Post by: Stand_watie on December 31, 2006, 06:24:17 PM
(Jewish members, feel free to chime in, as my understanding of Muslim prohibitions on swine are that they are on offshoot of Jewish prohibitions)
A recent news story - for that matter, quite possibly my own confusion of two different news stories - causes me to question this issue. By all means, if you're a Muslim, who categorically knows that your understanding is more or less the Muslim understanding (with the caveat that of course their are going to be extremes on both fringes of the gamut of the issue), say so, and if you're a Muslim who knows that he/she can only speak for your sect of Islam, say "Shia" or "Sunni", please say so, and I'll take your statement for what it's worth without including people called "Muslim" that don't feel the way you do in my own understanding.
Recently (within the past couple months) I read about a Mosque going under construction in a suburb of Houston, Texas, that had opposition from neighbors...one neighbor said that he was going to raise swine to try and prevent the Muslims from building their Mosque. The response from the spokesperson from the Muslim association was sort of a public shrug, and the statement that they were opposed to eating pork, that they didn't care what their neighbors raised.
Tonight I caught about 10 or 12 seconds of a newspiece out of the corner of my eye/ear about a mosque going in where a neighbor *claimed* that the Muslims had come to his house and complained to him about his animals...and he was setting up "pig racing" as a response. The response from the spokesperson of the Muslim group in this story was virtually identical to the first (and FWIW, regardless of whether or not it's truthful, this tack is probably the perfect response from the perspective of getting people to NOT attempt to offend you with swine).
I don't know if the two stories are one and the same. I don't know that the guy in the second story isn't making up the "complaint" to justify his attempts to offend Muslims.
What I'm curious about is if swine are offensive (religiously I mean, I've lived next to swine and they're offensive nasally to just about everyone) to Muslims by general proximity, by actual contact (ie touching a pig), or only by deliberately eating?
Post by: Vodka7 on December 31, 2006, 07:41:08 PM
I know quite a few muslims who smoke pot and have premarital sex, and a few who drink, but just about none of them will touch pork.
Though, these are just my observansations, and I'm not trying to speak for every muslim, just sharing my experience.
Post by: Devonai on December 31, 2006, 07:58:38 PM
Post by: mfree on December 31, 2006, 08:36:50 PM
Most of the food taboos end up health matters if you look hard enough into them. Shellfish back then would have been teeming with bacteria from the open sewage dumping, milk wasn't pasteurized so had natural bacteria and wasn't a good idea to mix with beef in a dish, even the requirement to clean the kitchen with boiling water can be seen as a old health matter.
Nowadays the swine are tested, the shellfish is deep-sea and cleaner, the milk is darn near sterile, and the kitchen surfaces don't absorb anything. Where's my ham sandwich with shrimp and beef stroganoff!
Post by: The Rabbi on January 01, 2007, 03:32:59 AM
Pork would, at least in the ancient era, give you trichinosis easily... which you *don't* want.
Most of the food taboos end up health matters if you look hard enough into them. Shellfish back then would have been teeming with bacteria from the open sewage dumping, milk wasn't pasteurized so had natural bacteria and wasn't a good idea to mix with beef in a dish, even the requirement to clean the kitchen with boiling water can be seen as a old health matter.
Nowadays the swine are tested, the shellfish is deep-sea and cleaner, the milk is darn near sterile, and the kitchen surfaces don't absorb anything. Where's my ham sandwich with shrimp and beef stroganoff!
Most of the food taboos end up health matters if you look hard enough into them. Shellfish back then would have been teeming with bacteria from the open sewage dumping, milk wasn't pasteurized so had natural bacteria and wasn't a good idea to mix with beef in a dish, even the requirement to clean the kitchen with boiling water can be seen as a old health matter.
Nowadays the swine are tested, the shellfish is deep-sea and cleaner, the milk is darn near sterile, and the kitchen surfaces don't absorb anything. Where's my ham sandwich with shrimp and beef stroganoff!
[coughcoughbullsh*tcoughcough]
In Judaism (and I assume Islam as well) the only prohibition is on eating pork. There tends to be a prohibition on deriving benefit from it as a matter of course (e.g. raising hogs for profit) but not on an incidental basis (e.g. someone gives you a can of spam and you feed it to your dog).
