Ten oz

It isn't The Senates job to just seat whomever the President nominates. It would be an abdication to just hold a vote on Kavanough without addressing the concerns of their constituents. Documents have been withheld, arbitrary timelines placed on proceedings, and now a charge of sexual misconduct. "Step up" is context of everything which has transpired is simply a call for due process and abiding by standard protocol. What unreasonable demands do you feel Democrats have made. Surely moving pushing a vote back to give time for an investigation into sexual misconduct charges isn't unreasonable? Your question is only relevant if I were being falsely accused because if the accusations were true I would deserve my life changing for the worse. In my career I have seen people accused of unwanted sexual advances. I have been a victim's advocate and written statements as a witness for investigations. I work for a federal agency and there is a thorough process for dealing with such matters. I have never seen the much alluded to and feared case where someone was falsely accused. I have seen cases where people honestly didn't seem to understand how what they did was wrong but in those cases ignorance wasn't a much of an alibi. I do not believe that false claims of sexual misconduct are a common occurrence. Generally people lie when there is something to gain by lying. What do the women who come forward gain? Do you not think Christine Blasey Ford's life is dramatically changed for the worse by all of this? To answer your question directly as possible if I were falsely accused of sexual misconduct I would absolutely not become confrontational, would be honest, and would cooperate to the best of may ability with the investigation. Once the dust settled I'd move on with my life. WTF else could I do? I am not so concerned about the potential of that I feel the need to preempt it with any sort of regulation or policy change that would protect those accused.

I remember back in 2003 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for Governor a stunt women Rhonda Miller came forward claiming Arnold had sexually harassed her. In response Arnold's campaign falsely advertised that Miller was a felon convicted of prostitution as a way to diminish her. Miller took them to court and In 04' Schwarzenegger struck a deal with her. In 06' Arnold again settle a libel case between his campaign and Journalist Anna Richardson who had also been defamed during the election in 03' after she came forward. Fast forward a few years after Arnold was out of office and it was revealed that he had a love child behind his wife back with their maid. Actress Brigitte Nielsen also came forward and revealed having an affair with Arnold behind his wife's back. Today Arnold is still making movies, hosting TV shows, is in commercials, and etc. Being outed for sexual harassment and then re-harassing his victims by slandering them publicly hasn't negatively impacted Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is just one example but the pattern is pretty clear. When wealthy men are accused of sexual misconduct they just slander the victim and trot the women in their lives out to defend them. Arnold's wife at the time, Maria Shriver, did interviews defending her husband and talking about what a great man he was. Can you imagine what a piece of work Arnold must be to trot his wife out to sing his praise while he knows damn well that he has a love child behind her back, has had multiple affairs, and the women accusing him are telling the truth. Truly despicable stuff. So while men, primarily self described conservative men, break out the tiny violins to serenade Bret Kavanough's pity party it is worth remembering that plenty of the time victims are merely slandered and dismissed when they come forward and the men continue on their merry way. Anita Hill din't keep Thomas off the bench any more than Donald Trump's 19 sexual misconduct accusers kept him out of the White House.

@Eise, Can you name a single other historical figure people bother arguing was "very probably" real for whom there is zero contemporary evidence of ???

Where is that protection for any high profile or public figure? James Comey, Robert Mueller, and Andrew McCabe have all been publicly accused of things which every media outlets broadly reported on. If all the allegations are proven false will Comey and McCabe won't get their jobs back. Countless lies were told and repeated in the media about Hillary Clinton which negatively impacted her support in various communities she had no built in protection. Public figures bare the brunt of public scrutiny and criticism. No protections were in place when people ran around claiming Obama was a secret Muslim or born in Kenya. Public figures get accused of all type of stuff and are stuck having to address them publicly. It is the nature of choosing to live a public life. No one forced Brett Kavanough seek a spot on the Supreme Court. In my opinion those who have lost marriages and family were either guilty or never had quality relationships with their spouses and family in the first place. Over 80 women have come forward against Weinstein. Not just Argento. As for her situation it is being dealt with in court. Argento hasn't gotten any sort of pass.

