Take some advil.

:wink:

I'm going back to reading...

We can leave that bit above to the side if you like. I understand that it is tangential to the thrust of the paper. I'd not planned on focusing so intently upon that portion. I'm good with moving on, and am currently continuing past that part.

:nerd:

One part of A nice derangement that we have not directly addressed so far is that about Donnellan: the referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions. I enjoyed the droll interplay, and the link to modal logic; and the observation that one can say something that is true, using a sentence that is false. — Banno

Interesting that you should mention this, because that particular section has definitely captured my attention. Due to the overwhelming compelling interest that I have in the general subject matter, I'm very carefully studying this part at the moment. I'm reminded of a recurring issue that rears it's head elsewhere. It relates to meaning and/or reference, and seems quite relevant to the Donnellan distinction between two uses of definite descriptions and the MacKay objection to that distinction as discussed by Davidson.

I suspect that the conclusion that one can say something true by using a sentence that is false is based upon conflating the very nuanced but quite remarkable differences in both, the meaning and the truth conditions of what are otherwise identical looking statements. Neglecting that distinction is the recurring issue I'm seeing here and elsewhere(Gettier in particular). I'll try to explain concisely showing the relevance to the paper.

Identical looking statements can and do mean very different things, particularly when examined in a more general sense, such as when completely isolated from the individual speaker(what words mean according to Davidson) as compared/contrasted to what the exact same words mean when they are examined as a belief statement(what a speaker means according to Davidson). The same sentence can and does have very different meaning/reference, and thus very different truth conditions depending upon whether or not we're examining what the words mean(in general) or what the words mean when used by a specific individual speaker.

For example, and in at least partial agreement with Donnellan, I too find that "Smith's murderer is insane" is true when and if "Smith's murderer" refers to an insane individual, regardless of whether or not that individual murdered Smith. I disagree that that is a false sentence when we examine it as an individual belief statement, for the referent of "Smith's murderer" does not need to have murdered Smith. Rather, the referent need only to be insane. That holds good because "Smith's murderer" is doing the work of a rigid designator(pace Kripke in Naming and Necessity). It picks an individual out of this world, to the exclusion of all others. If the individual picked out is insane, then "Smith's murderer is insane" is true because the individual picked out is insane.

It is only when we examine the statement as a general one(divorced from the individual, and such not as a belief statement) that problems arise. That becomes a problem, because "Smith's murderer" no longer refers to the same individual that Jones picked out. Rather, when divorced from Jones and taken in general; the referent, the meaning, and the truth conditions all change accordingly. In such a general case, "Smith's murderer" only picks out the individual that murdered Smith, to the exclusion of all others. In this example, the person that murdered Smith is not insane. There is no problem however, because Jone's most certainly referred to someone else, and that person was insane, despite the fact that a misnomer was used. What we have here are two identical looking statements with very different referents, meaning, and thus truth conditions. The only problem I see is neglecting the differences between them.

That same neglect is also true of Gettier, and it is the very foundation that gives rise to 'Gettier problems'. For example, "The man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job" refers to completely different people depending upon whether we examine it in general(any man with ten coins will do here) or as a particular belief statement of Smith about himself(only Smith himself will do here). Gettier conflates the two. Smith was, of course, talking about himself. He did not believe that anyone else would get the job. Hence, the recurring problem mentioned earlier. That's worth mention, but I digress...

Contrary to Donnellan, and perhaps in some agreement with Davidson(based upon his mention of the disconnect between MacKay's objection and Donnellan's answer)I also do not think MacKay's Humpty Dumpty objection is valid as a result of all this. Rather, I think Donnellan granted far too much, because it is not at all uncommon to use language like that. Perhaps the underlying importance of intentions for Donnellan represents the bulk of the actual problem(s). It could also be the result of the distinction drawn between what words mean and what a speaker means, for that distinction does not successfully do the job needed, as shown above. Davidson also denies that the truth conditions of the statement change according to the meaning, which is very odd to me. He said the following...

Jones’ belief about who murdered Smith cannot change the truth of the sentence he uses (and for the same reason cannot change the reference of the words in the sentence).

That is a point of contention. I would strongly disagree, in part based upon what's above. In addition, I would also charge Davidson with having this the wrong way around. The truth conditions of a statement are determined by the referent and what's being said about the referent, not the other way around. It's not so much that Jones' belief about who murdered Smith changes the truth of the sentence. To quite the contrary, the referent of "Smith's murderer" and Jones' belief about the referent wholly determines it's truth conditions, in the exact same way that Smith's belief determines those things in Gettier's Case I.


Tangentially:The distinction I've set out above may pose insurmountable problems for the T sentence, because the T sentence is incapable of drawing the aforementioned remarkable distinction between the meaning and truth conditions of identical statements(in general as compared/contrasted with individual belief statements). I see no way for the T sentence to disambiguate these remarkably different truth conditions and/or meanings of identical looking statements. Perhaps, Davidson knows this and as a result denies the distinction I've set out here as a means to salvage his project(save the T sentence).

Well shit...

I stand corrected. I guess someone did stuff a few nice words about blacks into his mouth.

:rofl:

Probably killed him to say them. He's such a great third grade reader too. Perfect cadence.

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 yesterday. 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?

Ah, yes!

For what it's worth...

I agree with Davidson when it comes to first meaning(involving sentences and words) requiring an idiolect(their use). However, if Davidson holds that there is no such thing as non and/or pre linguistic meaning, then you know I cannot agree. This paper however does not seem to be concerned with pre and/or non linguistic meaning. Luckily.

:wink:

I am compelled by the inability for theories of language(meaning?) to account for malapropisms and novelty. They've definitely went wrong somewhere along the line. I suspect that the underlying issue is the theory of meaning underwriting the rest.

Tomorrow.

So, I've read the paper and the discussion thus far. Interesting. Particularly the parts about passing and prior theories as a means to account for the ability to understand malapropisms(and novel use as well, I gather). I do want to read it all again, at least another time, prior to joining in here.

I am curious though. Would you remind me of which discussion we've had where the differences between Grice and Davidson are similar and/or reminiscent? That way I can look for those similarities upon rereading again tomorrow.

:smile:

Thanks for clearing that up.

Trump's not the only racist currently in power.

"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.