Mob Attacks

[HollandofFrance]

many seem to go unreported on mainstream news

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/126828998.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/...milwaukee/

http://www.ohio.com/news/akron-police-in...y-1.142665

[Inchante]

You have a certain penchant for bad news, don't you?

You know, there may be a scientific reason why you are so preoccupied with violence in the news.


Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
Are people born conservative?
Published on April 19, 2011 by Nigel Barber, Ph.D. in The Human Beast
Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.

The results are not that surprising as they fit in with conclusions from other studies. Just a year ago, researchers from Harvard and UCLA San Diego reported finding a "liberal" gene. This gene had a tiny effect, however, and worked only for adolescents having many friends. The results also mesh with psychological studies on conflict monitoring.

What It Means
There is a big unknown underlying these findings. Supposing that the size of one's amygdala really does increase the likelihood of being a conservative. Is the size of the amygdala determined at birth, or does it perhaps increase with frightening childhood experiences, such as authoritarian parenting and corporal punishment?

Similarly, one might ask whether the gray matter difference is affected by exposure to educational challenge, social diversity, or childhood cognitive enrichment.

The born versus acquired perspective on political attitudes is important to psychologists. After all, if political proclivities are fixed at birth in terms of brain anatomy, there is little hope of change. Most of us would probably like to see a world in which political attitudes were less polarized, and more changeable, but that may be a pipe dream.

Meanwhile, the neuro-scientific fact of two very different political creatures helps clarify much of the political antics of modern democracies.

Most societies are divided into a party that wants change (the more liberal party) and one that is afraid of change (the conservatives). The liberal party is generally more intellectual and the conservative party is more anti-intellectual.

The conservative party is big on national defense and magnifies our perception of threat, whether of foreign aggressors, immigrants, terrorists, or invading ideologies like Communism. To a conservative, the world really is a frightening place.

Given that their brains are so different, it is hardly surprising that liberals and conservatives should spend so much time talking across each other and never achieving real dialog or consensus.

As scientists we hope that these results are replicated because they shed so much light on political behavior. As citizens, we would prefer if politicians were not divided into such different categories of political animal.

If everyone was born with the same brain potential to acquire either conservative, or liberal, views, then we could be more optimistic about prospects for political communication and consensus-building. If voters were of like brain, perhaps they could be of like mind.

[HollandofFrance]

shit i knew someone would attack me on this post again!

why?!

im conservative?i think im moderate or liberal

just because i dont vote for amerikan" demokrats" doesnt make me "conservative

are you only concerned if a gay is beaten?

so if a gay was beaten you would respond differently?

it seems to me crime is up and unreported

[Inchante]

shit i knew someone would attack me on this post again!

why?!

im conservative?i think im moderate or liberal

just because i dont vote for amerikan" demokrats" doesnt make me "conservative

are you only concerned if a gay is beaten?

so if a gay was beaten you would respond differently?

it seems to me crime is up and unreported

Don't make me regret sticking up for you.

First of all, the liberals in the United States are among the most conservative in the western world, so, unless you are casting your ballot in Uganda, I doubt you can legitimately call yourself moderate or liberal if the Democrats in the U.S. are too liberal for you to vote for.

Secondly, crime in the United States IS being reported as you illustrated in several posts . . . and no, crime is actually going down in America and has been since 1992.

Crimes Rates Fall Again
According to Preliminary Stats

05/23/11

Preliminary FBI figures reveal that the levels of both violent crime and property crime in the U.S. declined in 2010 from the previous year's data.

The 2010 Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, just released today, shows a 5.5 percent decrease in the number of reported violent crimes when compared with data from 2009. It also shows a 2.8 percent decline in reported property crimes.

This latest report is based on information submitted to the FBI from 13,007 law enforcement agencies around the country. The crimes covered are murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

Some of the report's highlights include:

Nationally, murder declined 4.4 percent, while forcible rape dropped 4.2 percent, robbery 9.5 percent, and aggravated assault 3.6 percent—all when compared with 2009 crime figures.
Geographically speaking, the South saw the largest decline in violent crime (7.5 percent), followed by the Midwest (5.9 percent), the West (5.8 percent), and the Northeast (0.4 percent).
Concerning property crime, motor vehicle theft was down 7.2 percent, larceny-theft was down 2.8 percent, and burglary was down 1.1 percent. Arson, tracked separately from other property crimes, fell 8.3 percent nationally.

