phyllo wrote:That's my point!
There are many objective facts that can be established about John McCain's part in the Vietnam War. Just as there are many facts that can be established about the part that I played. And, indeed, if there is an omniscient God out there somewhere, then, even in the either/or world, every single fact in existence is already known.
But in a No God world -- an assumption -- how could it be established that in fact McCain was either a Hero, a Loser or a War Criminal?
How could assessments here not be but personal opinions, rooted in political prejudices rooted in dasein?
How, instead, could any particular one of us in sync with the Real Me in sync with The Whole Truth establish beyond all doubt which one In Fact he was?
If you do not consider it a fact and consider it opinion then why are you bringing it up. Why are you talking about it as if it may be a fact?
Consider what a fact? What am I talking about above "as if it may be a fact"?
Note to others:
I'm obviously missing what he construes to be an important point here. So, in regard to 1] the facts embedded in the part John McCain played in the Vietnam War and 2] the fact that there are many conflicting reactions [embedded in political prejudices] as to how in fact to describe the part he played, what in fact
is the point he is making here?
phyllo wrote: Just talk about facts instead of creating confusion. She wants to talk about facts.
Facts? You mean "my way or the highway" assertions like this:
WendyDarling wrote:John McCain was a soldier by trade who followed orders, a soldier who did not complete his job correctly which is to follow mission directives and return to his base of operations.
And my own reaction to it:
iambiguous wrote: In other words -- objectively -- he was a loser. Just as all the soldiers who died in all the wars ever fought were losers. By definition. They didn't return to their base of operations.
How is she just "talking about facts" here and not propounding -- declaring -- that her own point encompasses what is in fact true about McCain and all other soldiers who failed to return to their base of operations. Is she willing to accept that her own assessment may well be a subjective political prejudice rooted in dasein? And, if not, why not? In regard to what can in fact be established as true about McCain here.
phyllo wrote: Establish what you both agree to be facts before moving on to something else like opinions and beliefs.
Huh?
We can both agree that John McCain was shot down in Vietnam and ended up in a POW camp. We can both agree that some see this fact as an example of a loser or of a sucker or of a war criminal.
Now, she seems to be asserting that if one defines a
Loser as a soldier who fails to return to his or her base of operation, then in fact McCain
Is a Loser.
Unless, of course, I am misunderstanding her.
How do you see it? How do you fit into the loser, sucker, war criminal debate? What facts here do you have to offer?