Ten oz

The idea seems interest however I am struggling with the thought that most topics would basically become religious or political debates.

Your examples don't work for several reason. First off there are groups of people out there who basically call Muslims insane. Islamic states are often singled out for there mistreatment of women and various other human rights violations. In the western world the idea of terror and terrorism is nearly sunomymous with Muslims. If you were to start a thread asking what people thought about Sharia Law as a form of governing I think many people would call it insane. Including myself and the other posters you mentioned. Conservative ideology as a form of governance is insane and so is Sharia Law as a form of governance. Black is not an ideology. What is shared amongst black people is genetic. Amongst black people there is a large dichotomy of opinions and beliefs. Drug dealers and gangster who break the law go to prison in this country. Society does not tolerate drug dealing and gang banging by any group of people black, white, asian, latino, or whatever. Such behavior is treated criminally and perpetrators of those actions are labelled as criminals. It is okay to label conservatives because it is a political philosophy. It is different that calling someone insane for thing beyond their control like being tall, a specific race, a female, or etc. One must willfully choose to be a conservative.

Are there explains of this crusade ?

The government is the problem not the solution. Private business can do things better than the government. Too much red tag is hurting businesses. The government needs to step aside and allow business to flourish. Politicians are nothing but a bunch of empty suits. I would not want a Doctor who hated medicine to operate on me. Conservatives hate government yet want responsibility to run it. It would be insane to give them. By their own words they want to tear down. It is self destructive. As matters of policy they claim to care about spending and deficits yet Presidents Reagan and Bush both increased spending and deficits at mind blowing rates. Despite the small government pleas republicans when in office have grown the government and consolidated power in the administrative branch. The war on drugs was started by Nixon and double down on by Reagan one of the main reasons the United States has the largest prison populations in the world. Nothing small government about that. Bush's war on terrorism gave us the patriot act which increased policing authority and saw the green light of new agencies like Department of Homeland Security. By their own actions Conservatives support policies contrary to their cries. It isn't simply a matter of disagreeing with their political philosophies. Conservatives don't seem to truly have any. They want what they want and what that is changes as they get it. It is an insane way to govern.

I do not agree that religion seeks to explain things. History has shown that religions are willing to rewrite and flat out lie about history, discoveries, and work to keep people ill informed. Many religions start at conclusions and work to ensure everything supports those conclusions. They are not seeking to explain the world around them. They are seeking to influence and shape the world around them.

This speaks some to my point about there being somewhat of a tradition within old testament based religions of feeling downtroddened. There are imagined hardships they are constantly having to battling through. It is not a theme I have noticed in eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddism.

Religious people in the United States are the overwhelming majority. They have the most influence and power. It does not make sense to post about them (religious people) as if they were a weak minority downtrodden by powerful atheists. If there were a "crusade" against religion it certianly isn't a success one. "The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation.[1] According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) of 2008, 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs.[3][4] The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States I think some of the attitude that drive the ideas associated with this discussion come from Christian tradition itself. As a matter of theology Christians have a concept of historical oppression or disrespect. Their god being often offended by people worshiping false idols and denying his will. Their messiahs like Moses and Jesus being mistreated prophets persecuted by the ruling class. It seems pitying their circumstance is part of the tradition of their faith. It is seen during the founding of the United States. Protestant felt downtrodden by the Church of England and set up their own communities for "freedom". Of course that moral ideal of freedom did not extend to natives and blacks. It was themselves there were felt pity for. Such repeated itself in the early years of the Mormorm church as they broke laws and killed innocent people while demanding freedom to found their own Zion. In recent years Christian fanatics like David Koresh painted himself a victim. Being the underdog and needing to push back and fight is an ongoing theme within the Christianity. So often repeated and expressed it feels like a real thing. In truth Christains are the majority. Christians are the ruling class.

I think you are quibbling over semantics here. Illegal Immigrants by definition are already in the U.S..What do you think it would cost in terms of law enforcement, courts, labor production loss, and etc to local and detain tens of millions of "illegal immigrants" and deport them? It is completely impractical. Yet anything sort of that by default is supporting the status qou which currently has tens of millions of illegal immigrants living in the States but not pay full taxes, unable to start businesses, purchase various types of insurance, and etc. Of course we control who is and isn't "illegal". Simply choosing pass a bill allowing for their continued presence in this country to be legal would eliminate the whole "illegal" thing. Allowing the millions here to be legal would immediately allow for millions of more payroll taxes. It would also allow communities with high portions of "illegal immigrants" in their communities to see more productive participation from those residents. People who are "illegal" have a much harder time securing loans, starting businesses, purchasing property, and etc.

