Wendy Darling and iambiguous contend...

[iambiguous]

From another thread:

Define the word, fact, Biggie. Define any words, Biggie, other than your ad homs.

I'll tell you what...

First, you define the word "define". Then take that definition into a new thread in the philosophy forum that I will start. A discussion in which we explore our respective moral and political prejudices/objective truths as they are applicable to a particular set of circumstances.

Among other things, you can dispense with your Kid persona [if that's what it is] and allow us to examine the actual depth of your thinking.

First up: Wendy's definition of "define.

Then I will attempt to define/explain the meaning of "fact" as I understand it.

Then, with regard to our respective moral philosophies, and given a set of circumstances we both agree on, we will situate those definitions "out in the world" in a new discussion here.

[WendyDarling]

Lay out the definitions for the words you intend to repeat on auto pilot.

Phyllo and KT, Biggie's going to define words! Is that a breakthrough?

Define=the meaning of a word as written in a common dictionary.

[phyllo]

Notice that you have define the word 'define' first ... before he does anything.

He could have just explained 'facts' as part of the OP. But no.

[WendyDarling]

Noted as always.

[iambiguous]

Lay out the definitions for the words you intend to repeat on auto pilot.

Phyllo and KT, Biggie's going to define words! Is that a breakthrough?

Define=the meaning of a word as written in a common dictionary.

What on earth does that have to do with this:

First up: Wendy's definition of "define.

Then I will attempt to define/explain the meaning of "fact" as I understand it.

Then, with regard to our respective moral philosophies, and given a set of circumstances we both agree on, we will situate those definitions "out in the world" in a new discussion here.

This is what's left of the philosophy forum here at ILP. Is the exchange going to unfold or not?

[WendyDarling]

Quit stalling and define, fact.

[promethean75]

Godammit answer the godamn question biggs!

[iambiguous]

Notice that you have define the word 'define' first ... before he does anything.

He could have just explained 'facts' as part of the OP. But no.

Okay, me first:

Fact.

First, the dictionary definition: "a thing that is known or proved to be true."

That works for me.

Now taking that definition out into the world as it relates to a particular context:

An article was just written in the Atlantic magazine alleging that in fact Trump made what some construe to be rather appalling comments about American soldiers fighting and dying in wars abroad.

Okay, what are the facts here? Well, in the absence of an all-knowing God, mere mortals are left with the task of either being able to or not able to demonstrate what is "in fact" true here. Right?

Facts in the either/or world.

Now, suppose that this can be determined. Accounts come to light in which beyond all doubt, it is demonstrated that Trump did say those things.

Well, then come the moral and political reactions to this fact. What are all rational and moral men and women obligated to concur with here? Is it or is it not a fact that American soldiers who died in wars abroad are "losers". How is this demonstrated definitively?

Take the John McCain controversy. Some insist that he was a war hero. Trump, on the other hand, backs only soldiers who in fact did not get caught by the enemy.

Whereas, my own reaction back then was that he was instead a war criminal. He flew in a plane way up in the sky and dropped bombs on men, women and children.

So, given your own definition of a "fact" here, what in fact was he?

[iambiguous]

Godammit answer the godamn question biggs!

I'm trying, man, I'm really, really trying!!!

[WendyDarling]

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.

[Meno_]

I'm still stuck on define 'define'
Maybe factually it would better to define 'definite'. It would restrict indefinite spins on facts.

The trouble with contentions, that stress conflated facts of intented meaning with those which are casually present , as ad hoc expressions motivated by wish fulfillment , is that they become unrecognizable on their face.

They reduce the contention to the level of metaphor as enigma. But such enigma serve useful purposes of relating to formal idealized preceptions,

[Karpel Tunnel]

One can at any time choose to fall into Iamb's goop. The goop of discussing with him. He is not a discussion partner or even interesting adversary. It is goop production. There are telemarketers who treat every response as an opportunity to make the case for the product or service.

[phyllo]

Why would labeling John McCain a "hero", "loser", or "war criminal" be considered a fact at all?

In what sense is it knowledge?

[iambiguous]

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.

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.

Next up: the Kid tackles the philosophical parameters of "suckers" and "war criminals".

[iambiguous]

One can at any time choose to fall into Iamb's goop. The goop of discussing with him. He is not a discussion partner or even interesting adversary. It is goop production. There are telemarketers who treat every response as an opportunity to make the case for the product or service.

There you go again not ignoring me.

All I can do then is to come back to this:

Whenever Curly wants to dispense with the Stooge persona, I am more than willing to explore his accusations here in the philosophy forum.