I gave you a +1 to remove the neg rep from the OP. You are asking a question based on your own opinion and I don't feel an OP should be neg rep'd for that. To your question whether or not MeToo has made due process a thing of the past, no it has not. Bill O'Reilly, Les Moonves, Louis CK, Matt Lauer, and others aren't in prison. What trials have taken place have been fair trials. Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstien both were able to lawyer up and be heard in court. Can you provide an example of someone not receiving "Due Process"? I wasn't a bad kid in High School relative to my siblings and peers but I got in fights, cheated on girlfriends, and did all types of questionable things. I can sit here and excuse it all on the times. Point out that nearly everyone in the neighborhood was doing the same but that would be missing the point of MeToo. The whole point of MeToo is to highlight how pervasive bad behavior has been. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. In my opinion it is healthy to shine some light on bad behavior from 30yrs ago. Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment, has sat his @## on the Supreme Court for decades meanwhile Merrick Garland who was not accused of anything never even got a hearing. The standard by which one loses a Supreme Court appointment is purely political and has nothing to do with MeToo. I have been married for 10yrs. If I was accused of something I was innocent of I do not believe my wife would leave me. If she did than obviously I have done questionable things over these years to place doubts in her mind. Trump is a well known chauvinist. From "grab'em by the P" to paying a Porn Star hush money or joking about dating his own daughter Trump has done any number of despicable things. Last I checked he hadn't lost the respect of his children, friends, and co-workers. If you "vaguely" recalled that a judge who'd been tapped for the Supreme Court of Canada had attempted to bugger you 30yrs ago would you want them appointed?

Special Relatively is a discipline tackled internationally by Professors and students. Groups like OMICS host thousands of workshops and conferences around the world addressing the issue and have over 50,000 board members and editors. The view of Academia is quantifiable and the pulse is regularly checked. It isn't merely a handful full of people doing the work but rather hundreds of thousand all over the globe. MIT, Yale, Stanford, and on and on and on all have course work on Special Relatively. It is comical to me you'd make the comparison. There is no where near the number of people formally tackling the issue of Jesus's historicity as there is tackling Special Relatively. The Historicity of Jesus is a niche field of study and Cottage Industry for the likes of people like Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, and etc. You can not quantify the majority view of Historians on the issue partly because Jesus's Historicity isn't a true discipline of study. As such I think you overstate what the consensus is and which portions are fringe. It simply is not a robustly studied subject. 'Best possible" evidence would be contemporary artifacts. A single contemporary artifact would be far greater than none and multiple would be even greater. Finding just one contemporary artifact like Jesus's tomb, a carving of his image, anything written about him in real time by anyone, and etc would be superior evidence to all of the analytic analysis of the Gospels. In the absences of anything contemporary we are left with making the best guess we can with what we've got and that type of guess isn't a good one in my book. We can keep going in circles here but you know that contemporary evidence is best. Can you name a single other historical figure people bother arguing was "very probably" real for whom there is zero contemporary evidence of ???

Right, you repeatedly insist that the overwhelming majority of historians believe something and the opposing views are fringe yet cannot quantify the claim. Rather you just continue to reference the work of an individual. When people say the overwhelming majority of doctors support vaccines or scientist support climate change those claims be quantified by global commissions and studies. They are not empty claims based in part on tradition. Because you so often cite what the overwhelming majority of historians believe as support for your own position you really should be able to quantify it. Otherwise you should have the humility to acknowledge the claim isn't as convincing/meaninful as you led on. Since the claim is so pivotal to your overall view your inability to support lowers the overall probability that what you believe is in actually correct. To be clear I accept that the majority of Historians may agree Jesus was a real person. However I have no idea what to make of that in lieu of no clear work on the subject. I am on the fence as to whether or not Jesus existed. To make a high quality guess one needs high quality information. High quality information would be something contemporary. The more the better. Nothing contemporary to Jesus have been found. So a high quality guess cannot made. What Eise seems to be arguing is that based on what lower tier evidence which is available the best guess is that Jesus probably lived. I simply cannot wrap my head around the usefulness of that position. The Best guess based on less than the best evidence is not a strong guess in my book.

