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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
BTW, police actions were scrutinized and deemed justified. See: Www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)?
Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.
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.
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.
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.
”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