It doesn't say how they knew what to do to make it taste right, or how they tested to make sure they got it right. So, kinda suspicious. But, eh, NYPost.
Why don’t you eat meat, because I eat everything? Really, do you eat dog? No, they are friendly. Do you eat cow? Sure, they are tasty. Do you eat horse? No, they used to be useful. But are they tasty? Sure, when Jack in the Box sold them, I loved them. What about rats? No they are dirty. How about pig? Sure, they maybe be dirty, but they are tasty. Really, do you eat it plain? No, I smoke it and spice it. Do you eat dolphin? No they are smart? Do you eat octopus? Yes, they are smart, but if you hit them with a hammer enough times you can kind of stomach it. What about humans? No, they are smart. What about the dumb ones? No. What if I told you they are tasty? No. So, really just chicken, pig and cow?
I talked to a fisherman in Chile who had eaten dolphin. Said it was like a steak, so yes, tasty. They're just really well-hyped in the media and historically beloved. And then there's laws against hurting marine mammals, plus it's been eliminated from media.
It's not because they're smart we don't eat them, it's because they're cute. Cute-atarians. Like they only eat fish and rarely cow, you ask them if it's because of the species they say yes, then you ask if they would eat a sea-horse they say, "no, because it's cute!" Cute-atarian.
And that's fine, it's better in fact, easier to tell if something is cute than to go around giving animals stupid IQ tests. And run the numbers--ruin the numbers, researcher pulling numbers out of their ass to shoehorn the bell curve, too lazy to roll dice even. People agree strongly on what is cute and what isn't.
Well they're a pest too, and big ones aren't that cute. Good near-counterexample.
Although the exception proves the rule, which means this: if there is a single counter-example, it surely isn't constructive. For instance if all but one of the CEOs that VCs replaced founders with sucks, the final one (Cisco CEO) is not a meaningful counterexample, he breaks the rule for reasons other than being a commissar CEO--there would have to be more counterexamples for this counter-effect to be borne out. Likewise, if all but one gangster has a gun, the one gangster that doesn't have a gun is by all means purely motivated by fucking with people's logic. That single gangster without a gun means nobody can say "gangsters have guns", it's then considered a stereotype, it's discrimination. But if the reason that one gangster does not have a gun is strictly to achieve that effect, of allowing the arguments that enemies of gangsters are saying stereotypes, are discriminating, then he is IN ON IT. And after all he is by stipulation a gangster, a synonym of conspirator, a gang is a conspiracy, read the RICO act. So he is in on something, and in this case he is helping other gangsters get away without getting stopped and frisked because of his counterexample which makes enemies of the gangsters recoil at the fear of being accused of discrimination. That's the main fear of white people (who call themselves whites, but I call white people because I was raised among wolves ie in South America) so whites in California, they want anything but being accused of racism, anything. Everybody's so afraid of being accused of racism. Accused of murder but of murdering another white, that yes, but not of saying a slur, then you lose your job your wife leaves you your kids get bullied by the racist black bullies in the public school nobody will fix your car your landlord jacks up the rent your credit falls you're on the news at 7 you're spat on and lacerated you're targeted by black vigilantes the police won't help you et cetera et cetera et cetera et motherfucking cetera.
Plus the bigger the world gets, the more globalized, the harder it is to say "P implies Q". Can't say "therefore". Gotta always say "it could be anything", never rule things out, always broaden things out but never narrow things down. No exclusion. No conjunction.
Like suppose you're living 100 years ago, and you see a lot of chicken bones, say "no chicken bones are black". Some chicken bones are tan, or brown, or yellow, or chicken-bone colored it's weird, but none are black. You noticed a pattern. You go test your hypothesis at the 4H fair, and it's consistent. 100% solid. Then you announce it in a letter to the editor in the newspaper, and it gets published, but you get accused of being racist because someone found a chicken with black bones in Indonesia. Your claim is all the stronger! If they had to go all the way to Indonesia to find a black-boned chicken then that means this side of the Pacific there are no chickens with black bones, and that's what we care about, that's our context. There's no limit to how far you can travel, if the disprover has to travel to Alpha Centauri to find a counterexample, then that tells you how shitty his argument is for going that far. It's not that a counterexample exists, it should really be about how far out of a context we have to go to find it.
Or like what? Am I expected to check the entire universe for a counterexample? So the issue is this makes ruling things out impossible, and therefore logic impossible, and therefore thinking impossible, you can say "x is a or b or c" but you can't say "x can't be d or e or f". The more globalization, the more ruling out gets eroded, though it's asymmetrical because the bitchvictim media does not abide by that rule, rules out the idea someon...
> Tomás Ostiglia, executive creative director at creative agency LOLA MullenLowe, said a problem with selling plant-based products was people often said they don’t replicate the taste of meat very well.
I wonder if it’s all just a bit of marketing to get past this response from people. Virtually nobody has actually eaten human meat so how would a customer know whether the taste is accurate or not?