No huffing and puffing, no clamoring histrionics, no personal attacks.

Just him and me discussing our respective moral philosophies given a context that most of us here are likely to be familiar with.'

You can take these accusations to that thread.

How about it...should I start yet another new thread in the philosophy forum: "Karpel, Tunnel and iambiguous contend..."

And bury this Stooge thing once and flor all.


Oh, and just out of curiosity, why did you reconfigure from Moreno to Karpel Tunnel? Am I to blame for that too? I've got my suspicions as to why that might actually be the case.

[iambiguous]

Why would labeling John McCain a "hero", "loser", or "war criminal" be considered a fact at all?

In what sense is it knowledge?

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?

The irony here being before I was in fact conscripted into the Army and in fact sent to Vietnam, all soldiers who fought in Vietnam were heroes to me. It was in fact the year I spent in Vietnam that brought me into contact with those who in fact introduced me to radical left wing politics such that in fact I came to view view soldiers like McCain as war criminals and many of the grunts as suckers.

But that's how "I" now works for me in the world of conflicting moral and political value judgments.

But then when I suggest this may be the way it works for the objectivists too, the claws can come out.

If I do say so myself.

[phyllo]

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?

Just talk about facts instead of creating confusion. She wants to talk about facts.

Establish what you both agree to be facts before moving on to something else like opinions and beliefs.

[iambiguous]

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?

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:

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:

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.

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?

[phyllo]

What are the characteristics of facts?

When you establish that, then you can say "statement X is a fact", "statement Y is an opinion" ... you can evaluate statements.

Now you're just babbling. You're just asserting things about facts, opinions, Wendy's position and claims. There's no substance behind it.

[Meno_]

In what sense is he a looser? The fact is, any soldier of fortune potentially can loose his life. He did not. By not loosing his life, retained it, therefore he gained it, in the sense that he regained the possibility to win back the continuation of his life.

On the other hand, being captured was loosely connected to an extrinsic action, so intrinsically it's connection to his 'being' of to Das Sein, was not a derivitive , in the sense of denoting a certain action., but connotative , generally. to any soldier of fortune.

[iambiguous]

What are the characteristics of facts?

When you establish that, then you can say "statement X is a fact", "statement Y is an opinion" ... you can evaluate statements.

Now you're just babbling. You're just asserting things about facts, opinions, Wendy's position and claims. There's no substance behind it.

Oh, now I see. We need to take "the characteristics of facts" up into the technical clouds in order to establish as autodidacts -- pedants? -- how John McCain's behaviors in Vietnam and our reaction to them can only be properly understood by serious philosophers.

On the other hand, this particular post of yours is so far removed from the actual discussions now unfolding about Trump and McCain around the globe, I can't help but suspect that you are just pulling my leg here. Is that it?

[phyllo]

What are the characteristics of facts?

When you establish that, then you can say "statement X is a fact", "statement Y is an opinion" ... you can evaluate statements.

Now you're just babbling. You're just asserting things about facts, opinions, Wendy's position and claims. There's no substance behind it.

Oh, now I see. We need to take "the characteristics of facts" up into the technical clouds in order to establish as autodidacts -- pedants? -- how John McCain's behaviors in Vietnam and our reaction to them can only be properly understood by serious philosophers.

On the other hand, this particular post of yours is so far removed from the actual discussions now unfolding about Trump and McCain around the globe, I can't help but suspect that you are just pulling my leg here. Is that it?

There's something strange about being clear about the meaning of the words used in a discussion??

Sure, go ahead and babble about Trump and McCain without defining your terms. See where it gets you.

Maybe that's what you have been doing for decades. Who knows.

But it sort of explains a lot of your threads.

[iambiguous]

There's something strange about being clear about the meaning of the words used in a discussion??

Sure, go ahead and babble about Trump and McCain without defining your terms. See where it gets you.

Maybe that's what you have been doing for decades. Who knows.

But it sort of explains a lot of your threads.

Wow, he really wasn't just pulling my leg!!

Or, sure, let's set about defining "really".

[phyllo]

Just when I thought that it could not get any more bizarre.

Is there still more?

Maybe praise for ineffective communication, badly formed and presented arguments, poor reading comprehension, lack of thought and analysis.

Perhaps Hail anti-intellectualism and anti-learning.

[iambiguous]

Just when I thought that it could not get any more bizarre.

Is there still more?

Maybe praise for ineffective communication, badly formed and presented arguments, poor reading comprehension, lack of thought and analysis.

Perhaps Hail anti-intellectualism and anti-learning.

A stooge again...