Post by: El Tejon on January 01, 2007, 04:17:34 AM
I had one client who merely shrugged at notion of eating pork tenderloin or bacon, but went absolutely nuts at the notion of a dog living in one's house.
Post by: mfree on January 01, 2007, 11:08:06 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 01, 2007, 11:09:23 AM
Crap in a hat. Rabbi, I wasn't talking just about judaism and islam; those are a mix of classic food taboos across regions and over several religions.
Doesnt matter. Your answer betrays a severe cultural bias. And the answer is simply incorrect, btw.
Post by: grislyatoms on January 01, 2007, 11:27:28 AM
Pork would, at least in the ancient era, give you trichinosis easily... which you *don't* want.
Most of the food taboos end up health matters if you look hard enough into them. Shellfish back then would have been teeming with bacteria from the open sewage dumping, milk wasn't pasteurized so had natural bacteria and wasn't a good idea to mix with beef in a dish, even the requirement to clean the kitchen with boiling water can be seen as a old health matter.
Nowadays the swine are tested, the shellfish is deep-sea and cleaner, the milk is darn near sterile, and the kitchen surfaces don't absorb anything. Where's my ham sandwich with shrimp and beef stroganoff!
Most of the food taboos end up health matters if you look hard enough into them. Shellfish back then would have been teeming with bacteria from the open sewage dumping, milk wasn't pasteurized so had natural bacteria and wasn't a good idea to mix with beef in a dish, even the requirement to clean the kitchen with boiling water can be seen as a old health matter.
Nowadays the swine are tested, the shellfish is deep-sea and cleaner, the milk is darn near sterile, and the kitchen surfaces don't absorb anything. Where's my ham sandwich with shrimp and beef stroganoff!
[coughcoughbullsh*tcoughcough]
In Judaism (and I assume Islam as well) the only prohibition is on eating pork.
Please correct me if I am wrong, Rabbi, but doesn't Judaism forbid seafood if it does not have scales and fins? Thereby precluding shellfish from the diet?
I just read about the "milk and meat in the same dish" portion too. Is this also incorrect?
I just found this. Are all of these incorrect?
"The Details
Animals that may not be eaten
Of the "beasts of the earth" (which basically refers to land mammals with the exception of swarming rodents), you may eat any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud. Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6. Any land mammal that does not have both of these qualities is forbidden. The Torah specifies that the camel, the rock badger, the hare and the pig are not kosher because each lacks one of these two qualifications. Sheep, cattle, goats and deer are kosher.
Of the things that are in the waters, you may eat anything that has fins and scales. Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9. Thus, shellfish such as lobsters, oysters, shrimp, clams and crabs are all forbidden. Fish like tuna, carp, salmon and herring are all permitted.
For birds, the criteria is less clear. The Torah lists forbidden birds (Lev. 11:13-19; Deut. 14:11-18), but does not specify why these particular birds are forbidden. All of the birds on the list are birds of prey or scavengers, thus the rabbis inferred that this was the basis for the distinction. Other birds are permitted, such as chicken, geese, ducks and turkeys.
Of the "winged swarming things" (winged insects), a few are specifically permitted (Lev. 11:22), but the Sages are no longer certain which ones they are, so all have been forbidden.
Rodents, reptiles, amphibians, and insects (except as mentioned above) are all forbidden. Lev. 11:29-30, 42-43.
As mentioned above, any product derived from these forbidden animals, such as their milk, eggs, fat, or organs, also cannot be eaten. Rennet, an enzyme used to harden cheese, is often obtained from non-kosher animals, thus kosher hard cheese can be difficult to find."
from
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kashrut.html
Post by: The Rabbi on January 01, 2007, 11:53:48 AM
Post by: grislyatoms on January 01, 2007, 12:06:13 PM
Post by: gunsmith on January 01, 2007, 12:19:47 PM
They told me they "never" drink...then one day I saw them in a restaurant , drinking a little wine!
(birthday)
I doubt I would ever see them eating pork.
Post by: mfree on January 01, 2007, 07:35:56 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 02, 2007, 03:20:32 AM
I've apparently missed something here... somehow I've developed a severe cultural bias because I think that there *just* might be a logical cause behind what are seemingly illogical restrictions on food intake.
