Wendy Darling and iambiguous contend...

[WendyDarling]

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.

I agree that labels are not mutually exclusive. But he needs to present evidence to support his opinion, whatever it may be.

Did you mean, mere disagreement is not enough to make an opinion into a fact? rather than vice-versa

[WendyDarling]

Biggie wrote

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?

The fact that McCain was doing his job as a soldier, which is to follow orders, does not make him a war criminal. Now the President of the USA who authorized each strike of the Rolling Thunder operation might be a war criminal if he violated the international standards of war and he would have the full weight of responsibility on him as the military commander in chief. Soldiers do not think or act for themselves, they let go of that responsibility when they take the oath of service.

[iambiguous]

I post this:

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:

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:

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.

[iambiguous]

Biggie wrote

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?

The fact that McCain was doing his job as a soldier, which is to follow orders, does not make him a war criminal. Now the President of the USA who authorized each strike of the Rolling Thunder operation might be a war criminal if he violated the international standards of war and he would have the full weight of responsibility on him as the military commander in chief. Soldiers do not think or act for themselves, they let go of that responsibility when they take the oath of service.

Again, my point here would be this:

Is she willing to acknowledge that this reflects only her own personal/subjective opinion here and now, embedded in a political prejudice derived from the life that she has lived and subject to change given new experiences/information in the future? Or instead is she arguing that the points made in the two links are inherently wrong because they do not coincide exactly with the points that she makes?

Or, as I like to put it, is she claiming that her points about McCain here reflect the fact that she is in sync with her own "real me" which is in fact in sync with the only or the most rational manner in which to think about it.

How far will she go here in insisting that others must share her own assessment or [necessarily] be wrong?

That's with interest me about moral and political value judgments regarding things like this. Less what they are and more how someone came to embody them. And then the extent to which they are able to demonstrate that their assessment of things like McCain being or not being a loser is that which all rational men and women are obligated to share.

[WendyDarling]

Biggie, you do not understand what facts are. Facts do not change unless history is rewritten.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ...

Are you denying the fact that McCain took that oath?

I read Wiki for more information about the Operation Rolling Thunder which stated that The President of the USA made the decisions to bomb Vietnam, not John McCain.

Prove that John McCain made the decision to bomb Vietnam.

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.

Biggie, you already conceded that he was shot down during his flying mission. Thus he never flew back to his base, with his mission completed.

[iambiguous]

Biggie, you do not understand what facts are. Facts do not change unless history is rewritten.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ...

Are you denying the fact that McCain took that oath?

I read Wiki for more information about the Operation Rolling Thunder which stated that The President of the USA made the decisions to bomb Vietnam, not John McCain.

Prove that John McCain made the decision to bomb Vietnam.

Again:

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.

So, you will either take your facts about McCain here or you won't.

And if you won't and don't then we are contending about two different things. Unless of course you prefer that we keep going around and around in circles here.

[WendyDarling]

Do you accept the common dictionary definition I listed for the word, loser?

[iambiguous]

Do you accept the common dictionary definition I listed for the word, loser?

"loser=a person or thing that loses or has lost something, especially a game or contest."

Actually, it would be better for you if the definition 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."

But okay the more common one.

Now back to this:

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.

So, you will either take your facts and definitions about McCain here or you won't.

And if you won't and don't then we are contending about two different things.

So, more circles?

[WendyDarling]

McCain was a winner and a hero.

[iambiguous]

McCain was a winner and a hero.

Yo, Trump!

[surreptitious75]

Some objectivity is needed here methinks

John McCain was acting under direct orders from the then President Of The United States [ Richard Nixon ] as were all American military in Vietnam
And so any responsibility for Rolling Thunder being a war crime must lie with the President as all decisions ultimately rest with him and no one else

The question here is at what point can a soldier refuse to obey an order ? There is unfortunately no objective answer to this

Vietnam however has many examples of soldiers refusing orders from their superiors . Equally there are many examples of American
soldiers raping and murdering female civilians with the knowledge of their superiors . Mai Lai of course being the most infamous one

This is a very complex psychological issue about the effect of war on men who are fighting it and so should not be conducted as a ping pong match
between two people based on whether or not they support the same political party that John McCain just happened to be a member of at the time
Debating whether or not he was a loser is a complete waste of time as the answer both of you will give will be entirely subjective with zero nuance

You should never have been in Vietnam in the first place and you eventually lost the war and 57 000 soldiers never came home and all for absolutely nothing as well
So even if you think that McCain was a war hero he was still fighting a totally unjust one that should never have been fought even though the blame for it is not his

Nixon could have taken you out in 72 but he wanted to win a second term first so you had to stay in for another three years just because of him

All that said as a non American I would never label John McCain a loser because he was doing his job which was to fight for his country regardless of anything else
He was captured and tortured by the Viet Cong and almost died as a consequence and for this fact alone he gets my unconditional respect which he fully deserves

Donald Trump who avoided the draft was incredibly disrespectful to him when asked if he thought McCain a war hero
Being caught does not diminish a mans capacity to be a hero otherwise by that bizarre logic no POW can ever be one

War is always political before it ever becomes military and those called up to fight in them have absolutely no say on that so are not responsible for them
Now you want to blame anyone then blame Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon before anyone else as its always the politicans fault when its unjust [ always ]

[surreptitious75]

A soldiers conscience is as wide as the gates of hell

[Karpel Tunnel]

Some objectivity is needed here methinks

John McCain was acting under direct orders from the then President Of The United States [ Richard Nixon ] as were all American military in Vietnam
And so any responsibility for Rolling Thunder being a war crime must lie with the President as all decisions ultimately rest with him and no one else

I was just following orders hasn't been hands off as an excuse in the West since WW2. And you are not a grunt in a platoon on the ground when you have a killing machine of a jet under your complete control and it is specifically killing potentially thousands on a single run.