I asked Eise directly how they are quantifying what the consensus is in the above post while noting what consensus looks like for the other matters they mentioned. It will be interesting to see if the response.

Not necessarily. Economic Prosperity doesn't always lead to the most logical outcomes. One just need to look at Qatar and Saudi Arabia or even Brexit and Trump to see clear examples of that. Kim Jong-un has done a good job positioning himself as the reason for the looming prosperity. He has been taking victory laps meeting with foreign leaders while refusing to yield his Nuclear weapons. Kim Jong-un is receiving much in exchange for nothing. It is possible his popularity within North Korea is only swelling.

I personally have no collusion. I do not pretend to know whether Jesus ever existed as a flesh and blood man or not. Tax records or any type on contemporary marterial would be the best type of evidence. In the absence if that I don't feel quality (better than 50/50) probabilities can be concluded.

I am not sure why you are asking me this question. As I previous stated to my knowledge no such record exists. If I am mistaken please provide a citation.

I assume this is a Gospel of Luke reference? No, to my knowledge there are no Roman tax records of Jesus contemporary to his life. If there is that would be excellent evidence that he existed. Do you have a citation for such?

That was 300yrs after Jesus was said to have lived.

Paul wrote in a variant of Greek. Authorship of most of the Gospels is unknown however so who is to say whether the earliest versions of them are originals or not? What do you think Roman said of the authors of Mark, Luke, Mathew and John ? We do not even know who those authors were or how many of them there were. Romans said nothing about Jesus contemporary to his life. Several decade after Jesus's life Romans made references to Christians but not Jesus individually.

If I am lost in the woods, cold & tired, and come across a log cabin I do not need to understand how or when it was built to understand how and why it will provide me comfort and safety. Different aspects of things can be known without the totality of everything being know. There is no contradiction there. You seem to have a hard time accepting that anything can be understood unless everything is understood.

Nope, I can quantify what the majority view is among scientists for vaccination, 9/11, and climate. For vaccinations I could get on on the CDC, NCBI, ECDC, WHO or etc site and read thousands upon thousands of studies conducted all over the world. For 9/11 there is an official commission report which included interviews with over 1,200 in 10 countries. For Climate Change I could read endless studies done by NASA, NOAA, DOD, IPCC, and etc. The majority view on those issue is easily accessible. Numerous comprehensive studies including the work of scientists across the globe are abundant for vaccination, 9/11, and climate. The majority view on Jesus's historicity is not as well studied. You can not direct me to numerous international partnership studies and professional agencies who have researched Jesus's historicity specifically. As I posted early "I personally have never read a comprehensive study where the specific view of most current history academics around the world was polled. Rather are just broadly see it stated that most historian accept Jesus was probably real. I am not sure how to quantify the claim. Which isn't to say I reject it but rather I am not sure what to make of it". What you have stated here I agree with. One should not dismiss a Historian simply because they studied at Seminary. A lot of history is studied and understand this way. As it relates to Jesus specifically though there is not a single known contemporary artifact from his life. No art work of him, no tomb, no writings about him or by him, no known location of dwelling, etc ,etc. Nothing physical to compare anything to. On the archaeological side there is basically nothing. There is just the Gospels written decades after Jesus's life to be compared against themselves.

