Get human cheese in NYC!

[iago]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/10/cheese_plate/

As always, I can't help but see this as a double standard. I mean, I'm quite sure the first person to make cheese from cow's milk was looked at with disbelief, too. You're putting reproductive (practically sexual) juices from an animal into food? Ewww!

My favourite line was this: 'But NYC health officials are trying to put the squeeze on Mason saying that the prime ingredient is "not intended for adults or wide public consumption".'

Fortunately, cows' milk is apparently "intended for adults" -- I have no idea who made that decision. I mean, at least human milk is intended for HUMANS.

[Sidoh]

Agreed.  That is a pretty ridiculous double-standard.

I'm fine with it, though.  Bring on the human cheese.  Maybe it's good on tacos.

mmmm...tacos.  I'm HOONGGRRAAAy.

[rabbit]

Ew...cheese....

[Rule]

He's probably lying to get publicity and sales.

[iago]

He's probably lying to get publicity and sales.

Very possible, but that doesn't change the moral question and people's reaction to it.

[Rule]

I agree.  But there are some health concerns associated with drinking human milk, which wouldn't be an issue with cow's milk.  There are also a lot more unknowns.  

And even though there is a double standard, I think 'grossness' in itself is a pretty weak reason not to do something.  Health, taste, and so on, are a lot more convincing.

[Armin]

I think curiosity would drive me to taste test human cheese. Depends on what kinds of cheese they make with it though. Human feta cheese sounds fucking disgusting, but I might go for some human mozzarella sprinkled over the top of my favorite pizza. Though, substituting the lard in the dough with discarded liposuction human fat would be taking things too far.

[iago]

I agree.  But there are some health concerns associated with drinking human milk, which wouldn't be an issue with cow's milk.

Can you elaborate? It seems to me that if the milk was pasteurized and everything the same way as cow's milk, it'd be the same from a health perspective.

[CrAz3D]

I'd figure the same re: pasteurization.  we drink milk from every other mammal...why not people?

[Joe]

I agree.  But there are some health concerns associated with drinking human milk, which wouldn't be an issue with cow's milk.

Can you elaborate? It seems to me that if the milk was pasteurized and everything the same way as cow's milk, it'd be the same from a health perspective.

I'd hazard to guess the amount of general crap humans eat would be worse the second time around.

Not that I'm implying his wife eats a lot of junk food..

[iago]

I agree.  But there are some health concerns associated with drinking human milk, which wouldn't be an issue with cow's milk.

Can you elaborate? It seems to me that if the milk was pasteurized and everything the same way as cow's milk, it'd be the same from a health perspective.

I'd hazard to guess the amount of general crap humans eat would be worse the second time around.

Not that I'm implying his wife eats a lot of junk food..

Most cows are fed the crap that is too crappy for people to eat. Not to mention chemicals/steroids up the wazoo (literally and figuratively )

[while1]

If I ever happen to find a woman that will put up with me, marry her, and knock her up, and she's kinky enough to let me, I'd suck her lactating teat.  No lie.

[Armin]

If I ever happen to find a woman that will put up with me, marry her, and knock her up, and she's kinky enough to let me, I'd suck her lactating teat.  No lie.

I'm sure most men would. The real question is, would you milk her teat and then curdle the milk?

[Ender]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

[Blaze]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

Why?

[while1]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

LOL

[Towelie]

Now if I could have a hand in the cheese making process...

[deadly7]

Now if I could have a hand in the cheese making process...

Wouldn't happen. You want the girls to lactate, not run screaming.

[Ender]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

Why?

Why to what? Why am I all for personal freedoms, or why do I think it is disgusting?

See Blaze, this is why you shouldn't be so laconic.

[iago]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

Why?

Why to what? Why am I all for personal freedoms, or why do I think it is disgusting?

See Blaze, this is why you shouldn't be so laconic.

Why do you think it is disgusting (assuming you think animal milk is ok)?

