Well I thought it was a very acuret reconstruction of a b-17 crashing into a field.

No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration

Oh really? So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969

There have been over 25,000 discoveries which prove its historical accuracy alone. Seems like far from being right accidently, it's always on time.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?

Of course I'm claiming its not the case. It also doesn't make any sense. You don't think the jews at the time would notice that people were editing in prophecies later? They were fanatical about these kind of details..so unless you're claiming it was a gigantic conspiracy your view seems illogical. The jews were very careful about copying..the earliest manusciprs we have and the oldest ones have very few discrepencies.

Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.

lol..so, when a historian talks about someone in history, its not evidence..what kind of evidence do you want? Photographs?

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings."

Read that? His writings were so accurate that we were able to find a mans tomb 2000 years later. Turn off your schitzophrenia for a moment. You're claiming Jesus isn't a historical figure, even though this historian, whom you say is accurate for Cyrus, verifies that He is. I'm not talking about whether He is divine, just that He existed. You can't have it both ways. He's a historian who obviously checked his sources..he's isn't telling stories, he is relating facts. You just want to throw the ones you don't happen to agree with.

I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":
1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Again, forget about the divinity claims which were interperlations. He records the existence of the historical person of Jesus. So, if its good enough for Cyrus, its good enough for Jesus. You can't have it both ways. Your pathogical unbelief is amusing, but unwarrented. So your only sources are one that claims Jesus is real, and another that claims God frees the slaves. Again, not helping your case in any respect.

>> ^shinyblurry:
So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove.
No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.
Educate yourself:
Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.
>> ^shinyblurry:

but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah.
You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.
If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure.


I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":

1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Example:
[FORGERY]
>> ^shinyblurry:

I deny the Holy Spirit.
[/FORGERY]

Does that forgery make all your actual words fundamentally suspect?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

Some religious theologians think that the myth argument is unsound? Color me surprised. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

Thank you for this comprehensive response, it helps me better understand your stance. I can see now how, from an American legislative point of view, the San Fransisco law might have difficulty passing. That being said, I still believe it is unethical to irretrievably modify a child's body for cultural purposes.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

@SDGundamX

It seems more accurate to say circumcision is partially reversible, at the expense of substantial time, discomfort, and inferior results. From your link:

Tape and weights, elastic straps, a traction device, or even manual stretching can be used to exert a gentle outward tension on the shaft of the penis to induce the skin to grow, to make the most of what was left after the circumcision.
[OR]
Surgical restoration (or reconstruction) is the grafting of skin onto the penis, either from the penis itself or from elsewhere on the body, to reconstruct something that looks and functions like a foreskin. The grafted skin may be of dissimilar texture to the original.

Maybe some people who have already been circumcised might what to consider pursuing restoration. Most people would like more pleasurable sex.

Even though it's partially reversible to cut off children's ears or foreskins (we could grow them new ear-like tissue in a lab), I'd be very skeptical of any claim that parents should be cutting off their children's ears.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, why do you think giving people more freedoms is trading for a system with no freedoms of any kind?

Because you're not "giving people more freedoms", you're talking about removing the institution that defends our freedom.

>> ^blankfist:
Right now, hypothetically if you made slavery legal, do you think slavery would come rushing back to the US? I'd venture to say no, because the world's opinion on slavery has changed, as it does and will do for everything we collectively see as bad.

Well "everyone" agrees that murder is wrong, but still people do it all the time. And frankly, I think there's less consensus on the idea that slavery is wrong than on murder being wrong.

It probably wouldn't come "rushing" back though. Our oligarchs have studied history well enough to know that they'd need to go through a slow roll out of such a thing, accompanied by some Orwellian rebranding.

My guess is that they'd start by expanding prison labor, and reinstituting the practice of sending people to jail if they default on their debts. Then they'd just continue the kind of right-wing dehumanization of poor people and criminals we see today. They'd probably couple it with how selling off prison labor contracts to private businesses will help them with the state budget or allow a new round of high-income tax cuts, but then I'm pretty sure I'm paraphrasing a Republican governor of some state when I say that already.

It's only one more step to go from selling a "prison labor contract" where the prisoner goes back to a state-run cell each night, to being allowed to be kept in bondage by the owner of his contract in a privately owned cell.

Then, voila! Slavery is back in the USA.

Alternatively, just abolish minimum wage, outlaw union organization, and crush what's left of small business with anti-competitive business practices, and come up with some snappy new name for "indentured servitude" like "work-equity debt reconstruction", and you're 80% of the way there.

>> ^blankfist:
Government is a necessary evil in the processes of human evolution, but an evil nonetheless.


