More interesting "pork facts" from different perspectives: NOTE: The emphasis here is on "big business". Nothing seems to piss most people off more than that, so maybe you'll take a second look at pork. Oh, and a link.... http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/hh/pork.html
Okay, I'm looking things over and I have yet to see anything scholarly that says that pork is bad. In any case, I prefer beef. Gimme a beef steak over a pork steak any day.
who cares ?? isn't DP a marketing site ? why are all these sections even here..lol I understand why they are here, to give ppl a place to post general stuff but man !! It's a bit discouraging looking at the new post and seeing 40% of the threads from political or religious threads. Lets just eat what we want to eat, and lets get back to trying to better our websites
Like I said, pork is big business. Don't expect anything scholarly, unless someone with more money than the pork lobby raises the issue. I'm only trying to change willing minds. I certainly don't advocate forceful removal of your food preferences. It just wouldn't hurt for the public at large to use a little discretion. Of course, that's a hard thing to ask of a society who clings to fast food, tobacco, and high risk sexual practices, despite fair warning of the consequences. Those are more pressing issues, anyway...
Or go back to bettering your website, and stay away from OT forums. Either way, the topic drew you in, so there must be some value to the subject, even if nothing more than voyeuristic.
There is quite a difference between tobacco and pork. Comparing Hormel to a cigarette company is just dumb. Hormel actually make a decent line of very healthy products. In fact, they are about the only producer of meats that do not contain those goofy chemicals to keep them looking pretty. The link you provided above is not based in fact. There are no sources supporting the claims listed on that site. Hormel on the other hand has actually researched and developed their product, and the nutritional data is collected and reported via the FDA. If nothing else, Pork is high in protein. Too much of one things is NEVER good for you. However a well rounded diet of meats, vegetables, fruits and bread coupled with exercise is the only way to go in my book. It's kinda hard to fake real data about nutrients in pork. That's not as illusive as an WMD. Well, most products that claim to be low in cholesterol are in fact high in saturated fats. The ironic thing here is that your body turns saturated fats INTO cholesterol.
Who said anything about nutrients? Rocks have nutrients! This is true; however the debate centers over whether it gets turned into GOOD or BAD cholesterol. Nobody in the medical community has been willing to break ranks with 25 years of published studies, and commission new ones, based on new ideas. Why? Food oil lobbies, prescription drug lobbies, etc... I'm not making this up, nor am I the first to make the claims. By the way - asking for all things "scholarly" ignores many things, and is, in fact, a type of self righteousness. It ignores the fact that some accepted ideas may be wrong, and immediately writes off newer, and better ideas. I have written off most of the rest of your post, since it sounds like you work for Hormel. But here are some counter arguments as they pertain to saturated fats: http://www.ecopolitan.com/ask-doctor-t/coconut-oil (claims to be a doctor) http://coconut-info.com/links.htm (whole pages of "scholarly" research) http://www.coconutresearchcenter.org/article10132.htm The fact is, in their research, these people claim a difference between long and medium chain fatty acids, which make a marked difference in the effect of the fat in the body. This is only based on coconut oil, but I have tons of other topics saved away. If one can bring themselves to believe a new idea, it would offer some VERY strong arguments for pork being unhealthy, and plant based saturated fats, if left unprocessed, (hydrogenated) being most healthy, indeed. You probably won't bother to read this information, or immediately find some reason to not want to believe it - but that's OK. At least I gave you my position, based on something other than pure idealism.
There is actually a good reason that most people with scientific training and background prefer scholarly articles. Anyone can claim to be a doctor, and even those who are doctors have, in the past, come up with some very wild, out there, and even contradictory theories. However if something has been published in a peer reviewed journal, there have been other people who have reviewed the data and put their scientific credibility on the line to say that the conclusions drawn from the article meet at least a minimum standard in their data and logic. I don't dispute that often times some data is out there, and present for those who wish to view it years before the scientific community accepts it that new data and conclusion. However a fair amount of the web pages and supposed scholars out there that 'reveal conspiracies' are either delusional, or lying, such as those people who believe that AIDs was introduced to Africa on purpose via inoculations against other diseases, or that it is caused by the medication designed to treat HIV, rather than being an advanced condition caused by HIV. For that reason, I tend not to be convinced by medical 'truth' pages, but rather by articles from scholarly sources. Now, I have heard a lot of buzz about the difference between good fat, and bad fat, good cholesterols, and bad cholesterols. At this stage, I'm still working on reducing my hydrogenated fats intake.
