Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MR_T3D on April 29, 2009, 02:45:21 pm

Title: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: MR_T3D on April 29, 2009, 02:45:21 pm
actually completely unrelated to this topic (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,62526.0.html) i figure the weather is mostly getting nice, so i propose 1st annual the no-pants challange
rules:
no pants
shorts are okay (yes this takes some of the fun out of it, but this allows one to actually go outside, kilt exception
anyone else game
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Flipside on April 29, 2009, 02:46:56 pm
Just be aware that 'pants' are different items of clothing depending on which continent you are in ;)
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: MR_T3D on April 29, 2009, 02:47:54 pm
Just be aware that 'pants' are different items of clothing depending on which continent you are in ;)
okay, I mean the long things that cover your legs
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: iamzack on April 29, 2009, 02:51:35 pm
I almost never wear pants anyway, so I'm mildly confused.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: StarSlayer on April 29, 2009, 03:02:32 pm
no can do need to wear MOPP gear for the duration of the Swine Flu Pandemic :D
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: MR_T3D on April 29, 2009, 03:23:06 pm
no can do need to wear MOPP gear for the duration of the Swine Flu Pandemic :D
why did some guy *** the barnyard animals, between this one and that bird one.
honestly, never tried lefty...
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Flipside on April 29, 2009, 03:28:22 pm
no can do need to wear MOPP gear for the duration of the Swine Flu Pandemic :D
why did some guy *** the barnyard animals, between this one and that bird one.
honestly, never tried lefty...


Levity aside, apparently, in Egypt, they are slaughtering the animals in the Pig farms owned by the Christian minority, which achieves nothing, and is creating tension as people accuse the Government as using the danger as an excuse.

It's not Swine Flu that's the real danger, it's people being ignorant to the risks and either over-reaction or under-precaution.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: colecampbell666 on April 29, 2009, 05:36:34 pm
Notice how they're only killing the Christian pigs. It's a Muslim thing, right? No pig meat? Or is that Jewish?
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Mobius on April 29, 2009, 05:43:36 pm
As far as I know refusing to eat pig meat is both a Muslim and a Jewish feature...
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Turambar on April 29, 2009, 05:58:43 pm
That's one of those little things that never got properly explained to me.

What's wrong with pigs as long as they're cleaned before we eat them?
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: iamzack on April 29, 2009, 06:11:54 pm
Pigs have cloven hooves, but they do not chew the cud.

It's in the bible. DEERRRRR.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Scotty on April 29, 2009, 06:17:26 pm
It's one of the laws in Leviticus.  

Later, when Jesus comes, he has this to say:
Quote from: Mark 7:14-15
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

It doesn't matter if they are cleaned before they eat them, but people of the Jewish faith do not believe Jesus was the messiah, so they generally ignore this.  (Not so sure about people of the Muslim faith.  Distorted tellings allegations, maybe?)
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: iamzack on April 29, 2009, 06:23:06 pm
I think most people sorta view that somewhat as a metaphor.

Also, the thing is mainly against eating animals which are not primarily herbivorous (as far as animals with split hooves go), and that likely carried over into Islam.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Rhymes on April 29, 2009, 07:17:10 pm
It's actually a lot simpler than that.  Unless you cook a pig exactly right, you can get sick very easily. 3 or 4 thousand years ago, people didn't exactly know how to cook it.  The  bible doesn't say as much, but that would destroy the whole "religious aspect."  Most of the kosher laws tend to have a rational, reasonable basis.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: karajorma on April 30, 2009, 06:14:52 am
In knew right from the start that a thread about not wearing pants would end up as a biblical discussion. I just didn't anticipate this particular route. :p
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Flipside on April 30, 2009, 06:41:54 am
:lol:
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: colecampbell666 on April 30, 2009, 07:29:28 am
Looking back, :lol:
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Dilmah G on April 30, 2009, 07:45:36 am
In knew right from the start that a thread about not wearing pants would end up as a biblical discussion. I just didn't anticipate this particular route. :p

Damn.... you've been on this forum too long :P I'm guessing that's your "Sixth Sense"?
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: iamzack on April 30, 2009, 09:07:09 am
Hey, the "Adolf Hitler..." thread last TEN pages before it veered off the topic of the mosquito device.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Dilmah G on April 30, 2009, 09:10:24 am
I think the Derek Smart thread stayed on topic the whole run through (I wouldn't know, the page list totally put me off reading)
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Herra Tohtori on April 30, 2009, 09:24:37 am
Actually, on a historical sense prohibition of pork makes sense. Pork meat spoils somewhat faster than bovine meat (at least I think so), plus there's also the fact that since pigs are omnivores they can act as hosts to some nasty parasites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinella_spiralis).