Yes, you've got it right.
Post by: mfree on January 03, 2007, 08:18:34 AM
Post by: Typhoon on January 03, 2007, 08:50:57 AM
Part as tradition (i.e. Were part of a larger community), part as humane practice (i.e. Insuring that animals are butchered correctly and with minimal suffering) and part as making the mundane act of consuming daily meals yet another way to bring folks into a closer relationship with The Creator.
Post by: cordex on January 03, 2007, 09:48:47 AM
The few that I don't follow - such as the milk and meat prohibition - is more of a disagreement in intent. "Boiling a kid in its mother's milk" is said to really mean that no milk products may be eaten or cooked with meat products. It seems to me that if that was the intent, the instruction would have been written differently.
The Jewish position on Kashrut is traditionally along the lines of "Screw the health benefits or drawbacks, we do this because G-d told us to." I believe that is what Rabbi is referring to in his ... *ahem* ... terse replies. It doesn't strike me as beyond God to give commandments to his people that would benefit them but as I understand it, the reason Judaism usually refrains from recognizing the health benefits as the driving force behind the laws of Kashrut is because the commands exist independently of the benefits. There are physical, psychological and social benefits to the Sabbath rest as well, but if those benefits went away or ceased to be important the Sabbath would still be kept.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2007, 10:01:04 AM
Are you this contrarian in real life? Mind explaining my error so I can change my ways?
Sure.
Your first error is the assumption that primitive people were stupid too, a belief labeled "Urdumheit" and found in other contexts. So if something was physically harmful then they just invented a god-given prohibition against it. Of course there is no prohibition on poisonous mushrooms or deadly nightshade but whatever.
Second, the verse prohibiting pork also prohibits camels and rabbits explicitly. As far as I know everyone else in the Middle East eats both those things with no ill effects. So the prohibition cannot be health related.
Third, the prohibition is in a category called "chok" meaning statute. It is prohibited because it is prohibited. There is no rational reason for it, by definition. Included in such prohibitions is the one against wearing wool and linen mixed together. There obviously is no health danger wearing these two fibers (and just that combination), yet the Torah forbids it.
Finally you discount spiritual/religious practices has being simply good advice for healthy living. They are not. They are fundamentally different from that.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 03, 2007, 11:38:41 AM
Your first error is the assumption that primitive people were stupid too, a belief labeled "Urdumheit" and found in other contexts.
That is taken as dogma by most. I prefer to call it "temporal chauvinism." The modern man doesn't see mankind as descending from Paradise, but as rising from primordial soup.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2007, 12:51:09 PM
Your first error is the assumption that primitive people were stupid too, a belief labeled "Urdumheit" and found in other contexts.
That is taken as dogma by most. I prefer to call it "temporal chauvinism." The modern man doesn't see mankind as descending from Paradise, but as rising from primordial soup.
I saw this idea many years ago in regard to the Middle Ages. I cannot remember where it was. It might have been Curtius' Latin Literature and the Late Middle Ages but that was a long time ago.
His thesis was that the "Dark Ages" were only considered so much later, during the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment worshipped the Renaissance and so disparaged what came before (a more religious age) as "dark".
Post by: Werewolf on January 03, 2007, 12:57:09 PM
Crap in a hat. Rabbi, I wasn't talking just about judaism and islam; those are a mix of classic food taboos across regions and over several religions.
Doesnt matter. Your answer betrays a severe cultural bias. And the answer is simply incorrect, btw.
Please - enlighten us then as to the correct answer. What are the origins of the various food taboos in Judaism and Islam?
Post by: Werewolf on January 03, 2007, 01:06:39 PM
Are you this contrarian in real life? Mind explaining my error so I can change my ways?
Sure.
Your first error is the assumption that primitive people were stupid too, a belief labeled "Urdumheit" and found in other contexts. So if something was physically harmful then they just invented a god-given prohibition against it.
Quote
Of course there is no prohibition on poisonous mushrooms or deadly nightshade but whatever.
