TaN: Is red wine as healthy as they (i.e., experts et al) claim? Report after report, study after study, finding after finding has supported and bolstered the claim that red wine is heart-healthy. It is not being contested that red wine is beneficial to the heart. What is being contested is whether red wine is beneficial to everyone’s heart.
Studies have shown that there are benefits to be derived from red wine but it does not necessarily mean that red wine is beneficial to everybody. So far, study subjects have concentrated on Caucasian and on western cultures, where red wine has been consumed through the generations. It does not follow that it will be beneficial to others nor the benefits gained or received shall be to the same degree.
One reason for this is that generations of imbibing red wine may have altered (and “customized”) body chemistry to extract and maximize the benefits provided by red wine, while those whose ancestors have not had a drop of red wine may not only not be able to obtain the same benefits but may even be subjected to detrimental or unhealthy effects. This may be a reason behind why, despite or perhaps due to taking red wine, they have developed hypertension.
One bad thing regarding jumping on to the band wagon too soon and without knowing or considering the circumstances is that you may be putting your health at risk instead of protecting it.
Personally, the benefits of red wine – as in many other so-called beneficial foods – are overrated and are being capitalized for the sake of profit. Gullible health-conscious people are unwittingly being misled to believe that red wine is good for the health when, in truth, their ancestry never have had red wine.
Finally, as with all other healthy foods, no matter how good they are supposed to be for you, moderation is still the key – DON’T GO OVERBOARD!
TaN: What makes a “bad word” a bad word? Some time ago, I came across an episode in a USA television program where this question was posed. Does the bad word itself make it bad or is the intention? This, I suppose, was in connection with the practice of “bleeping” the “bad word” from the broadcast.
Should the word itself be what makes it bad, then using another word – even with the same intent or malice – would, therefore, not be bad. However, should the intent be what makes the bad word bad, then uttering the word (on the air) should not “bleeped”.
I must confess that this will be one (the first) time I shall have to leave the topic unresolved but with more questions.