Ten oz

@ StringJunky, but point but here is the United States if you can articulate that you fell fear for your life than you can kill. The likelihood of actual jeopardy to safety isn't any sort of benchmark. It is an incredible cynical standard that shows little respect life IMO. Not only that but fear is not always rational. Fear can be heightened by things like low visibility, silence, a cool breeze, a black cat in the road, and many other factors that may not play any role in situational safety. While a baton or restraining holds may work "what if" arguments often get made. Low probability outcomes are used to explain why anything other than use of a firearm would've been too risky. it is akin to the "you can't prove there is no god" argument. Many have a trained apathy. Acknowledgement that we can never know for 100% what would have happened is information enough. Maybe Michael Brown was going to run back and kill the policeman with his bare hands. No one can prove he wasn't. The policeman said Michael Brown had a very scary look on his face. Said he looked like a demon. Case closed!!! How do we solve it? I think identifying that there is a problem is the first step. Many Americans are misinformed and or uninformed. Gun culture and the idea of gun ownership as a patriotic duty of sorts has corrupted the truth. Most of the people I know (I know a whole lot of gun owners) believe that gun ownership in a community improves safety. That places with more rigorous laws experience more crime. They also tend to believe assualt and murder stattistics are at all time highs when the opposite is true. We need leadership in government that is brave enough to fail. Candidates and elected officials that don't shy away from addressing the issue because they fear losing certian votes or NRA backing. When enough people speak up a national debate will be had and slowly attitudes will change.

@ Gees, does the un/subconscious mind have thoughts? It is only in my concious mind that thought is realized. My un/subconscious mind clearly has emotion. It also knows things. However I am not sure it processed linearly in any form of awakened state that we'd considered thought. I imagine it being like the difference between hardware and software. You are right. Calling emotion packaged thought was far to broad. Perhaps trigger is a better word? Emotions trigger different chemical releases in the brain which support what is happening to us in realtime. Those different chemicals are what makes of "feel" compelled to act. Perhaps the un/subconscious mind don't have an opinion at all? It just responds. Maybe that is why emotions can change. People can get over their fears, find new loves, forgive, and etc. Because the unconscious mind has no opinion. It is just works for safe outcomes?

I think the United States is trending towards coalitions similary and in line with the EU. The concept of American exceptionalism as both an entitlement to and justification for all things is dying. As a child in grade school I was taught that the United States was the only free place on earth. I believed that Central and South American countries were dangerous places akin to the post apocyliptic sets of Mad Max movies. That the Middle East was one giant Bond movie style evil lair where dictators obsessed over destorying America. Asia was some far away place stuck in the 1800's. Europe I visioned as a neutral zone. A place were Americans could stage equipment or rest while dealing with all the mess called the rest of the world. And of course the USSR was a prison camp masquerading as a country. Times have changed though. Kids today understand that the United States is part of a larger world and not the only just place in it. We see China and India as industrial competitors and and economic allies rather than 3rd world places to pity. Young Americans today best know Russia their youth's outrageous contributions to YouTube than as an iron curtain. Trends are not best seen as comparisons but rather measurements of one thing over time. Whimsically written purposeful.

Conflicts in the work place don't end at male vs female. Som people have a problem with bosses that are younger, of different religions, speak a different first language, or etc, etc, etc. In every case I think it is critical to view the situation individually. The relationship of supervisor and subordinate is not between an individual and an entire demographic. It is between two individuals. It is not neccessary to focus on the entire demographic of your co-worker(s). Deal with the individual directly. Besides, everyone works for someone they don't like at some point in their life.

Oil is generally used as engine fuel, mechanical lubricants, synthetic rubber, and etc. Electrical power generation is not the use that makes oil the valuable commodity it is. Not only that but no country ever has too much energy. Here in the United States we have healthy oil, natural gas, and coal reserves but that hasn't stopped us from developing nuclear, wind, and solar. Even with all that we import massive amounts of oil. Then consider global warming and the push around the planet to limit oil use. Fifty year from now all that oil in Iran might not serve their economic needs well if no one wants to buy/trade for it. Other sources of power helps them both better exploit their oil reserves today and creates more stability through options for the future.

