WendyDarling wrote:I stated facts Biggie, you stated your opinions and that's it. Soldiers who died did not complete their jobs either. Fact not opinion. Can you use facts or do you not understand what they are?
WendyDarling wrote:I stated facts Biggie, you stated your opinions and that's it. Soldiers who died did not complete their jobs either. Fact not opinion. Can you use facts or do you not understand what they are?
In the fall of 1968, Donald J. Trump received a timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam.
For 50 years, the details of how the exemption came about, and who made the diagnosis, have remained a mystery, with Mr. Trump himself saying during the presidential campaign that he could not recall who had signed off on the medical documentation.
Now a possible explanation has emerged about the documentation. It involves a foot doctor in Queens who rented his office from Mr. Trump’s father, Fred C. Trump, and a suggestion that the diagnosis was granted as a courtesy to the elder Mr. Trump.
Magnus Anderson wrote:WendyDarling wrote:I stated facts Biggie, you stated your opinions and that's it. Soldiers who died did not complete their jobs either. Fact not opinion. Can you use facts or do you not understand what they are?
The question is whether what John McCain did was a good thing (making him a hero) or a bad thing (making him a loser.)
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Magnus Anderson wrote:WendyDarling wrote:I stated facts Biggie, you stated your opinions and that's it. Soldiers who died did not complete their jobs either. Fact not opinion. Can you use facts or do you not understand what they are?
The question is whether what John McCain did was a good thing (making him a hero) or a bad thing (making him a loser.)
I think we often call people heroes when they pay a high price. I am not sure I go along with that. However.... Like anyone serving in combat he was taking risks and he ended up paying a high price for that. He was shot down, which is an event he can reduce the liklihood of but not eliminate the chances of it happening. In fact, he had to risk being shot down or he would not have been doing his job. You can't blame him for being shot down unless you know something about him doing something he should not have done. He volunteered for service as far as I can tell - went to Naval School, got a commission, served. So, unlike many others serving it was a choice to put himself at risk.
So he chose to take risks in war for his country. Unsually heroes have to do something special, something extra.
He did. He refused to be released early unless all the men there were released.
IOW he stayed where he was tortured and generally mistreated to put pressure on the N. Vietnamese to release everyone or at least to make a principled stand against the continued mistreatment of his peers.
I think that qualifies as heroic.
Calling him a loser for getting shot down seems confused to me. You cannot control all things in war. People coming to the beaches of Normandy, say, who got show the moment their transport ships lowered their ramps are not losers. They are unluckly and many people in war are.
One's view of the war itself might change how one thought about his deeds, but I think even people against the war, like myself, would consider his refusal to leave before his brothers in arms were released a courageous decision. Just imagine how much going home would have meant to him.
phyllo wrote: A person can be a war criminal and a hero. The two labels are not mutually exclusive.
phyllo wrote: Wendy has said why she thinks that, in fact, McCain was a loser.
phyllo wrote: How can she be wrong/right when the requirements for calling something a fact have been glanced over? What is necessary for something to be called a fact?
Show that her reasoning is insufficient.
WendyDarling wrote:Have I stated facts?
WendyDarling wrote:I don't care whether you like them or not, not all truth is emotionally inspiring in a positive light.
WendyDarling wrote:Either you agree or disagree with my description of John McCain
soldier
followed orders
failed to complete his job
I haven't said anything other than that.
WendyDarling wrote:Now you are just stalling again.
WendyDarling wrote:Here we go, since I am not too familiar with John McCain, you are going to have to present evidence and I will need to examine your evidence. You believe that he completed his mission, present evidence about what his mission was and its completion. Were there other witnesses who testified that he completed his mission?
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.
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?
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.
I have heard there was one B-52 pilot who refused to fly the missions during the Christmas bombing. You always run into that kind. When the going gets tough, they find out their conscience is bothering them. I want to say this to anybody in the military: If you don't know what your country is doing, find out. And if you find you don't like what your country is doing, get out before the chips are down.
In any event, I made it clear in the OP that it is not an exchange of facts that interest me, but situating the definitions we give to the words we use in the arguments we make in reacting to those facts then configured into moral philosophies regarding issues like Trump and McCain that intrigues me far more.
WendyDarling wrote:John McCain wroteI have heard there was one B-52 pilot who refused to fly the missions during the Christmas bombing. You always run into that kind. When the going gets tough, they find out their conscience is bothering them. I want to say this to anybody in the military: If you don't know what your country is doing, find out. And if you find you don't like what your country is doing, get out before the chips are down.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account
Does this relate to why you think John McCain is a war criminal?
In fact, he did complete his job...up until the time he was shot down. And eventually he did make it back to the base of operations that is the United States of America.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users