I post this:
iambiguous wrote:
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?
And here is how she responds:
WendyDarling wrote: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.
Does she or does she not feel that McCain can in fact be described as a loser in the same manner in which he can in fact be described as a former prisoner of war.
That's the distinction I am making. Can what I construe to be subjective opinions rooted in political prejudices rooted in dasein regarding McCain being or not being a Loser be communicated to others as objective facts instead.
Was he a prisoner of war? Is this a yes or no question?
If he was in fact a POW, does that make him a loser? Is that a yes or no question?
She'll either tell us or she won't. Or she can go on insisting that we keep piling on more and more facts and definitions such that we never, ever get around
to any actual answers.
For example:
WendyDarling wrote: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.
See how it works? I note what I and others construe to be facts about him. But they do not align themselves with her facts. And only her facts count. Just as only her definitions count in regard to understand the meaning of words placed in a particular order to make a point.
It is ever and always her point because it is ever and always her set of facts and her set of definitions.
The moral and political objectivist!
Well, if I do say so myself as encompassed in but one more existential contraption relating to value judgments relating to whether or not McCain is in fact a loser.