72 Virgins

Submitted by: ryguy17 10 years ago in Funny

What kind of frat house is this?
There are 151 comments:
Male 129
"Aww man I love this frat! You guys are the bomb!" "No.. you`re the bomb." "No, you guys are the bomb!" No... YOU are the bomb. Believe it."
0
Reply
Female 920
Lame.
0
Reply
Male 1
The thought of Baalrog going through airport security is the only thing keeping me from kicking a puppy.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
That`s an interesting interpretation, Killer, but the problem is they were also ordered to keep 7 of each kind of bird, male and female (which would result in an odd-number of either sex); were they intent on sacrificing them as well? And I was not aware of aviary-cuisine being a staple of the Semitic diet. 1,000th post, WOO-HOO! Haven`t gotten rid of me yet, mother-fuc*kers!
0
Reply
Female 36
they needed two of each animal, a male and its mate; the reason they needed seven of each clean animal was for food and sacrifices, because they couldnt just kill off the original two or else they couldnt breed.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
The fallacy we`d be committing in interpreting `2` and `7` under the same context, or what I was doing be recanting, would probably fall under Aristotlean "accent."
0
Reply
Male 3,631
The original instruction reads

`Male and female x all living creatures = Yahweh Happy`

Later, we are told `only 7 of certain groups within groups (i.e. `clean or unclean,` which is within `each according to their kind`), and then two INDIVIDUAL counterparts of each group so they can mate.

So obviously, `7 of each type of clean animal and aviary creature` limits the original `2 of all living creatures` based on the context in which 2 was being used; as individual members from each respective gender, from each respective group, regardless of cleanliness.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
So if we`re talking about 7 TYPES of animals within a certain classification, and then 2 individual members of each type so they can mate, then 7 IS the limiting factor.

It`s a simple matter of protocol. First comes "All living things." That encompasses "each according to their kinds," which encompasses "Clean and Unclean" types, which ultimately encompasses "Male and Female."

However, if we were originally told to bring a MALE and FEMALE counterpart of EACH and every living creature, then only limiting certain groups to 7 of their type (obviously this is not referring to individual male and female counterparts for 7 is an odd number) would in fact void the original instruction.

All living creatures
_________________________________________

Each according to their `kind`
_____________________________

Clean and `unclean`
__________________

Male & Female

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Interesting about the birds; surprised Yahweh didn`t mention anything about that. By the way, if you`ve noticed, I already admitted to 2 not precluding 7, though it is still ridiculous to list them separately. Come to think of it, as a matter of fact, I might have been wrong, and it all comes down to a matter of interpretation:

In the first passage, talking about "2 of all living creatures, male and female," it is obvious that 2 refers two individual members (of opposite gender) from each and every species, "to keep them alive with you."

Then, when we get to the `7` specifications, I believe it`s obvious that we are now referring to CERTAIN species which fall under the classification of `clean` or `unclean,` as in 7 TYPES of clean animals "a male and its mate," for otherwise there is NO interpretation which would make sense of `a male and its mate,` i.e. couplings, within 7 individual members of a given classification.

0
Reply
Male 4,393
^^^wow... :P
0
Reply
Male 870
Not that it really matters, but FYI there were "non-clean" (non-kosher is the more modern word) birds. There`s an exhaustive list of them in Leviticus.

It`s not a contradiction at all to take 2 of everything and 7 of some things, you know. There`s still 2 of everything.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Thanks Ninja, apparently that`s its function. I had to delete all posts subsequent to my introduction, for apparently I had accidentally deleted it earlier; but it`s obvious which claims you are responding to, so if people can just read my statements to his response in reverse-order, that would be just fine!

Also, I just don`t know HOW these 13th-century monks could have just glanced-over such glaring contradictions as these, especially when their only occupation was scribing, and their only object of reproduction was `scripture!` Naievity and integrity make interesting bedfellows...

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Now, tell me the former verse does not PRECLUDE good-works from being a factor in one`s salvation?

And also checkout Galations 3:25 (especially the part about no longer being `under the law,` for "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23]) and Romans 3:28 - "For we maintain that a man is justified by FAITH APART from observing the law." Ha ha! It`s their feeble attempt to reconcile a god as the arbiter of rules, and a god as the redeemer of our posteriorly-asserted inability to follow those laws! That was the whole point of Jesus being sacrificed for us, right? So what the bible REALLY needs to do here is delineate the degree to which we must abide by these laws + faith (James) in order to get to Heaven; that`s all! What`s so hard about it, God?

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Now, in my bible, it asterisks "Merab," and describes "most Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts read `Michal,`" so there you`d be correct. But this is just another area in which Christian theists can blame `linguistic failures` in the interpretation of god, but in my book, if interpretation of god is left up to man, who is essentially infinitely fallible, then what possible rationale could there be for believing in any of it? At least this, from a fundamentalist point-of-view...

Anyway, so far as contradictions go, I found a much better one a while back which really underlies the Christian corner-stone of faith vs. deeds:

Ephesians 2:8-9, - "For by grace you are saved through FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God`s gift - not from works, so that no one can boast."