It's possible that someone noticed the connection between people who ate pork and caught the "pork worm", and either thought it was caused by pigs being unclean - or simply decided that the best way to prevent people from eating it was to issue a religious creed.

After all when you really think God tells you not to eat something, and you don't have any kind of culture for source critique or questioning things, you probably obey. And you won't catch the trichinosis.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: iamzack on April 30, 2009, 09:37:44 am
That's most likely it, but the bible doesn't go ahead and say "don't eat pigs." It says that as far as mammals go, we may only eat those which have split hooves and chew the cud. I don't know what chew the cud means, but pigs don't do it. Camels' hooves are only partially split.

Mammals: Leviticus 11:3 (Also, for cannibalism, Numbers 19:11 can be applied.)

Birds: doves, pigeons, and quails (they are allowed as sacrifices). Chickens, turkey, etc, are in the quail family, I guess. But ducks and such things are not allowed. Carnivorous birds are also not allowed. Eggs follow the rules of this.

Seafood: Leviticus 11:10 (And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.)

Insects: Leviticus 11:20 (Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.)

Blood/fat: Leviticus 3:17 (It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.)

Already dead animals: Leviticus 22:8 (That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD.)
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: karajorma on April 30, 2009, 09:59:36 am
Well it's pretty obvious that eating improperly prepared seafood (especially in a hot country) is just asking for trouble.

As for the rest, remember that the bible rarely makes an explanation for the silly rules it came up with. Look at the one in Bobb's sig for an example of that. :D
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Ghostavo on April 30, 2009, 01:46:38 pm
Question, if eating blood is prohibited, how does blood transfusions fare?
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Mongoose on April 30, 2009, 01:52:20 pm
Question, if eating blood is prohibited, how does blood transfusions fare?
I'm not aware of any branch of Judaism forbidding blood transfusions.  However, Jehovah's Witnesses apparently base their objections to them partly on the same verse that iamzack quoted.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: iamzack on April 30, 2009, 02:10:21 pm
You aren't supposed to eat blood because it is compared to life itself, I think. I imagine a blood transfusion would have been considered something which is not the same as eating blood.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: MR_T3D on April 30, 2009, 02:26:16 pm
oh, god :nervous:
i was not talking about eating pigs as the cause so much as the lonely farmer on a dark april night...
then goes into town, infect others with a new cough, snoballs
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Scotty on April 30, 2009, 04:43:10 pm
Your own little title jumps off the page at me.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: colecampbell666 on April 30, 2009, 05:06:17 pm
Where's ontraio, anyways?
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: MR_T3D on April 30, 2009, 05:11:59 pm
Where's ontraio, anyways?
:eek2:
that one with the most people, its around toronto, great lakes, etc.
thought you were canadian, anyway
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: colecampbell666 on April 30, 2009, 05:34:31 pm
No, that's Ontario. Where's ontraio? I'm being a dick
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Mobius on April 30, 2009, 05:45:42 pm
Question, if eating blood is prohibited, how does blood transfusions fare?
I'm not aware of any branch of Judaism forbidding blood transfusions.  However, Jehovah's Witnesses apparently base their objections to them partly on the same verse that iamzack quoted.

You aren't supposed to eat blood because it is compared to life itself, I think. I imagine a blood transfusion would have been considered something which is not the same as eating blood.

Jahova's Witnesses base their opinions about blood transfusion on at least three parts of the Bible. One from the Genesis, one from Leviticus and one from the Acts.

I read them all and, quite frankly, the JW's interpretation is open to debate. IMO, they seem against sex before marriage (or sex in general) - that's the impression I had when I read them.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: MR_T3D on May 04, 2009, 03:12:31 pm
back on topic, i guess i willbe failing my challenge on may23, as I am going to prom that night :nod: and that means i will have to wear pants, even if it is for like 4 hours, 2 if i'm good ;7

(a kilt is not really an option i think)
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 04, 2009, 04:17:21 pm
Shorts?
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Dilmah G on May 05, 2009, 08:59:54 am
Try boardshorts and a singlet :P
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 05, 2009, 02:26:37 pm
A singlet? Ewwwww...
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: MR_T3D on May 06, 2009, 03:56:45 pm
got fitted, 40tall, wore pants :doubt:
white dinner jacket, pretty cool looking

on the 24th of may i will re-imagine the challenge, likely new thread
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Nuke on May 06, 2009, 08:33:12 pm
since i live in ak again i will have to decline your challenge. the only way it would work is if i become a cross dresser. so no.
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: Dilmah G on May 07, 2009, 03:55:11 am
A singlet? Ewwwww...

Oh sorry, I meant "WifeBeater" :P
Title: Re: Ted's innocent no-pants challenge
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 07, 2009, 01:56:50 pm
Good.