• Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    Your use of the word “attack” indicates your belief that his criticism is somehow aggressive and violent. But this specious rhetoric only serves to disguise the truth, namely, that his criticism is non-violent. He neither speaks of violence nor advocates for it, something that his critics would never mention because it undermines their whole case.

    And sexist, apparently.

  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Words are dangerous, the censor’s bird call and the tyrant’s bird brain.

    That’s what these gags are about. As usual, it’s Trump’s fault they are getting threats. It has nothing to do with their own behavior. His Truth posts must be so powerful they trigger successive interactions in the human nervous system, leading to danger. In the deranged Trump supporter, Trump’s criticism leads them to commit threats.

    But that’s just the bullshit excuse they use to cover for their political desire to censor the one man criticizing their malfeasances. The proof is that they have the tools to protect their staff and prosecute those who commit threats but they punish Trump instead. He can’t criticize the law clerk chumming around with Chuck Shumer. Can’t criticize the judge and his weird, shirtless social media posts. But they can let a racist DA with TDS abuse the justice system to hurt Trump financially and politically.
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world

    If you were perceiving the world while you were asleep, then you wouldn't need the alarm clock to be awakened by it. The fact that you set the alarm clock to be awakened by it proves that you don't perceive the world while asleep.

    I’m not sure how that proves you’re not perceiving the world. If you weren’t perceiving the world you wouldn’t hear the alarm clock.

    Even so, if you’re not perceiving the world, what are you perceiving? Are you perceiving nothing? Are you not perceiving? Or are perceiving something other than the world?

    While I look away, I wouldn't know if the cup exist, and I wouldn't know what the person would be doing either. The person could have looked away too, fell asleep, or walked out the room. Anyway, how can I believe in the existence of the cup when I am not seeing it, and base my belief in the existence of the invisible cup relying on the other person's perception, which is totally inaccessible to me?

    You would know because the person would tell you that it did not disappear when you looked away. If you did not trust him, he could film the cup while you looked away, and you could review the video after and see that it had not moved. There are a number of experiments one can do find out the answer. Now you have evidence proving to you that it had not disappeared, and zero evidence that it did. Given this, is it reasonable to doubt the existence of the cup when you were not looking at it?
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world

    But do you keep perceiving the world while you are asleep? Are what you perceive always what you think you perceive? Was there any room for doubts, illusions or mistakes in the contents of your perception?

    If we weren’t perceiving in our sleep we wouldn’t wake up when our alarm went off. Our senses have evolved to wake us even in the deepest sleep. At any rate, I see no coherent reason why any of it should be doubted.

    Think of the cup in your OP, the one you cannot be sure exists when you are not perceiving it. If you and someone else were sitting around the cup, and you look away, but the other person sees the cup has not moved or vanished or blinked out of existence, are you right to doubt the existence of the cup?
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world

    The point is not that we stop perceiving or not perceiving anything at all. But rather, how can we be sure about what we perceive is real or truth?

    Or when we are not perceiving the objects we have been perceiving, due to not being present in front of the objects, what are the grounds for us keep believing the unperceived existence?

    I mentioned a few reasons why we’d keep believing in the existence of the world. For one, we never stop perceiving it. But also, there is no reason to do otherwise.

    It’s why I ask the question. If you never stop perceiving the world, what are the grounds for doubting the existence of the world?
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world
    The idea that we can stop perceiving the world is a troubling one, but remains at the core of anti-realism. It suggests that at some point a person can perceive nothing, can perceive the extraterrestrial, or is not perceiving at all. A question arises: what are the grounds for believing any of the above?

    The question is tricky to answer. At least some grounds remain for the realist. For instance, when we close our eyes we are not perceiving a void, we are not perceiving the otherworldly, or are not not perceiving, but are staring directly at the back of our eyelids. The eyelids, as amazing as they are, cannot block all light (which is of the world) so it cannot be the case that the world vanishes upon closing one’s eyes. Even when we sleep our senses are dutiful sentinels, and only in extraordinary instances and interventions can they be numbed (anaesthesia, for example). That his senses point outward is indicative of the relationship between a perceiver and the objects of perception. Plus, other observers or recordings can confirm that our coffee cups remain when we are not viewing them. So there is plenty grounds.

    So the question ought to be inverted. What are the grounds for believing that we are perceiving nothing, perceiving the extraterrestrial, or perceiving nothing at all?
  • The Great Controversy
    The metaphysics of it all is quite clear: the individual is the basis. The principium individuationis is everything. Each of them occupies her own unique space and time as particular beings that, once they’re gone, will never be seen again. While it may be fruitful to analyze the space between these beings, or to observe how they interact with one another, the loci of our analysis are invariably particular beings and we should never forget it.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    You omitted the fact that they were fired upon with non-lethal weapons to prevent their entry into the Capitol, that would jeopardize the proceding, and there was a real threat that they could have bombs. They weren't fired upon to stop them protesting.

    You omitted the fact that no one was found with bombs at the riot. So the "real threat" was in fact not real.

