Jump to content

Belly Bob

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Belly Bob last won the day on February 2

Belly Bob had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

6,362 profile views

Belly Bob's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular
  • Reacting Well
  • First Post

Recent Badges



  1. Ha! That's crazy! I don't know either personally, but I know a few people who were trained by them, and I've heard a lot of stories about them. The two are very close friends. And Sleigh charmed Feldman into changing his specialty from Leibniz to ethics. Sleigh began his career as a specialist in logic, but there came a time when he had nothing more to say about it. So, he walked into Feldman's office and told him that he was suffering from a professional crisis -- he needed a new specialty. He told Feldman that he wanted to work on Leibniz, which was Feldman's specialty. Since the department was too small for two Leibniz scholars, Feldman would have to find a new specialty. Sleigh went on and on about how much smarter Feldman was, that Feldman could be successful at anything, that he (Sleigh) could only work on Leibniz, etc. Feldman called it the "Sleigh ride." So, Feldman switched to ethics and Sleigh became a Leibniz scholar, and the rest is history. Did you find him so charming? What was Philosophy 105 in 1988? And how does a Bay Area kid become a collegiate hockey player?
  2. It is awful. And for the history buffs who do not want to dismiss history, it was European states who first banned slavery in Africa, beginning in the 18th century. Later, the Abolitionist Movement in Europe became a casus belli for the colonization of Africa. Contemporary European liberals saw themselves as saving Africans from the ongoing practice of slavery, the suppression of which was a major goal of the colonialists. Moreover, colonial powers often ignored the anti-slavery laws that they themselves had passed because they were unpopular among the indigenous political regimes with which they had to work. Africans who held local power were opposed to Europe's effort to abolish the practice. Slavery continues to be a problem in Africa even today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#:~:text=Slavery in historical Africa was,purposes was widespread throughout Africa.
  3. No, I don't. I said I don't think they were Black. So, do we agree then? I'm not flabbergasted. I disagree. And who does more "what about" than you? Did you want to change the subject? I am? I feel okay, but I'll keep my eyes open. I know, yet this country is supposed to be rigged for the success of white males. I'm assuming this is aimed at me. But I wasn't dismissing history. I was pointing out an inconsistency in appeals to history in discussions regarding the racism intrinsic to American institutions. I would agree that it's possible, though I would disagree that it's probable, since the Irish did not emigrate from Ireland to the United States in signifiant numbers until the mid-19th century, and the overwhelming majority of them were poor and settled in cities in the North. Wouldn't that also likely be true of anyone with an Irish surname? No, I don't see the artfulness of it, but I suppose that shouldn't come as a surprise, given my exceptional ignorance. "Shaquille" is an Arabic name, who were slave traders in Africa.
  4. I thought the protests against police brutality and the BLM movement were motivated by cops killing Black people. I thought the idea was that since the cops kill a disproportionate number of Black people, the cops must be racist.
  5. What about more violent crime?
  6. Sometimes the race of the person employed, or in charge, or even giving an opinion is important; other times, it's not. The color of police departments and police chiefs may have changed over the last several decades, together with the color of those governmental organizations who oversee police departments; but the real objective of the police, which is to enslave and oppress Black people, hasn't changed.
  7. Ah, so you grew up in the Bay Area, did a BA at UMass, and then moved back? I know this is a stretch, but did you ever take an ethics course with Fred Feldman or a philosophy course with Bob Sleigh?
  8. Idiot racists or false flag operation? Only the internet can decide.
  9. I think so. 17th century slave traders --> 18th and 19th century slave patrols --> 19th & 20th century Jim Crow enforcers --> contemporary police; therefore, contemporary police = 17th slave traders. 19th century Democratic Party --> early 20th century Democratic Party --> contemporary Democratic Party; therefore, contemporary Democratic Party = 19th century Democratic Party. The former is an important, insightful, and valid inference regarding a major American institution. The latter is not.
  10. You might want to double-check whom we bombed. But the Chinese did have it rough in this country for a long time. The Page Law (1875), the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), the Scott Act (1888), the Geary Act (1902), together many local legislative acts -- all aimed to exclude the Chinese from full participation in American life.
  11. You mentioned before that they're trained in deescalating situations. Now you say that they failed to deescalate the situation. You make it seem like the police can deescalate any situation. ER physicians are trained to treat medical emergencies, but people often die under their care. It doesn't follow that the physicians were culpable. I didn't catch that. I don't know when the man was shot, but when the video cuts out, his back is turned. I think it'll be difficult for the officers to claim self-defense (or whatever the close cousin of that may be) if he was indeed shot in the back while fleeing.
  12. What video are you watching? That's not rhetorical. I've watched the video @Horsefly posted 3 times now. He's holding the knife when the video cuts off.
  13. It seems pretty damning. But I doubt we have all the relevant evidence. A few things stood out to me. First, the officers were responding to a report that a man had been stabbed by a man in a wheelchair. So, it was reasonable for them to believe that the suspect was dangerous. Second, they tried to taser him twice. So, they had tried to use non-deadly force to disarm him. Third, he made a gesture like he was going to throw the knife at them, and both officers clearly flinched, so it's reasonable to believe that they were afraid. Fourth, I couldn't see whether there were bystanders in the direction in which he was fleeing. It's possible, even if unlikely, that they were genuinely concerned for the safety of others. Still, it seems more reasonable that they could've simply pursued him until further backup arrived. Finally, it's always easy to say what you would've done in the circumstances. You can train for situations like these, but you never know how a person will respond until he faces the real thing. So, it's too quick to say that they weren't trained properly or that they're racist.
  • Create New...