You seem to have your own strict definition for what is or is not insane: "in·san·i·ty noun \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\ : severe mental illness : the condition of being insane : something that is very foolish or unreasonable plural in·san·i·ties 1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) 2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility 3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity I think posters have done a good job in this thread illustrating why political conservatism is "something that is very foolish or unreasonable".

Good point. Not only do people willfully confuse the meaning of natural but many purposefully attempt to contain its meaning to reflect their own preferences.

I believe it is simply a matter of ego. Humans seek individual credit and respect for things. To call something natural from an ill informed perspective is to call it normal. People want to be greater than normal. To be beyond usual, average, or what is natural. It is a distortion of the word brought partly about by ignorance of science.

The notion that Atheists are crusading against religion by being open about their beliefs doesn't make any sense. It is religious people who claim those with different beliefs than their own will forever burn in a sea of fire. Atheists are not the ones pushing their beliefs on people by forcing women to cover up, doing all they can to block the LGBT community from various rights, blowing up abortion clinics, and so on. Atheists do not campaign for unsupported science like creationism to be taught in public schools or attempt to force their history into any curriculum. Nothing Richard Dawkins says ultimately has any personal impact on the lives of religious people. Religion still gets its tax free status (here in the USA), the prodoniment religion in most countries still dictates the nation holiday schedule, still influence government, etc, etc, etc. Here is the states Christians get their 10 commandments displays, get their nativity scenes, public schools have million of school children organizing Christmas events, get their tax free status, get the ears of politicians, yet put themselves up on a cross any time someone vioces an opposing point of view. Religion claiming to be under attack from atheists is as empty a chargen as saying rich people are under attack by poor people.

Approximately half of the American population is accurate in a broad sense. However if we break it down by demographics the "near half" notion disappears. Only one group of people in this country broadly support conservatives. Not merely in recent years but for the past few decades.http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

Are all humans even capable of experiencing the same emotions? I have been angry but never to the point of wanting to kill. I have been sexually curious but never to the point of anything deviant. Emotions are chemical and not everyone has the same chemistry. So I suspect not everyone has the same experience of emotion. So while that act of smiling may trigger joy in some people that isn't compelling evidence it would in all people.

I honestly have a difficult time tolerating religious people the older I get. As a kid I accepted religion as a matter of culture. I did not believe in any god(s) but was under the impression that on some level believing in one was a good thing. Time has eroded that impression. I am now under the impression that religion stymies the application of intellect. Rather than allowing the wonder or confusion of not knowing something to drive one to learn it religion allows comfort in not knowing things. It affords people the ability to not feel responsible for knowledge or influence. God is out doing this that or the other and all we humans need to know is that god is good. It is a comforting thought but leads to the level of apathy we see toward science and human suffering world wide. Most people are religious on some level. My parents, siblings, inlaws, coworkers, and so on are mostly religious. I just avoid the subject of religion around most people. However I can't avoid it 100% of the time. I drawn the line at my own home. I do not have over people whom I suspect will attempt to speak of or worship to a god(s) in my home.

I agree guns are a huge problem and we need gun control is the United States. I think there are a lot of complicated reasons for our (USA) gun loving culture. Those factors bleed over and impact our attitude about killing people. So I think we are having somewhat of a chicken or the egg argument here. But I completely agree that there are too many guns in the United States.