[Ender]

I'm all for personal freedoms, so I say let this chef have his fun, but... really, this is just completely disgusting.

Why?

Why to what? Why am I all for personal freedoms, or why do I think it is disgusting?

See Blaze, this is why you shouldn't be so laconic.

Why do you think it is disgusting (assuming you think animal milk is ok)?

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

[iago]

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

You're defining "natural" in an odd way -- as tradition. "Natural" should mean the way nature intended, and there's no way nature intended for humans  to chase down pregnant cows and squeeze out the milk they're producing for their babies (there was a really funny line in Burmese Days about this -- something like "if you want some milk, we can chase down a cow for you".

At least human milk is intended to be drank by humans, albeit at a certain age.

<edit> that being said, there's a certain relationship between a mother and her nursing children that is very important psychologically. So drinking the milk of somebody who isn't your mother is, I'll agree, kinda gross. But we take that relationship away from animals unfairly and drink THEIR milk, so...

[Ender]

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

You're defining "natural" in an odd way -- as tradition. "Natural" should mean the way nature intended, and there's no way nature intended for humans  to chase down pregnant cows and squeeze out the milk they're producing for their babies (there was a really funny line in Burmese Days about this -- something like "if you want some milk, we can chase down a cow for you".

At least human milk is intended to be drank by humans, albeit at a certain age.

<edit> that being said, there's a certain relationship between a mother and her nursing children that is very important psychologically. So drinking the milk of somebody who isn't your mother is, I'll agree, kinda gross. But we take that relationship away from animals unfairly and drink THEIR milk, so...

Nature has no mind of its own. It can't intend anything. Intention implies sentience, and nature is not sentient.

I think the closest thing to nature's intentions would be history. We've been milking cows for thousands of years. Humans started out domesticating animals because it helped the human race survive. What's so unnatural about this chef's idea of using his wife's milk is that it is not arising out of a need for survival, it is merely a ploy for getting attention.

[Sidoh]

I don't see anything wrong with finding human cheese gross.  It's not really a double-standard, as long as you don't object to it for moral reasons.  Then it becomes more of a relevant question.

[iago]

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

You're defining "natural" in an odd way -- as tradition. "Natural" should mean the way nature intended, and there's no way nature intended for humans  to chase down pregnant cows and squeeze out the milk they're producing for their babies (there was a really funny line in Burmese Days about this -- something like "if you want some milk, we can chase down a cow for you".

At least human milk is intended to be drank by humans, albeit at a certain age.

<edit> that being saidhouses, there's a certain relationship between a mother and her nursing children that is very important psychologically. So drinking the milk of somebody who isn't your mother is, I'll agree, kinda gross. But we take that relationship away from animals unfairly and drink THEIR milk, so...

Nature has no mind of its own. It can't intend anything. Intention implies sentience, and nature is not sentient.

I think the closest thing to nature's intentions would be history. We've been milking cows for thousands of years. Humans started out domesticating animals because it helped the human race survive. What's so unnatural about this chef's idea of using his wife's milk is that it is not arising out of a need for survival, it is merely a ploy for getting attention.

By your definition of "natural", computers and cars and stuff will be considered natural in a couple generations. I think that makes it an invalid definition.

In terms of nature having a mind of its own... whether you believe in evolution or creationism, everything has a purpose, which I was referring as "intention" -- again, it's simple semantics. In evolution, things have a purpose because they fill a certain niche and, therefore, exist for that reason. Creationism, things were created specifically for said reason.

[Sidoh]

Basically, I find it disgusting because I think it is unnatural, and I use unnatural in the sense that there is no human tradition for this. It's just weird and disgusting in a visceral way.

Also, I don't know if I would be okay with drinking a koala bear's milk, for example. I'm accustomed to cow milk; I'm not sure about other animals.