    When protesters stormed the police barriers during the Kavanaugh hearings, and tried to break into the building, they were arrested. When they broke into the Hart Senate building and protested illegally, they were arrested. When Isreal/Gaza protesters got into the Cannon House Office Building and protested there, they were arrested. That sort of enforcement is justified. What they didn't do was fire "less-than-lethal" weapons into the crowd indiscriminately. What they didn't do was shoot an unarmed woman in the neck.

    Was it inappropriate to stop people from breaking into the Capitol? You have sidestepped this point. Explain how police could discriminate between those who would be harmful from those who were harmless.

    It think it is appropriate to stop people from entering the capitol. Go ahead and arrest them. But it is not appropriate to inflict violence on the non-violent. Are you unable to discriminate between those who are violent and those who are not? If you see a woman waiving a flag in protest, or filming the crowd on her phone, do you suggest throwing a concussion grenade at her just in case?

    Sure, worse violence and destruction, but the Capitol situation is unique in that an official proceding required by law to take place on that date was being jeopardized. You treat this as irrelevant, though it was the key point.

    Who cares about official proceedings? It's a stupid point.

    So you agree the J6 committee told no lies, but you would have liked them to have shown this guy who inadvertantly got hurt by police. The committee was focusing on crimes, but I agree it would have added to the story, implicating Trump's immorality even further. Had he not inflamed his followers with lies (e.g. election was stolen and certification could be prevented) and had he not encouraged them to come to the DC that day, the innocent protestors would not have been hurt. You completely ignore this.

    The whole thing was an show trial. I've said this many times. They implicated nothing but their use of public funds to spread propaganda.

    BTW, police actions were scrutinized and deemed justified. See:

    The capitol police believed their own actions were justified. Big surprise.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.

    Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.

    They were fired upon for passing through a barricade erected by police, and for moving toward the capitol during an official proceeding.This justifies the indiscriminate throwing of concussion grenades into the crowd, who are all criminals, according to Relativist. That's all I needed to know.

    You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.

    I haven't shifted. It is wrong to use force so indiscriminately, especially when those people are only guilty of waving flags and middle fingers. Nothing has changed.

    I'm just making the side point that the entire year prior was filled with far worse violence and destruction, up until and including an attack on the white house, which spread beyond the temporary barriers into the streets where private property was destroyed and (of course) looted. I'm just wondering where all the investigative committees and finger-wagging about "our democracy" is. This apparent hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed.

    Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.

    A "show trial" isn't an actual trial either.

    Again, my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries, or at least I missed it. But you did see this footage in the hearings? There were 10 hearings in total (C-Span). Do you recall which hearing it was? I'd like to see it with my own eyes.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?

    If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force.

    Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune. Should the protesters have been shot in the face with pepper balls and concussion grenades thrown at their feet?

    The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?

    Yes, they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.

    Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.

    I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world

    We never stop perceiving the world. Gravity is a constant reminder. Biology never turns off. These worldly constants are always in our perceptual space and can never be not perceived.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people indiscriminately and without warning. They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces. Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    The protesters were too stupid to run away from pepper spray and rubber bullets. Don’t forget, there was also the one that was too stupid to run away from the real bullet.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    We didn’t get to see any of this in the J6 inquiry, which used Hollywood producers to gin up a slick narrative, but with the release of the footage we’re finally allowed to see what they hid. Here’s some footage showing Capitol officers using indiscriminate violence against protesters, inciting violence.

  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Another anti-democratic legal theory tossed in the dust bin. But then the judge falters on basic 1st amendment jurisprudence, giving anti-democratic forces some form of solace as they continue their schemes.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    Biden fired them all. He went after Trump appointees and filled the positions with his loyalists.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    New York judge lifts the gag order that barred Trump from maligning court staff in fraud trial

    Judge David Friedman, of the state’s intermediate appeals court, issued what’s known a stay — suspending the gag order and allowing Trump to freely comment about court staff while a longer appeals process plays out. Friedman’s ruling also applies to Trump’s lawyers and others involved in the case.

    The trial judge, Arthur Engoron, imposed the gag order on Trump after the former president made a disparaging social media post about Engoron’s court clerk on trial’s second day, Oct. 2. Engoron later fined Trump $15,000 for violations and expanded the order to include his lawyers after they questioned the clerk’s prominent role in the courtroom.

    Friedman questioned Engoron’s authority to police Trump’s speech outside the courtroom — such as his frequent gripes about the case on social media and in comments to TV cameras in the courthouse hallway. He acknowledged that judges often issue gag orders, but said they’re mostly used in criminal cases where there’s a fear that comments about the case could influence the jury.

    I’m surprised there are still some adults in the system, to be honest.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    “They do sound like the sort of thing Trump would say. Therefore, racism is fine, I guess.” We’ll have to name this fallacy Badenism!
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    I was trying to illustrate how fallacious such comparisons are. You’re comparing rhetoric; it’s like saying they’re all fascists because they swear. It’s dumb.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    A fascist dictator campaigning on rooting out fascists? Pretty wild.

