Cookbook talk:Ethics

"The golden rule applies to cooking: Cook for others the way you'd like others to cook for you."

I used to work in a restaurant with a chef who was a scar-faced, chip-toothed ex-soldier from Marseilles. He cooked the most amazing food for the staff out of whatever needed using up. His take on this was that you should always cook food "with love, as if you were cooking for your mother".

- "Rum & Rophy" - I'm not sure exactly what this is about, but if it's what I think, the phrase an "ethical grey area" is a fairly major understatement here. Redlentil 15:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Rophy

n : street name for Flunitrazepam [syn: R-2, Mexican valium, rope, roofy, roach, forget me drug, circle].

It is a date rape drug, part of the same "ethical grey area" as adding arsenic, strychnine, razor blades or shards of glass to a guest's meal.

I think it's hard to be "combative" when talking about date rape drugs. It's like saying the holocaust was a sickening spectacle that only morally depraved people would take pleasure in is too "combative." Sometimes hard and fast moral lines need to be drawn, and that's what is being done here.
 * Now, I know we aren't wikipedia, but let me cite part of their NPOV article "Let the facts speak for themselves". "Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position." Of Saddam Hussein "You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"" 24.205.34.217 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

cerebrum
User:Fasten, while I agree with you re: not using sentient beings in cooking, I don't think your phrasing is all that useful; it's combative for no reason. The rest of this page needs work too, though. Kellen 02:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - all mammals have a cerebrum. I'm removing the reference, as it implies anything other than vegetarianism is wrong...

Indeed - all mammals have a cerebrum. I'm removing the reference, as it implies anything other than vegetarianism is wrong... --82.44.102.209 09:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For your consideration
Just wondering if the name of this entry is perhaps a bit too broad. Perhaps a slightly more specific title, such as "Ethical Considerations"? MatthewMiddleton 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

- I think the section on not adding things like alcohol to the cooking "without consent" needs tempering with a little common sense. First of all, most alcohol in dishes evaporates by the time it's served. Secondly, if you're serving the meal with open house on the wine cellar (as I usually do!), it seems a bit pointless. There's a world of difference between a tot of sherry in a trifle and pot in the brownies - and if you object to alcohol on religious grounds, you're unlikely to get a dinner invitation from me! 10:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC) -
 * Alcohol does NOT evaporate as quickly or completely as many people cavalierly presume. Not even close:

http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/AlcoholCooking.htm And frankly, if your bigotry is so strong you would not invite over to dinner someone because heavens forfend, you might have to make a dish with alcohol in it, the guest is better off not being part of your circle of friends to begin with. You are in essence acting the same as if you said you wouldn't have an observant Jew over because you'd have to avoid serving a salad with bacon mixed in.

NPOV issue
I hope that I have succeeded in making this less POV, by describing what concerns guilty rich Westerners might have in neutral, descriptive way. I may however have gone to the other extreme. I tried hard to be fair, but I'm quite cynical about many, if not most of these, coming from a place with many self-righteous hipster and yuppies. Rather than adding disclaimers to each, I have attempted to echo the warning about doing your research in the lede. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)