Eh. I know this is one of your favorites, but it's a bit Manichean, don't you think?

People are ultimately the ones who make the moral decisions. Even then, I don't really believe in "evil" people, so much as people who do things that are morally wrong.

What's the NRA slogan, "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Well, governments don't commit evil acts, people do.

Neat stuff. Today I read an article that showed that carbon nanotubes behave the same way human (neuron) synapses do. The implications of that in 20-30 years is stupefying; for humans, computers, electronics (including artificial hands that would have feeling--but, you could tone down pain to a "notice" level and not the current, "holy ^%&king %^&$"" level), and possibly A.I. (like neural nets, but brains have around 10 billion neurons each with 10k or so synapses each; it'll take awhile...).

Brain reconstruction (obviously you'll be missing the old stuff, but still)?

Leadership and goofballs? Obama isn't exactly a good president or a bad president, but it's hilarious to me that total right-wingers like QM fail to see how tremendously horrible the Bush Administration were. They keep hanging on, when in reality the 'crats and the 'publicans are all a bunch of whores sucking from a gigantic corporate/military tite. If you want to do some real political commentary QM why don't you show us how similar the parties are instead of coughing up the same old tea-bag nutter-buddy rhetoric? They want you to fight about their "differences" so they can both continue having the same agenda - corporate wealthfare, making the rich richer, fuck everyone else. They have no ethics or spines and they just love manipulating the public into believing there is a clearcut dividing line. Obama ran on what democrats should sort of be. But, he has hardly delivered.

What we need is what Martin Luther King said so long ago, "Radical economic reconstruction." What the Tea-baggers believe in as their movement is a movement that is bought and sold by huge corporations, that is all it is and nothing more. It is just their corporate money corrupting your minds and poisoning everything.

First, I just really want to thank you for sharing something this personal with us. I agree doing nothing and just letting the bullying happen is bad. But I disagree that violence is the only or best solution to the problem. I'm not trying to dismiss what you went through, but you kind of made my point from my post above--this reacting in violence just perpetuates the cycle of violence. According to your own account, those guys that bullied you stopped bullying you and moved on to others who couldn't fight back. And you actually became the (verbal) bully yourself after that kid came back from surgery.

Am I saying you shouldn't have defended yourself? No. I don't know the particulars of your situation. All I'm saying is that when we send the message to kids that "standing up to bullies" means kicking the shit out of them we're not solving the problem at all--we're in fact perpetuating it and setting up tragedies, like that kid whose lip you tore off in your rage.

Just to make it clear, I'm not saying anything you did is wrong. As someone who experienced bullying I totally relate to everything you said--including calling that kid asslips after he got back to school (probably would have done the same thing when I was a kid). I'm just pointing out this video shows basically nothing has changed since you were a kid--kids get bullied, snap, and do things that they might later really regret. The bullies meanwhile move on to weaker targets. They cycle continues. It just seems to me that as a society we need to come up with a better solution than meeting violence with violence.

>> ^enoch:

it depends where you live.
where i grew up if you didnt stand up for yourself they would eat you alive and make your school experience a living hell.
why?
because some kids (who then grow up with the same mentality) crave to dominate who/what they perceive as "weaker" in order to counter their own sense of unworthiness and helplessness.
i was a pretty easy going kid and really had no desire to do violence (still dont) but in 8th grade one kid started working me over..small things at first..and i did my best to avoid any confrontation.
within 3 months i had a list of kids picking on me.
i started missing school due to "stomach aches..mystery fevers etc etc".i was petrified to go to school because of these kids.
understand i was not a small kid,i was already 6" by then and strong as an ox.i just had no desire for confrontation or violence but i have an incredibly volatile temper.
the pressure finally built up to a point i could no longer control my temper and with in ONE week i unleashed all that pent up rage/hurt and fear.
i still remember their names.
i still remember what i did to them.
one kid i beat SO bad and in such a violent rage actually RIPPED his bottom lip off.
they literally had to take skin grafts from his asshole to reconstruct his lips.
my friends would call this kid "asslips" for the rest of the year and i would join in...but i shouldnt have.
because now when i think about it all i feel is shame.
but...no one ever messed with again...ever.
and i learned to never back down.
to step right in to whoever had the misconception they could dominate me through the threat of violence.
i learned that if i merely HINTED that i would bring a hell upon whomever messed with me was enough to make them look for another victim.
this also gave me an appreciation for those who are not violent and wish to avoid conflict so all through high school it was i who intervened for the small dude who just wanted to get to class.
the kid who was a bit odd or different.
because i understood how soul-crushing it can be for a little kid.
to this day i do not tolerate bullying.
so while spoco is correct on moral grounds.those of us who have experienced first hand bullying rejoice knowing that this kid will never be messed with again during his time in this school.
and that is not a bad thing.
both kids learned something.
one learned to stand up for himself.
the other learned that what may at first seem an easy mark to make yourself feel big and important may just be the mark who is going to humiliate you in front of your friends.
it's a win-win.

one kid i beat SO bad and in such a violent rage actually RIPPED his bottom lip off.
they literally had to take skin grafts from his asshole to reconstruct his lips.

