I just overheard a coworker saying “Oh, I would never try that in my life!”, in a discussion of food. (This was about consuming a steak cooked less than medium well). It made me wonder what life is like for those who refuse to try new food, especially those who refuse to try mundane things like fried shrimp.
Why limit yourself? It seems like such a closed-minded way to view food. Help me understand?
EDIT:
I wasn’t going to do this, but I’m tired of replying to people and will post this at the top.
The person that prompted this question is a close-minded piece of crap. He has no sensory issues, just a shitty mindset, with ignorance and prejudice on display with no shame. I have the pleasure of hearing his annoying shit every night.
The knee-jerk reactions I have received from people in this post have had me examine my own knee-jerk reactions, attributing malice to that which may be misunderstanding rather than bigotry or hatred. This is what I am taking away from this post. That even I should take a chill pill every now and again; it’s not all a tragedy.
I will not delete it, because there are some very thoughtful replies that explain different viewpoints, that people took time to type out. It would be disrespectful to them to do that.
Call me what you like. Don’t care. I will not be replying to any other replies.
That’s arguable. Setting aside determinism or whatever, what it appears we can choose is our actions (in response to our emotions). Not the emotions themselves. I’m not sure I could any more choose to be happy if a beloved pet died than I can choose what my eyes see when I look a particular direction. I might be able to filter those inputs through my own perceptions moments after the experience but that initial reaction is instantaneous and, as far as I can tell, uncontrolled.
Put another way: if some drunk shitbag, flying down the street, runs over my cat - my initial response is going to be some combination of horror, rage and sorrow all wrapped up in a sense of panic. Whatever I choose to tell myself after the fact, in an attempt to alter that state, will be reliant on me convincing myself of it before (or rather if) my emotional state can then change. Maybe I say to myself “at least Mittens was spared the pain of old age, organ failure and a slow death” and that silver lining is enough to curb the rage and reduce the sadness. Maybe it’s not. Either way it’s post hoc to the initial, visceral reaction.
Another example might be what’s humorous to you. Something “dark” or morbid might leave you in a laughing fit where it would leave others aghast. I don’t think either of us can choose that. I certainly can’t choose to find Seinfeld funny.