3 ms·
The fallacy here is pretty transparent. On the one hand, you’re saying meat ”doesn’t taste good” because it is usually not served in isolation. But on the other
by dlkf 3y ago
The fallacy here is pretty transparent. On the one hand, you’re saying meat ”doesn’t taste good” because it is usually not served in isolation. But on the other hand, you claim that seasoning tastes good, despite the fact that it is never served in isolation.
- zaphirplane 3y agoWhere is fallacy ? Sugar is sweet I’ve never ordered a cup of sugar in a cafe or seen it on the menu
- dlkf 3y agoParent claims that because we don’t eat meat plain, this shows that it isn’t the meat that ”tastes good”, its the seasoning. The fallacy is that we could have applied the exact same logic to the seasoning: we don’t eat steak seasoning plain, therefore it isn’t the seasoning that tastes good, its the meat. By parent’s logic, meat both does and does not taste good. The resolution, which has always been obvious to everyone (except hackernews, apparently) is that flavour is the result of the combination of ingredients. That you typically eat X and Y together doesn’t mean X is tasteless and Y is tasty (or the reverse). It just means X and Y combine to make a good dish.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]