Maybe it's the edible THC, but this filled my basement with horrified, joyous laughter.

BTW, Downunder tag...was this Australia? Giving bullies the gift of Mad Max.

it depends where you live.
where i grew up if you didnt stand up for yourself they would eat you alive and make your school experience a living hell.
why?
because some kids (who then grow up with the same mentality) crave to dominate who/what they perceive as "weaker" in order to counter their own sense of unworthiness and helplessness.

i was a pretty easy going kid and really had no desire to do violence (still dont) but in 8th grade one kid started working me over..small things at first..and i did my best to avoid any confrontation.
within 3 months i had a list of kids picking on me.
i started missing school due to "stomach aches..mystery fevers etc etc".i was petrified to go to school because of these kids.
understand i was not a small kid,i was already 6" by then and strong as an ox.i just had no desire for confrontation or violence but i have an incredibly volatile temper.
the pressure finally built up to a point i could no longer control my temper and with in ONE week i unleashed all that pent up rage/hurt and fear.
i still remember their names.
i still remember what i did to them.
one kid i beat SO bad and in such a violent rage actually RIPPED his bottom lip off.
they literally had to take skin grafts from his asshole to reconstruct his lips.
my friends would call this kid "asslips" for the rest of the year and i would join in...but i shouldnt have.
because now when i think about it all i feel is shame.
but...no one ever messed with again...ever.
and i learned to never back down.
to step right in to whoever had the misconception they could dominate me through the threat of violence.
i learned that if i merely HINTED that i would bring a hell upon whomever messed with me was enough to make them look for another victim.
this also gave me an appreciation for those who are not violent and wish to avoid conflict so all through high school it was i who intervened for the small dude who just wanted to get to class.
the kid who was a bit odd or different.
because i understood how soul-crushing it can be for a little kid.
to this day i do not tolerate bullying.

so while spoco is correct on moral grounds.those of us who have experienced first hand bullying rejoice knowing that this kid will never be messed with again during his time in this school.
and that is not a bad thing.
both kids learned something.
one learned to stand up for himself.
the other learned that what may at first seem an easy mark to make yourself feel big and important may just be the mark who is going to humiliate you in front of your friends.
it's a win-win.

Is Videosift a finished "project" that has been completed and is now only on display?

I thought websites evolved, especially one with such active forum members as this. The sift has as always seemed to welcome feedback about improvements. Your downvote really surprises me.
Why did you not downvote each of these ideas as they were posted? Why do I get your downvote even though I simply reposted them?

So, by your thinking...ideas, improvements and upgrades are not to be discussed, tolerated or considered on Videosift...else you get a downvote for even suggesting (or reposting) such a thing?

As for your analogy of a Lego house it is a good one, but in a different way than you meant. Legos are designed to be taken apart, reconstructed, changed, or improved. That's what you as the builder are there to do, or you wouldn't have bought a Lego house in the first place. No Lego house stays in the one design you started with (much like websites, phones, computer games, etc.) or it would be pretty boring, static and unproductive.

As an unemployed engineer, did you feel you completed everything with such perfection that improvements are never needed and therefore suggestions should be hated?

I'm sure Steve Jobs would love to hire you, as he must be exhausted with all of his needless upgrading and improving by now.
>> ^marinara:
As a unemployed engineer, i hate adding features at the end of a project. Consider this a downvote.

I am not a Truth'er by any means, but I find the explanation of supersonic pancaking unlikely. And that only explains how the floors collapsed...not the center support columns. Unless part of the explanation is that the floors also pulled the center over...which would take away from the energy needed to have objects in near free fall. This really was a case of complete building failure. We owe it to ourselves for future building construction to prevent a building failure of this magnitude. I mean, hell, they can rebuild a plane and reconstruct nearly the exact conditions of its demise...but you have a report here that even doubts its own validity, seems halfassed.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

WTF?!?!
How often does it occur that a person needs only their knee amputated?
Wouldn't a prosthetic knee or knee reconstruction work just as well?


Bone cancer, bro. You don't want that spreading. Better to have a foot/knee.