Those links don't provide any info for police deaths in any of the other countries I've mentioned. It reflects 30 police death in the U.S. from gunfire. Police are killing over 400 per year (low estimate). You are trying to imply the police shoot more people in this country in response to being further in harms way than other police. However I already addressed that in post #214. Police shootings have been falling by the year and are currently at record lows for modern times. Despite the fall in shootings of police the number killed by police remains steady. There is not a direct relationship between the two. It is worth pointing out that more police are killed than kill in other countries like England because you are implying police here are killing as a reaction to themselves being killed. Because the threat of guns is so great. Assuming that's true that reaction is 10:1 while in other countries it is less than 1:1. Our police are killing way too many people. I also don't think it is accurate that 10 times as many police are shot and killed in the U.S. vs U.K.. Some of these stats are difficult to find but I did find this: Since 1945 in U.K. 256 police have been shot and killed. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-19634164 The U.K. only has 15% of the police we here in the United State have (136,000 vs 900,000). So at their rate if they were of the same size that 256 police would by 1,707 shot and killed. While I could not find a specific stat showing police in the U.S. killed by guns since 1945 as most site lump allin the line of dity deaths together (car accidents, heart attacks, etc) I did find a site show it by year over the past decade. 548 police shot since 2004. http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html If we round that number up to 600 (error high) a decade and multiply it times 8 decades for comparison to the U.K. figures we get 4800. That isn't 10 times greater than the U.K.

In England more police are killed than police kill citizens. In the united States police kill over 10 citizens for every one officer killed. I would also be interested in seeing which stats you are referencing. Not all police deaths in the line up duty are police being attacked. Vehicle accidents are one of the top cop killers in the country for example. The links I have provided reference lots of countries not just England. The same differences exist between the United States and many other countries. If police carrying guns is a neccessary stand for comparison compare the united states to Germany or Canada. In Germany and Canada police have guns. You will see that in the United States our police are still killing more citizens.

I completely agree regarding the second admendment. I disagree a police officers job in the U.S. is more difficult. There are no statistics to reflect that police are in anymore danger. The potential threat is theoretically greater but isn't actually being realized. Our culture loves guns and that is absolutely a huge problem. So on the board issue here I think we are on the same page. I agree The issue is bigger than race. Even in states like Idaho where the percentage of whites is higher than european countries like England police are still shooting and killing more people than are police else where in the world. Subtract out all the minorities killed by police nation wide and U.S. Police are still killing a greater number of people. So the problem is more pervasive than just what we are seeing in Ferguson. Until the tide changes I think all cases deserve extra scrutiny.

@ Zapatos, by mentioning the number of guns per person I assume you are implying it is more dangerous for Police in the United State which in turn examples the higher rates of police officers killing people. The annual report from the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund also found that deaths in the line of duty generally fell by 8 percent and were the fewest since 1959. According to the report, 111 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers were killed in the line of duty nationwide this past year, compared to 121 in 2012. Forty-six officers were killed in traffic related accidents, and 33 were killed by firearms. The number of firearms deaths fell 33 percent in 2013 and was the lowest since 1887. Even as the job becomes safer for police officers and crime stats continue to drop from their mid-1990s highs, the rate of deaths at the hands of law enforcement remains unchanged. According to statistics from the Bureau of Justice, 4,813 people have died while being arrested by police officers. 60% of those were homicides, a rate of ~400 per year. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131230/15411225716/number-officers-killed-line-duty-drops-to-50-year-low-while-number-citizens-killed-cops-remains-unchanged.shtml There does not seem to be a connection to actual threats to police safety and the number of people killed by police. I personally find that rather shocking. Why are police killing as many people or more than ever if their own personal safety is better than it has ever been in modern times? Also I think it is important to point out that per capita crime is actually higher in the previously mentioned countries where police arent not killing people. So it isnt as if the police in those countries have less interactions with people breaking the law. A look at the G7 shows the UK, Germany, Canada, and France all have more crime per capita than the United States. Yet our (usa) police are killing a lot more people. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

