Poll of the Day > Do you eat pork?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Oh wait they didn't delete it? These new moderations are weird
---

no those animals are filthy people shouldn't eat them
it's been proven they transmit a lot diseases
---

Arpegiuz posted...

no those animals are filthy people shouldn't eat them
it's been proven they transmit a lot diseases

But they taste delicious!
---

LinkPizza posted...

Arpegiuz posted...

no those animals are filthy people shouldn't eat them
it's been proven they transmit a lot diseases

But they taste delicious!

Agreed, bacon is a necessity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PasCOnwpdLw" data-time="

I used to assume that Jews and Muslims loathed pigs because of trichinosis but that wouldn't explain why Christians eat pork. Pork used to be popular in the Middle East but it appears that chicken meat replaced pig meat. Chickens consume less water than pigs to create a pound of meat, so by making consumption of pigs an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, you force water conservation. Christians weren't in a dry climate and could more easily have additional water for various kinds of animal husbandry.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-ate-pork-middle-east-until-1000-bcwhat-changed-180954614/
SMARTNEWS Keeping you current
People Ate Pork in the Middle East Until 1,000 B.C.What Changed?
A new study investigates the historical factors leading up to the emergence of pork prohibition

Pigs need a fair amount of water to survive, which makes them poor travel buddies when a family needs to moveand this could be one factor informing their disappearance from the dinner table. But Redding doesnt think thats the primary reason. The blame for the change, his research suggests, can be placed on chickens, which took over porks role as a food source.

Theres good reason an ancient Middle Easterner might pick chickens over pigs. New Historians Adam Steedham Thake explains:

Chickens have several advantages over pigs. First, they are a more efficient source of protein than pigs; chickens require 3,500 litres of water to produce one kilo of meat, pigs require 6,000. Secondly, chickens produce eggs, an important secondary product which pigs do not offer. Third, chickens are much smaller and can thus be consumed within 24 hours; this eliminates the problem of preserving large quantities of meat in a hot climate. Finally, chickens could be used by nomads. While neither chickens nor pigs can be herded in the same way as cattle, chickens are small enough to be transported.

And, Redding argues, it wouldnt make sense to keep both pigs and chickens, since their food and care needs are similar. Under these circumstances, the chicken becomes a major protein resource, he writes, concluding that If the pig had been integral to the subsistence system in the Middle East, it would not have been prohibited by religious edicts.

No I do not.
---

Yes, it's my 2nd favorite behind beef
---

Far-Queue posted...

Oh wait they didn't delete it? These new moderations are weird

you deserved that
---

Not often, but yes, I do. Chicken is still the best meat, though. :)
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Where's the evidence that any culture would need to be sick from eating it 100% of the time in order for someone to decide that they should probably outlaw eating it via religious means?

You won't contract salmonella or e.coli from 100% of meat yet we still legally mandate proper hygiene rules for food preparation in businesses. Honestly, that's just the modern version of kosher and halal rules in a lot of ways.

That's actual science and not religious
---