There aren't a whole lot of mushrooms or nightshade that grow in the arrid environs where the semitic peoples have historicaly resided. Thus it was very unlikely that anyone would have noticed ill effects from injesting them and no prohibition was necessary Quote
Second, the verse prohibiting pork also prohibits camels and rabbits explicitly. As far as I know everyone else in the Middle East eats both those things with no ill effects. So the prohibition cannot be health related.
Maybe now because people are a bit more medically enlightened but they were hardly privy to knowledge of parasites then. Rabbits are chock full of worms during the summer months and in warm climates. Don't know about camels...Quote
Third, the prohibition is in a category called "chok" meaning statute. It is prohibited because it is prohibited. There is no rational reason for it, by definition. Included in such prohibitions is the one against wearing wool and linen mixed together. There obviously is no health danger wearing these two fibers (and just that combination), yet the Torah forbids it.
Back to the ole organized religion is all about control. Get people accustomed to following rules that make no sense and it becomes easier and easier to get them to follow rules that do.Quote
Finally you discount spiritual/religious practices has being simply good advice for healthy living. They are not. They are fundamentally different from that.
Not really.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2007, 01:10:03 PM
You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
Post by: Werewolf on January 03, 2007, 01:13:06 PM
Werewolf,
You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
Answer the question Rabbi.You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
What are the reasons for the food taboos of the semitic religions? You did a great job of skirting the issue in your reply #17.
I, and I am sure others, really want to know: What are the reasons for the food taboos of the semitic religions?
Here's your chance to expain it to us. Even if your answer is as simple as God said so though I seriously doubt if that would be a very Rabbincal answer.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2007, 01:16:20 PM
Werewolf,
You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
Answer the question Rabbi.You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
What are the reasons for the food taboos of the semitic religions.
I, and I am sure others, really want to know.
Here's your chance to put up or shut up!
Sure.
In Judaism we have explicit verses in the Torah that forbid eating certain items. That is their origin.
In Islam, I assume, they have explicit verses in the Koran forbidding certain items. That is the origin for those prohibitions.
Satisfied?
Post by: Werewolf on January 03, 2007, 01:25:31 PM
Werewolf,
You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
Answer the question Rabbi.You obviously have an agenda and are more interested in pushing it than in either learning anything or debating.
Have a nice day.
What are the reasons for the food taboos of the semitic religions.
I, and I am sure others, really want to know.
Here's your chance to put up or shut up!
Sure.
In Judaism we have explicit verses in the Torah that forbid eating certain items. That is their origin.
In Islam, I assume, they have explicit verses in the Koran forbidding certain items. That is the origin for those prohibitions.
Satisfied?
I'll be more specific. What is the origin of the verses? Why are they there? Someone wrote them and made them a part of Judaism. Why?
Just because GOD said so? If that is the case then I can respect that and end of discussion.
OTOH I've talked to a number of Rabbis in my younger years and they invariably could explain in some detail the origin and why of just about anything in the Torah. None has ever said just because GOD said so. I was unaware of the type of restrictions you describe that have no rational reason so I most assuredly didn't ask the right questions. Some things are just taken on faith - I have a hard time though believing that food taboos are one.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 03, 2007, 01:35:42 PM
If you reject the idea that G-d wrote the Torah and it was written by men then you are left asking the questions you are asking. And you won't find any answers because there arent any. Sheep and goats are also filled with pests. Goats eat all kinds of junk. And yet they are both kosher. Certain kinds of locusts are kosher and some arent. Why? I dont know. No one does. Pig's milk isn't kosher because it comes from pigs, which arent kosher. But honey is kosher, even though it comes from bees, which are not kosher. Does that make sense? No, of course not.
Post by: Oleg Volk on January 03, 2007, 01:44:35 PM
Quote
[coughcoughbullsh*tcoughcough]
Real fine start on polite debating...sheesh.
Post by: Antibubba on January 03, 2007, 10:26:55 PM
That might seem like circular reasoning to you. So be it.
The Jews throughout the centuries have been known for our love of studying and our love of laughter, especially irony. Study Torah long enough, and you'll realize that some of it makes absolutely no sense at all (not that this has stopped entire bookshelves from being written about the "reasoning" behind it).
I know it will inflame some of you, but the truth about my religion (and yours too, but I know that most Christians cannot tolerate irony and humor mixed with their beliefs) is that it doesn't have to make perfect sense. It is not rational. It does not have to be rational or explainable. That is why, for me, there is no conflict between religious belief and modern scientific knowledge: they are different realms.
