I wonder if Hobby Lobby will try to use a 40% off coupon to pay the fine?

The_Lone_Beagle said:

So, you are saying that the end always justifies the means? That stealing is ok, paying thieves (& murderers!) is ok, as long as it is for some self-perceived good?

Click to expand...

The man just explained his point of view at considerable length for your benefit. Your question over-simplifies a complex issue. Let me ask you this: would you pay a ransom to a kidnapper to ensure the safety of someone you cared about? Does that end justify the means?

Mushtang said:

He's not saying that, at all. Quit putting words into his mouth. He very clearly said he doesn't support either one, and when asked about why it's a complex moral argument he explained that both sides are bad. Stealing is bad. Allowing irreplaceable historical artifacts to be destroyed is bad.

Nowhere did he say that stealing is okay or even infer that he's be okay with it as long as things he liked were protected.

Click to expand...

mrichhcirm said:

The man just explained his point of view at considerable length for your benefit. Your question over-simplifies a complex issue. Let me ask you this: would you pay a ransom to a kidnapper to ensure the safety of someone you cared about? Does that end justify the means?

Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, I'm not arguing from any religious viewpoint, my point is that a) our military is fighting ISIS, and b) anybody who funds ISIS, either directly or indirectly is going to have to do so serious explaining &/or soul-searching, since ISIS is trying to kill them (and any others that we support). *Disclaimer - I find the govt. of Syria to be just about as bad as a criminal organization, I wish we would have done more earlier, like the things Sen. McCain was advocating for, but we can't go back in time and change that now.

I'm not putting any words into anybody's mouth, I just found that the arguments put forward to show this was a "complex moral issue" were basically straw-man arguments set up so as to easily be knocked aside to support the answer to basically the wrong question. The wrong question is "Do I like Mr. Hobby Lobby/agree with his previous positions" vs. "Is what Mr. Hobby Lobby did wrong?" (Others on the opposite side may also be answering the wrong question, i.e., "Do I *not* like Mr. Hobby Lobby/do I *disagree* with his previous positions").

The real questions should be, is what he did legal or not? And did his actions have any impact, foreseen or unforeseen? And, in what context did his actions take place in, did his actions have an impact on others, positive or negative?

Basically, what he did was wrong both legally -- we already know that. But according to what has been said, all the legal and ethical stuff can be ignored if there is some moral issue he can claim to excuse his actions.

Re: the moral arguments for his actions being ok was "all museums have looted stuff," I think our collective Mom's have already weighed in on this one: two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: the moral argument that this is basically a "victimless crime," i.e., he just paid some people to send it to him this stuff, no harm no foul...this is just like the drug users arguing that their buying and using drugs doesn't impact anybody, when they are just ignoring all the effects their demand for drugs has all the way up and down the supply chain (and the surrounding communities) until it gets to them. As was pointed out earlier, this is really a demand problem; nobody would supply it if there wasn't a demand.

Re: somehow this is all ok, if he can pull a rabbit out of a hat and find something of biblical significance, I don't buy that...I don't think the end justifies the means, esp. with other issues in the context of the whole situation...that ISIS is methodically killing and looting to support their war efforts, and methodically destroying larger items that can't easily be sold, just to drive up the value of the stuff they can sell. (I'm guessing that what he bought will turn out to be misc. "crap", like warehouse inventories and other stuff, people in this area routinely wrote stuff down, for a good book read "History Begins at Sumer" by Kramer).

If you want to read some interesting background info that has helped form the basis of my opinion, here you go:

1. ISIS beheaded the chief archeologist of Palmyra, because he wouldn't disclose sites where artifacts were that could be looted and sold. The articles describe how looting artifacts is a significant source of income, and how much of what could be transported was already removed before ISIS came, which was why they had to interrogate this man, in order to find more:
--> for the left-wing TRF-ers
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/...lmyra-syria-antiquities-scholar-beheaded.html
--> for the right-wing TRF-ers
https://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/...ads-82-year-old-archaeologist-in-palmyra.html


2. Since 1970, exporting cultural artifacts with out permission is a crime (sure, a lot of museums have stuff from hundreds of years ago that some might claim was "looted" (the museums might argue back that, since they may have purchased it from the lawful government ruling at the time, it was legal at that time), but since 1970 taking artifacts out of a country has been illegal)
https://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

3. Interesting perspectives from Archeology magazine and other archeologists about looting, based on a 2003 case involving Egyptian antiquities
https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/schultz/intllaw.html

https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/pdf/US-v-Schultz-analysis.pdf

4. Off topic, an interesting tech solution to the looting problem:
https://itsartlaw.com/tag/national-stolen-property-act/

Ok, this is already too long...