    Politicians use inflammatory metaphors and dysphemism. Trump’s rhetoric is closer to that of Winston Churchill, for example, who described Bolsheviks as “swarms of typhus-bearing vermin” and said they were “like troops of ferocious baboons amid the ruins of cities and the corpses of their victims”. His threat to root out both “communists” and “fascists” suggests a closer parallel to Churchill (who opposed both in war) than to any fascist dictator. At any rate, making such parallels is clearly a poor exercise in guilt by association. Trump is a business man, nothing like the Austrian artist, the Italian journalist, or the British writer, who have higher social, ideological, linguistic, and spiritual affinities to Trump’s critics than to a man of Trump’s standing.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    You’re literally thinking like Hitler now.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    Hitler claimed the jews were using the big lie to deceive Germans. Praxis claims Trump is using the Big Lie to deceive Americans.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    NOS, how would you not see this as unhinged, echoing well-trodden fascist rhetoric for political opponents? Trump is saying all the stuff upfront, political opponents are going to be “rooted out”. This is literally fascist dictator playbook 101.

    Perhaps you can quote him and we can analyze his "echoing" of "fascist rhetoric", words that are plucked directly from the headlines that report on it.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    On the one hand I'd implore you tell me in your own words what was wrong with Trump's speech, but on the other hand I don't need you to because I know what you're going to say.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    Big Lie, capital letters, exactly as written by political operatives. Everything is decided for you. Your only duty (and ability) is to repeat it. You cannot do otherwise. But your sorcery theory of words suggests you’d blame them and not yourself for being their parrot.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    No. They saw a virtual candidate in Joe Biden, someone who didn’t leave his bunker and had abysmal attendance at his rallies, but got the most votes of any president ever. That’s the problem: you pretend Trump convinced everyone, but really they’re just watching your malfeasance.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Look how effectual everyone’s words are. They can convince no one but themselves.
  • Austin: Sense and Sensibilia

    The way I understand it, the movements of the body are not separate from the body, but are just aspects of it; so, I don't know how not to distinguish between the two.

    The aspects of the body are the body, at least when I look. What distinguishes them beyond the words used to describe it?
  • The American Gun Control Debate

    As previously illustrated, community hasn’t faired so well to quell violence, or worse, has supported it. When communities come to head we call it war, for instance.
  • The American Gun Control Debate

    I guess you’d have no choice but to depend on others if you are unable to defend yourself. Sounds terrible, to me.
  • The American Gun Control Debate

    A fellow citizen might try to kill you though, so I should hope it would be easier. A gun is a great equalizer in that regard. How do you propose the weaker citizens should defend themselves from the stronger?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    They said some things…the total extent of your complaints.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

    So another nothing burger. Look at the lengths you go to fabricate a reality you know is not true.
  • The American Gun Control Debate

    A lot of it has to do with history. Gun laws have been used to blindly suppress certain classes: black people, first peoples, Catholics, immigrants, and the poor. It has become a point of humor that gun-controllers need to search through racist codes and laws to present any legal precedent in American courts these days.

    Consider this quote from former slave and anti-lynching advocate Ida Wells:

    ”Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves in Jacksonville, Fla., and Paducah, Ky, and prevented it. The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.

    The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

    Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in all its Phases

    It would be wrong to suggest that gun-controllers seek to suppress certain classes, but her argument should haunt anyone doing so. What happens when the law refuses to protect, or worse, turns against those they are meant to serve? This fear is almost laughed off as an anachronism. But then I have to watch as the great Canadian leader sends guns to Ukrainian citizens while taking them away from his own. Slavery, war, and genocide are never that far away, and official murder is always easier with a disarmed populace.

    Americans simply do not trust their government enough, nor should they.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    It’s obvious that more guns equals more gun deaths. I don’t think there is any point arguing against that. For the gun rights advocate, and to any rights advocate in general, the argument should be focused on the how immoral and unjust the utilitarian arguments against human rights have become and will always be.

    The trite point that more guns is correlative to more gun deaths is a fine enough premise, but that this premise should lead to the conclusion that those in power should have the control of such weapons doesn't quite follow. To make such a leap, and to deny a person (or population) his right to own a gun, requires first the fear of other human beings, and second the desire to control them. The justification for this seems to be to make of a gun owner both a potential murderer and murder victim in some potential future. This line of argument could be carried to absurdities. If his lust for the denial of rights was absolute, he could justify putting everyone in a padded room in order to save them from falling off a cliff.

    As vivid as that prophetic future and possible murder may be in the utilitarian's skull, the insinuation is unjust because it convicts not only those who would commit such crimes (and their victims), but those who would not, punishing them alike. The punishment in this case is to deny people their right just in case, preferring instead to reserve the right for those in power.

    The unjust fear of others and the immoral desire to control them is disguised as saving lives, indeed caring for others, yet the utilitarian would be unable to point to a single life he has saved. On the other hand, the rights advocate can point to every victim of the utilitarian's fears and desires, for it encompasses every one of the utilitarian's fellow citizens.
  • Austin: Sense and Sensibilia

    I like the way you put that. I’m sold.