You did. Might want to read (re-read) solid7's post here. Wait, you are solid7. You might want to re-read your own post. You know they are all out to get us. Just the other day I overheard a CEO of a pencil company telling a friend that they were using Led based graphite in their number 2 pencils, since as we all know, most of use use number 2's. Those bastards... When will they stop. I work for myself. I only used Hormel as an example because they tend to be one of the larger pork producers. Nothing has been "written off". Pork producers from the farmer to the processing plant have made great strides in improving on their product. If I were ignoring anything, it is the fact that pork once was worse than it is now... However, I am not ignoring that. And this has what to do with the cleanliness of pork?
All I see is that I said that beef and chicken - chicken being the "first" white meat, are virtually identical in nutritional composition. Where did the word "nutrients" come into play? (the point was that chicken and beef are similar in makeup, so one isn't really the healthy alternative to the other, as it is sometimes portrayed to be) That shows your ignorance, not mine. I'm not claiming conspiracy. I'm claiming half truths being told. Anywhere there's big money, there's marketing. Marketing seldom divulges inconvenient truths. If you think every business with a lobby the size of hog farmers is bending over backwards to tell you the complete, unabashed truth, you are a fool. Check historical precedent! (your choice of product, be my guest. I personally like to fall back on prescription drugs and tobacco, because they are the easiest) So if they made great strides in processing fecal matter, would you eat it? Reminds me of the movie, Soylent Green. The stuff about saturated fats has to do with the mechanics of nutrition, not cleanliness. But since this is already an OT forum, and seldom does the topic fail to wander, I claim my liberties.
That was an awesome movie. My dad asked me what I wanted for Christmas as I said "Soylent Green." on DVD! Has a lot of extra features on it.
Why would I waste my time trying to "prove" something based in opinion - like "value"? It's evidently worth something to somebody. The moderator uses this OT forum to try to keep it out of the regular forum. Some people use it to blow off steam, or indulge their urge to flame. In any case, there's some intrinsic value for someone. (even if it isn't YOU) Have a good night. P.S. - this is not the marketing forum. This is the General -> Politics and Religion forum. Sorry I didn't clarify that sooner...
It's just a religious way of life for muslim, like cutting the throat of a live goat and spread the blood on the door stuff or threat women like animals... It's in the Qu'ran. Just a normal way of life...like Belgian eat chocolate or Brazilian play soccer...
they (somebody) if u put pork into a coke, theres something ugly gonna come out from the pig, have anyone test this?
Solid7 replies: Gen 9:1 ¶ And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. v2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. v3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things
Let's take a rational look at this, and not just grasp for scriptures that fit the argument, or our general positions. First off, you're making micro-level arguments from a macro-level book. Genesis doesn't have a lot to say about any particular subject, so some discretion is in order. Here are the claims: 1) clean animals came to the ark by 7's (Gen 7:2) 2) unclean animals came to the ark by 2's (Gen 7:2) 3) big flood, water up to the tops of mountains (Gen 7:20) 4) water covered the earth for 150 days (Gen 8:3) 5) eight people entered the ark (Gen 7:13) 6) men were commanded to be vegetarian before the flood (Gen 1:29) There's not anything else that is needed to make the point. There was a big flood. Eight people lived through it. Before the flood, men were commanded to be vegetarian. But afterwards, when water and debris covered the earth for 150 days, it was a bit hard to be a vegetarian. (wouldn't you say?) But, since there were 8 people, and only 14 of each clean beast, that also made it hard to stick with a "clean" diet, especially in a day where the species was supposed to be replenishing itself - and even more so, in a day with no refrigeration! The command to eat all living things sounds like an emergency measure to me! Just a side note - if anything was good to eat at any time after the flood, why was the term "clean" and "not clean" used in Genesis? Why did Noah understand that some animals were not clean? Hmm.... (yes, I conjecture, but only to counter yours) Here is a parallel in the "New Testament" writings, which put this nicely into perspective: The same story is told in the other gospels. The point is, one could EASILY argue that Noah's case was more a case of "martial law", than an invitation to an all-you-can-eat meat buffet. It's not just a simple, open and shut argument.