• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cooking?

Mojo said:
If Kumar describes something as having "inharent sense of right & wrong" it means that Kumar considers it to be natural.
Click to expand...

Natural would be all of us living in caves and wandering around naked eating fruit from trees. This thread is pointless.
 
Kumar said:
Can't say as being veg. But whatever interfere in nature's progress can be bit odd. Moreover fully matured cow can't be compared with fruits.
Click to expand...

So are you ready to reject your premise that foods that are fully mature ought not be cooked?

So let's look at this new premise you have, that we should avoid anything that "interfere in nature's progress". If you define "nature" in a way that excludes human activity, then isn't anything humans do to procure and eat (other than, I suppose, cannibalism) such an "interference"?

If you're merely defining "nature" for purposes of this discussion as excluding any human processing of food, then your argument is simply circular. Either way, your logic is a "bit odd".
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
So are you ready to reject your premise that foods that are fully mature ought not be cooked?

So let's look at this new premise you have, that we should avoid anything that "interfere in nature's progress". If you define "nature" in a way that excludes human activity, then isn't anything humans do to procure and eat (other than, I suppose, cannibalism) such an "interference"?

If you're merely defining "nature" for purposes of this discussion as excluding any human processing of food, then your argument is simply circular. Either way, your logic is a "bit odd".
Click to expand...


Not to nit-pick, but cannibalism has been a part of human activity for some time now.
"Some anthropologists, such as Tim White, suggest that ritual cannibalism was common in human societies prior to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period. This theory is based on the large amount of "butchered human" bones found in Neanderthal and other Lower/Middle Paleolithic sites.[45] Cannibalism in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic may have occurred because of food shortages.[46] It has been also suggested that removing dead bodies through ritual cannibalism might been a means of predator control, aiming to eliminate predators' and scavengers' access to hominid (and early human) bodies.[47] Jim Corbett proposed that after major epidemics, when human corpses are easily accessible to predators, there are more cases of man-eating leopards,[48] so removing dead bodies through ritual cannibalism (before the cultural traditions of burying and burning bodies appeared in human history) might have had practical reasons for hominids and early humans to control predation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Early_history

Bon appétit!
 
pakeha said:
Would you explain what you mean by 'inharant sense of right and wrong' in connection with your cooking?
Click to expand...

If we are cooking since long back, then cooked foods can also be treated as natural to us.
 
Kumar said:
If we are cooking since long back, then cooked foods can also be treated as natural to us.
Click to expand...

I reject this new premise of yours also. (That something has an inherent sense of rightness--is "natural to us" --if humans have been doing it for a long time.)

We've been doing lots of things since "long back" and yet we don't consider all of them to be moral behavior: murder, marital infidelity, etc.

So is infanticide "natural to us"? How about enslaving other humans?

IMO what humans did since prehistoric times is irrelevant to the question of whether or not something is right or wrong.
 
pakeha said:
Not to nit-pick, but cannibalism has been a part of human activity for some time now.
Click to expand...

You didn't follow what I wrote. If Kumar is defining "interfering with nature" to mean humans eating anything that interferes with non-human species, then all eating (with the exception of cannibalism) must be considered "interfering with nature".

In the alternative, if Kumar is defining "interfering with nature" very narrowly only to apply to processing and cooking some foods, and then using this definition to argue that processing or cooking some foods is wrong, then the argument is circular (the conclusion is explicit in the premise).

I made no observation about the prevalence of cannibalism as a human activity. (Though that's another good subject for debate. I can cite anthropologists who have argued that many reported examples of cannibalism don't stand up to scrutiny. Also, FWIW, I'm not sure what is meant by "before cultural traditions of burying and burning bodies appeared in human history". There's strong evidence that even Neanderthals buried their dead. And some cultures dispose of dead bodies other ways. I don't think the inability to invent a way to dispose of bodies was ever a reason for cannibalism.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom