"I hope there's not a race problem. I certainly do not have one."

What a fucking dipshit.

I still extend the offer to quote and discuss which, if any, of the statements within the nine aforementioned paragraphs you are claiming is not true.

Sigh.

Trump's thoughts and beliefs about racism and it's effects/affects, just like everyone else's, directly influence his language and behaviour regarding those things. That's how belief systems work. We need only to look at what he says and what he does regarding the current political movement to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump devalues the movement and it's participants. He is a racist. Hence, the evidence currently under consideration consists of his language and actions concerning it. What I put forth earlier were very brief reports of Trump's actual behaviours and language regarding that much. It was not a full account.

Here's some very inconvenient truth for you...

Trump's actual language regarding the movement for racial justice reform in the United States is chock full of statements, none of which offer support, or even acknowledge that there is a problem with racial injustice and/or systemic racism in America. There has never been a single statement out of Trump's mouth that honors the movement, honors the plight of black Americans, and/or acknowledges the injury black Americans have sustained throughout American history at the hands of racist beliefs and practices.

Not one!

To quite the contrary, all of Trump's statements about the movement for racial justice reform are against it... and vehemently so!

All of them!

What more evidence could anyone possibly need?

You may be right. That's not the only agenda possible though. I'm certain that there are many who tolerate Trump in spite of his being racist and an imbecile due to their number one priority being profit, and the belief that Trump will pass through the system without damaging their interests. He's been a tremendous benefit to such people in some ways.

That was off the top of my head; no work really. That said...



To answer your question...

Assuming what you say here is true(that's probably a stretch, but for the sake of argument), sure those are the actions of a racist president. A racist president today cannot publicly admit it(yet), but will instead claim to support the black community in their fight for racial justice reform in public spaces while simultaneously doing all of the things I mentioned above. Which leads us back to that...

I offered nine different paragraphs setting out Trump's behaviour and the only reasonable conclusion drawn from what he has actually done. You neglected to directly address any of them, in lieu of proposing a defense for three charges that I did not make. Which paragraph, if any, are you claiming is not true?

I do not want you to change the name, or discourage you from talking about the principles. It's a great start. I just wanted to encourage you to dig a little deeper. That said, I've just reread this thread, your OP, and my replies several times over. I want to apologize, because I find myself wanting to listen more and critique less. Please continue. I'll take off my hat of critique(looking for problems) and don my hat of mutual interest(looking for agreement).

:wink:

I personally want to create a solid frame for further researches. — Skeptic

I understand that, but I'm not sure if you understand what I've been getting at here. What you create is not the foundation of problem solving. Problem solving and it's origen(the foundation) existed long before you and I. You're not creating it. To quite the contrary, you're attempting to discover and/or acquire knowledge of that which existed in it's entirety long before whatever you create.

That much must be kept in mind.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you've put forward here. I mean, you've offered a few basic things, however, I'm merely pointing out that those things are themselves not basic enough. If you're ok with that, then so too am I. But, it would be a misnomer to call them the foundation of problem solving.

Ok, A lot of like BLM talk here last pages. Explain to a fellow on other side of the big waters, what has been the story for the african american(I abbreviate AA) community, generally speaking, since the days of the civil rights movements in the 60`s? — Ansiktsburk

Mass incarceration and demonization.

Go back further.

Well, one could be knowingly saying racist shit, and perpetuating racism by virtue of doing so, without being a person who devalues another based upon the color of their skin. It's a stretch... I know... however... as I said, being who I am, I extended him the benefit of the doubt at first. He also said other stuff that he clearly did not believe himself for the exact same reasons(when he adopted Bernie's language because Hillary could not). I also suspected he was someone who would say whatever he believed it would take to get what he wanted, regardless of whether or not he actually believed what he was saying.

Oh, and it's not as if I condoned such behaviour.

I, being who I am and all, actually offered him the benefit of the doubt by overestimating his intelligence level and granting that he may have been strategically saying things to get votes.

What's happened since then removes all doubt.

He is most certainly a racist.

The fancy, intellectual sounding Latin phrase escapes me at present but in short this is a trick question. — Outlander

The fact that your interpretation of that simple question causes you to hesitate on grounds of suspicion ought tell you something. That is in no way, shape, or form a trick question.

A person's life matters by content of character and not color of skin. Period. MLK said that. — Outlander

I don't think so. I mean, those words were not spoken by Dr. King, but I do agree that content of one's character is a much better standard by which to judge a person as compared/contrasted to the color of their skin.

Someone who is vile, a menace to their own neighborhood and society as a whole, who happens to be black, does not get a "free pass" of their life automatically having value due to race- that's racist. — Outlander

Well, no. That's not racist. One is not racist just because they value someone based upon the color of their skin. One is racist when they devalue someone based upon that. On my view, one's life automatically has value because they are a person.

That said, I agree with you that vile people who are a menace to society need to be removed from society and dealt with accordingly, regardless of the color of their skin. Sometimes, such people lose their life, particularly when they actually pose a threat to the life of an arresting officer.

I don't see how talking about black lives being lost in larger numbers just because we're not using racial conflict to stigmatize another nation we're not fond of is "changing the subject" of black lives having value. Why do you? I get this is a largely non-American site but come on guy, don't be so transparent with it. — Outlander

Black lives matter is all about the racial injustice in The United States of America, and the dire need for racial justice reform(equal treatment under the law). So, when someone responds by talking about something else, it is changing the subject. Pretty simple.

What about other minorities in America who don't have the numbers to shut down entire metropolitan areas when someone who looks like them is killed? — Outlander

What about them? Many people of all walks of life are active in the movement. That's part of the beauty of it all. Those who stand for racial justice reform and the movement are not just limited to standing up for racial injustice towards blacks. Rather, it's all inclusive. Solidarity. It is a fight against white racism and the residual effects/affects that persist in American society to this day as a result of a very long history of racist beliefs and practices.

I'm sure we're familiar with the fact that a slight majority of people killed by police are white (52%) while blacks who are killed are 32% of fatalities. And of course the fact that with only 13% of the population that is grossly disproportionate (black Americans are about 3x likely to be killed that white Americans).

As usual we're spending all our time, energy, and emotion on the symptom of a problem rather than the cause- and there are some people who want nothing less- because then nothing will change. There is a cultural problem in black communities and what has been fed to them as "this is my culture". Unless you have a time machine and can go back in time and prevent slavery, there's no point in getting upset over what happened to the point you riot, commit violent crimes, destroy your own neighborhoods, and then get felony charges that essentially cripple you socially for the remainder of your life if you're not locked up for the rest of it- like some people want! Do you agree or disagree? — Outlander

You're conflating a few different things here.

I agree that resorting to rioting and committing violent crimes essentially cripples someone socially for much, if not the rest, of their life. Violence is the language of the unheard.

I disagree that that is the cause of racial injustice and/or systemic racism.

Do yourself a favor, and spend a bit of time researching Jim Crow laws. Perhaps take an hour or two and watch 13 on Netflix or any one of the other readily available shows regarding the systemic racism in America. It may offer you a bit more historical insight on how we've gotten to where we are today.

Guy, you don't have to be my buddy it just would seem from the position you attempt to convey on this forum you should at least be a friend to positive change (or simple logic) versus the same old status quo which as shown has failed time and time again to change anything for the better. Fix the culture... — Outlander

That is precisely what the movement is about. What do you think that that requires? I suspect when you say "fix the culture" you're referring to 'black culture', without ever acknowledging that where we are today has been directly influenced by racist public policies and racist culture.

Since you claim to know, and based on your pattern-reading, can you paraphrase a single racist belief or principle he holds? — NOS4A2

That's not how belief systems work... racist ones notwithstanding, but since you asked...


He single-handedly used the powers of the presidency to keep confederate monuments in public space while simultaneously(within weeks anyway) using those same powers to end the hard fought for and won federal efforts at implementing socio-economic equity in both public and private enterprise. That move preserves, glorifies, values, and honors racist parts of American history, while singlehandedly reversing - and thus, fighting against - a centuries long progress on racial justice reform.

He openly and publicly degrades, discredits, and/or vehemently denounces those who exercise their right to peaceful protest when and if those protests are about racial injustice while simultaneously offering his personal support and/or defense to an individual that murdered otherwise peaceful protestors involved in that movement.

He moves to interrupt peaceful demonstrations if and when they are about racial injustice reform, but makes no such moves to interrupt white supremacist demonstrations, all the while calling individual protestors of the former all sorts of negative names, and the latter "good people".

He does not - perhaps cannot - even acknowledge that the current movement is not against law and order. Those protestors are all for law and order:They want equal treatment under the law. They want law and order to work for blacks(and other non whites) the same way that it works for whites.

When someone is suspected and/or charged with a crime, and/or heinous act, he makes it a point to openly and publicly extend the benefit of the doubt towards them even if they are well-known white supremacists and racists(when the crime is actually against someone in the movement) while systematically refusing to extend the same courtesy to blacks and those who stand alongside blacks(when simply charged).

He has shown us that "innocent until proven guilty" is reserved in his mind for white racists/white supremacists who support him, but "guilty until proven innocent"(and even after being proven innocent) is reserved in his mind when the suspects were/are black.

He uses the powers of the presidency to suppress the right to free speech and peaceful protest/demonstration, and does not - will not - even acknowledge the racial problems and/or systemic racism that still exists in the States.

He does not acknowledge the clear and actual distinction between looters and rioters(criminals) and those who are simply exercizing their right to peaceful protest/demonstration aimed at racial justice reform. Rather, instead he publicly mischaracterizes all of them as criminals, anti-American, anarchists, socialists, enemies of the United States, or some other derogatory devaluation or admonishment.

He refuses to openly disavow and/or criticize well known racist organizations and/or white supremacy groups, but instead offers his own public support for and of them, going so far as to listen and believe what well-known advocates of white supremacy say. He even repeats many of their misguided offerings by re-tweet/repeat.



Summary:

The president of the United States of America has spent the last four years fighting for and alongside racists and white supremacists, while simultaneously using the powers of the presidency fighting against the movement for racial justice reform at every turn, going so far as to singlehandedly reverse public policies designed to implement the necessary change.

He is racial injustice incarnate.

Do tools think?

Unfortunately the present discourse is meant to divide us, not to unify us. — ssu

I would concur about much of it. No doubt. Some real big problems are left sorely unattended.

The president has the power to deputize armed militia groups.

Let's talk about black lives. Countless millions of blacks have been killed in religious civil wars in Africa- more than ANY other white person has killed here combined probably since Columbus. Far more. Yet nobody speaks about it. We're too busy worrying about a few criminals or associates of them who get all day coverage on the news. So who really doesn't understand or doesn't care? Keep your charity, please. — Outlander

More prima facie evidence of the disconnect.

Talk about Black Lives Matter. It is all about the racial injustices that black people are subject to under current American laws and law enforcement practices. Changing the subject is rather... uh... well...

You're right though, perhaps I was being far too charitable.

Do black lives matter?

being able to distinguish between those who pose such a risk, and those who do not
— creativesoul

Everyone poses a risk to you if they happen to be committing/guilty of a crime and it's your job to stop it or apprehend them. Just because someones standing around whistling with their hands in their pockets doesn't mean they're not. A person with baggy clothing easily capable of concealing a weapon along with excessive tattoos and referencing and or listening to violent or gang related music is high risk- whether or not certain groups of people have been indoctrinated to adopt this is a good question. — Outlander

Not everyone poses an equal risk to the officer's life. The inability to effectively distinguish between those who do and those who do not is a huge problem and something that you've just put on display here.

Congratulations, and I am not your buddy.

If you already have a goal in mind for positing the foundation of all problem solving, then it is not the goal of the foundation. It is your goal. The foundation of problem solving is not the sort of thing that has goals. Rather it is the sort of thing that consists of the most basic elemental constituents that all examples of problem solving have in common.

I find this response interesting, because it doesn't necessarily say any of the cops involved were "trigger happy" or otherwise use lethal city property irresponsibly or otherwise say anyone did anything wrong or say it wasn't just an accident. — Outlander

Some accidents are the result of trigger happy police officers. The problem is the warlike mindset of police officers during such raids. They are trained like soldiers and use the weapons of close combat, very similar to those used in recent decades as a means for apprehending terrorist suspects, except with domestic cases there is no emphasis upon capturing the individual alive.

You seem to be speaking of a culture of abuse of privilege. — Outlander

Not privilege. Power.

...the law enforcement officers were already in a warlike state of mind. That state of mind is cultivated. Having it all the time has become the norm.
— creativesoul

In addition to my above response, it depends on the area. Big city, high crime begets prick cops. Which isn't far from understandable. Even if they get breaks, there are no sure things. You could get shot and killed, probably hurt really bad beforehand "just because" for again an average salary- and if you screw up- you might face decades in jail under Color of Law violations- with people you really don't want to be in a cell with. These aren't fun thoughts to have. — Outlander

Of course those are not fun thoughts to have. Being a police officer carries along with it the increased danger of losing one's life from dealing with certain people/suspects that are capable of killing officers. That is a very well known and accepted risk... it's part of the job. One who cannot deal with that increased risk without being able to distinguish between those who pose such a risk, and those who do not ought not become a police officer.

But you're missing the point here. Not everyone is an enemy. The overwhelming majority of citizens, including blacks, pose no such danger to the lives of police officers. Moreover, when someone is both unarmed and running away from the police, they cannot pose an immediate danger to the police.

You do not protect and serve enemies of war.
— creativesoul

Uh? What century are we living in, boss? We're all citizens now, cops are all public servants, and we're all entitled to change just about anything about the law using the democratic process. Majority has more power sure, but unless you're a minority here that doesn't have a country somewhere where you are the majority (which everyone does) .. there's really no need to cry over spilled milk. Just enjoy the ride. — Outlander

You're missing the point. The actual police training and weapons used by police forces is far too close as being the same as military training against enemy combatants. The job of law enforcement officers is to protect and serve the citizens of the community not defeat them in a warlike setting. Those two mindsets are incompatible, regardless of the century one lives in. One does not protect and serve the best interests of one's own enemies. Police officers across the land have been taught using military style mindsets and weapons. The no knock warrants are a prima facie example.

You're clearly not black. The spilled milk here is blood. The analogy is proof of the disconnection you have with the reality of being black in America. You simply do not understand, or do not care. I'll grant the former and be charitable at this time. Justice delayed is justice denied. It's been delayed for far too long. Your idealistic viewpoint suggests that we're all entitled to change what needs changed by using the democratic process.

The reality is that it is not nearly so easy. That's been the fight for hundreds of years. Now, however, it seems that there is an ever increasing white portion of people joining the movement. The majority is no longer divided upon racial lines, but rather upon empathetic ones. There are more and more people who have personal reasons to be deeply offended by the idea of having racists in power, because more and more average everyday white people have non white friends, family members, and loved ones.

The time for the right kinds of change has come. It is now.

Hence things like a man shot while sleeping in an no-knock raid earlier this year doesn't get much media coverage as the person wasn't black (and it happened before the George Floyd killing). — ssu

Nice then, that at least the fight for racial justice(equal treatment under the law) has the additional benefit of shining a light upon other problems that are not just about race, but rather about abuse of power.

No worries. I did not take that personally, just so you know. Rather, I just wanted to be clear about my intentions here.

Cheers!

Understood. I've no where near enough knowledge of Plotinus to be of much help here. Just seemed like Spinoza successfully accomplished(contrary to his own aims) what Plotinus seems to have set out to do. So, I wondered if you agreed to that, trusting that you are familiar with Plotinus. Hence, my initial reply. If I had more time, I would spend some researching Plotinus, for the notion of monism interests me, despite not being able to agree with it.

:wink:

My own position demands a plurality of things. Beyond or 'beneath' that, I've no reason to believe that it is even possible for us to know much at all more about the origens of the universe. So, I stop when I've reached the limits...

No one planned to kill Breonna Taylor. — Outlander

Not all murder is premeditated. It is all wrongful killing. Killing Taylor was wrongful. Did race play a part in her killing, such that she was killed because she was black? Probably not. She was killed because there are trigger happy law enforcement officials who have the ability to escape any and all responsibility of wrongful killing by simply claiming to fear for their own lives, regardless of whether or not that onset of fear is well grounded.

In such an execution of a no knock warrant, the law enforcement officers were already in a warlike state of mind. That state of mind is cultivated. Having it all the time has become the norm. That is a problem when you're in a position that is supposed to protect and serve the civilian population.

You do not protect and serve enemies of war.

Reminds me of Spinoza's Ethics, aside from the fact the Spinoza aimed at God as the source of all creation(I think) and Plotinus seemed to want to avoid all that. Seems also that Spinoza's results are in line with Plotinus' aims.

You're talking about the Taylor event right? Getting murdered for having had a relationship with an unsavory individual in the past is a problem. That was a wrongful killing. It's certainly not the only one.

In the absence of a confession, the only evidence you have of their thoughts is propaganda or projection. — NOS4A2

That is false. Again...

Evidence of an individual's thoughts are patterns of their behaviour. Habits of thought directly influence how one acts during certain situations.

We can read Trump's words. We can listen to what he says. We can review the history of both, his words and his behaviours during and about racially charged social situations. We can gather more than enough evidence needed to confidently conclude - to know - that he is racist.

We can do much the same, as I've already stated, regarding whether or not law enforcement officials are acting more forcefully based upon the color of the suspect's skin. There are policies which prove that they are, they do, and/or they have distinctly different actions based upon skin color.

There is no need for mind reading.

Are you denying that patterns of one's behaviour is evidence of their thought and belief? Are you denying that habits of thought and belief directly influence and/or govern how one acts?

I will not allow you to obfuscate here.

I cannot be bothered to correct such an absurd claim that excessive force cases are not investigated. — NOS4A2

Changing the subject will not help you here. Nor will a misrepresentation of what I claimed. I did not deny that excessive force cases are investigated.

Your claim is bullshit because excessive force cases are not 'routinely' punished. That is false by any and all standards of what counts as such. The data I asked for would verify and/or falsify your claim and mine.

I know that excessive force cases are not routinely punished. You know it too. Everyone knows it by now. That's why your attempting to divert the focus. Put the stats forward. Show I'm wrong. Show your right. Those stats are at your fingertips. Use them.

Another mind reader. — NOS4A2

You'll have to do better than that.

No need to read Trump's mind, nor the mind of anyone who has operative racist beliefs governing their actions and words.

...the use of excessive force is routinely investigated and punished. — NOS4A2

What a bullshit line.

Please. Support your claims here.

Show everyone here the actual number of blacks who died at the hands of police officers. Show the actual number of investigations of those events that led to criminal charges. Show the findings of the court regarding those charges.

Guess what you will provide us with by virtue of doing so.

:smirk:

Senate GOP have released their findings in the Hunter Biden probe... — NOS4A2

All the while not addressing, not carefully considering, not eliminating the injury and harm that a pandemic has had upon millions and millions of Americans.

Great job! Easy to see what the priorities of the current GOP are. Slurp slurp...

Solipsism is a philosophical position.
All philosophical positions require language use.
All language use requires shared meaning.
All shared meaning requires a plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no such plurality of creatures.
If solipsism is true there is no shared meaning.
If solipsism is true there is no language use.
If solipsism is true there are no philosophical positions.
Solipsism is a philosophical position.

Draw your own conclusion.

