Krazedkat Wrote:I don't see what that has to do with anything, but shoot. What brings you to that conclusion? Note that I also donate time to charities as a volunteer.

First quoted portion: about ownership. Of which slavery is ownership of a person.

Second part is my amusement that you consider me morally inferior to most atheists (probably including you) for believing that slavery is fine.

Morals are not made 'inferior' by being different.

---

(July 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm)Judas BentHer Wrote: I can't say I'd object to convicted pedophiles, rapists and murderers being crucified today in public. Bleeding hearts would crow and say, that's cruel and unusual punishment! While electing to overlook that pedophilia, rape and murder was too. Often it is said the death penalty is no deterrent. I contend that's because it's all done in secret. Nail a few convicted pedophiles, rapists, murderers to a cross around the courthouse, nail a board above their head announcing the crime they're being punished for, and I bet any pedophile, rapist or murderer with eyes to see will not help but to learn that what hangs, dies and rots before their eyes is what foretells their own destiny if they pursue their cruel and unusual deviant behaviors.

Funny thing about showing off the consequences of an action: only adds incentive to not get caught.

Seeing pirates land behind bars or pay massive fines certainly never affected me pirating things. It did accomplish making me more cautious of doing so openly though. Don't care anymore since my library is now entirely 'legit'

I've actually had the opportunity to chat with Joe Zias, Judas. He's a great guy. We both belong to a bible study email list which includes many of the foremost "minimalist" scholars in the world. I've learned a lot just reading what those guys have to say. What Zias really gets worked up about is that lying fool Simcha ( you're-not naked-and-you're-not-an-archaeologist ) Jacobovici.

(July 22, 2011 at 12:47 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Funny thing about showing off the consequences of an action: only adds incentive to not get caught.

Seeing pirates land behind bars or pay massive fines certainly never affected me pirating things. It did accomplish making me more cautious of doing so openly though. Don't care anymore since my library is now entirely 'legit'

Criminals always have an incentive not to get caught. Prisons in their area provide a visual incentive. Capital punishment legislation in their State, provides a great incentive not to get caught. And those penal institutions and death chambers where witnesses now watch sentence carried out don't show off the consequences of an action, as if that's something to parade about as a source of pride for those in charge.

Rather, they stand as reminders, including that headline about the pending execution and then the follow-up story regarding the final outcome, that there is a penalty for breaking the laws. From the most benign, unto the most severe.

Those bearing an immoral character demonstrate they cant be in compliance with law and order or virtue, because their narcissism leads them to believe they are not answerable to the law, because they are not contained in their behaviors by threat of prosecution by it, already. It's why they're criminals, because they're not compelled to be decent by their own personal choice, and they're not deterred from pursuing that unlawful avenue by what they know is the lawful punishment that will hold them accountable for that what was first their responsibility, as they believe themselves entitled to do whatever the hell they want. No matter what.

I've often wondered if there's statistics between the old histories when punishments were public and brutal, instead of brutal and private now. Criminality always contains the incentive not to get caught. When moral character nor law provides no incentive against choosing to commit criminal acts, no manner of prosecution public or private is going to bolster that what is already synonymous with malefaction.



Minimalist,
I've not heard that Mr. Jacobovici has given cause in his research to be deemed a liar. I've not watched "The Naked Archeologist" in longer than I can remember. While I've only recently become aware of Joe Zias. I imagine time flew and it seemed there wasn't nearly enough time to delve into everything you'd have liked to discuss. I enjoy programs about archeology, ancient civilizations, etc... I've yet to have the opportunity to speak with anyone in the field however.

In The Exodus Decoded Jacobovici not only mis-represented evidence he edited comments from scholars he interviewed ( Manfred Bietak who is doing the excavations at Avaris in Egypt was particularly victimized) in an effort to make it seem as if people who think he is a moron actually agreed with him.

That's "lying" as far as I am concerned.

You may find this interesting. Professor Bietak writes a scathing blast at Jacobovici.

http://drchris.me/higgaion/?p=746

Quote:The same thing happened to me. Short statements from my interview, cut out of context, come across as seeming to support the film’s argument. In fact, I objected to dating the Exodus story to the Hyksos period and the reign of Ahmose. And I objected, not because I wanted to steer clear of Biblical chronology and history (the film claims that I was afraid of the Egyptian authorities—nonsense), but because archaeology does not provide any trace of Israelites before the Iron Age (shortly before 1200 B.C.E.).

Your understanding of criminals is utterly fucked. Really... I don't even know where to start, but I'll start here:

Criminals are not necessarily more 'immoral' than you are. Just as you are not necessarily more 'immoral' than they are. Criminals are not narcissists, and the law is never respected for itself: the force behind it is. The fuck does 'contained in their behaviors' mean? Some of the most law-abiding people I know do absolutely disgusting things both to themselves and others. Criminals are not criminals as a result of not being compelled to be 'decent'. Hell, most people are criminal under that understanding. Who isn't not deterred from unlawful actions because of fear of a state when the state probably cannot do anything about it? And criminals *do* give a fuck that someone is holding an axe above their head when they do something... it's part of the risk calculation in the venture.

Criminals, again, are not maleficars.

(July 22, 2011 at 2:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: In The Exodus Decoded Jacobovici not only mis-represented evidence he edited comments from scholars he interviewed...