IMO emotions are just truncated thoughts, shorts cuts, that allow for action with less deliberation. Processing information takes a lot of work and at any given moment there is more information than can processed. Emotions like fear, for example, make us animals compelled to act without needing to fully process all the information around. The emotion of fear is a full package of preset concepts that at once makes us alert and ready to act. Another example is attraction. Rather than having to intellectualize wanting to reproduce, what qualities in a mate would best provide offspring success, and etc the emotion of attraction is a short cut. It allows an animal to see and simple feel compelled to act without tedious deliberation.

If we use WWI and WWII as our examples then the answer would seem to be yes. However there has been many more wars fought throughout history. Many wars have actually resulted in technological decline. Despite all the discoveries and piratical uses of science by the Greeks and Egyptians we still had the Dark Ages following the collaspe of Rome. War during the crusades did not help advance Arab technology. Arguably it ultimately set them back. IMO what changed the world in the 20th century was electricity and the combustible engine. Neither were specifically developed for or in response to war. Nikola Tesla and Tomas Edison did limited work for the government but I think it is fair to say their contributions to technology were not driven by war and would exist today without any of the wars of the 20th century. Same can be said for Siegfried Marcus and Henry Ford. The Wright Brothers as well did not develop flight as a solution for war.

@ iNow, I do not say Iran was uneducated. Nor did I say that they did not have a middleclass. Nuclear power would be a benifit. Energy is one of the most important factors for economic growth. Economic stability in turn is an important factor for education. Added to that would all the technology gained through research and development. Here in the United States pre Nuclear Power and Pre space race we had educated people and a middle class but the technology developed was still a huge benefit. Still changed our world.

My country, United States, would never allow a foriegn country to have a say in what type of technologies we developed or what we did with said technologies. Any attempt to have such influence would be treated as a step toward war. So there is some "do as we say and not as we do" here. Development of technology is a matter of education. I think our dealings with Iran on this issue is a bit of a catch 22. On one hand more educated countries with healthier middleclasses tend to be more friendly toward western interests and culture. Nuclear power would go a long way toward helping the middleclass in Iran and created opportunities for science and education. On the other hand the region is viewed as unstable with groups unfriendly to the western world and Israel. Even Nuclear power free of a nuclear weapon would bolster their ability to either purchase of build traditional weapons. I think Iran, like any country on earth would, will proceed in secret to develop what they can as a matter of sovereign principle. So it is better to have an agreement in place than not. Better to have a small window in than no window at all. I also think going to war would be counter productive as it would only solidify the desire in the region for weapons comproable to the West. Only foster the anger that will create the next ISIL and Al Quada. Germany was home to the Nazi. Germany was responsible for the holocaust. People are still alive today all over the world who lived through that and yet today Germany have nuclear power plants. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor killing American soldiers on American soil and today Japan has nuclear power. If we could find a way to trust former enemies who spilt massive amounts of blood surely we can find a way to work with Iran?

How does this theory lend itself to this threads purpose? How does Jesus reading the Torah prove Jesus was a real historical figure?

@ Ant Sinclair, do you have any source another than Christian text that even prove Joseph was real? If not than you are using scripture to prove history rather than using history to support scripture. In scripture Joseph is said to be of the Davidic line as is Mary, Matthew:1 Luke: 3. That is Hebrew. David is said to have been the first king of the Israelites. Of course David is a uncertain historical figure. Believed to have existed in the Bronze Age it is unclear what his genealogy would have been assuming he was real. Even scripture is unclear. Luke starts David's genealogy at Adam while Matthew begins it at Abrham. Far as the this thread's topic is concerned connecting Jesus to Joseph or David is not supportive of anything. All the inclusion of Joseph and David does is multiply the number of mythical historical figures we need evidence for.