Above in response to me saying I view whether or not Jesus lived a 50/50 issue. Above stating that Jesus "very probably existed" based on careful analysis of "probably true" parts of the Gospels. Again reasserting the high probability of 85/15 while challenging for an alternative explanation. Of course an alternative explanation is not logically needed to doubt an existing one. I do not need to have a more rational explanation for how babies are made to doubt Storks create them. The above quotes are examples of the "higher levels of certainty than can be produced" I referenced in the post you quoted. Eise isn't saying they believe Jesus probably existed but rather are saying that Jesus in fact "very probably" existed and the facts bare that out. Eise is putting the highest level of probability on it as they possibly can with the understanding that 100% isn't possible. As for Christ Myth Theory being fringe that is a matter of perspective. In my last post I listed Academics who work at University that have contributed work on the issue. The Historicity of Jesus is not a large field of study in comparison to Antiquity as a whole. Relative to those who specialize in Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and etc history I would say all Jesus Historicity scholars area bit fringe. That is why Robert Price and Bart Ehrman are so speaking and debating at the same conferences and for the same audiences. I feel Eise has outline his own Historical standard and attempting to hold everyone else to it. History is not exclusively brought out via textual translation and interpretations. Archaeology is also used. One does not study Greek history purely based on Bible text and literary references from Roman scholars who came along later. Rather, artifacts are collected and studied. Contemporary writings are analysed. For example the Statue of Zeus st Olympia has been missing since the 5th century A.D. yet historians do not merely rely of literary descriptions of it (which there are more contemporary ones). Coins and other forms of art contemporary to the statute depicting it exist well as the discovery of the workshop where it was recorded to have been built. That is the "historic standard" I am familiar with. Can you name another historical figure who is broadly accepted as having been real despite zero contemporary writing and zero artifacts? I can think of none. Both Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, and etc all make money pushing their points of view on this issue view books and paid speaking engagements. There is a reason why nearly any internet search for one produces results for the others. It is a small circle of Academics doing work on this issue. Depending on which side of the issue one falls on it makes financial and marketing sense to be part of various groups and organizations. It is fair to argue it muddies the water but no conclusions can be drawn from it. In my opinion the whole issue of what the consensus of Historians think is intangible. Most historians are not writing essays, books, doing research, or etc on this issue. Jesus having been a real person has long been the traditional position. I personally have never read a comprehensive study where the specific view of most current history academics around the world was polled. Rather are just broadly see it stated that most historian accept Jesus was probably real. I am not sure how to quantify the claim. Which isn't to say I reject it but rather I am not sure what to make of it. If you or Eise are able to quantify it that would go a long way towards supporting the position Eise is advocating.

This is not completely accurate. I feel you are attempting to imply that only non academics question Jesus's existence and that is not true: Robert Price He has served as Professor of Religion at Mount Olive College and is a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies at Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary and Professor of Biblical Criticism for the Center for Inquiry Institute in Amherst, New York. Alvar Ellegård was professor of English at the University of Gothenburg, and a member of the academic board of the Swedish National Encyclopedia. Thomas L. Brodie Brodie has taught Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament at the Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis, Missouri. He has most frequently been published by Oxford University Press and Sheffield Phoenix Press. Raphael Lataster passed his Master of Arts (Research), undertaken in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, with Distinction,[has published numerous articles,and in 2015 received a teaching award, the Dean's Citation for Excellence in Tutorials in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of the University of Sydney.

The issue I take with Eise's overall position on this matter is that they are insisting on higher levels of certainty than can be produced via the disciplines involved. Who wrote all the Gospels, how many different people wrote the Gospels, what relationship the authors had to each other, or when they were written. Additionally the Gospels contain information which is broadly understood to not be true. For me that renders them unreliable. Parsing through writing styles, inconsistencies, known historical references,and etc in an attempt to extract truth from them is guesswork. It isn't enough information to say something probably was or probably was not. I do not feel anything Eise's is saying is false but it just doesn't objectively mean what they are insisting it means. There is lots of evidence that Jesus may have been a real person. However there isn't evidence that proves Jesus was real. If Eise's were arguing that they believe Jesus was real for X,Y, and Z reasons there would be nothing to debate. Rather Eise's is arguing that we all should believe and that historians know Jesus to have been real. It is that firm affirmation I am not able to agree with. Not when there is zero contemporary artifacts of any kind, the literary story of Jesus's life exclusively exists in religious text, and authorship is unknown.