THEN it says, in James 2:24 - "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

0
Reply
Male 3,631
You`re right, this is not a direct contradiction, for 2 does not preclude 7, though it`s obvious that either god was choosing to make this unnecessarily hard for Noah, or this myth was just a decendant of oral-tradition, and understandably confounded (I find it more reasonable to adhere to the latter conclusion). Ah, why does god have to make this so HARD for us?! As for your verse, I found a technicality in your contradiction, so long as we`re on the topic of linguistic specicifity; 2 Samuel 6:23 (NIV) reads: "And Michal daughter of Saul had no childrend to the day of her death."

and 2 Samuel 21:8 reads: "But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah`s daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul`s daugher Merab whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite."

0
Reply
Male 902
Yes, the bible is a mindf*ck.

Anyone who doesn`t know that hasn`t attempted to read it. Continuity and resolution meant sh*t back in those days, apparently.

"Hell with Ephesians, I`m writing THIS goddamned book.", said James

0
Reply
Female 718
did anyone thing the dark haired guy sounded like jack black?
0
Reply
Male 205
lol NyQ
your posts are full of hypocrisy :)
baalthazaq was offering you some information: dont be offended by that (not just you but me, dont assume that i dont want to hear what he has to say)

i was going to go on... but i realy cba

--
some of that was funny, but it was still too full of poo to be truly funny

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Don`t get me wrong. Things like this provide evidence for error, but aren`t necessarily contradictory.

If we have two seemingly identical verses:
"Bob had a cat that he doted on"
"Bob had a dog that he doted on"

It`s perfectly reasonable to suggest one is a mistranslated/inaccurate version of the other, however, he could just have had a cat and a dog, and you can`t really argue contradiction.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Well look at it this way. Contradictions occur when one meaning excludes another. In this case they aren`t necessarily exclusive.

In some versions of the Bible. (Holman, Young, American Standard Version, New Living Translation, etc all translate 7:2/3 as "seven pairs").

Meanwhile KJV, NIV both seem to suggest only 7, not 7 pairs.

In this case it would be a contradiction if and only if:
In 7:2 It is definitely 7, and not 7 pairs.
In 6:19 the original text does not allow for any other translation such as:
Two types of each animal (Male and female).
Pairs of each animal (Which is still consistent with 7:2).
The language excludes the possibility of later elaboration. (E.g. If a friend is buying something at the shop: "Just get 2 of every colour. Oh and get 7 red ones they`re my favourite." will not make his head implode.)

There are much better contradictions than this.
Eg. 2 Samuel 6:23 VS 21:8.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Genesis 7:2 - "Take with you SEVEN of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also SEVEN of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throught the earth."

That`s it, SEVEN of each unclean animal, and SEVEN of each type of bird, when originally we were told to bring two of each (every kind of bird and animal, regardless of cleanliness). In fact, the only group we are now taking `two each` of are the clean animals, so what gives? That is where I am referring the contradiction to.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Hey Baalthazaq, thanks a lot. I`ll play it for you all the way through sometime if you want ;) I can do "dream-on" a bit as well, so let me know lol.

As for the first part of your post, I`m not sure he was trying to rebutt my insistence on a contradiction, but if you are talking about the same thing I was, here`s why it`s still contradictory outside any cleanliness or bird/non-bird issues:

"Genesis 6:19 - You are to bring into the ark TWO of ALL living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. TWO of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

Ok, so that`s ALL creatures, regardless of race, creed or cleanliness; so why are we to bring 7 each of certain SELECT categories once we get to Chapter 7?

0
Reply
Male 3,631
"Don`t be ridiculous. Why should there be a connection between the English word animal and whatever the Hebrew word is for `non-bird animals`?"

Well, I was using the New International Version when I quoted that passage; I just found it interesting that Hebrews didn`t apparently find use in assigning clean/unclean status to birds, and thus did not consider them to be within the same classification of `animal` as others. Obviously, there is a Hebrew word for animal, and for some reason birds are not included in that. So were fish considered animals? Insects? Bacteria (no, they were considered demons)? Just an interesting cultural meme/convention, like how some cultures only use two color specifications: green and black (edible and inedible).

0
Reply
Male 3,255
Hey Baalthazaq, Don`t worry, there are about 20% of us Americans that arent complete idiots, heh. Its just that, here in America, as it stands right now, being an ignorant childish waste of space is "hip."

Maybe someday it will be considered "cool" to act like an intelligent adult around here, and then the worlds greatest superpower might actually use itself for some GOOD! hehe.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Exactly what I was referring to Suicism, although I first heard it on "QI", and I have to agree with Cy here that it`s not a contradiction for the reason he stated.

And I`m not gonna look at the solo to Stairway the same ever again. Love the video by the way, nicely done.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Thanks for the input, both you guys. I`m glad you enjoyed it, and hoped it was easy to follow as well as informative. NyQ, you should take a Harmony class; it all comes together quicker than you would expect. Cy, I`m a pretty good pianist, I just lack proper technique and discipline for that area of piano-study. I pickup on Chopin quite easily, as well as other pieces which hold my interest and are usually fast-paced, but tend to procrastinate pieces which do not grab my attention as immediately. I do love Elton John as well, however, so any requests you might have from him please let me know! Again, thanks for watching, and you`re totally welcome to the effort so long as I succeeded in teaching you something!
0
Reply
Male 870
[quote]On 6/7/2007 10:39:42 PM Suicism wrote: In fact, in this verse, the only dual-pairing involved unclean animals and birds, which apparently unbeknownst to Yahweh are also considered animals.[/quote]Don`t be ridiculous. Why should there be a connection between the English word animal and whatever the Hebrew word is for `non-bird animals`?
0
Reply
Male 870
Thanks for the video, Suicism. I knew some of that stuff, but not all. You demonstrated it very nicely. You look like you`re a pretty good pianist too, although I wouldn`t know--I only play harmonica, and that badly.

