Wendy Darling and iambiguous contend...

[WendyDarling]

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?

[iambiguous]

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?

I challenge anyone here to actually explain this as it relates to what she and I have been arguing about regarding the fact that John McCain did indeed fail to return to his base of operation.

If we all agree that this is true objectively because he was in fact shot down and taken prisoner, what can then be said to be "in fact true" when some argue that he is a hero, others that he is a loser, and still others that he is war criminal.

Or again is she making a completely different point about the facts here instead.

[Magnus Anderson]

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.)

[promethean75]

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.

Ahhhhhh I see. That's one way to bring the rent down i guess.

[promethean75]

The best way to avoid having to run like the yellow bellied coward that you truly are, is to avoid having to run at all. For that you need a foot doctor.

[promethean75]

he was talkin' bout the army... while he passed his pipe around...

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

Okay, taking all of this into account, is it now possible to establish that in fact John McCain was either a hero or a loser?

You first, Wendy.

Also, many on the left consider him to be less either one and more a war criminal:

https://www.freedomfirstblog.com/blogs/ ... /8/27/2018
https://www.liberationnews.org/john-mcc ... -war-hero/

'As a pilot, McCain took part in Operation Rolling Thunder. Operation Rolling Thunder was an aerial bombing campaign carried out by the US to weaken North Vietnam's morale and destroy its supply lines. While it had some strategic value, Operation Rolling Thunder included a number of war crimes. The people who supplied the North Vietnamese - whether they be rice farmers, transporters, or anything else - were civilians. They were noncombatants. To deliberately attack and injure or kill noncombatants is a war crime. So, McCain was at least complicit in (and at most a perpetrator of) war crimes. The fact that McCain was just following orders is irrelevant - he was a war criminal.'

Is this in fact true? Or is it more likely that your own opinion here is embedded in a political prejudice rooted in dasein?

[phyllo]

A person can be a war criminal and a hero. The two labels are not mutually exclusive.

Wendy has said why she thinks that, in fact, McCain was a loser.

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.

Mere disagreement is not enough make a fact into an opinion.

[Meno_]

It depends. Who is opining and who is factual in expressing whatever, and who is on the receiving end.

If Trump says one thing, and i say something appearently contrary, standing on a soapbox in the middle of traffic, whose distinction will become more. significant?

[iambiguous]

A person can be a war criminal and a hero. The two labels are not mutually exclusive.

But how do we go beyond the fact that some believe he is one or the other, both or neither, to establishing what in fact all rational men and women are obligated to think that he was.

How can you not grasp this crucial distinction is what I'm thinking. As it is made by those actually involved in the discussions and debates going on with respect to Trump's alleged comments regarding those soldiers who were captured or died on the battlefield. Are they in fact heroes or losers.

Wendy has said why she thinks that, in fact, McCain was a loser.

Note to Wendy:

Are you willing to note that here and now, in your own personal opinion, this is what you think. Or are you insisting instead that what you noted above reflects what is in fact true about McCain. He is a loser.

Also, are you willing to accept that given new experiences or access to new information and knowledge about all of this, you might come to change your mind?

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.

Clearly, if she is arguing that in fact a loser is a soldier who gets captured or dies on the battlefield and is not able to return to his base of operation, then by her own definition that makes him a loser.

But how does she then demonstrate that this is in fact true for all rational people other than in believing that it is and then posting what she believes here.

Note to others:

Again, what powerful insight is he making here that I keep missing?

[WendyDarling]

Have I stated facts? I don't care whether you like them or not, not all truth is emotionally inspiring in a positive light.

[iambiguous]

Have I stated facts?

About John McCain? You tell me.

[WendyDarling]

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.

Present facts or evidence that contradicts what I presented as facts.

[iambiguous]

I don't care whether you like them or not, not all truth is emotionally inspiring in a positive light.

What in fact is that supposed to mean? Pertaining, for example, to John McCain.

[WendyDarling]

Now you are just stalling again.

[iambiguous]

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.

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.

Then onto the part about him in fact either being or not being a loser. What in fact do you think about that? How about saying something about it now. You know, instead of playing theses "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" word games.

[iambiguous]

Now you are just stalling again.

tldr

[WendyDarling]

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?

This is a really good debate for me because I don't have any emotional stake in this one and you may have so present your evidence.

[iambiguous]

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?

That's not my point though.

Let's go back to the OP:

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.

Then with phyllo I controduced the particular set of circunmstance revolving around Trump, soldiers, losers and McCain:

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?

That's when you posted 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.

Now, again, with regard to our respective moral philosophies and political prejudices, is John McCain in fact a loser or not? I think that it is reasonable for others here given your post above to argue that you think he is.

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.

That's what I would like to "contend" with you about. Lots and lots of facts can be accumulated here. From all sides. But what do they tell us about Trump's alleged comments regarding America soldiers as either "losers" or "suckers". And the arguments of others who argue that in fact McCain himself was a war criminal. What can in fact be established as true here in a philosophy forum.

[WendyDarling]

John McCain wrote

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.

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? Does your conscience feel guilty, Biggie, for having been an active participant in that war?

When a country is invaded for the purpose of a war, where are the wars to be fought?

[WendyDarling]

Biggie wrote

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.

If you have no facts, you have no argument, just opinions. I'm trying to figure out what the facts are before I make an opinion based on them.

[iambiguous]

John McCain wrote

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.

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?

Again, you keep missing the point. Mine, for example.

It's not what I think, you think or anyone here thinks about John McCain being or not being a war criminal. It's the extent to which any of us can demonstrate that what we do think about it can be established as in fact true. Such that in a deontological sense all rational men and women would be obligated to think that he either was or he wasn't in the same way it can be established as in fact true that he either was or was not shot down, captured and taken prisoner.

Really, how hard is it to grasp that distinction?

[WendyDarling]

What facts do you think are relevant to your case that he was a war criminal?

Can subjective opinions be turned into objective facts? Is this what you are trying to do?

Define loser, sucker, war criminal, hero.

loser=a person or thing that loses or has lost something, especially a game or contest.
sucker=a gullible or easily deceived person.
war criminal=a person who has carried out an act during the conduct of a war that violates accepted international rules of war.
hero=a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.

[WendyDarling]

Biggie wrote

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.

He did not complete his job because he was shot down and he did not return to his base of operations which was wherever he was stationed.