The Bacon Debate

Sometime last week I put up a post about yet another household debate, but then took it down after only a couple minutes because it seemed stupid. Not because I thought I had already lost, but because it is a long story, and there's no way to explain it without telling you who is on what side. I think Mike was the only one who saw it, and I thought no one had saw it, because really it was up there less than a half hour. Since then I have thought about the debate, and have explained it to a couple people, and I have deemed it worthwhile to try to explain again. By the way, the last household debate about the energizer bunny still needs to be solved; scroll down, and then comment.

The discussion went like this:

I made a soup out of a bone from the beef from the farm. The bone had some meat around it, and after cooking it, I smeared the marrow onto a piece of bread. I offered John some, and he declined because he thought eating bone marrow was gross. I said it was one of the best tasting things around. John said it couldn't taste better than bacon. I then said that marrow is a natural product, and bacon is not a natural product. This is where the heart of the debate lies. John says that fire is natural and smoking the part of the pig that makes bacon is natural and therefore bacon is just as if not more of a natural product than marrow. I say that smoking meat is a man made process, therefore, bacon is not a natural product. John says that fire is natural, it occurs in nature by lightning. I say that fire, in the sense of fire used to smoke meat, is man made. He is flabbergasted with the fact that I said fire is man made.

So what do you think?


ummm.... can you repeat the question?