Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
butter vs margarine
Options
Replies
-
queenliz99 wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »missyfitz1 wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »
A debate isn't a bad thing except when either side cannot accept that the other might hold some truth. When each party is trying to get the other to concede. This argument is two sides of the same coin.
That isn't what's happening here though. If someone says, "margarine is harmful", that person should be able to back it up. No one is saying "margarine is good for you and everyone should eat it". But if I said, "the master cleanse is a great idea and everyone should do it to detox their bodies", you know people would not accept that without sound evidence. And I wouldn't be able to produce that.
Out of curiosity, when did I say margarine was harmful? Pretty sure I just said I think butter is better.
Margarine clogs your arteries, didn't you say that?
And also that it messes with your endocrine system, and our bodies "don't know how to process it."0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »missyfitz1 wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »
A debate isn't a bad thing except when either side cannot accept that the other might hold some truth. When each party is trying to get the other to concede. This argument is two sides of the same coin.
That isn't what's happening here though. If someone says, "margarine is harmful", that person should be able to back it up. No one is saying "margarine is good for you and everyone should eat it". But if I said, "the master cleanse is a great idea and everyone should do it to detox their bodies", you know people would not accept that without sound evidence. And I wouldn't be able to produce that.
Out of curiosity, when did I say margarine was harmful? Pretty sure I just said I think butter is better.
Margarine clogs your arteries, didn't you say that?
And also that it messes with your endocrine system, and our bodies "don't know how to process it."
That too0 -
My mom cooked with lard, margarine and oils growing up, and my whole family is very overweight...I used margarine for the first 15 years on my own, but now we only use butter. Why? It costs a bit more, but I find it tastes way better, and I feel more comfortable with its' ingredient list.0
-
Alluminati wrote: »So Japanese people cannot eat American food because pronounciations.
I think being able to eat a variety is just reward for being a cunning linguist.
:laugh:0 -
Who likes margarine on popcorn?
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »missyfitz1 wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »
A debate isn't a bad thing except when either side cannot accept that the other might hold some truth. When each party is trying to get the other to concede. This argument is two sides of the same coin.
That isn't what's happening here though. If someone says, "margarine is harmful", that person should be able to back it up. No one is saying "margarine is good for you and everyone should eat it". But if I said, "the master cleanse is a great idea and everyone should do it to detox their bodies", you know people would not accept that without sound evidence. And I wouldn't be able to produce that.
Out of curiosity, when did I say margarine was harmful? Pretty sure I just said I think butter is better.
Margarine clogs your arteries, didn't you say that?
And also that it messes with your endocrine system, and our bodies "don't know how to process it."
That too
She never said it was "harmful" though!0 -
-
If one is eating a pound a day of butter or margarine then butter vs margarine might be a health concern. The person that does a slice of either from time to not so much I expect.0
-
michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure.
For productivity's sake, can we use the term synthetic chemicals to denote the lab concept or kemikillz? I'm cool with either, though the later will give me more of a chuckle.
Oh, I like kemikillz. I'm so using that!!0 -
missyfitz1 wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »It amazes me how in a community where people are supposed to support each other and help each other get to their goals, how many people want to be defensive and argue. I'm allowed my opinion, as you are yours. Anyone can give the OP their opinion, then the OP and anyone who reads it, can do with it what they want. But to turn it into a debate and an argument, it's not necessary. I'm sure you could find research to support almost any opinion. You can't force anyone to agree with yours. Anyone in this thread is free to eat all the margarine they want.
Anvilhead... From the POF forums?
I'm just going to go ahead and say this again. I really don't understand why people see debate as mean and unsupportive.
I think what gets missed in these discussions is the danger of stating things as facts without thinking of the implications of blindly accepting things that you've read before, or things that seem to make sense but haven't been critically evaluated. When someone says that everything is composed of chemicals, it's not to be difficult or catch you in a battle of wordplay. But there is so much fearmongering around the "dangers" of chemicals, and things that we can't pronounce, etc. When someone points out the absurdity of this, it's not to be difficult or argumentative. It's to shed light on the fact that no - chemicals are not prima facie bad. If you're going to say that a particular chemical is bad, your reason can't be that it's hard to pronounce if you want to be taken seriously. It has to be based on solid evidence or there's no reason you should expect others to accept it.