What you are describing is not "un-natural evolution". You are assuming that having toes is preferable to not having toes and therefor not having toes is un-natural evolution. That isn't how evolution works. Different things in different environments give individuals a greater chance to reproduce. That is how survival of the fittest works. It is the fitness within an environment which matters. At present in various Human populations physical characteristics and health are not anymore selected for than are personality and financial characteristics are. Evolution doesn't move species in a direction of constant linear improvement. Species move towards whatever works for the given environment at the moment. Sometimes that means a species is better suited if its bigger stronger faster while other times smaller and slower has more success. In some human populations today having toes vs not having toes isn't meaningful enough to impact reproduction. Do you consider male pattern balding an example of un-natural evolution?

I have been curious what the impetus for this was. If it is something long digesting or something Trump asked for.

Trying to live long as possible is the only constant throughout humanity I am aware of. Values and priorities have constantly changed. Today money is a major priority for people. It is what many of our lives revolve around from the type of education we pursue, employment we select, govt we vote for, and etc. Yet money is relatively new. For most of humanity it did not exist. Govts, some form of structural hierarchy within groups, has always existed. Tribes had leaders and dividing up responsibilities among people has nearly always been a thing. As tribes grew larger more complex hierarchies became necessary. In my opinion govts today are still too tribal and small in scope (groups they seek to serve) to best manage our growing populations. StringJunky mentioned a "unified aspiration" my take would be "uniform management of resources". Whether it is the EU and its 28 countries all with varying policy or the US with 50 states of varying policy something more uniform will need to emerge as population increases. Our current competition based system for the use of resources will become unsustainable.

Testing of the system has been pushed back and many people have raised concerns about not being able to opt out.

I am not okay with any politician using it. Every decision a politician makes gets filtered through what the impact on their public image is. More often than not what is best for a politician comes down to pleasing their supports and not doing what is best. Politicians are graded as much for the red meat they give their base as they are the job they actually do. I think emergency management professionals should handle alert systems. Rather than a local Mayor the Local Fire Dept. or Police Chief. Rather than The President the Sec. of DHS or Administrator of FEMA. In my opinion those individuals working in specific emergency management positions have a narrower focus and doing their job well is most typically the best way to raise their profiles. Ifthe Sec.of DHS sent out a questionable alert which appeared to be bias or politically motivated it would be much easy for Congress to check them than it would be checking a President for the same alert. Terrorism and public safety are terms which can be manipulated. If on election day Trump sent out an alert warning that millions of illegals planned to vote would that be a violation? Millions of illegals voting could theoretically be a public safety concern. Even if it were a clear violation who would hold Trump accountable. Congress has yet to hold Trump accountable for any of his various violations and breaches of protocol.

I view good and bad relative. People have killed in the name of love, faith, hope, and so on. The Limbic part of the brain lacks language. The many descriptions of the way we humans feel are conscious narratives that may or may not reflect what is really going on internally. You ask why I go to the "bad" stuff but I don't see such dichotomy. Do racist people hate others or do they simply love their own? Love vs hate, right vs wrong, good vs bad, and so are are just a matter of perspective. Palestinians and Israelis both think they are doing what's right. Terrorists who blow themselves up while murdering people believe they will be rewarded by god. Executioners putting people to death consider it justice. To me there isn't good stuff and bad stuff; there is just stuff. Most people believe themselves to be good and consider their action necessary/justified. To say that what is felt internally is real externally removes the very contradictions and frailties that make humans so complex. What makes humans so individual in my opinion, drives competition, creates innovation, causes us to ask questions, and etc is that each of our minds are independent from a singular reality (emotionally). As for the cause of effect part thoughts do not need to be true to have an effect. By your logic the members of Heaven Gates must have made it on to their Alien ship. Part of being human is the ability to make stuff up. Lying and misleading others has been a powerful tool throughout history. All people exaggerate and lie to various extents everyday of our lives. Those who believe their own lies typically run into trouble. Right, what is real internally to a person or persons overtime doesn't reflect what is actually real broadly. The Divine Right of Kings is a real thing and not something I invent. Humans earliest incarnations of God were directly attached to our hierarchies. Kings, Chiefs, Emperors, and so on where said to be related to the Gods or had direct communications with the Gods. Part of your position addresses the long tradition of the concept of a God so why ignore that for millennia that concept was directly associated with leadership hierarchies in society? Countless human kings were said to be living Gods.