As for the original Pork question, I can't speak on Islam, but while the laws of kashrut are important, they are certainly of lower urgency than other laws. A starving man would not be prohibited from eating pork, because maintaining a life outweighs dietary restrictions. A paramedic who is needed on Shabbos to save a life shouldn't even hesitate to work that day-saving lives is much more important than observing Shabbos. I remember reading a story about a deeply religious Jew who needed a new heart valve. When he was told by the doctor that he could choose between a plastic valve and one removed from a pig's heart, he asked his doctor which was the better choice. He was told "pig". The man agreed to it without hesitation. He understood his priorities, and where his duty to G-d lay.
I hope Islam is like that too.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 04, 2007, 03:19:46 AM
Post by: mfree on January 04, 2007, 04:37:33 AM
I do now understand why you have such a problem with the way I view how such prohibitions came about and I understand your point and why you believe in it.
It doesn't mean I have to like you, The Rabbi, it just means we are on as common footing as we can get.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 04, 2007, 12:39:23 PM
I thought it would be taken as harmless satire. I also though it was clever. Sorry.
Post by: AJ Dual on January 04, 2007, 05:28:48 PM
:popcorn:
Post by: grampster on January 04, 2007, 07:04:53 PM
Post by: Guest on January 04, 2007, 11:08:12 PM
Quote
Actually, researchers have long recognized pronounced health problems related to pork deficiency.
1. In about fifty percent of the sample, children born to pork-deficient parents had long, hooked noses and males had a lack of "foreskin."
2. Pork deficiency tends to produce a desire to take over the world. So far, three forms of this trait are recognized. The most common are attempts to control the world through banking schemes or by selling oil at high prices. In extreme cases, the pork-deficient will turn to suicide bombing.
3. In about half of documented cases of pork deficiency, the subjects developed a taste for the blood of Christian children.
4. Parsimoniousness
5. Polygamy
6. Pork-deficient women tend to be very close to their children, often trying to control their lives well into the child's adulthood. The use of "guilt trips" is a common tactic.
Hope you were amused.
1. In about fifty percent of the sample, children born to pork-deficient parents had long, hooked noses and males had a lack of "foreskin."
2. Pork deficiency tends to produce a desire to take over the world. So far, three forms of this trait are recognized. The most common are attempts to control the world through banking schemes or by selling oil at high prices. In extreme cases, the pork-deficient will turn to suicide bombing.
3. In about half of documented cases of pork deficiency, the subjects developed a taste for the blood of Christian children.
4. Parsimoniousness
5. Polygamy
6. Pork-deficient women tend to be very close to their children, often trying to control their lives well into the child's adulthood. The use of "guilt trips" is a common tactic.
Hope you were amused.
Oddly, no.
It did serve to remind me why I rarely bother to post here anymore. The conversations have gone from polite and interesting discussion and debate to drivel and ego vomit.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 05, 2007, 03:04:47 AM
Post by: Guest on January 05, 2007, 03:10:25 AM
Post by: Ron on January 05, 2007, 07:01:34 AM
Quote
It did serve to remind me why I rarely bother to post here anymore. The conversations have gone from polite and interesting discussion and debate to drivel and ego vomit.
Must be the threads in which you choose to participate.
Here is a clue: if you think the subject of a thread title might involve postings on a subject that you have passionate feelings about, avoid it.
I can bitch about the anti Illinois/Chicago BS on THR or I can avoid the threads.
I can bitch about the attacks on religion/Christianity in some threads or I have two choices, defend my position or skip the thread.
There is something to be said about a place where everyone doesn't have to walk on eggshells.
Like you I think the "pork" joke was insensitive and stupid. I think the point of it was to mock stereotypes, it just does it poorly.
Unlike you I don't have a chip on my shoulder, when I read stupid stuff I don't diss the whole forum board.
I only say this because I am noticing a theme, you pop in, participate, then point out this forum is filled with a bunch of (this that or the other) then stop posting for a while.