1 - Eric Garner resisted in the form of not giving his hands willing to be cuffed. He did not punch, kick, headbutt, bite, or otherwise actively assualt any of the officers. He was selling cigarettes not herion. To describe that as an highly stressful situation where violence is occuring is somewhat exaggerated in my opinion. 2 - Are police in the United States in a more difficult position in your opinion than they are in other nations with comparable levels of development and education? The FBI reports that in 2011, cops in America killed 404 suspects in acts of "justifiable homicide." Astonishingly, though this number likely doesn't include every civilian fatality that year since it relies on voluntary reporting and doesn't include police homicides that aren't justifiable. Still, 404 is a large number. By comparison, just six people were killed by police in Australia over the same period. Police in England and Wales killed only two people, and German police killed six. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8#ixzz3LEIkPGou 3 - Juries in the United States have no problem convicting people despite the "tough spot" you mentioned. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Per 100,000 people 707 are incarcerated. Let's compare that to : England 148, France 103, Canada 118, Germany 78, Australia 133, and etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate 4 - Between 15,000 and 19,000 malpractice suits are brought against doctors each year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice 5 - What laws are enforced are often in direct relationship to the wants of the residents and businesses in an area. I can walk on to any college campus here in California and use my nose to follow the smell of pot in the air to locate any number of people illegally using the drug. The police ignore it. Go to a poor neighbor and the police are making arrests left and right. Being drunk in public bar hopping on a Friday night is all good downtown of most cities where Business want the money. Yet being drunk in public is a crime people get charged with all time. We pick and choose what to enforce and when. Of criminal justice system makes examples of certian types of people for political gain when it sees fit. Our prisons have hundreds of thousands of inmates who were arrested doing things that are actually common place in our society broadly. 6 - Witnesses don't know how Wilson was feeling but they know if he is telling the truth about events. They know whether or not Brown was attacking or had his hands up.

Post 9/11 police forces around the United States were given a windfall of money and legislation like the Patriot Act also broadened the powers of many law enforcement agencies. The Department of Homeland Security did not even exist until 2002 and they have a 61 billion dollar budget. The issue is bigger than donations from the military. Under certian conditions is key. A police officer can not forcibly grab, enter a private residence, and etc whenever they see fit. There are still laws in place protecting the rights of ordinary citizens. Police officers still are responsible to follow standards. Choke holds and shooting unarmed people go against those standards. Benifit of the doubt is broadly awarded to police. Most police officers make arrests and write citations daily without any issues. Their written statements in court treated good as gold. The conviction rate in the united states is 97%. Perhaps a little less benefit of the doubt would not be a terrible thing. At a 97% conviction rate ordinary citizens are getting very little benefit of the doubt. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate While being a police officer can be dangerous I think it is worth pointing out that it is not one of the more dangerous jobs in the United States. A quick look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that being a construction worker, Taxi driver, Truck driver, Power line installer, Miner, Farmer, Sanitation worker, and several others is all more dangerous. None of those more dangerous jobs are afforded special privileges based on their risk assessment. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf I did not reference anyone as a racist scumbag or suggest a broad conspiracy where police target only minorities. During Occupy Wall Street there was video of lots of white protestors being handled very aggressively by the police. I disagree that only Wilson knows for sure. There were witnesses. Dorian Johnson for example was with Michael Brown from the very start of the incident. Maybe Dorian is lying or maybe he is telling the truth but Dorian does know what happened. Others saw the final shots and know whether or not Brown was attacking or holding his hands up. Memories can be flawed and it is possible some witness believe they saw things they did not but that goes both ways and includes Wilson himself. A trail where the evidence could've have been debated openly would've been preferred in my opinion.

I read that article last week. Motivations are very difficult to prove but it seems clear that there is a statistical evidence reflecting a major change in how these cases are viewed by grand juries. Other statistics like our (USA) staggering prison population, spending on what is becoming a heavily militarized police force, and redundant stand your ground style use of force protection laws reflect an encouragement of heavy handed enforcement/punishment in my opinion. The issue is broader and more pervasive than just being about race and juror bias I believe. From Swansont's link:"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them." That's only .00007% of juries not returning with indictments. Those numbers are staggering. So when you ask what fraction of those cases one would expect to result in indictments I think it's fair to assume that fraction match the statistical average. Why would it be different less police under investigation are being handled different?

With other recent examples out there like Eric Garner and Tamir Rice it seems that some people simply defend the police no matter what. Even when video evidence is available clearly showing behavior that contradicts both policy and written statements by the officers. I understand the motives of the officers, prosecutors, politicians, and etc involved to justify their policies and performance. That is just good old CYA. It is the motives of everyone else I wonder about. Most people I have encountered acknowledge that our legal system is not impartial. That a jury of your peers is merely a slogan unless a person is wealthy enough to match the prosecution dollar for dollar. Yet people sit by and allow our (U.S.) criminal system to imprison millions. People are willing to defend police who kill when they clearly had other options.

The common thread I was referring too was distrust in the system.