I think these kinds of objections are great for critical thinking skills. It doesn't mean the objector is necessarily right and you are wrong, but it could help you to see that maybe you are accepting principles without giving them the appropriate evaluation.
There are so many good points in your comment, @missyfitz1. No one has gotten personal or taken the conversation outside the realm of open dialogue, so I fail to see how anyone has been mean or non-supportive. For that matter, do personal preferences need the support of others?
0 -
michelle172415 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Which margarine are you talking about?
All of them when compared to the ingredients of butter. My preference is to eat foods as close to the natural source as possible. Not to say that I always do, but at least 80% of the time I'm able to successfully make that choice. In this case, I prefer the food with two natural ingredients that I can pronounce and describe without looking them up in the dictionary.
So, what about a margarine is nothing other than extra virgin olive oil and butter mixed together?0 -
michelle172415 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Which margarine are you talking about?
All of them when compared to the ingredients of butter. My preference is to eat foods as close to the natural source as possible. Not to say that I always do, but at least 80% of the time I'm able to successfully make that choice. In this case, I prefer the food with two natural ingredients that I can pronounce and describe without looking them up in the dictionary.
So you can pronounce and describe all the ingredients in the all-natural blueberries and banana pictured above?
If the cream was broken down into its chemical components, I doubt you'd be able to pronounce and describe every one of them either. And salt is actually NaCl (Sodium Chloride).
You are contradicting yourself. They aren't ingredients, they are chemical compounds. Not the same thing. Nice try though.
Why would you avoid an ingredient simply because you can't pronounce but embrace a chemical compound that you can't pronounce? I'm struggling to see a meaningful difference.
And why would your diet preferences be dependent on your scientific literacy and pronunciation skills anyway?
My diet is generally focused on whole, organic foods. Foods with single ingredients, the best that I can. I eat foods that come from the outside edges of the grocery stores, foods that generally have a very short shelf life unlike most of the packaged foods that you find in the middle of the store that are somehow shelf stable for months or even years. I eat meats from animals that are treated humanely and raised on their natural diet, not what giant corporations like Monsanto say they should eat. I eat wild caught, sustainable fish. I eat eggs from chickens that are free range and not shot up with antibiotics. I eat fruits and vegetables that aren't treated with pesticides. It's my definition of a clean diet. We can have differing opinions and different preferences, but you are simply here to be argumentative because I make difference choices and have different preferences than you do. I've eaten things that I can't pronounce, but it is generally a single food, and not some mashed up creation that some corporation is trying to tell me is better, or healthier, or whatever flashy label they want to put on their boxes. I like my foods to come to me in the package that mother nature put it in whenever possible. Agree, don't agree, but I'm no longer going to sit here and argue semantics with you, I need to go home and cook dinner for my family.
You have no idea what I eat. How do you know that I make different choices than you do? How do you know my food preferences are different?
My issue is with your fear-mongering, not with what you choose to eat. Yeah -- it's semantics. We're literally talking about the meaning of the words you're using. I won't apologize for that. The words we use are important. The logic we use is important. Language is one of our main tools as humans.
Don't start a conversation and then dodge out with a "Well, it's just semantics."0 -
Aw, thanks @tincanonastring!
0 -
The complaining about people being unsupportive in this thread is especially confusing, since it is in the "Nutrition Debate" forum.
Now my brain might have been adversely affected by all the chemicals and toxins I consume in margarine, milk, and Peeps, but my understanding of the word "debate" suggests that others may challenge any opinions or beliefs you may post.
'Cuz... debate.
In fact, I believe the Nutrition Debate forum was created so we could demand things like "proof" and "studies" and "science" without being called mean.
0 -
The complaining about people being unsupportive in this thread is especially confusing, since it is in the "Nutrition Debate" forum.