The music still sounds Arabic to me, though, even on the link Baalthazaq gave to the original Punjabi song.

0
Reply
Male 375
wow, dude! thanks for the video! some pretty cool stuff. ive always had a little bit of interest in music theory (not enough to study it, though).

thx for taking the time to do that, really.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Not so fast, killer; I only know this because I`ve been confronted by fundamentalists about it, and this nitpicky approach is where I feel Baalthazaq might have been coming from: the book states "Fruit," it doesn`t specify as to any particular type of fruit.

As for the Noah segment, I think the hair he might have been splitting can be found in this verse:

Genesis 7:2 - "Take with you SEVEN of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also SEVEN of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throught the earth."

The problem? The bible contradicts itself on this issue; it shouldn`t be so surprising. In fact, in this verse, the only dual-pairing involved unclean animals and birds, which apparently unbeknownst to Yahweh are also considered animals, though due to their uselessness to early warring Semetic tribesman may not have yielded a cleanliness status.

0
Reply
Female 36
baalthazaq-
Genesis 3:6-When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Genesis 6:19-You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

so dont say its not in the bible until you actually know, cuz your just making yourself look stupid.

0
Reply
Female 2,084
haha.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Thank you! I`m glad you enjoyed it.
0
Reply
Male 902
`Alright Baalthazaq, and to all others who might be interested, here is the link!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uDyfH5Z7tks`

You f*cking showoff.

Meant in a good way, I assure you.

0
Reply
Male 99
I like the Bomb convo...

"This is the best frat EVER! You guys are the bomb!"

"No, you`re the bomb."

"Naw, y`all are the bomb!"

"No...you ARE the bomb."

Best ever.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Alright Baalthazaq, and to all others who might be interested, here is the link!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uDyfH5Z7tks

0
Reply
Female 6
"You`re the bomb."
"No, you are the bomb."
"NO, YOU`RE the bomb!"
"No. You are the bomb. Believe me!"
I cracked up at that... and the girl in the sheet. That was hilarious.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Yeah, me too lol!
0
Reply
Male 375
I`m sad that you have partaken in an activity that might result in your reproducing.
0
Reply
Female 1
all of u are virgins??? im so gald i aint no virgin
0
Reply
Male 3,631
15-minutes left in rendering it to the 100mb filesize required by youtube...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Yeah, thanks for the input, B.

Alright, coming right-up...

0
Reply
Male 2,958
Holy cow. How clever!

I`ve never seen that picture/heard that phrase in every argument on IAB. Ever.

You should have a tv show where you do other original things like talking to unwed teenage mothers or reporting current local events.

0
Reply
Female 426

0
Reply
Male 2,372
Hilarious!

A great little parody on the "religion of peace."

"...No.YOU are the bomb!"

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Fair point. Feel free to PM me a link to the musical enlightenment when it`s ready. :)
0
Reply
Male 2,781
HAHAHAHHA WHEN THAT CHICK SHOWED HER FOOT!!!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
It`s alright Baalthazaq, I didn`t really take it personally; but if these lampooners didn`t specify whether they felt the entities would be virginal only originally, or eternally, then you can`t insert your own assumptions about their ignorance regarding the nature of continued `virginity` based on the initial information which this parody provides us with. By the way, the musical-enlightenment petition extends to you as well.
0
Reply
Female 53
Geeze, Baalthazaq. Double post much?

Thanks for hijacking another thread. Usually, people on IAB look at the posting, put their two cents and move on....maybe a reply or 2.

There are plenty of other forums on the net where people debate themselves to death (youthink for example)

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Thanks Cy, and to NyQ, I recognized the minor but significant distinction between your respective avatars, but I figured I`d leave an analysis of its finer points to you, and I can say I was not disappointed in my decision.

Also, if you`re interested, I would be happy to post a video-explication of these scalar definitions and distinctions on youtube for a more complete understanding of what the F*CK I`m talking about for your sake. Also, I don`t blame you for mixing-up the scalar definitions, its certainly not expected from the `untrained ear.` I give you an `A` for effort regardless.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Well, the definition matters when it comes to certain interpretations of what this could mean.

If (for whatever reason) you knew no copulation had occurred on a particular farm. You could describe any of the animals there as "virgins".

I`m fairly sure it`d matter to quite a few annoyed Muslims if they arrived in heaven to meet their 72 "female insects or other arthropods that produce fertile eggs without copulating"source

But sorry for being so short with you, you just picked a bad time to hit on one of my pet peeves. :)

0
Reply
Male 375
"Re me and NyQ, sure we look the same superficially, but that eye closed in a sardonic but friendly, confiding but with a slight sense of aloofness, intelligent yet good-humored wink makes all the difference, don`t you think? (There`s also a slight blurriness about my image. That wasn`t intentional, but you can think of it as a halo.)"

Indeed. But still, we could easily be brothers. Who`s your daddy? lol

0
Reply
Female 129

0
Reply
Male 870
Thanks for the musical information, Suicism. Maybe I was wrong about lumping Arabic and Oriental music together, but to my untrained ear at least, the music in the clip had an Arabic sound. All those half-note steps where I`d expect whole notes (if that vague description tells you what I mean).

Re me and NyQ, sure we look the same superficially, but that eye closed in a sardonic but friendly, confiding but with a slight sense of aloofness, intelligent yet good-humored wink makes all the difference, don`t you think? (There`s also a slight blurriness about my image. That wasn`t intentional, but you can think of it as a halo.)

0
Reply
Male 124
huhu...this is not funny...but a video of a pope ******* a goat should be funny...hahaha..
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Correction NyQ, I meant Cy (my, you two look awfully similar!).
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Well Baalthazaq, what were you arguing in the first place then? They sound virginal, and you admit there are 72 of them. Don`t make me feel stupid for throwing the brothel concept out there, when you were intentionally witholding the degree of clarity and simplicity with which you could have originally addressed my question.

Also, on another musical note, much of Arabic music is HALF-toned, meaning instead of adhering to Western standards of equal-temperment tuning popularized by Bach which specifies 12 keys in every scale, equally tuned apart from eachother, the arabic scales often specify 24 `keys` or more before an original frequency (beginning of scale) is matched by its double at the `end` of the scale.

0
Reply
Male 375
suicism,

`Twas not I.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
A houri is essentially a mythical being. Supposedly a human-ish creature not descended from Adam. Supposedly very beautiful, with jet black hair and eyes, and white skin.

(Yes they do sound like goth chicks. No I don`t know if they wear chains. No I don`t know if they come custom made with different hair colours or whatever)

Described as virgins often because a) They`re created specifically for each person, and therefore have never had sex until you get to heaven, but mainly b) the most mentioned trait they have is that they always "feel" virginal.

There is some not so serious debate as to what exactly this means. I`ve heard everything from regenerating hymens to the personal time shifting intervention of God. I don`t hold much stock in either of those.

They get 72 houris to each (deserving) person. Not a brothel of 72 which all of heaven share.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Thank you for looking-up my linguistic concern, NYQ; and here is a note on the musical-scaling for you:

there IS such a thing as Arabic-style music, and it is in fact typified by the harmonic-minor scale, which involves the same components as a normal minor-scale except its last degree (7th-8th) finishes as if major, with the leading tone intact, which is why you hear that large-gap between the 6th and 7th intervals; the 7th interval has, in effect, jumped by a half-step from its original positioning, to create a full step-and-a-half gap from the 6th interval in ITS natural state.

That is in fact DIFFERENT from the "oriental" sound, which is typified by the major pentatonic scale; also popularized by the "Stairway to Heaven" solo in minor form, and let us not forget the archetypal minor-blues scale (which involves an added flat-5 interval of course)!

0
Reply
Male 375
Ya know what? I am quite through. I`m hardly inclined to partake further in an argument where you quote back my own statements to me while I myself have been deprived of the same liberty.

By all means, continue thinking you are smarter. Continue dodging damaging questions for which you have no response.

And learn a new "word of the week." "Incidentally" is a little worn out.

You know, of the two of us, which has been caught outright lying? Certainly not me. It was only a double-barreled question because any response would require you to actually admit that you lied. True, it may be called a "complex question," to speak in terms of logical fallacy, but no one here needs you to answer the question to know you just lied.

Go make up crap elsewhere. Perhaps people here do want to learn, but they certainly don`t want to learn the lies you have to offer.

0
Reply
Male 870
Re houris and virgins, a snippet from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"also spelled huri , Arabic Hawra` , plural Hur in Islam, a beautiful maiden who awaits the devout Muslim in paradise. The Arabic word hawra` signifies the contrast of the clear white of the eye to the blackness of the iris. There are numerous references to the houri in the Qur`an describing them as “purified wives” and “spotless virgins.”" [url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041193/houri]source[/url]

So according to the Britannica, the notion of virginity does not come from the word itself but from "numerous references in the Qur`an".

I have some vague recollection that a houri is a woman of a harem, but I`m not sure where I saw that, or if I`m remembering correctly.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
"Specifically, that the dictionary definition of the word for "Virgin" is not the same as the Arabic word. It`s mistranslated, a `Houri` can still be a `Houri` after she has had sex. Obviously, that does not equate to a virgin."

Thanks for finally answering my question; sort of. I still don`t know what the proper translation is supposed to equate to; concubine, wife, sister, hoochie-momma? Do these dead souls get to share their conjugal succubi? Or are they all specific to one brothel?

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Psh, I don`t answer double barreled questions.

You know, in law school I thought they taught you logical fallacies so that you could avoid them, not as a "how to" to arguing.

Incidentally, you haven`t demonstrated that the act or actor is ignorant. Do you get that yet?

I didn`t clean up the board for any kind of intellectual inadequacies, that again is your own assumption from your own preconceptions which you are circularly using to defend your opinions.

I cleaned up the board initially because it`s annoying as hell to have 2 people bickering in a thread that is SUPPOSED to be for everyone. Which is why I tried to ignore you until someone started speaking on my behalf. I`m fairly sure 90% of the people here would want us both to delete all our posts in here.

If you ever decide to actually attempt a proper response I`ll be waiting. If it nears adequacy, I`ll respond.

0
Reply
Male 957
that was hilarious!
0
Reply
Male 375
I`m going home for the day.
0
Reply
Female 403
so much hating. lol i thought it was funny :] " no.. you are the bomb. believe me." xD
0
Reply
Male 375
But what is there to respond to? Those are your opinions and I do not fault you for those.

However, by definition, if an act is "ignorant" then the actor is "ignorant." I refer you, again, to my previous post on that issue. For instance, a person jumping off a roof is an "ignorant act," however, the act itself cannot be said to have a lack of knowledge. Therefore, the person that committed the act suffers from a lack of knowledge. Get it yet?

And, it is not I who have questioned these other people`s intelligence. That was you when you summarized your posts to "clean up the board."

Now answer my question instead of side-stepping: What drove you to make something up when you admittedly had no idea what you were looking at?

0
Reply
Male 92
Hey, baalthazaq and nyq, why dont you guys just make out and get it over with. You are obviously obsessed with one another. It was a stupid fake trailer, and people who get offended by it are even stupider. And people who devote as much time to arguing about it as you two have, are even stupider still. And stop using a thesaurus for your posts just to look more intelligent.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
I even asked you if there was anything you wanted put back in and you responded with abuse. Which quite frankly to me just looks like failure to find anything.

At the very least you failed to find anything relevant or worse still, remember anything relevant. Which really only comes to the conclusion that it was an effective summary once I answered your two complaints. (One real, one fictitious).

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Furthermore I would think it is more an insult to the IAB posters to say they DON`T want to learn anything new, than your ridiculous accusation that I`m being arrogant by assuming they do.

You accused me of hiding the hindi mistake:
"You conveniently forgot to capture in your summary that you claimed the writing in the video was in Hindi, when it was in English. Let`s not leave that out of your self-serving Reader`s Digest account."

Which was a flat out lie. A summary need not include aspects outside of what it is summarizing. I was summarizing the deleted posts. I stated as much.
"Deleted all my responses to NYQ to clean up this thread. In summary I said:"

"Oh, and you removed the link to the "dictionary.com" reference you made. Undoubtedly a powerful source, but it only demonstrated that you aren`t nearly as intelligent as you would have us believe."

I stand by my statement, as well as the link provided.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Everything in my summary.

Because something CAN be defined generally as "ignorant" doesn`t make an individual example ignorant. That`s like saying "Chairs can be red" "Um, yes" "Therefore your chair is red!".

I argued the task we were talking about isn`t ignorant in and of itself.

My second statement can be demonstrated as to where and whether I qualify myself in any way before speaking. I generally do not with exception to cases of direct experience.

I said I don`t pity people here. I make statements, and in most cases I expect people to be able to verify them themselves unless I provide the verification.

I claimed you mimic me only in the negative aspects you claim to hate. You do not respect the IAB posters enough to make decisions for themselves and feel you need to bottle feed them information only when it relates specifically to your ego.

0
Reply
Female 426
Hahaha that was hilarious

kinda

I stopped watching half way through

0
Reply
Male 375
I won`t even respond to that.
0
Reply
Male 375
Tell me what I haven`t answered. Although, it`s kind of difficult to tell since you`ve erased everything.

I would also like to hear your theories on why you think you are smarter than me.

And, again, here is one question you have not answered: What drove you to make something up when you admittedly had no idea what you were looking at?

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Lol, and I make stuff up?

"Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:53:35 PM
You deleted the post that contained your admission that you are an arrogant c/oc/ksucker and asked to have the pleasure of blowing me."

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Well while we`re throwing out accusations, here`s what I think. I think you`re jealous. You haven`t answered a single one of my statements and have side stepped everything everyone has said, choosing instead of giving a single response to make more and more ludicrous accusations.

You think sadly that I am better than you and you hate it, you hate that you don`t compare and hate even more that on some internet forum what I say might possibly carry more weight than what you have to say, that`s why you went off on B-Hazard for defending me.

You crave the attention and therefore set yourself up as some sort of IAB folk hero saving them from me. It eats you up inside that you`re not worth much, and it makes you feel big to pretend you`ve somehow outsmarted someone smarter than you.

So what have you actually got out of all this? I made a mistake about some letters. Carry on defending IAB oh mighty saviour. ;)

0
Reply
Male 375
This was not a mistake, it was a lie.

"I knew they weren`t Arabic and got irritated and made an assumption based on how the letters looked."

See? You just make stuff up when it suits you, but you continue to characterize it as a mistake. lol.

0
Reply
Male 375
And you still haven`t answered my question: What drove you to make something up when you admittedly had no idea what you were looking at?

Come on, let`s attack substance and not form. It`s much more interesting that way.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
So any other accusations you`d like to put forward? Did I make a spelling mistake somewhere you`re going to claim is my sinister attempt to trick the world into thinking that is the correct spelling?
0
Reply
Male 375
I didn`t spot it in my 8th post. That was only when I saw fit to mention it.

I never claimed that you held yourself out as anything other than someone who was knowledgeable about a topic. When you say "this is this, and that is that" you are representing that you know something. It was your representation, not mine.

You have me at a distinct disadvantage when you count my posts, because you have deleted so many of yours that it`s impossible to know when or if you posted anything. At least I have the decency to stand by everything that I said the first time around without re-thinking it and going back and "summarizing."

I don`t think that anyone is suggesting you are trying to hide your "mistake." But what is curious is what you ARE trying to hide in having deleted so many posts. Oh, and to call an outright lie a `mistake` is kind of downplaying the matter.

You`re a fraud and everything you say lacks credibility, save that which bears a source

0
Reply
Male 1,364
hahahahaha that was well done
0
Reply
Male 4,546
I thought you were satisfied, evidently not.

What I don`t understand is why people are looking to me as if I ever claimed to be an authority on Hindi in the first place.

And also why some people are ludicrously suggesting I`m trying to hide it. My mistake is there in the first post, unedited.

Pabasa spotted it, Bambii spotted it, NyQ spotted it (in what, his 8th post?), and now Cy.

For all your talk of doing this to bring me down a peg on behalf of the IAB community, all you started with was "Stop whining".

You only took on the mantle of Guardian of IAB when you couldn`t grab a hold of anything worthwhile to fault me on. (Until your 8th post of course where you started claiming I had put myself forward as some sort of Hindi language guru).

0
Reply
Male 375
Thanks! I went back to try to save it, but too much time had elapsed.

I know, it looks like I`m talking to myself. I`m really not that crazy....

0
Reply
Male 870
^actually, it`s now NYQ`s second most recent
0
Reply
Male 870
[quote]On 6/7/2007 3:47:55 PM Baalthazaq wrote: I thought you were satisfied. Evidently not. [/quote](just supplying context for NYQ`s most recent post, which responded to a deleted comment)
0
Reply
Male 375
LOL!

Deleting your posts again?

*sigh* It`s shameful that someone who is apparently as strong-willed as yourself doesn`t even have the balls to stand by what he says. At least other people, even having acted like complete a$$holes, will leave their posts up.

0
Reply
Male 870
I didn`t recognize the music specifically, but I have heard Arabic music, and it is very similar in style. It`s modal, for one thing, and it uses a different scale than Western music typically does. I don`t know enough music theory to break down any more of it, but "Arabic-style" wasn`t BS. Oriental would probably be a better way to put it.

But see, that`s not the same as if I had said "The music is definitely Arabic". Now that would have been BS.

0
Reply
Male 375
I`m always game for round 2!

But, how about addressing substance: What drove you to make something up when you admittedly had no idea what you were looking at?

0
Reply
Male 375
My assumption, based on how the letters looked, would be English.

But, when in doubt, make it up!

0
Reply
Male 4,546
The music for the title was SPECIFICALLY by Punjabi MC and called "Mundian To Bach Ke".
Here`s a link to when they were on Top of the Pops.

Technically that would probably make the language being sung Punjabi, and the music specifically Bhangra.

Which technically would be Pakistani and British respectively, with Hindi influences, but neither in themselves directly Hindi other than having roots in the Indian subcontinent.

And I was wrong about the letters. :P I knew they weren`t Arabic and got irritated and made an assumption based on how the letters looked.

"And the Music was certainly Arabic-style".
So what else are YOU BSing about?

0
Reply
Female 199
:( im confused
0
Reply
Female 269
Stupid and stereotypical
0
Reply
Male 1,114
Also, your Profile description: "Sort of the stereotypical geek" And yet you`re all "Don`t be stereotypical! it`s baaaaad!"
0
Reply
Male 870
[quote]On 6/7/2007 3:32:09 AM Baalthazaq wrote: Meh, Writing was Hindi not Arabic, so was the music...[/quote]
Baalthazaq, I usually like reading your posts--you seem to put some thought into them, unlike many posters here--but you have seriously overreached yourself this time. The writing was neither Hindi nor Arabic: Pabasa points out that it was a stylized version of "Al-Q". The music was certainly Arabic-style.

So just where did you pull Hindi from as you tried to sound like you knew what you were talking about? And if you`re BSing about that, what else are you BSing about?

0
Reply
Male 31
They should so make that movie
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Sigh. Because there`s not a difference between this trash and people who do it and know what they`re talking about like Allah Made Me Funny.
0
Reply
Male 1,114
Baalthazaq, nobody cares...
0
Reply
Male 1,111
People can`t take a fu*cking joke, stereotypes are re-enforced daily for comedy sake. You just have to learn to laugh at the ones that apply to you and everyone else. I`d ask if you had seen a comedian lately but you don`t have a sense of humor.
0
Reply
Male 366
lol @ the anchorman bit.
0
Reply
Male 375
You deleted the post that contained your admission that you are an arrogant c/oc/ksucker and asked to have the pleasure of blowing me.

And yes, you stated why you deleted the posts. I`m sure everyone appreciates your "cleaning up" of the thread, but no other threads are cleaned up and they still function perfectly well. Your excuse for deleting your posts is thinly- and lousily-veiled because it`s clear that you didn`t like a record being made of you looking like an utter fool.

Nonetheless, I saw them, so I am personally satisfied.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
The post where I mistook English for Hindi remains in this thread. (My first post). I only deleted my responses to NyQ, not anything else.

The post did not fit with the link as the url+tags count towards the "Max Chars" but to be honest I just lost it when copying and pasting. (Incidentally I stand by my statement that it is not ignorant).

I stated why I deleted the posts. If you wish to imagine it is for some more sinister reason feel free. If there`s something I *actually* missed point it out and I will delete this post and replace it with one that contains the missing element.

I think you`ll find anything relevant is there.

0
Reply
Male 375
Failed again.
0
Reply
Female 511
National Lampoon = lame.

This skit = lamer.

This type of comedy in general = double lame.

I`d have to agree with Baalt here though - don`t make fun of something unless you know what it actually means. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an a$$ and then people laugh at you.

0
Reply
Male 2,958
Yeah...while I agree with what you were trying to do originally in the thread, baal. It is a little shady that you would remove everything and only summarize what makes you look good.
0
Reply
Male 154
It`s called a comedy, grow up and get a sense of humour. The fake trailer was funny.
0
Reply
Male 375
Oh, and you removed the link to the "dictionary.com" reference you made. Undoubtedly a powerful source, but it only demonstrated that you aren`t nearly as intelligent as you would have us believe.
0
Reply
Male 375
Oh, how kind of you to paraphrase for the sake of the dumb people who couldn`t understand your writings as they originally appeared.

You conveniently forgot to capture in your summary that you claimed the writing in the video was in Hindi, when it was in English. Let`s not leave that out of your self-serving Reader`s Digest account.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Deleted all my responses to NYQ to clean up this thread. In summary I said:
"Extinguishing the flame of ignorance is not an ignorant task." In particular if *anyone* learns something.

Responding with a full post is no more arrogant than posting at all. Both assume equally that the readers care about your opinion.

I stated that I don`t tend to brag about what I know. I simply post and allow people to take from it what they wish.

I stated that people`s perceptions of me are possibly mistaken if they think I`m pitying people here, or looking down on them.

I finally claimed that NyQ has sat and done all the things he claims I do, with the difference being I don`t think it`s necessarily a bad thing, and he does.

I said my messages against this video would be ideally placed here to reach the same people the video reaches.

Oh, and I said he drank the blood of innocents after his 10th or so false accusation.

0
Reply
Male 375
And the guilty.
0
Reply
Male 375
You do what you do apropos of nothing. I do what I do in response to your blatant talking-down to others and incessant need to inform everyone how wrong they are.

To clue you in, here is the real difference: You go after the public writ large; I only go after you.

And, from here on out, I, hopefully along with others, will recall that you mistook English for Hindi and we will take that into consideration when you next claim to understand something that we don`t.

0
Reply
Male 16
Your the bomb! noo..your the bomb... :-P
0
Reply
Male 4,546
And incidentally, my original statement was pointing out something that is "dead wrong". Specifically, that the dictionary definition of the word for "Virgin" is not the same as the Arabic word. It`s mistranslated, a "Houri" can still be a "Houri" after she has had sex. Obviously, that does not equate to a virgin.

I have a pretty decent command of the Arabic language. (Thppppppt). :P

0
Reply
Male 375
So, now you would tell me HOW to answer a question, interesting.

Also, I never said you had a "task." That was a response to B`s statement regarding "trying...to extinguish the flame..."

And your initial statement also claimed that the writing was Hindi, when it is, in fact, English.

0
Reply
Female 441
That shud be a movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! f^ckin hilaRIOUS!!!!!!!!! pOOR gUYS... i ATCH IT
0
Reply
Male 375
Again, you didn`t provide "your opinion." You tried to re-educate everyone. Spare us, the uneducated masses, your intellectual pity.
0
Reply
Male 375
I`d also like to point out that you asked a direct question to which I provided a direct answer. You specifically ASKED to be educated, and I was very happy to oblige.
0
Reply
Male 375
I`m not trying to cure ignorance. I`m pointing out to you that you are dead wrong. I`m not trying to make some kind of sweeping political statement about cultures and condemning comedy for their use of stereotypes.

I responded because you made a statement of fact that was wrong. But the type of ignorance you are condemning is cultural, not semantic. Furthermore, those who made the statement against which you spoke (the producers of this `trailer`) will never hear your rant. If you want to set someone straight, address the culprit.

0
Reply
Male 375
But it is pretty arrogant to assume that anyone wants to be taught anything. It`s even more arrogant to believe that they want to be taught by you (`you` being used in the indefinite sense).
0
Reply
Male 2,958
I think anyone running around saying "I heard 2+2=5 so it must be true!" is asking to be taught.
0
Reply
Male 375
Who`s asking to be taught?

And, no, that word is absolutely correct. Look at definition 4 at the link you provided, genius. "...showing a lack of knowledge" Ergo, undertaking the task of "extinguish[ing] the flame of ignorance" shows the "lack of knowledge" of he who makes that attempt. If you`ll notice, the link you provided also provides an example, to wit: "an ignorant statement." If a statement can be ignorant (i.e. showing a lack of knowledge in the speaker), then a task can be ignorant (i.e. showing a lack of knowledge in the person) as well.

I have a pretty decent command of the English language. Don`t try to throw the dictionary in my face.

0
Reply
Male 2,958
I think he meant it`s ignorant for someone to assume they can cure ignorance. Which is sad but true. But while you may not be able to terminate it as a whole, you can definitely enlighten some people.
0
Reply
Male 2,958
-Preaching on and on about everyone`s ignorance gets old.

O, to only be as enlightened as he. We are not worthy to be in his e-presence. All kowtow to the eternal wisdom of Baalthazaq.-

He`s responding to something. He`d be an arrogant prick if he was just spewing off how much more he knew and people weren`t acting like they knew it all already. He`s just trying to clear up what a general audience sees as fact, I don`t get how that comes off as someone boasting about their knowledge.

0
Reply
Male 452
Ooooh! Hot hot hot Light Blue OMFG! It could be a gig fat man in under that blue cloth-thingy - Lol!
0
Reply
Male 452
pretty funny jokes in there ^^
0
Reply
Male 375
Preaching on and on about everyone`s ignorance gets old.

O, to only be as enlightened as he. We are not worthy to be in his e-presence. All kowtow to the eternal wisdom of Baalthazaq.

0
Reply
Male 2,958
My point is everyone is jumping on his back like he has no reason to say what he`s saying, and what he`s saying shouldn`t aggravate anyone in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 375
Trying to "extinguish the flame of ignorance" is, in itself, an ignorant task.

In any event, the satire of this comedy sketch is meant to play on common misconceptions, not to make some resounding political statement.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
I`m not really all that offended by the videoclip.

There`s a difference between a Turkish TV station releasing a sitcom called "The Taliban" making fun of the group, and someone who doesn`t have a clue what they`re talking about playing off and enforcing stereotypes.

0
Reply
Male 2,958
Unfortunately it`s only good to laugh at each other when you`re the one laughing. I guarantee if this were something offending anyone who is talking down on Baal they`d be right in his shoes. As a matter of fact, since the probability is pretty high that it`d be a younger kid, they`d be a lot more immature about it and just slinging insults instead of trying to educate people further and extinguish the flame of ignorance.

But maybe that`s just my view on the situation.

0
Reply
Male 442
If you find it offencive its because your looking for offence. Its good to laugh at each other once in a while
0
Reply
Female 89
Lol..
I Liked The Bit Where The Woman Came Out Of The Room And Then Showed Her Foot And They All Got Erections.

Classic.

0
Reply
Male 375
Baalthazaq, take the stick outta ur vagina...pu$$y.

You`re always whining and crying about something. It must suck to always have something to bitc# about.

0
Reply
Female 62
*rolls eyes*..... well that disgusted me.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Irrespective of how logical it is, demonizing any culture in a similar manner to the blood libel (making people believe the Jews drank the blood of children during the holocaust) is bad.

Currently western media uses the following words wrong, or substitutes an inadequate translation:
Jihad, Jihadi, Martyr, Taliban.
The word we use for school is used as "terrorist training camp" (Madrasa). Etc.

Seriously, imagine a situation where your entire culture is demonized like that.

When you say "I`m picking up the kids from school", the media reports you as saying "My kids are at a terrorist training camp".

Or a reporter going into prisons in the US and saying:
As you can see, rape is common in what they call these "Bathrooms".
Here is an American now, can you tell me where you`re going?
Suicism: Um.. just the bathroom.
As you can see, rape is like a hobby in American culture.

0
Reply
Female 3,726
Sparky, what is wrong with you? Must you put up racist ignorance on every post. Go to your damn KKK website and have a blast there! bye bye...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Oh and bambii, as a note, it looked hebrew to me; how ironic that would be!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Fabulous premise; by the way Baalth, 72 virgins, 72 wives, 150 pre-pubescent boys, or whatever else may be dangling from that stick, isn`t the very concept of eternal reward/punishment ridiculous anyway?
0
Reply
Female 56
yeh i no this could be seen as offensive but jeez lets all have some fun im sik of political correctness...man every where is stereotyped and ridiculed etc etc no1 misses out on getting bagged on...the point is 2 not take it 2 heart n learn 2 laugh at urself..i could say 10 sterotypes i belong 2 at least n ill laugh at every one
0
Reply
Female 333
Baalthazaq, I`m 99.9% positive that that wasn`t hindi. Maybe not Arabic, but definitely not Hindi.

Oh, and just... not funny. I think them invading a jewish Frat would be amazing.

0
Reply
Male 4,012
Writing looks more like hebrew than arabic. Then I realized it was "AL-Q".

But meh, stereotypes, and ignorance. I can appreciate the comedy but it still sucks.

0
Reply
Male 902
It`s a fake trailer for a fake movie from a comedy website, Baalthazaq.

And it was funny.
`You`re the bomb` `No, you ARE the bomb`

0
Reply
Male 4,546
Meh, Writing was Hindi not Arabic, so was the music, but I guess anything related to brown people will do right?

Incidentally, it`s not 72 "virgins" like you hear on every American comedy skit for the last 20 years, but hey I guess it doesn`t matter that you`re mocking a concept you don`t even have an inkling of. I dunno why I expect better when you learn 90% of your theology from the disney channel.

Yeah, sure, the devil is a red guy with horns who pokes people in Hell. People turn into harp players when they die. Eve gave Adam an apple. The Animals went in Noah`s Arc 2 by 2. So much stuff and not a word of it actually exists anywhere in the bible.

Not surprised people find this funny, if ignorance is bliss.

(P.S. Don`t even bother quoting the "72 virgins" line to me if you can`t translate the word yourself. You`ll find it`s not the word for virgin.)

0
Reply
Male 129
Pun heaven.
0
Reply
Female 670
"PHUCK TOWELHEADS" And you wonder why we`re probably one of the most hated countries right now.
Anyway, slightly entertaining, but those guys were huge... :]
Nice music, by the way. I love it... I`m being completely serious.
0
Reply
Female 87
Yah, not that funny.
0
Reply
Male 908
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
YES!
That was perfect my paki friends will love this.
0
Reply
Male 453
No believe me you are the bomb.
0
Reply
Male 126
IRAN to get the first tickets.
0
Reply
Male 534
You`ve GOT to be kidding me
0
Reply
Male 1
Link: 72 Virgins [Rate Link] - What kind of frat house is this?
0
Reply