Below are key aganda points from the current Confederate Party's home page: "CONFEDERATE PARTY PLATFORM We believe that our nation was founded on Christian ethics and principles and that our forefathers acknowledged God and called on Him for His guidance in creating this country for themselves and their posterity. We welcome all persons who hold these same beliefs and encourage the free expression of those beliefs. Having set forth those principles of our beliefs above, we have determined the following items to be key goals of our national agenda. 1. New Amendment to Constitution which repeals 14th, and 15th Amendments. 2. An Amendment to the Constitution which states that nullification and secession are inalienable and irrefutable rights of the States. 3. A law and eventual Constitutional Amendment declaring English as the official language of these United States. 4. Removal of all powers at the Federal level that are not explicitly given to the Federal government by the Constitution. 5. Immediate withdrawal from the United Nations and eviction of all United Nation agencies and organizations from United States soil. 6. Abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank. 7. Planned, gradual withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from all foreign nations and territories. 8. Federal income tax abolished and replaced by a system of funding through a direct levy on the states in proportion to the population of those states and established by convention of the states. 9. Reform of the federal judicial system removing many of the federal judiciary’s powers over the states. 10. A reaffirmation of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. If necessary, a new amendment which restates the basic principles in such a way that cannot be mis-interpreted. 11. A limit on the salaries of elected officials. No elected official will ever receive a salary more than the median salary of the nation. 12. Legislation to insure that no elected official will ever serve more than two consecutive terms." http://www.confederateamericanpride.com/CNP.html Starting with the Christian nation and continuing through the points; 3-6, 8 & 9, and 11 & 12 are all political stances various Republicans have advocated in recent years. The ideology of Confederates and modern conservatism (Tea Party, Republican, Libertarian) are clearly in line. The Modern Democratic party no longer supports or placates the above stated ideas.

"According to the results of a carbon dating test just now released, the so-called Gospel of Jesuss Wife unveiled at a conference in Rome a year-and-a-half-ago could have originated as far back as the 700s, shattering allegations that the fragment of paper had been produced more recently by fraudsters." Proving that something is old is not equal to proving that something is true. The Iliad and Odyssey are over 3,000yrs old. Doesnt mean they are true. A story written in 700's by an unknown source with no reference material to account for the 700yrs lapse between events to recording provides nothing useful to this conversation.

Failed sarcasm. There are many people who will be swayed by these issues in 2016.

@ iNow, I am not advocating for it. I am simplying pointing out the the argument is not without merit. I am also not suggesting that there would not be a Police Department at all. Departments have been disbanned in the past. They are replaced not simply removed. I don't think guilt by association is the proper perspective. Any number of organizations succeed or fail as a whole. If I go to a restaurant and the food is bad I probably won't go back. Perhaps my bad experience was the fault of a single employee. Does not matter. The whole organization will suffer. Yelp, consumer Reports, and an endless list of comparison/review sources hold organizations responsible not individuals. We see it when families make decisions about where to raise their children. Parents look at overall ratings of schools and districts. They don't look for great individual teachers and ignore the school, district, and surrounding community. A cycle of property values and tax revnue raising in neighborhoods with better rated schools is perpetuatesd which maintains the better schools along with who can afford to attend them. It isn't about guilt by association. It is about people feeling safe, convenient, and best able enjoy their lives. The people in Ferguson have experienced many bad interactions with the police. Per Michael Brown Ferguson was not Mayberry. How does the public's trust get regained? What is best for the community? Those questions IMO out weigh concern for any of the individual officers careers. Especial the ones who don't even live in Ferguson. Civil servents work for the good of the public. Military members find themselves deployed to places they don't want to go for periods of time they don't want to be gone for just to be forced out of the service later during times of budget cut backs. It is what the people ask and not what individual members want. That is what police sign up for. MigL mentioned holding the DA and judges accountable too. In the big scheme of things I believe they will be. The events that unfolded will impact future elections in the area for sometime to come. Many if not all the positions above the Police Department are either elected positions or appointed by elected officials. So that battle is 100% going to be had. No point is saying "if we extrapolate out". It will be extapolated out. People running for office won't waste a good crisis. Again, I am not saying I hope the entire Ferguson Department is disbanned. I am merely defending the notion. There is some precedence in the area for it and it may be cathartic for the community if managed properly.