Now my brain might have been adversely affected by all the chemicals and toxins I consume in margarine, milk, and Peeps, but my understanding of the word "debate" suggests that others may challenge any opinions or beliefs you may post.
'Cuz... debate.
In fact, I believe the Nutrition Debate forum was created so we could demand things like "proof" and "studies" and "science" without being called mean.
*headdesk* I didn't even notice we were in the Nutrition Debate forum. Why was I spending so much energy trying to make the point that debate is positive and a good thing? That's irrelevant. It's the mandate here!0 -
missyfitz1 wrote: »The complaining about people being unsupportive in this thread is especially confusing, since it is in the "Nutrition Debate" forum.
Now my brain might have been adversely affected by all the chemicals and toxins I consume in margarine, milk, and Peeps, but my understanding of the word "debate" suggests that others may challenge any opinions or beliefs you may post.
'Cuz... debate.
In fact, I believe the Nutrition Debate forum was created so we could demand things like "proof" and "studies" and "science" without being called mean.
*headdesk* I didn't even notice we were in the Nutrition Debate forum. Why was I spending so much energy trying to make the point that debate is positive and a good thing? That's irrelevant. It's the mandate here!
No! Your post was awesome and necessary, as clearly some people need a remedial on what is and is not required for polite debate.
Edited to add: Plus, you used the term "prima facie", which is awesome.0 -
missyfitz1 wrote: »The complaining about people being unsupportive in this thread is especially confusing, since it is in the "Nutrition Debate" forum.
Now my brain might have been adversely affected by all the chemicals and toxins I consume in margarine, milk, and Peeps, but my understanding of the word "debate" suggests that others may challenge any opinions or beliefs you may post.
'Cuz... debate.
In fact, I believe the Nutrition Debate forum was created so we could demand things like "proof" and "studies" and "science" without being called mean.
*headdesk* I didn't even notice we were in the Nutrition Debate forum. Why was I spending so much energy trying to make the point that debate is positive and a good thing? That's irrelevant. It's the mandate here!
This thread was moved here -- it started in the "Food" area. I think you've made some excellent points, not irrelevant at all.0 -
michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure.
For productivity's sake, can we use the term synthetic chemicals to denote the lab concept or kemikillz? I'm cool with either, though the later will give me more of a chuckle.
I get my Raw unpasteurized milk from a local farm that treats its animals humanely. My milk comes in glass, because BPA's, and I've taken to making my own butter which is stable at room temperature. But you know everything.
And just in case anyone wants to criticize my consumption of world dairy products, that is a personal decision and I don't need your input. My family can say is organic pasteurized milk so no worries there.
What is the concentration of pus in that raw, unpasteurized milk?
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »missyfitz1 wrote: »The complaining about people being unsupportive in this thread is especially confusing, since it is in the "Nutrition Debate" forum.
Now my brain might have been adversely affected by all the chemicals and toxins I consume in margarine, milk, and Peeps, but my understanding of the word "debate" suggests that others may challenge any opinions or beliefs you may post.
'Cuz... debate.
In fact, I believe the Nutrition Debate forum was created so we could demand things like "proof" and "studies" and "science" without being called mean.
*headdesk* I didn't even notice we were in the Nutrition Debate forum. Why was I spending so much energy trying to make the point that debate is positive and a good thing? That's irrelevant. It's the mandate here!
This thread was moved here -- it started in the "Food" area. I think you've made some excellent points, not irrelevant at all.
Huh, didn't think of that, the thread being moved. Damn you processed-food-stuff-toxins, confuddling my brain!0 -
Dear Posters,
This topic was moved from another forum to Nutrition Debate. Please be aware that some content was posted prior to that move, and was not posted with respect to the intent of this forum.
Please feel free to continue the discussion from this point forward as you would an ND topic, but please do not quote or challenge prior content as being a part of the ND forum. Users who wish to continue to participate in the discussion in this forum are welcome to do so, but users who do not wish to participate need to have that choice respected per the guidelines of this forum.
kgeyser
MFP Moderator0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 912 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions