Pork has very little muscle building material and contains excess of fat. This fat gets deposited in the vessels and can cause hypertension and heart attack. It is not surprising that over 50% of Americans suffer from hypertension
Another dangerous helminthes is Taenia Tichurasis. A common misconception about pork is that if it is cooked well, these ova die. In a research project undertaken in America, it was found that out of twenty-four people suffering from
Taenia tichurasis, twenty two had cooked the pork very well. This indicates that the ovas present in the pork do not die under normal cooking temperature.
[Say (O Muhammad), "I find not in that which has been inspired to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maytah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth (by slaughtering or the like), or the flesh of swine (pork, etc.) for that surely is filth, or impious (unlawful) meat (of an animal) which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah (or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., or on which Allah's Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering). But whosoever is forced by necessity without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, (for him) certainly, your Lord is Oft_Forgiving, Most Merciful.] (Al-An`am: 145)
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Consider the actual statistics, the idea behind the teaching, and what eninn actually seems to be trying to warn against.
His real premise is that the long term effect of a poor diet is bad health and high blood pressure, correct?
Try actually following the CDC (Center for Disease Control) stats long term.
What is happening as people keep to their unhealthy diets over the course of years and decades, something sensible, lifelong daily religious practice should theoretically correct?
But that's not what he said. His poorly researched or poorly related post indicated that at least 1 in 2 Americans have hypertension, which is bogus except when you impose certain conditions.
In any case, a lot of commercially available foods are bad for us. But that's not why eninn wants us to stop eating bacon. Hint: [SPOILER - highlight to read]: It's because some holy book told him to tell us to stop.
I like that eninn, despite not trying to get to know any of us at all, is desperately trying to save our souls from bacon.
The link you posted has 31% as it's very first fact, in incredibly certain terms. That's what I was referring to. Go ahead and only count senior citizens if it wins you fake internet points in a debate with me. But your own logic is refuted by the link you posted, and eninn clearly didn't even attempt this level of inquiry. So...
This is really the heart of the matter. Technical veracity is secondary.
There was this cable show on a few months back, probably the only show I ever watched on Food TV (well, except for "Nigella Bites"). It was called, "The United States of Bacon." The host, a somewhat rotund fellow, traveled the country, exploring eateries/restaurants with fabulous bacon dishes.
I haven't seen the show on in a while. He may've died.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
What bearing would knowing you in greater depth have on eninn's sharing helpful information with others?
Do you need to know a great deal about people before you can share knowledge?
Would the New York Times have become a multi-million dollar industry if its staff writers, copy editors, and publishers needed to know each customer personally?
Under exactly what circumstances does the premise "You must know me before you can help me" work to the exclusion of the reverse?
To do good, a person must be a generalist, not a specialist?
Is that what you're arguing here? Because a lot of foods are bad for us
no one can argue against one type of food until they cover all the rest?
Does that really make good sense to you?
To use an analogy, answer for me whether you'd decry a firefighter, who, called at work, failed to do more than forward you to the nearest police station
when you tried to report a burglary in progress?
Would you do that?
Or would you more than likely thank him or her for directing you to people who not only CAN aid you in stopping that robbery
but are actually paid and trained specifically to do so?
Further on that note, addressing the book issue:
The police, if they responded to your call, would respond to the situation by following the program of a book THEY read and studied.
More likely than not, those officers wouldn't know you from Eninn.
Would they be more effective in doing their job if they DID know that you like to take long walks on the beach, that you have a cat named Sam Spade, or that your favorite color is blue?
Does the simple fact that people have a book to guide them to action that benefits others mean they are devoid of good intentions?
Mar 18th, 2014 01:56 PM