Wait until we perfect cultured meat. I guarantee that not only will cultured 'long pig' be a thing, you'll be able to buy celebrity endorsed products made with it that were cultured from that very celebrity.
19 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 22.4 ms ] threadIt doesn't say how they knew what to do to make it taste right, or how they tested to make sure they got it right. So, kinda suspicious. But, eh, NYPost.
Why don’t you eat meat, because I eat everything? Really, do you eat dog? No, they are friendly. Do you eat cow? Sure, they are tasty. Do you eat horse? No, they used to be useful. But are they tasty? Sure, when Jack in the Box sold them, I loved them. What about rats? No they are dirty. How about pig? Sure, they maybe be dirty, but they are tasty. Really, do you eat it plain? No, I smoke it and spice it. Do you eat dolphin? No they are smart? Do you eat octopus? Yes, they are smart, but if you hit them with a hammer enough times you can kind of stomach it. What about humans? No, they are smart. What about the dumb ones? No. What if I told you they are tasty? No. So, really just chicken, pig and cow?
It's not because they're smart we don't eat them, it's because they're cute. Cute-atarians. Like they only eat fish and rarely cow, you ask them if it's because of the species they say yes, then you ask if they would eat a sea-horse they say, "no, because it's cute!" Cute-atarian.
And that's fine, it's better in fact, easier to tell if something is cute than to go around giving animals stupid IQ tests. And run the numbers--ruin the numbers, researcher pulling numbers out of their ass to shoehorn the bell curve, too lazy to roll dice even. People agree strongly on what is cute and what isn't.
Although the exception proves the rule, which means this: if there is a single counter-example, it surely isn't constructive. For instance if all but one of the CEOs that VCs replaced founders with sucks, the final one (Cisco CEO) is not a meaningful counterexample, he breaks the rule for reasons other than being a commissar CEO--there would have to be more counterexamples for this counter-effect to be borne out. Likewise, if all but one gangster has a gun, the one gangster that doesn't have a gun is by all means purely motivated by fucking with people's logic. That single gangster without a gun means nobody can say "gangsters have guns", it's then considered a stereotype, it's discrimination. But if the reason that one gangster does not have a gun is strictly to achieve that effect, of allowing the arguments that enemies of gangsters are saying stereotypes, are discriminating, then he is IN ON IT. And after all he is by stipulation a gangster, a synonym of conspirator, a gang is a conspiracy, read the RICO act. So he is in on something, and in this case he is helping other gangsters get away without getting stopped and frisked because of his counterexample which makes enemies of the gangsters recoil at the fear of being accused of discrimination. That's the main fear of white people (who call themselves whites, but I call white people because I was raised among wolves ie in South America) so whites in California, they want anything but being accused of racism, anything. Everybody's so afraid of being accused of racism. Accused of murder but of murdering another white, that yes, but not of saying a slur, then you lose your job your wife leaves you your kids get bullied by the racist black bullies in the public school nobody will fix your car your landlord jacks up the rent your credit falls you're on the news at 7 you're spat on and lacerated you're targeted by black vigilantes the police won't help you et cetera et cetera et cetera et motherfucking cetera.
Plus the bigger the world gets, the more globalized, the harder it is to say "P implies Q". Can't say "therefore". Gotta always say "it could be anything", never rule things out, always broaden things out but never narrow things down. No exclusion. No conjunction.
Like suppose you're living 100 years ago, and you see a lot of chicken bones, say "no chicken bones are black". Some chicken bones are tan, or brown, or yellow, or chicken-bone colored it's weird, but none are black. You noticed a pattern. You go test your hypothesis at the 4H fair, and it's consistent. 100% solid. Then you announce it in a letter to the editor in the newspaper, and it gets published, but you get accused of being racist because someone found a chicken with black bones in Indonesia. Your claim is all the stronger! If they had to go all the way to Indonesia to find a black-boned chicken then that means this side of the Pacific there are no chickens with black bones, and that's what we care about, that's our context. There's no limit to how far you can travel, if the disprover has to travel to Alpha Centauri to find a counterexample, then that tells you how shitty his argument is for going that far. It's not that a counterexample exists, it should really be about how far out of a context we have to go to find it.
Or like what? Am I expected to check the entire universe for a counterexample? So the issue is this makes ruling things out impossible, and therefore logic impossible, and therefore thinking impossible, you can say "x is a or b or c" but you can't say "x can't be d or e or f". The more globalization, the more ruling out gets eroded, though it's asymmetrical because the bitchvictim media does not abide by that rule, rules out the idea someon...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hufu
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20050611025244/http://www.eathuf...
I wonder if it’s all just a bit of marketing to get past this response from people. Virtually nobody has actually eaten human meat so how would a customer know whether the taste is accurate or not?
"It was still practiced in Papua New Guinea as of 2012, for cultural reasons[12][13] and in ritual as well as in war in various Melanesian tribes"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism
* Obviously not all vegans
Can't say I've ever had a craving for that...