Post by: Antibubba on January 05, 2007, 07:04:48 AM
Post by: Guest on January 05, 2007, 07:22:39 AM
You have the option of not reading my posts, as well, if you find them so troubling, but I'll save you the trouble. I'll delete my account. It's not useful anymore anyway.
Which is kind of sad, considering this used to be one of my favorite places on the net, simply because of the caliber of people involved.
Post by: Ron on January 05, 2007, 07:53:23 AM
Quote
You have the option of not reading my posts, as well, if you find them so troubling, but I'll save you the trouble. I'll delete my account. It's not useful anymore anyway.
That is your prerogative of course and the place will be less because of it. Personally I've enjoyed your contributions to the threads in the past.
As I said, it seems like the last few times you have taken a swipe at all of us when it seems that your problem is just with some of the posters here.
There was a thread just recently about how boring this place had become. My suggestion was for that person to start some threads that would reverse the trend.
I'm not one of those sycophants that is going to beg you to hang around. Don't take anything I have to say as a personal attack on you. It was just an observation about what you have had to say about "us".
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 05, 2007, 08:05:57 AM
Actually, I'm trying to figure out why Blackburn was banned but you're still here.
If it makes Barbara or anyone else feel better, I was taken to task by the Preacherman for talking too much. I have mended my ways, or at least thought I had. I don't recall being notified previously that on-topic satirical posts were unwelcome here. Nor can I understand why some jokes about Jewish and Muslim stereotypes would be over the line. Not when literal-minded Christians are treated as scientific Luddites and would-be totalitarians. Not when Republicans are so frequently labelled as fascists (that may be on THR and not here, but the point stands).
While I freely admit to posting very frequently, the charge that I am sniveling or insulting everyone still baffles me. I continue to beg for some examples of what I am doing wrong, other than posting a lot. My previous posts can be found here:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?action=profile;u=415;sa=showPosts
Post by: cosine on January 05, 2007, 09:36:43 AM
I think muslin is a very proper material to use for window dressing.
Funny you would mention that. I've had encounters with people who didn't know the difference the Muslims, those people that follow the religion of Islam, and muslin, the type of fabric.
Post by: Vodka7 on January 05, 2007, 11:05:52 AM
And right around the time I got to "hook nose" in his post, I said "man, someone is going to have a serious problem with this post. But something tells me it's not going to be a Jew (or a Muslim.)" And so far, that's been right.
Quote
Funny you would mention that. I've had encounters with people who didn't know the difference the Muslims, those people that follow the religion of Islam, and muslin, the type of fabric.
For that matter, I once had a girlfriend who did not believe there was a difference between "gentile" and "genteel" and did not appreciate me dragging out a dictionary and lecturing at length
And another one who didn't know there was a difference between a Muslim and a member of the Nation of Islam...
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 05, 2007, 11:32:40 AM
And another one who didn't know there was a difference between a Muslim and a member of the Nation of Islam...
That's OK. The Nation of Islam doesn't recognize the distinction, either. If there's going to be any more discussion of yours truly, maybe it should be expressed on a different thread.
Post by: Werewolf on January 05, 2007, 12:43:54 PM
I have no doubt that my moniker would show up more than once and with one exception I think it would be interesting to see who among us is annoyed the most by the others among us.
Or would that be too Low Road?
Post by: Ron on January 05, 2007, 12:53:24 PM
Quote
Maybe we should just have a "Who annoys you the most on APS" thread and get it all out of our system.
I don't see much of a problem myself. Like Fistful pointed out he was taken to task by a mod for his frenetic frivolous posting and he backed down.
There seems to be a core group of folks here who are not all on the same page but seem to be able to get along without constant bickering.
Just because every politically incorrect post isn't addressed doesn't mean everyone here signs off on the sentiment.
Is there a problem I'm not seeing?
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 05, 2007, 04:54:27 PM
he was taken to task by a mod for his frenetic frivolous posting and he backed down.
I need to back down some more. Anyone can feel free to PM me if they think I'm posting frivolously or am making inappropriate comments. I DO bite, but you can't really feel it over an internet connection.Glad to see my idea for a new thread was such a success.
Post by: Antibubba on January 05, 2007, 07:50:51 PM
Quote
Maybe we should just have a "Who annoys you the most on APS" thread and get it all out of our system.