You're defining "natural" in an odd way -- as tradition. "Natural" should mean the way nature intended, and there's no way nature intended for humans  to chase down pregnant cows and squeeze out the milk they're producing for their babies (there was a really funny line in Burmese Days about this -- something like "if you want some milk, we can chase down a cow for you".

At least human milk is intended to be drank by humans, albeit at a certain age.

<edit> that being saidhouses, there's a certain relationship between a mother and her nursing children that is very important psychologically. So drinking the milk of somebody who isn't your mother is, I'll agree, kinda gross. But we take that relationship away from animals unfairly and drink THEIR milk, so...

Nature has no mind of its own. It can't intend anything. Intention implies sentience, and nature is not sentient.

I think the closest thing to nature's intentions would be history. We've been milking cows for thousands of years. Humans started out domesticating animals because it helped the human race survive. What's so unnatural about this chef's idea of using his wife's milk is that it is not arising out of a need for survival, it is merely a ploy for getting attention.

By your definition of "natural", computers and cars and stuff will be considered natural in a couple generations. I think that makes it an invalid definition.

In terms of nature having a mind of its own... whether you believe in evolution or creationism, everything has a purpose, which I was referring as "intention" -- again, it's simple semantics. In evolution, things have a purpose because they fill a certain niche and, therefore, exist for that reason. Creationism, things were created specifically for said reason.

I think "natural" is a meaningless, slippery, vague term.  I'm fine with thinking technology is natural.  In fact, I do think it's natural.   I don't think Ender's definition is close to invalid.

[iago]

I think "natural" is a meaningless, slippery, vague term.  I'm fine with thinking technology is natural.  In fact, I do think it's natural.   I don't think Ender's definition is close to invalid.

Then you have a funny definition of natural.

I'd define "natural" as "something created by nature" -- I don't think human-created inventions can fit into that unless you stretch it. Maybe you can call human inventions second-order natural?

[Sidoh]

I think "natural" is a meaningless, slippery, vague term.  I'm fine with thinking technology is natural.  In fact, I do think it's natural.   I don't think Ender's definition is close to invalid.

Then you have a funny definition of natural.

I'd define "natural" as "something created by nature" -- I don't think human-created inventions can fit into that unless you stretch it. Maybe you can call human inventions second-order natural?

Humans are a part of nature by my definition.

[Ender]

I think "natural" is a meaningless, slippery, vague term.  I'm fine with thinking technology is natural.  In fact, I do think it's natural.   I don't think Ender's definition is close to invalid.

Then you have a funny definition of natural.

I'd define "natural" as "something created by nature" -- I don't think human-created inventions can fit into that unless you stretch it. Maybe you can call human inventions second-order natural?

Humans are a part of nature by my definition.

Ah, Sidoh makes a very good point. Our natural environment is largely created by organisms. For instance, plants producing oxygen, bacteria enabling life, etc. All these things we call "natural". But what is so different about human invention (as opposed to say, plant invention) that we rule it out as natural?

[iago]

Well, if you argue that human-created inventions are "natural", then I have to rule your definition of "natural" wrong/perverted and dismiss any arguments predicated on that concept.

[Sidoh]

Well, if you argue that human-created inventions are "natural", then I have to rule your definition of "natural" wrong/perverted and dismiss any arguments predicated on that concept.

Wrong?  Why is wrong or perverted?  I think it makes a lot more sense than your definition.  It might not be as uh... useful for your purposes, but that doesn't mean crap.

also, consider Ender's point.  It was a very good one, I think.

[iago]

The thing is, in the left few years I've tried to deconstruct my socialized biases and look at the world for what, for lack of definition, it really is. Basically, trying to look past the things I was taught as a kid and look at how things are outside of what humans have turned the world into.

That idea, however, goes exactly against what you and Ender are saying, that man-created society can be considered natural.

The way I see it, we are approaching this from fundamentally different directions and hitting different natural conclusions. We'd have to dig a lot deeper to really discuss it, and I don't think a forum is the proper, err, forum for that.