If I'm not mistaken there was a feature on NGC , Discovery or a similarly themed program, that featured an overview of Exodus Decoded. I saw it while surfing channels on my way to another feature I was intending to watch. So I've heard of it but I've not heard of the shenanigans Mr.Jacobovici is alleged to have committed. That's a damn shame and disappointing. Lies do no service to a science that seeks to find the truth about our ancient past.
I wonder how this revelation affects Mr.Jacobovici's standing with his peers?

---

(July 22, 2011 at 2:27 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: ...

Whatever you can live with dear, so as to defend your inclination, as you mentioned earlier, toward criminality (Piracy).

What is actually fucked is that given that you think I'd take you seriously and hold you credible, when you proffer a defense of criminality that amounts to saying, it's not all that bad.

(July 22, 2011 at 3:09 pm)Judas BentHer Wrote: Whatever you can live with dear, so as to defend your inclination, as you mentioned earlier, toward criminality (Piracy).

What is actually fucked is that given that you think I'd take you seriously and hold you credible, when you proffer a defense of criminality that amounts to saying, it's not all that bad.

She made several good points regarding human nature, risk and rewards under any venture. Theft, drug dealing et al are ventures, which is why things like the war on drugs and the like are unproductive as they fail to address the root economics, which is pretty much risk and reward, supply and demand.

In addition, she pointed out, that like many people finding it hard to imagine the universe not ruled by an angry alpha male, many people find it hard to imagine their society not ruled by an entity that can and will put you behind bars or worse for transgressions that may or may not have truly occurred. Under those pretenses, I agree with her.

An authority, like government, that is not enforcing it's will and spreading fear of itself, will be ignored and fall to the wayside, like a stable government in Somalia.

We teach our young ethics and morality in hopes of instilling basic social conduct, however, with the existence of law itself, it seems to be evident that the social contract in it of itself is insufficient at dealing with bad actors in a system. With that need apparent, we create, collectively, an apparatus that can do such at the basic core. You may have heard of this as "Law Enforcement."

Now, you may act like the coward you have presented yourself as and avoid meeting her (and now my) points, pre-offering only mindless platitudes or actually participate in this discussion.

Quote:I wonder how this revelation affects Mr.Jacobovici's standing with his peers?

That's a very good question. First you would have to decide who are his peers. He considers himself a journalist and film producer. Scholars and archaeologists consider him a charlatan.

Unfortunately, outfits like History Channel and Discovery and even Nat Geo are concerned with filling blocks of programming and pseudo-scientific religious bullshit, like what Jacobovici produces, will always find advertisers because there are so many stupid theists out there who watch this shit.

When Exodus Decoded first ran there was a panel discussion in the aftermath in which xtian scholar, Jonathan Reed, coined the term "archaeoporn" in relation to Jacobovici's garbage.
He actually gained a few points in my book for that one.

(July 22, 2011 at 3:32 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Now, you may act like the coward you have presented yourself as and avoid meeting her (and now my) points, pre-offering only mindless platitudes or actually participate in this discussion.

Oh my, how patently optimistic.
I wasn't aware she, and now you, were invested in making legitimate points. Rather, without the juvenile name calling and personal attacks, as she demonstrates herself more apt to afford, and now you in her defense, I doubt very much it would be worth my while to pursue a serious conversation.

The mindless platitudes you regurgitate as an accusation toward myself, are demonstrated repeatedly on almost a thread by thread basis by Aerzia. And you do yourself no great service in supporting everything she's had to say about criminality, interjecting your own observations, while concluding with the same asinine personal jab as is indicative of her nature.

Reasonable people know common sense, morality and decency can never be legislated. A personal moral code exists in the individual, or it does not. And while morality is not universal, that fact about it is.

Criminality exists in varying degree's and while someone who lies in order to have replaced 8 pieces of chicken they'd actually received and paid for earlier, only to later return to the store to lie and say they were absent in the order, as I saw happen recently at the local grocery, may be considered a liar and a thief, because the Deli staff knew full well they'd sold him a 16 piece bucket, that lie, that theft of 8 free pieces that it afforded, may have fed his family for a little longer.

Was his lie an illicit act? By the book, yes. If he was feeding his family the only way he could, having paid as much as he could but not having enough to afford more, perhaps not.

It all comes down to who we are and what we can live with.

However, while wasting my breath to indulge you with even that little bit, because a serious discourse is not your intent, when someone says my idea of criminality is fucked when they're a criminal, I don't give a care what she or you in her defense think of my taking issue with it.

---

(July 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I wonder how this revelation affects Mr.Jacobovici's standing with his peers?

That's a very good question. First you would have to decide who are his peers. He considers himself a journalist and film producer. Scholars and archaeologists consider him a charlatan...

I had not researched his credentials before this, having thought he was an archeologist or at the very least a anthropologist.
I'd even watched his collaborative work with James Cameron, The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Which I know came under a wash of criticism. A lot of it I must admit, didn't make sense even before I just today learned of what you're saying about his credibility.

That's a shame. But as you say, he's no doubt in business because he speaks to the demographic that needs to be placated with his unethical tactics that pervert the facts to fit a theist agenda. That's very disappointing, actually.

That's why when some of these bozos show up here and cite some "authority" I always check them out. In most cases you find they have degrees in theology or divinity or marketing or they went to a non-accredited school or, worse, a diploma mill which caters to creationist shitheads.

Nothing can be accepted at face value when dealing with the religious. They lie a lot.