I think the problem is is that EVERY THREAD is turning into a "Who annoys you the most on APS" thread.
Maybe familiarity DOES breed contempt.
And if nobody else will say so, I will: Barbara, don't stay away too long. You're one of my favorite members.
Post by: Stand_watie on January 07, 2007, 07:02:35 AM
Quote
Actually, researchers have long recognized pronounced health problems related to pork deficiency.
1. In about fifty percent of the sample, children born to pork-deficient parents had long, hooked noses and males had a lack of "foreskin."
2. Pork deficiency tends to produce a desire to take over the world. So far, three forms of this trait are recognized. The most common are attempts to control the world through banking schemes or by selling oil at high prices. In extreme cases, the pork-deficient will turn to suicide bombing.
3. In about half of documented cases of pork deficiency, the subjects developed a taste for the blood of Christian children.
4. Parsimoniousness
5. Polygamy
6. Pork-deficient women tend to be very close to their children, often trying to control their lives well into the child's adulthood. The use of "guilt trips" is a common tactic.
Hope you were amused.
1. In about fifty percent of the sample, children born to pork-deficient parents had long, hooked noses and males had a lack of "foreskin."
2. Pork deficiency tends to produce a desire to take over the world. So far, three forms of this trait are recognized. The most common are attempts to control the world through banking schemes or by selling oil at high prices. In extreme cases, the pork-deficient will turn to suicide bombing.
3. In about half of documented cases of pork deficiency, the subjects developed a taste for the blood of Christian children.
4. Parsimoniousness
5. Polygamy
6. Pork-deficient women tend to be very close to their children, often trying to control their lives well into the child's adulthood. The use of "guilt trips" is a common tactic.
Hope you were amused.
Oddly, no.
It did serve to remind me why I rarely bother to post here anymore. The conversations have gone from polite and interesting discussion and debate to drivel and ego vomit.
If you really feel that way about the entirety of, or even the majority of the discussions on the forum, then I don't think this is the place for you at all. You might consider only going to message boards that have very restrictive topic requirements (ie "Fordstraightsixxeswithchromeplatedmufflerbearingsandnothingnotnothingnotnothingelsewhatsoeverorelse.com")
OTOH, if you're reacting to specific members of the forum, you might consider narrowing down your remarks a bit.
So far you've mentioned 'fistful' by name. While I've been mildly abraded myself by fistful's posts a few times (more his delivery than his content as ideologically I don't think we're that far apart [and by "abraded, I don't mean 'report him to moderator' or 'post angry reply', but rather 'mentally roll my eyes' and move on]), I'm well aware that I probably do the same thing to many forum members, who have all been kind and forbearing enough (so far) to (to my knowledge) either ignore me or challenge my views by posting contrary opinions/facts. That said, if your gripe is genuinely with "drivel", I post scads and oodles of "drivel". 99.99999% of the world's conversation is "drivel". It's a catch-all message board. I believe the vast majority of regular posters here (including yourself) are well-above-average people in terms of intelligence, decency and love for others, but most of us, it seems to me, like to talk about baloney as well as about weighty topics. If that's not your bag, I wish well on other forums.
Post by: Kyle on January 07, 2007, 11:11:33 AM
I have had a long string of Muslim girlfriends.
That is to say, their parents are Muslim and they are "culturally" Muslim.
I agree with a previous poster that modern, American Muslims of my generation will get drunk and have an orgy long before they touch a ham sandwich. I don't know why... but I don't complain either.
The Muslim dietary restrictions are similar to (but fundamentaly different from) the Kosher "thing." The eating of pigs is prohibited, and contact with them is discouraged, but not anything close to a sin. Just a casual "dont touch the stray dog, Timmy..." kind of thing.
The Muslim dietary guideline is called "Hallal" and involves certain animals slaughtered a certain way, along strict religious guidelines. And let me tell you, Hallal meat is goooood. My girlfriend calls the holiday thing that just ended the other day "goat Eid" because at the end of it they slaughter a goat and give it to friends/family. MmMmmMMMMMM.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on January 08, 2007, 03:29:09 AM
As for the male Muslims I knew... those guys were boozers and womanizers that put Clinton to shame--and I'm not trying to slander Clinton here.