:wink:

In the absence of a confession, the only evidence you have of their thoughts is propaganda or projection. — NOS4A2

That is a commonly held false belief. Evidence of an individual's thoughts are patterns of their behaviour. Habits of thought directly influence how one acts during certain situations. Look no further than your child mind king of the playground. His racist belief system is put on clear display anytime and every time we look at a timeline of his own behaviour regarding racially relevant events.

With regard to whether or not individual police and law enforcement officers are acting based upon the color of one's skin, we need look no further than the patterns of police behaviour towards blacks, and actually policies and practices of departments across the land.

They most certainly do.

All candidates worthy of subsequent time and consideration - whatever they may be - must be amenable to evolutionary terms
— creativesoul

Amazing intro. Thank you for such detailed highlighting. After such great reading I really hope that everyone will stop and reread my first post again. I already put seed there, in third principle to be precise. From my point of view, evolutionary first problem solving system was built around obviousness. Сonsciousness is a secondary thing and simplest problem solving process should work with minimal efforts... — Skeptic

A very kind review. Kinder than my own upon rereading. I should have further simplified/edited it. However, it seemed to at least skirt around what I wanted to emphasize, and it came off the top of my head after returning home from an emotionally intense trip abroad combined with a lack of both proper nutrition and sleep.

:wink:

I'm glad that we agree on the need for evolutionary amenability. It seems we also agree upon the apparent inadequacy regarding the shortcomings of current convention regarding that, in addition to the need for putting any of our notions/models to practical use. However, although I do not want to derail the thread by mentioning the crucial importance that truth plays in our accounting practices, it certainly deserves being kept in mind. Inaccurate and/or entirely false accounts of our minds(and thus problem solving) can be put to use no less than true and accurate ones. With that in mind, it seems that meeting the standard of evolutionary amenability ought perform double duty for us in that regard.

I find that talk of consciousness is riddled with problems. I agree with you that it comes later. There are problem solving skills put on display by creatures who are incapable of taking account of their own mental ongoings. Such creatures are more than capable of figuring out how to acquire resources(food for instance) using a multiple step method including tool manufacture and use, but have no ability to take account of themselves and/or what they are doing. So, I would also concur with the general sentiment regarding last statement in the quote above.

I would like to add the following consideration:Since it is the case that some problem solving does not require language use, language is not part of the foundation of all problem solving. Again, it seems that you agree. Below is an excerpt from the OP that seems to be commensurate with this crucial consideration on the one hand, but perhaps difficult to incorporate on the other...

Is that really so difficult to connect available knowledge to create something solid and meaningful and more importantly, useful?

For example, I would start with following three main principles for that:
principle of similarity - it's a starting point of the mind, we need to sort out somehow a chaos around us.
principle of regularity - we need to be able to see interconnections, sequences and patterns. Principle of similarity creates a static world model and principle of regularity gives us a set of constraints to create a dynamic one.
principle of obviousness - if our world model produces a stable result about some fact then it become obvious for us

All three principles are about fundamental unconscious processes. Principles are extremely simplified and it's only a part of them (unconscious part), but even such a model can already be very useful. For example:
the structure of our knowledge is directly related to our ability to solve problems. Knowledge itself isn't enough, it should be structured properly for the specific problem
our sense of obviousness is faulty but can be adjusted via structure of our knowledge — Skeptic

I'm quite hesitant to talk in terms of "principles" when it comes to the problem solving capabilities clearly demonstrated by language-less creatures, even if these principles are claimed to be about fundamental unconscious processes of those creatures. It would behoove us all to strive for more than just an account about the unconscious autonomous workings of the mind. We need to actually set those out in terms of their basic elemental constituency, and I do not find that similarity, regularity, and obviousness are basic enough. Although, they are most certainly helpful in sharpening the focus. The move us in the right direction, so to speak.

Do the three principles share a set of relevant common denominators(basic elemental constituents), such that that set is more foundational and/or basic than any and/or all of the principles themselves? It seems to me that they do.

Is this pursuit something worth continuing by your lights?

Some starting considerations, given where we are...

