at the right hand of the Father. He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and Holy Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life."

These words were written at that council, a place of change, and are spoken at every mass today. While this in and of itself is not a change, but merely a restatement of the central ideology of the faith, it shows that this council, a place of massive change in the faith, is very much a central part of the faith today. If this is the case, why can there not be change in this modern era? Would you be opposed to change if it came from the next great Ecumenical Council?

I do not feel that a god would have any need to make their teachings unchanging while their creations change freely- God created man, and man is very different from 2,000 years ago, so why can the faith, also created by god, not change as well?

Also, the Christian, especially the Catholic Faith has changed massively over time from the original teachings of Jesus Christ, so why is change now any different from the radical changes that occurred at the Council of Nicaea? As I said before, I do not propose a change to the central tenants of the religion, so any change now would be less than the changes at Nicaea. As we all know, the Changes there are accepted in the modern church- The words written there, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance. He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, and sat at the right hand of the Father. He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and Holy Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life." These words were written at that council, a place of change, and are spoken at every mass today. While this in and of itself is not a change, but merely a restatement of the central ideology of the faith, it shows that this council, a place of massive change in the faith, is very much a central part of the faith today. If this is the case, why can there not be change in this modern era? Would you be opposed to change if it came from the next great Ecumenical Council?

Because we lack any Authority to derive such changes from. The Catholic Faith was handed down by Jesus Christ Himself; this is a unique source, in that there is only one Incarnation of God in history. Further, we are mandated by this same Source to keep this Faith undefiled.
The Councils were not at all a source of changes to the Faith. The expressions of the Councils can be found, throughout the entire history of the Catholic Faith. The Councils did not change the Faith one bit; they expounded the Faith as received, the Faith that was already there, to strike against heresy and heterodoxy. The tenets of the Nicean Creed were already believed before the Council of Nicea: those tenets were expounded to clarify these beliefs and to serve as a source of attack against the heretics.
Any great Ecumenical Council, if truly following its predecessors, would not induct any change whatsoever into the Faith. Any such changes should be disregarded as heretical, regardless of its source. Any Ecumenical Council which attempted to change the Faith should be disciplined by the Church for heresy.

Those tenets which are truly Catholic are positions are positions which do not change throughout time. The Incarnation, the Blessed Sacrament, the uniqueness of Christ, etc. These positions have remained constant, while heretical views have fallen by the wayside, occasionally to resurge, but never to remain.

So...Saints (like Augustine) and Popes speak nonsense, and do not know what being "truly Catholic" means, but you do? In essence, you accept any tenets of Catholicism you agree with, but call ones you do not agree with "heretical views", yet profess that a proper Catholic must accept all the tenets of the religion.

You have chosen a few "constant tenets", but they simply illustrate that Catholicism only differs from other Christian sects in wine-drinking (I am not impugning the ceremony, mind you).

So...Saints (like Augustine) and Popes speak nonsense, and do not know what being "truly Catholic" means, but you do? In essence, you accept any tenets of Catholicism you agree with, but call ones you do not agree with "heretical views", yet profess that a proper Catholic must accept all the tenets of the religion.

You have chosen a few "constant tenets", but they simply illustrate that Catholicism only differs from other Christian sects in wine-drinking (I am not impugning the ceremony, mind you).

Of course not. Saints and many Popes hold disagreements with others about those things which may be disagreed with without schism. A proper Catholic must accept all Catholic beliefs, which have been believed by the faithful throughout history in all places. This is the Catholic Faith, and must be accepted whole and undefiled. Augustine accepted this Faith, as has the Papacy.
The problem with the Christian sects is not so much what they believe as what they don't believe. Most Christian sects would, for instance, agree to the Divinity of Christ. However, many Christian Sects disagree with the Real Presence (or Transubstantiation), Paradise (or Purgatory or Abraham's Bosom), the proper orders of the Priesthood, and the Apostolic Succession. Such Christian sects pick and choose which beliefs they will accept, and thus cannot be truly called Catholic. In order to be a Catholic, one must accept all Catholic tenets. Outside of this, they may hold dissenting agreements about matters upon which no doctrine is based, also known as Pious Opinion. A person may hold a Pious Opinion differing from that of the majority of Catholics without schism.