or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Random Food Questions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random Food Questions Thread - Page 318

post #4756 of 7375
Saturday.

Why?
post #4757 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgm9128 View Post

I think the texture is dependent on two different things: the way the crayfish is cooked, and the overall freshness. From what I've read, if you cook them dead, the tails will stay straight, and they will have an unpleasant texture. Cooking them alive in boiling water for 2 minutes, then quickly shocking in ice, helps prevent that.
They are obviously no langoustine, but I think, like with everything else, there is a proper technique for preparing them.

No.

First, get the name right.

Second, their fish stay straight if they died before being cooked and should be avoided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhowie View Post

I hate how in the south enjoying crawdads are some sort of culinary benchmark. I also feel the same way about spicy food.

Dude, do we ever have diverging opinions?
post #4758 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgm9128 View Post

Saturday.
Why?

Just wondering. Popped into my mind.
post #4759 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

No.
First, get the name right.
Second, their fish stay straight if they died before being cooked and should be avoided.
Dude, do we ever have diverging opinions?

Yes, dear.
post #4760 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgm9128 View Post

Jizz is sentient, so I don't eat it. colgate.gif

Drink and eat are not the same.
post #4761 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

Yeah I mean this is kind of how I feel. The work to reward just isn't worth it overall though. Just MnotsoHO.
True story--in parts of Australia they are called "Yabbies". I'm always torn between that and "crawdads" as the proper name redface.gif

Only cockroaches call a 'lobby' a 'yabbie.' Mate this is a yabbie caught using a yabbie pump and it's used for bait.
252

This is a lobby or in Western Australia a gilgie 212
post #4762 of 7375
The much bigger Western Australian freshwater Marron. (not as tastey in my opinion)

263
post #4763 of 7375
Weird. How do the taste on those things differ from lobsters?
post #4764 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post

Weird. How do the taste on those things differ from lobsters?

Dunno never had a lobster. Gilgies are firm kinda like shrimp, Marron are not as firm.
post #4765 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Even as a meat-eater, I disagree. Eating meat (in the first world, in which it's perfectly feasible to survive without eating meat) is hard to defend on simple, ethical grounds. Eating vegetables is not: plant life isn't sentient and we have little (not zero) evidence to believe that plants suffer pain. I think the assumptions in play in my own superficial summation are quite clear: it's ethically preferable to avoid causing sentient creatures pain when not necessary.
I think the responses below yours fall precisely into the category of facile raillery. The kind that tries to avoid the issue head-on. I know what the Bourdain-style response is: eating meat is good, pleasure is good, etc. But the substitution of aesthetic experience for ethical justification can't stand up to scrutiny.
FWIW, I think I might enter the contest, but if I do get around to writing a response, it'll be somewhat convoluted. I'm guessing Peter Singer will hate it; not sure what the other judges will think.

I'm not sure you could provide a moral argument that defends meat eating to everyone's satisfaction, but then I'm not sure you could provide an argument that defends anything to everyone's satisfaction. The most you could do is show that something is consistent with the ethics we already abide by, but even then it will fail to persuade anyone not moved that particularly way. I suppose I have an apophatic attitude towards morality; I regard it as objective in the fact of its existence, but essentially numinous in nature.

Unfortunately, I think many people- particularly secularists who think they're forging a new path that will allow them to bypass the philosophical debates of old- accept it as axiomatic that what is moral equates with what results in the least suffering. A little critical thought should show that this premise is not satisfactory. Even worse is when- in what should properly be a rights-based discussion- people assume this perverse, unspoken premise that the worth of a life is determined by how much something suffers in death.

I've never been able to pull myself away from the idea of a Rousseauian state of nature as the moral gold standard, and the converse that anything that imposes on our natural state is immoral. In this light, the morality of eating meat doesn't require a defense, it's just the way things have always been.

The punchline here is that I am a vegetarian, and have been since I was 14 (although the last few years I've started eating fish.) Even at my most dogmatic, however, I was always a vegetarian more for ecological than humanitarian reasons. I always accepted that it's man's natural station to eat animals; what's changed is not the morality of eating meat, but rather the ecological consequences of modern factory farms. I'm also not one of those obsessive, phobic vegetarians who think the world will end if I have a little meat (inorite herp derp). Just today I found out the Campbells soup I bought had meatballs in it, but I ate it anyway. Contrast this with my sister who wouldn't even eat leftovers from an overstocked (and delicious) catered buffet when everything was about to get thrown in the trash anyway.
post #4766 of 7375
Shut up and man the quesadilla station.
post #4767 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhowie View Post

Shut up and man the quesadilla station.

Fajitas, actually, but well played nonetheless.
post #4768 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

Dunno never had a lobster. Gilgies are firm kinda like shrimp, Marron are not as firm.

are you fucking kidding me? "they give kindergarten kids in Tokyo lobsters for school lunch":

http://imgur.com/gallery/PRrcD
post #4769 of 7375
Quote:
Originally Posted by tagutcow View Post

I'm not sure you could provide a moral argument that defends meat eating to everyone's satisfaction, but then I'm not sure you could provide an argument that defends anything to everyone's satisfaction. The most you could do is show that something is consistent with the ethics we already abide by, but even then it will fail to persuade anyone not moved that particularly way. I suppose I have an apophatic attitude towards morality; I regard it as objective in the fact of its existence, but essentially numinous in nature.
Unfortunately, I think many people- particularly secularists who think they're forging a new path that will allow them to bypass the philosophical debates of old- accept it as axiomatic that what is moral equates with what results in the least suffering. A little critical thought should show that this premise is not satisfactory. Even worse is when- in what should properly be a rights-based discussion- people assume this perverse, unspoken premise that the worth of a life is determined by how much something suffers in death.
I've never been able to pull myself away from the idea of a Rousseauian state of nature as the moral gold standard, and the converse that anything that imposes on our natural state is immoral. In this light, the morality of eating meat doesn't require a defense, it's just the way things have always been.
The punchline here is that I am a vegetarian, and have been since I was 14 (although the last few years I've started eating fish.) Even at my most dogmatic, however, I was always a vegetarian more for ecological than humanitarian reasons. I always accepted that it's man's natural station to eat animals; what's changed is not the morality of eating meat, but rather the ecological consequences of modern factory farms. I'm also not one of those obsessive, phobic vegetarians who think the world will end if I have a little meat (inorite herp derp). Just today I found out the Campbells soup I bought had meatballs in it, but I ate it anyway. Contrast this with my sister who wouldn't even eat leftovers from an overstocked (and delicious) catered buffet when everything was about to get thrown in the trash anyway.

I was following (and mostly digging) your response until you said, "I've never been able to pull myself away from the idea of a Rousseauian state of nature as the moral gold standard," which strikes me as nuts. (I'm also not sure we should be involved in a "rights-based discussion," since I don't believe in inalienable "rights" endowed by a creator except as a useful fiction). But we seem to occupy diametrically opposed positions w/r/t this issue, since I happy enjoy meat yet find the practice itself almost impossible to justify.
Edited by erictheobscure - 3/23/12 at 7:47am
post #4770 of 7375
Are cultivated morels significantly less delicious than wild? And has anyone ever foraged for mushrooms with any luck?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Random Food Questions Thread