Meaning what? Are you saying that minorities are not making choices based on their personal experiences, beliefs, and political understanding? Money is a terrible problem in politics. Billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson throw hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns to buy politicians. What does that have to do with welfare?

When a business shuts its doors all the employees lose their jobs. Surely some employees were better than others but out of business is out of business. Companies lay people off in bulk for a variety of reasons all the time. The good go with the bad. Employment is often tied directly to he success of an organization. As an organization the Ferguson Police Dept. has failed. Assuming that police departments exists to serve the interests of their communities than the disturbance, distrust, anger, and insecurity felt throughout Ferguson should carry weight in determining the departments future. I think it could be argued that starting fresh with new personel would serve the publics best interest. Had the department internally began removing bad apples on their own years ago that is one thing. Waiting until protesters are screaming in the streets around the country to assess a problem another. Now may be beyond the time to pick out the good from the bad. As an organization they had many years to clean themselves up and didn't. Hard to trust any attempt now that they have no choice.

@ Waitforufo, I asked why every minority group overwhelming votes Democrat and your response is welfare? That response demeans minority groups. It implies they collectively are being minipulated. That their voice isn't worth listening to. Democrat congressman John Lewis who was beaten over the head on Bloody Sunday in Selma is only a Democrat today because of Welfare? Never mind what he might say you already know it is all about food stamps.

Richard Carrier's work is written in probabilities. Carrier does not claim that Jesus did not exist. Carrier has the existence of a real human historical Jesus at about 30% probable. This conversation isn't about absolutes.

Who do the Blacks alive today that lived through racist oppression in the South vote for TODAY? Over 90% of Blacks, over 70% of Latinos, and over 70% of Asians voted Democrat in 2012. http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/10-amazing-demographic-percentages-of-the-2012-election-20121109 The minorities in this country sure seem to uniformly prefer the Democratic party. Why is that?

"Johnson signed the fortified Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#Civil_rights What followed the Civil Rights Act? The South had been uniformily Democratic. In 1968, first post Civil Rights Act election, George Wallace a racist pro segregation advocate got close to 10 million votes and 46 electoral votes winning 5 southern states. Since then the south has been uniformly Republican. So regardless of what either of the two major parties once stood for and who use to vote for them it is clear that the racist southern vein vote Republican today. It clearly switch following the Civil Rights Act. Today if you fly a Confederate flag, dislike minorities, or think the 1950's was a utopian society you also are very likely to vote Republican.

Read my previous post above. I am not claiming I can prove there wasn't a Jesus. If you have information that implies Jesus was more than likely real I would enjoy reviewing it. However you have exhausted your current line on thinking. It is not useful to proceed merely to be contradictory.

@ Robittybob1, I think it has been made clear that your current line of debate in both subject matter on tone has exhausted itself. I would prefer this thread not be locked. I honestly believe there are quality arguments that could be made that have not yet been made. I would like the thread to conitune for that reason. Not to perpetuate an ongoing argument with you.Poster Eise made several good posts earlier in this thread supporting Jesus as a real person. I was not convinced but they were well written, on topic, and followed a basic standard used by many theologians. If you wish to continue this discussion I hope you will read back through what has already been debated and select an argument that has not yet been considered ad nauseam.

How do we know Julius Ceasar was real? You post as if first person contemporary works are unheard of from 2,000yrs ago.

None if the 4 would be helpful and as explained I don't wish to explore what I believe would be helpful until we all finish our current line of discusion. I dont think a cure needs to be found before the disease is established.