It does not. Laws can benefit non-elites and still be made for the purposes of elites. Without the actual law code in front of me, I can’t and shouldn’t say more. Neither should you.
Bullshit.
You are now evading a tough question that flies in the face of your presupposed argument. But this is your pattern, picking and choosing what suits you, and dismissing anything that may counter your position.
Nah. I already answered the question, go read my reply again. I don’t appreciate the personal attacks, and I’ll refrain from making them on you because I try to be a better person than that. I’m not interested in continuing this conversation with you beyond this point.
Ironically; isn’t the bold part a personal attack?
3 Likes
And you propose that you will submit your thesis for peer review? You think I was tough on you?
For your information, I was attacking your position, methods, and argument. I never called you stupid or a moron. I attack the argument, not the person.
I’ve already submitted it for peer review, jackass. Been through the process. We’re done talking about this.
If you say so.
For any third party reading this little pissing contest, if you choose to read back you will discover I have never thrown out insults such as “jackass”.
1 Like
Well if that isn’t falsifiable by your standards, not much else will be either:
Looks like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
1 Like
Well now, my apologies if I reached an opinion not supported by facts. I simply wrote an impression. Perfectly happy to admit error if I’m wrong.
I said: My impression is of a self educated person, an autodidact. Apologies if I’m wrong. In what discipline is your degree, and from which University?
I also said I do not get the impression of rigorous scholarship. Easy enough to address; perhaps list say half a dozen of your primary sources and another dozen or so authorities you have consulted during your research.
You are claiming to be a scholar. I’m challenging that claim. My most sincere apologies if I’m mistaken
You’re fine. I posted a few back, but I’ll post here again, I’ve published twice in the academic journal Sociology of Religion (Inbody 2015; Inbody 2020). I have an M.A. in Sociology from SUNY Buffalo. I’ve presented at academic conferences and reviewed for academic journals, and I have a piece under submission now. The people who trained me are sociologists who studied religion and have published widely in these subfields.
That doesn’t make me a scholar of Mesopotamia, China, or Egypt, and I want to be clear about that. I am a sociologist who studies religion, I am self-taught in those ancient civilizations. That said, I’ve made a point to read widely in scholarly literature on those civilizations, so I have some sense of what I’m talking about.
Yeah, but it means you certainly qualify as a scholar who knows what he’s doing.
My sincere apologies.
You’re good man. I appreciate it.
Careful, @JoelInbody, when it coms to @David_Killens, my suggestion or advice to you, is don’t make this kitty cat angry. He might start hissing and scratching you. LMAO! You better go and get some catnip to calm him down. LOL! 
I might. My family name is multi syllabic Irish. My brother pronounces it differently from me.
Here in Oz we call everyone ‘mate’. That’s because we can’t be bothered remembering your name or the need to bother with say some of those Polish names. Some Vietnamese names are also difficult for us.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … You people have no idea at all. I live in Asia. You know, that place where they can not pronounce the letter ‘R’ or ‘L.’ Those two letters make up half my name. I got a million people that can not say my name.
Generic term for Ozians of Irish descent: O’Mate?
1 Like
Oh come on man, I apologized for getting his name wrong 
I think you’ve set yourself a hard task in trying to prove what the founders of a religion were thinking from that long ago. Was the founder, or founders of a religion all con men? There are examples of modern religions and sects clearly founded as a con. There’s Scientologies L. Ron Hubbard, and Mormon’s Joseph Smith. I think most televangelist are con men, but even with contemporary people it’s hard to prove that they haven’t just been seduced by their own ideology. Who knows what mental gymnastics someone was doing thousands of years ago to justify eating the food meant for the gods? The gods could only be nourished by earthly food through a human body? He was the gods representative so it was his duty to eat it on his behalf?
I hope you keep us posted and let us know if it ever sees print 
1 Like