There has been an argument since the time people ceased having to hunt down game bigger than them, club it to death or spear it (to death as well) and drag it home to their caves so that the whole group could sit down to a decent meal of uncooked meat torn off with crude cutlery, or worry about when they themselves would be food for someone else or some other creature. The argument is, do we live to eat, or do we eat to live?
I was watching the local news this morning, something which I don't usually do due to the holier than thou approach they use in addressing issues and their reporting which quite a lot of people agree is slightly biased. So much for clear and transparent reporting. Nevertheless, once the local news segment was over and done with, they ventured to the world news, one of it being an International Hamburger eating competition in which the contestants are required to wolf down as many hamburgers they can in 8 minutes.
Now, no offense against the competitors who must have practiced really hard in order to eat all those hamburgers, not to mention the damage that their digestive tracts could face regardless if they allowed everything to get digested or if they had to throw it all up later. The thing is, it is quite pointless (in my opinion) for such a competition when there are so many kids starving out there... those who can't even get their hands on half a hamburger. I also have similar sentiments towards some of the so called records broken in the Malaysia book of records which I think were not necessary at all such as the 14 metre layer cake
Sorry about the grumpy post