All regions of the country experienced overall declines in property crime during 2010 from 2009 rates: down 3.8 percent in the South, 2.7 percent in the Midwest, 2.5 percent in the West, and 0.5 percent in the Northeast.
All city population groups saw decreases in violent crime.
Cities with populations of less than 10,000 saw a significant drop in murder—a 25.2 percent decrease.
There were some specific increases noted:

The Northeast saw increases in some violent crime categories from 2009 figures—murder was up 8.3 percent, forcible rape up 1.4 percent, and aggravated assault up 0.7 percent.
Cities with populations of 250,000 to 499,999 saw a 3.0 percent rise in murder, while cities with populations of 500,000 to 999,999 saw a 1.9 percent increase in forcible rape, and cities between 25,000 and 49,999 saw an increase of 1.3 percent in burglary.
The Northeast also saw an increase in burglary—up 3.5 percent.
Non-metropolitan counties reported slight increases in burglary (1.2 percent) and larceny-theft (3.2 percent).
Also available in the preliminary report are tables that include the number of offenses reported by cities—organized by state—with populations of more than 100,000. These tables include preliminary totals of offenses known to law enforcement for agencies that provided us with 12 months of complete data in both 2009 and 2010.

As always, we caution against drawing conclusions from the data in this report by making direct comparisons between cities. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction.

Complete figures for 2010 will be released this fall in the full Crime in the United States report.

Resources:

[HollandofFrance]

crimes rates dont mean everything

if german crime dropped in 1941 and jews were victims, its bad for one group more so

not sure if i can or need to find an accurate analogy, but you get the picture?

im for social welfare, im for legal pot- im against death penalty

im a conservative? not always or hardly

conservatives think im crazy-so do u?

[HollandofFrance]

have you ever heard of book" liberal fascism" by Jonah Goldberg ?see review on amazon .com

good book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism



http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-Am...0385511841

im probably a christian socialist but dont know-i hate labels

this forum seems to love labeling:confused:

[HollandofFrance]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism i may be like this but not sure yet

[Inchante]

have you ever heard of book" liberal fascism" by Jonah Goldberg ?see review on amazon .com

good book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism



http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-Am...0385511841

im probably a christian socialist but dont know-i hate labels

this forum seems to love labeling:confused:

No, I have not heard of it, though from reading the descriptions, I can tell you that the book is correct in stating that there is more to fascism than bigotry and genocide and that the word has lost its original meaning. Though, bigotry and genocide are certainly an aspect of it.

However, it is a shame that the book, while expounding on the way the word has changed, capitalizes on that changed meaning in its title, is it not? Also, I think you will find that the original definition of Fascism would include such things as extreme Nationalism and the opposition to "multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy". Fascism is also Corpratist.

I find it hard to swallow the notion that "Liberal Fascism" provides a compelling argument that Liberalism and Fascism are at all alike when Fascism is opposed to both Liberalism and Socialism. I think you will find that Liberals are also among some of the harshest critics of the United States, so extreme Nationalism doesn't fit. And, given the fact that the Occupy Wall St. movement is largely liberal, it seems counter-intuitive to call Liberals Corpratists.

After all, Fascism is a form of Authoritarianism, and Authoritarianism is far from being close to Liberalism, "the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion".

Honestly, if you go with the true definition of Liberalism, about 98% of the western world is Liberal . . . and that includes most Conservatives. But that goes back into the philosophies and principals of the Enlightenment.

Anyway, you may consider starting a topic more generally in the future (e.g. Is crime in the United States on the rise) and then discuss in your own words how you have come to believe that notion, and finally follow up with posting articles.

Personally, I only use articles by themselves to make an announcement of a large and important event in the gay community (e.g. Washington State passing gay marriage). You might try engaging people in a discussion first before proceeding into the more controversial details. Just a suggestion.

[pellaz]

property crime and crimes of passion usually run a mock in post cataclysmic recessionary times. Nothing much can be done.

[HollandofFrance]

in Goldbergs book there is much interesting stuff

president Wilson locked up about 75000 people for protesting world war one

JFK as a Senator voted against civil rights

many American leftists loved Mussolini at first anyway-poet Ezra pound did for years

when people call Obama a socialist its a mistake -he is not, i dont think