CzTeacherMan said:

Absolute versus flexibility... These are always the points where I start to think that scientific laws apply to human subjects, as well. For example: relativity... From one perspective, the views are absolutist while from another perspective they're quite consistently flexible. Or inertia... Once a group of religious followers are on a path of moral justification, they just keep on rolling in that same direction.

As far as Hobby Lobby goes... It's a store. A friggin store. I'm more of the Fight Club mindset in all this... Why do I know who "Mr. Green" is? I mean really... What a complete waste of my brain space. Why am I even bothering to read this thread? Or further, to comment on it? My life is neither improved nor damaged by this information. Why in the heck do I know what a duvet is?
...
...
Us humans are a really wonky species.

Click to expand...

This pretty well sums up my position as well, especially the part about you not wasting your precious brain space. :wink: (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

mrichhcirm said:

Your question over-simplifies a complex issue. Let me ask you this: would you pay a ransom to a kidnapper to ensure the safety of someone you cared about? Does that end justify the means?

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough...I work for a "corporation" that has a "no-hostages" policy. OK, it is a prison...but we are all told that if are taken hostage, no negotiation will be conducted with the prisoners to release the hostages.

In a nutshell, before the "no-hostage policy" there were multiple instances of inmates attempting to escape by taking hostages. Ever since the policy was instituted, there haven't been any cases of inmates taking staff hostage (that I'm aware of). By making the inmates and staff aware of this policy, we have reduced the risk to about as low as it can go. The inmates have no incentive to take hostages, so they don't bother (just like, if there was no incentive to loot antiquities, ISIS wouldn't bother).

As bad is this is for me, would this be even worse if a loved one was taken hostage? Hell yes! BUT -- I still wouldn't negotiate. Why?

This is where the issue of morality comes into play. If I negotiate to get my loved one back, I've just made it unsafe for everyone else & everyone else's loved ones. If I negotiated, the inmates have huge incentives to take others hostage, and this would be due to my actions. I would have made everybody else less safe, trying to satisfy my own needs.

Beyond blind following of rules (such as the Ten Commandments), I would argue that morality involves attempting to understand the impact that one's actions have upon others, in a larger world. And if being moral was easy, then, we wouldn't be discussing this at such length!

Once again, I would like to see this thread closed.

The only reason this is a news story is because some want to point out the hypocrisy of the the situation based solely on returning the objects and paying a fine. Mr. Green claims this is a rookie mistake. After that, everything is opinion.

This has been primarily a mocking thread. I for one, am not amused by mocking; I'm sure that I am in the minority.

mkadams001 said:

Once again, I would like to see this thread closed.

The only reason this is a news story is because some want to point out the hypocrisy of the the situation based solely on returning the objects and paying a fine. Mr. Green claims this is a rookie mistake. After that, everything is opinion.

This has been primarily a mocking thread. I for one, am not amused by mocking; I'm sure that I am in the minority.

Click to expand...

Once again I will second the motion to close this thread for the above stated reason. My previous seconding motion was evidently deleted or failed to post for whatever reason.

The_Lone_Beagle said:

Interestingly enough...I work for a "corporation" that has a "no-hostages" policy. OK, it is a prison...but we are all told that if are taken hostage, no negotiation will be conducted with the prisoners to release the hostages.

In a nutshell, before the "no-hostage policy" there were multiple instances of inmates attempting to escape by taking hostages. Ever since the policy was instituted, there haven't been any cases of inmates taking staff hostage (that I'm aware of). By making the inmates and staff aware of this policy, we have reduced the risk to about as low as it can go. The inmates have no incentive to take hostages, so they don't bother (just like, if there was no incentive to loot antiquities, ISIS wouldn't bother).

As bad is this is for me, would this be even worse if a loved one was taken hostage? Hell yes! BUT -- I still wouldn't negotiate. Why?

This is where the issue of morality comes into play. If I negotiate to get my loved one back, I've just made it unsafe for everyone else & everyone else's loved ones. If I negotiated, the inmates have huge incentives to take others hostage, and this would be due to my actions. I would have made everybody else less safe, trying to satisfy my own needs.

Beyond blind following of rules (such as the Ten Commandments), I would argue that morality involves attempting to understand the impact that one's actions have upon others, in a larger world. And if being moral was easy, then, we wouldn't be discussing this at such length!