[Sidoh]

The assumption that humans are not a part of nature requires asserting that we're special.  We're not.  We're assholes and we fuck lots of shit up, but that doesn't mean we aren't part of nature.

[rabbit]

The way I see it, we are approaching this from fundamentally different directions and hitting different natural conclusions.

But then again, I don't think there are any "natural conclusions" being hit.  So there.

Anyway, there was a video I watched a while back where a guy explained (rather well) how everything is natural...I've been trying to find it, but I can't

[Sidoh]

I'm pretty sure I heard TJ (The Amazing Atheist) make this argument.  I think I've thought the same thing for a long time, but his video certainly reinforced my beliefs.

[rabbit]

I'm pretty sure I heard TJ (The Amazing Atheist) make this argument.

That's the video I'm thinking of :O

[iago]

The assumption that humans are not a part of nature requires asserting that we're special.  We're not.  We're assholes and we fuck lots of shit up, but that doesn't mean we aren't part of nature.

I'm not sure which post you're replying to, but that doesn't appear to bear any relationship to the post right above it...

[Sidoh]

The assumption that humans are not a part of nature requires asserting that we're special.  We're not.  We're assholes and we fuck lots of shit up, but that doesn't mean we aren't part of nature.

I'm not sure which post you're replying to, but that doesn't appear to bear any relationship to the post right above it...

read fail?

[Ender]

The way I see it, we are approaching this from fundamentally different directions and hitting different natural conclusions.

But then again, I don't think there are any "natural conclusions" being hit.  So there.

Anyway, there was a video I watched a while back where a guy explained (rather well) how everything is natural...I've been trying to find it, but I can't

It's true. Everything is natural. Earth is 4 billion years old. 2 billion years ago, there was no life. Earth was just a molten rock without any significant atmosphere, oxygen, water, etc. At one point, we didn't even have a magnetic field. This snapshot of the Earth in the first half of its lifespan, without life, shows that it was a much worse place then than it is now that we have life and humans.

It was life that turned the Earth from a molten rock to a green paradise. It was life that led to humans. You can't take any process in motion without all of its consequences.

The way I see it, we are approaching this from fundamentally different directions and hitting different natural conclusions. We'd have to dig a lot deeper to really discuss it, and I don't think a forum is the proper, err, forum for that.

Why is this not the proper medium for this discussion? On a contrary it seems like a very effective medium for this discussion.

[Hitmen]

Ok so everything humans do is natural. Some guy made human cheese, so now human cheese is natural right?

[Sidoh]

Ok so everything humans do is natural. Some guy made human cheese, so now human cheese is natural right?

Yes.  That doesn't mean I can't think it's gross, though.

I'd actually be interested in trying it.

[iago]

The way I see it, we are approaching this from fundamentally different directions and hitting different natural conclusions. We'd have to dig a lot deeper to really discuss it, and I don't think a forum is the proper, err, forum for that.

Why is this not the proper medium for this discussion? On a contrary it seems like a very effective medium for this discussion.

Because it's large and complicated and you could probably write books on the subject. Forums give information in short snippits, pretty much always end up off topic, and rarely follow logical debate patterns.

[rabbit]

Purple monkey dishwasher.

[Sidoh]

I don't think so, honestly.  I don't think the subject is that complex.

[GameSnake]

She speculated that much of the criticism appears to be down to "the combination of sex and cheese" clearly a taboo pairing amongst New York diners.

ROFL.
If I'm getting my milk from a human breast, I'd prefer to do the milking myself. Just saying..

[Joe]

Wouldn't it be funny if GameSnake got AIDS from breast milk?

[GameSnake]

Wouldn't it be funny if GameSnake got AIDS from breast milk?

Wouldn't it be funny if you just died?

[Joe]

Not really. It'd be funny if I died painfully, but not just died.