That's Monkey Food!

By -
Have you ever offered someone a salad and had them respond "No thanks! That's rabbit food"?

Is there possibly a dumber complaint about some type of food than "Some other animal eats that"? When these people are offered fruit, do they say, "Yuck! Monkey food"? A steak? "Disgusting! Wolf food!" Some clams? "Gross! Octopus food!"

Perhaps their diet consists of cheetos, gummy bears, and slim jims.

Comments

  1. Silas Barta3:06 PM

    I think the point of that expression is to relate the person to the X-vore, not to appeal to its being gross. That is, you're weak like a rabbit for eating rabbit food, so it doesn't carry over to a monkey or wolf comparison.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah6:24 PM

      You think it is a way of insulting the person offering you the food?! Well, Silas, I suppose in your hands almost anything can be used as an insult--and that's why we love you, Silas!-- but I guarantee you that when I have heard the expression, that is not how it has been used.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:30 PM

      Silas, you're still alive!

      Delete
  2. Ryan6:48 PM

    I don't understand why eating nothing but cheetos, gummy bears, and slim jims would be absurd!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more