The foundation of problem solving is a name that - if adequate - will somehow pick out what all problem solving cases have in common, in terms of basic elemental constituency. The scope of the minimum criterion must be as broad as possible, ranging from the most simple, rudimentary, and/or basic examples of problem solving through and perhaps 'beyond' the most complex cases known.

We are actually problem solving here and now, in this very thread. We are looking to acquire knowledge of what all problem solving has in common, how it evolves and/or grows in it's complexity, etc. So, if there is a single foundation underlying all of the different complexity levels, then it must be amenable to each and every one. If what we propose as the foundation of problem solving cannot adequately account for all known cases, then it is not the foundation. To quite the contrary, it would be utterly inadequate; otherwise sorely lacking, in it's explanatory power. If there is a foundation for problem solving, then all examples thereof must somehow, and in some way or other, be commensurate with and/or otherwise amenable to their own foundation.

In light of these considerations, there needs to be yet another; a standard to bear. All candidates worthy of subsequent time and consideration - whatever they may be - must be amenable to evolutionary terms. This is already supported by and in large by the simple things we already know. All human knowledge is accrued. It begins simply and grows in it's complexity.

Any and all foundational accounts are and must be put in bare minimalist terms, for there is no other way to be able to 'connect' all the cases ranging from what you've called "unconscious" through extremely complex metacognitive endeavors, such as what we're actually doing here and now. In this thread, we are thinking about our own thought and belief, with a particular 'kind' of them in direct view.

A foundation is never equivalent to what's built upon it. Sometimes, the foundation consists of entirely different elemental constituents(think of a building). Other times, however, the foundation consists of the very same things albeit in much simpler 'form' as compared to the more complex things emerging and/or growing in complexity from that simple basic elementary 'form'.

The foundation of problem solving is one such thing.

Hammers and nails...

For fuck's sake. Someone against the paper:Make your case. Someone against analytic philosophy, go elsewhere or again:make your case.

I'll read the paper and decide what I want to do after . I've a bit of time on my hands, due to quarantine from travel... covid regs and all.

Greetings. Welcome.

:smile:

Very relevant topic. My favorite.

I think we should continue this conversation in private message. — JerseyFlight

I'd rather see it discussed openly.

OP???

Here's the irony...

You claimed both, that natural reason demands coherency, and that laypeople can indeed hold contradictory beliefs. So, either lay people do not use natural reason(which is contradictory to what you've already claimed) or natural reason does not demand coherency(which is also contradictory to what you've already claimed).

...you hold contradictory beliefs.

By personally acting to ensure that the player would be punished for exercising the right to peaceful demonstration, Trump most certainly did deny those aforementioned rights.

By not even listening to the grievance, Trump most certainly did not criticize the grievance being levied.

He attacked the player, the players' mothers, and marginalized and/or trivialized the black American citizens in the process. All the while acknowledging neither the right to protest nor the injury being protested against. To this day, he acknowledges neither. He is the president of the United states of America, and evidently neither he nor you know the difference between a critique and a personal attack.

All the while he defends someone who showed up with a loaded rifle to what was an otherwise peaceful demonstration. That person actually murdered people. Trump defended the murderer. They were young, white, and went looking for trouble... but, they were supporters of his.

He was ready and is ready to execute young black men for crimes that they were accused, but turned out to be completely innocent of. He took out front page ads in major news publications attempting to influence the outcome... attempting to garner support for the execution of those black young men, simply because they were accused of crimes against a white woman. Had he been judge, jury, and executioner those innocent young men would be dead, and he would not have an ounce of remorse.

He is a fucking racist.

Yes, it is good that the argument is rational... ...but that doesn't make the argument a good one... — Judaka

:brow:

Do you not see the self-contradiction/incoherency?

My basic point(the reason I first posted) was that natural reason does not demand coherency. If that were true, it would not be possible for a normal average everyday layperson to hold contradictory beliefs. But they do. — creativesoul

This is not true, as I explained. Contradictory beliefs can be held by a person... — Metaphysician Undercover

There's a bit of irony here...