Low'n Slow Pork Tacos

[longwalkshortpier]

back on topic. Has anyone TRIED the recipe and how did it taste?

[shellylanette]

I can't see how this came from the Food Network, the quality is horrible, and the sound is worse.

[locoranchers]

I think I wanna cum after I saw the finished product

[toReasonWhy]

What the fuck is she talking about a dollar a pound? Where does she shop?

Hahaha. "Nothin' makes me happier."

Her husband walks in with a frown...

[AwesomeCheeseburger]

She shops at a butcher or preorders it at the meat counter... pork shoulder is really cheap because most people don't eat it.

Most people eat maybe 3-5 cuts of any animal. People like you eat boring crap day in and day out.

[toReasonWhy]

Aw, how cute that you think you know what I eat from one YT comment!

I absolutely love pork shoulder and all the various meals you can make with it, and even at the cheapest supermarket I've found it's never $1/pound.

Now it's my turn, I'll be arrogant like you, except about my particular field, and say you haven't read enough novels to qualify for an entry-level intellectual. People like you read boring crap day in and day out. Careful, don't be all hypocritical and accuse me of presumption!

[shellylanette]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing, but I really do wonder why some people judge intellect on how many novels one has read. Shouldn't it be based on more scientific knowledge, rather than fiction past-time reading? I do know that reading anything helps with language in many ways, but I really would like to know why anyone would base intellect on novels.

[toReasonWhy]

My main response to your question is that I was being tongue-in-cheek because the person to whom I was responding became accusatory based on a meager presumption. So I felt like doing the same thing in turn to him/her. Taste of his own medicine, &c.

That aside, youre wrong that fiction is only a pastime. Reading fiction is only a pastime to people who read the wrong fiction. Youre absolutely right that the number of novels you read could mean nothing at all, especially (but not only) if ...

[toReasonWhy]

you read bad novels. But to address your point properly I need to get specific with terms. We are talking about what makes one an intellectual. The intellect is the capacity of the human mind to know about the world. Without getting into epistemology and what it means to know, I would argue that neither science nor reading alone is sufficient to claim intelligence. Certainly, extensive knowledge of science is also a strong indicator of intelligence, just like fiction. I would also bet

[toReasonWhy]

my bottom dollar that if we could measure the number of people who read what is called literary fiction and then measure that same group of peoples IQs, or debating abilities, or written abilities, or salaries, or whatever measure of intelligence you prefer, the correlation would be powerful. I could go on for pages about why learning and valuing science alone is a dangerous way to live life. I could go on for just as long about the inverse situation.

Fiction is not just stories created to

[toReasonWhy]

pass the time, nor does it help only with ones skills at language. Good fiction is actually, sincerely effective at improving an individual in intelligence, in skill, in understanding, in self confidence, in speaking skills and in generally being an interesting person who has a fulfilling life. This is why schools teach fiction from youth to university. This is why Shakespeare is internationally adored. It's not just

[shellylanette]

The same could be said for the words in a movie. First you say it doesn't improve language skills, then you say it helps improve an individuals' speaking skills. Don't those go hand in hand? Seems like a contradiction! I am certainly not saying I know everything, but I believe studying science would improve a person's knowledge of life in general much better than a novel, which isn't even based on actual events. At the same time, I am sure novels couldn't hurt.

[toReasonWhy]

No, I never said it does not improve language skills. I just said it doesn't *only* help with language.

Yes, definitely, the same is true for great movies. Bergman, Coppola, Kubrick, Kurosawa, etc, we do not idolize them just because they entertain us. They change us.

Since you disregard novels as intellectually useful because they "aren't even based on actual events," I am assuming you have no use for the imagination--which, incidentally, is the root of science--so let's be done talking.

[toReasonWhy]

because people enjoy hearing the words he arranged for people to say on a stage. It's because people are actually changed by those words.

[lickthemlow10]

this sound great and easy