Click to expand...

Perhaps some of the inmates could benefit from an introduction to hobby rocketry as a way to promote peace and brotherhood within the penal institution where you work? I mean, look how well it's working here.
:eyeroll:

The_Lone_Beagle said:

So, just to be clear, I'm not arguing from any religious viewpoint, my point is that a) our military is fighting ISIS, and b) anybody who funds ISIS, either directly or indirectly is going to have to do so serious explaining &/or soul-searching, since ISIS is trying to kill them (and any others that we support). *Disclaimer - I find the govt. of Syria to be just about as bad as a criminal organization, I wish we would have done more earlier, like the things Sen. McCain was advocating for, but we can't go back in time and change that now.

I'm not putting any words into anybody's mouth, I just found that the arguments put forward to show this was a "complex moral issue" were basically straw-man arguments set up so as to easily be knocked aside to support the answer to basically the wrong question. The wrong question is "Do I like Mr. Hobby Lobby/agree with his previous positions" vs. "Is what Mr. Hobby Lobby did wrong?" (Others on the opposite side may also be answering the wrong question, i.e., "Do I *not* like Mr. Hobby Lobby/do I *disagree* with his previous positions").

The real questions should be, is what he did legal or not? And did his actions have any impact, foreseen or unforeseen? And, in what context did his actions take place in, did his actions have an impact on others, positive or negative?

Basically, what he did was wrong both legally -- we already know that. But according to what has been said, all the legal and ethical stuff can be ignored if there is some moral issue he can claim to excuse his actions.

Re: the moral arguments for his actions being ok was "all museums have looted stuff," I think our collective Mom's have already weighed in on this one: two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: the moral argument that this is basically a "victimless crime," i.e., he just paid some people to send it to him this stuff, no harm no foul...this is just like the drug users arguing that their buying and using drugs doesn't impact anybody, when they are just ignoring all the effects their demand for drugs has all the way up and down the supply chain (and the surrounding communities) until it gets to them. As was pointed out earlier, this is really a demand problem; nobody would supply it if there wasn't a demand.

Re: somehow this is all ok, if he can pull a rabbit out of a hat and find something of biblical significance, I don't buy that...I don't think the end justifies the means, esp. with other issues in the context of the whole situation...that ISIS is methodically killing and looting to support their war efforts, and methodically destroying larger items that can't easily be sold, just to drive up the value of the stuff they can sell. (I'm guessing that what he bought will turn out to be misc. "crap", like warehouse inventories and other stuff, people in this area routinely wrote stuff down, for a good book read "History Begins at Sumer" by Kramer).

If you want to read some interesting background info that has helped form the basis of my opinion, here you go:

1. ISIS beheaded the chief archeologist of Palmyra, because he wouldn't disclose sites where artifacts were that could be looted and sold. The articles describe how looting artifacts is a significant source of income, and how much of what could be transported was already removed before ISIS came, which was why they had to interrogate this man, in order to find more:
--> for the left-wing TRF-ers
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/...lmyra-syria-antiquities-scholar-beheaded.html
--> for the right-wing TRF-ers
https://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/...ads-82-year-old-archaeologist-in-palmyra.html


2. Since 1970, exporting cultural artifacts with out permission is a crime (sure, a lot of museums have stuff from hundreds of years ago that some might claim was "looted" (the museums might argue back that, since they may have purchased it from the lawful government ruling at the time, it was legal at that time), but since 1970 taking artifacts out of a country has been illegal)
https://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13039&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

3. Interesting perspectives from Archeology magazine and other archeologists about looting, based on a 2003 case involving Egyptian antiquities
https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/schultz/intllaw.html

https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/pdf/US-v-Schultz-analysis.pdf

4. Off topic, an interesting tech solution to the looting problem:
https://itsartlaw.com/tag/national-stolen-property-act/

Ok, this is already too long...

Click to expand...

The odd thing is, I agree with almost everything you say. The only reason that's odd is that you mis-read, or misunderstood one or several of the things I was attempting to say. I think we could have a really great conversation about it over coffee (or tea) sometime. I went to some effort to answer someone else's question and say that my answer did not apply to the Green/Hobby Lobby/looted antiquities story as that seems to be increasingly clear that there were some nefarious intentions from the beginning. Still, I would be very interested to learn the details of the FBI's investigation and, as they said back in the 80's "what they knew and when they knew it."

In any case, I agree with those calling for the thread to be closed.

"So let it be written, so let it be done." - Yul Brynner