with No Comments

Post No.: 0182pet hates

 

Fluffystealthkitten says:

 

It’s my turn to present some of my pet hates and other puzzlers! Just for a little light-hearted fun also.

 

Furrywisepuppy says:

 

Go ahead Fluffs. I’m ready and listening.

 

Fluffystealthkitten says:

 

If the Sun, Moon, asteroids, Jupiter, etc. are all ‘in space’, then isn’t the Earth too? If someone were visiting Pluto then most of us from Earth would say that she/he is ‘in space’. Certainly, if someone were on or inside a spaceship that’s in outer space then most of us would say that she/he is ‘in space’ as well as on or inside that spaceship. The Earth is a planet that’s also in space so by the same token isn’t everyone always in space wherever we are?

 

Furrywisepuppy says:

 

We tend to perceive the Earth as at the centre of the universe and things as ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ from the frame of reference of us, on a tiny speck within this universe. (We also tend to point upwards to refer to anything that’s in space too when space is in every direction and a particular celestial body might actually be located below our feet. There’s also no ‘dark side of the Moon’.) That’s the geocentric perspective, and it took science and mathematics rather than intuition or religion to work out that the Earth isn’t at the centre of the universe, or even our own solar system. Well there’s no centre of the universe at all according to the Big Bang theory.

 

I guess a technical question remains – when one is on or even inside a spacecraft that’s in space then one would be considered being ‘in space’, but when one is on Earth, which is also in space, then why isn’t one considered being ‘in space’ too even though a planet is just essentially like a massive spacecraft travelling through space? What size thing does a thing need to be before it’s not considered to be just a mobile accommodation?

 

Fluffystealthkitten says:

 

…A Death Star?

 

Egocentrism, or seeing ourselves at the centre of the universe, is a theme of some of my pet hates. One that concerns a narrower circle of centrism is what’s a European style marinade, sauce or whatever?

 

I ask this because what do some people in the UK or USA mean when they say something is an Asian style marinade, sauce or whatever?! Asia is a massive continent – the largest currently on Earth – full of highly diverse cuisines, ingredients and flavours, which cannot and therefore should not be generalised even in the roughest or broadest sense. For example, Indian cuisine is very different to Mongolian cuisine, which is very different to Japanese cuisine. Regions within these countries can also exhibit huge diversity too.

 

Furrywisepuppy says:

 

I can’t answer this one – ask whoever says the phrase what they specifically mean. But there is a tendency to homogenise and stereotype everybody and everything from a group or place one doesn’t quite fully understand but knows a little about, and to consider one’s own ingroup as being relatively more diverse, even though the former may be more highly populated or larger than the latter.

 

Fluffystealthkitten says:

 

Alright then. Why do some people deem it impressive for a British-born or American-born person to speak a language other than English but it’s not deemed equally as impressive for someone from a country where English is not their main language to speak English too?!

 

And why do many British people still think that speaking English more s-l-o-w-l-y and/or more LOUDLY will do the trick to get non-English speakers to understand English(?!)

 

Furrywisepuppy says:

 

Yes indeed! It’s perhaps a symptom of expectations since the English language has become probably the main lingua franca in the world, and as such is perceived to be the ‘default’, ‘nothing special’ or ‘easy’ language by many (although there are a lot of tricky spelling, grammatical and pronunciation quirks in English).

 

Fluffystealthkitten says:

 

This one’s not filed under ‘pet hates’ but is a puzzle nonetheless. Firstly I must make it clear that this is from a technical rather than a moral perspective.

 

The age of puberty is biologically the age an organism can bear offspring but in many, if not most, major cultures nowadays it’s frowned upon to have children so young. I personally don’t support illegally underage sex and, in most cases, I don’t advocate getting pregnant as a teenager and so I’m not disputing these cultural stances, but for those who believe that ‘nature knows best’ – does nature know best about when a person is ready to bear children via the signal of puberty?

 

Furrywisepuppy says:

 

I’m glad you clarified that you don’t support underage sex. Getting pregnant as a teenager is more complicated and can depend on the individual circumstances, such as having the maturity and financial means to raise a child responsibly, but I also agree that, in most cases, it’s not something to be encouraged.

 

As I’m sure you know from other contexts, nature doesn’t always know best, and one reason is that genetic evolution is typically slow whilst environmental evolution can be fast hence the former is often lagging behind the times. The relatively rapid evolution of the environment, in terms of civilisation, the accumulation of knowledge, technologies, changes in how livelihoods are made, diets, cultures and so forth has meant that modern ways of living are very different to in the far past and people should arguably adapt to these changes.

 

And ‘can’ never alone implies ‘should’ – in this case, having a child at, say, age 11.

 

Fluffystealthkitten says:

 

Okey-dokey. Can it ever be right to use violence to fight for peace or will this always be purely contradictory or hypocritical?

 

Furrywisepuppy says:

 

This one is extremely complicated – the question is what will create the greater peace in the bigger picture and longer term? We’re not normally morally allowed to initiate or goad violence but we can act in self-defence against it. Peaceful people shouldn’t be pushed around by those who use violence and aren’t deterred by anything other than counter-violence, so there should be a ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine in international law contexts, for instance, and a legitimate use of force in some cases. Non-violent measures should be attempted first so violence should always be a last resort, only be used when there is a grave and imminent threat, and only the minimum amount of force as required to deter further violence should be used – but of course the interpretations of these in practice can become debatable.

 

It’s also tricky because one person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist.

 

Fluffystealthkitten says:

 

Finally, who wants to be a hero? For heroics to happen, **** must happen, and who wants **** to happen? Only ****ty people want **** to happen.

 

Furrywisepuppy says:

 

Erm, the prevention of danger, harm or suffering should always be the primary objective, but bad stuff will always happen in this world whether one wants it to or not, whether from natural disasters or human-caused troubles. So heroes will likely always be needed.

 

Fluffystealthkitten says:

 

Thanks for sharing your views puppy. I’m satisfied for now. That was pretty thought provoking and these pet hates and philosophical pickles don’t peeve me quite so positively any more. Meow!

 

Furrywisepuppy says:

 

No problems. I thought when you wanted to talk about your pet hates you were going to talk about that domesticated cat from the house down the road! Anyway, glad to help you as you helped me in Post No.: 0161.

 

Please feel free to share your thoughts too by replying to the tweet linked to the Twitter comment button below. Woof!

 

Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:

 

Share this post