[WendyDarling]

You should never have been in Vietnam in the first place and you eventually lost the war and 57 000 soldiers never came home and all for absolutely nothing as well
So even if you think that McCain was a war hero he was still fighting a totally unjust one that should never have been fought even though the blame for it is not his

Is all of Asia communist? The war stopped the north from creating the domino effect past south vietnam, and the rest of Asia in their attempt to flip each democratic nation, each regime into communism.

[iambiguous]

You should never have been in Vietnam in the first place and you eventually lost the war and 57 000 soldiers never came home and all for absolutely nothing as well
So even if you think that McCain was a war hero he was still fighting a totally unjust one that should never have been fought even though the blame for it is not his

Is all of Asia communist? The war stopped the north from creating the domino effect past south vietnam, and the rest of Asia in their attempt to flip each democratic nation, each regime into communism.

Aside from my own conjecture that this political prejudice is reconfigured by her into an ontological fact that ridding Asia of the Communists was objectively the right thing to do, it is an argument that anti-communists use to justify American involvement in Vietnam.

Now all we have to do is to demonstrate beyond all doubt that this is in fact true. Demonstrating in turn [for some] that capitalism is inherently, necessarily moral.

Who wants to start?

[WendyDarling]

Some objectivity is needed here methinks

John McCain was acting under direct orders from the then President Of The United States [ Richard Nixon ] as were all American military in Vietnam
And so any responsibility for Rolling Thunder being a war crime must lie with the President as all decisions ultimately rest with him and no one else

I was just following orders hasn't been hands off as an excuse in the West since WW2. And you are not a grunt in a platoon on the ground when you have a killing machine of a jet under your complete control and it is specifically killing potentially thousands on a single run.

War is an ugly way to preserve beauty.

[iambiguous]

War is an ugly way to preserve beauty.

In fact, as it were.

[WendyDarling]

Biggie wrote

Aside from my own conjecture that this political prejudice is reconfigured by her into an ontological fact that ridding Asia of the Communists was objectively the right thing to do, it is an argument that anti-communists use to justify American involvement in Vietnam.

Asia wasn't rid of communists. Asia wasn't rid of democracies either. Ah, some balance.

[iambiguous]

Biggie wrote

Aside from my own conjecture that this political prejudice is reconfigured by her into an ontological fact that ridding Asia of the Communists was objectively the right thing to do, it is an argument that anti-communists use to justify American involvement in Vietnam.

Asia wasn't rid of communists. Asia wasn't rid of democracies either. Ah, some balance.

Asia either is or is not rid of communists. Asia either is or is not rid of democracies. Asia either is or is not in balance.

Let all sides accumulate their facts and define their words in order to establish the most rational assessment.

What won't end though, in my view, are the objectivists from both sides -- all sides -- insisting that in fact Asia ought to be rid of either one or the other. And that the perfect balance revolves exclusively around their own political prejudices.

Check the historical accounts. And then check in with the nihilists who own and operate the military industrial complex and the war economy. See if any of this "moral" stuff even matters at all.

Or, sure, go out and ask them.

[WendyDarling]

The historical accounts of communism in Russia alone detail how it murdered more people in it's relatively short reign than all the other governmental regimes (democracies, monarchies, republics, etc) in those times combined.

[iambiguous]

Need a chuckle?

https://twitter.com/BillBramhall/status ... gr%5Etweet

At Trump's expense of course. You know, given my own political prejudice.

[WendyDarling]

Is that you nodding that dying makes you a winner?

[iambiguous]

The historical accounts of communism in Russia alone detail how it murdered more people in it's relatively short reign than all the other governmental regimes (democracies, monarchies, republics, etc) in those times combined.

Once again it is only your facts about Communism that count. The fact that others who embody conflicting political prejudices have their own [quite different] sets of facts? About both Communism and capitalism? Well, they don't count because in fact only your own moral and political assessment of anything makes it in fact true.

On the other hand, you may well in fact be a Kid. For some an aggravating circumstance, true, but, for others, it mitigates your dogmatic assertions considerably. Me? Well, in fact, my own reaction here is rather fractured and fragmented.

Just out of curiosity, is Joker helping you with these posts? Or are you actually, in fact, both one and the same?

[iambiguous]

Is that you nodding that dying makes you a winner?

In what context? For example, if your life has become a living hell then, sure, dying can be seen as a victory. Or suppose you believe in God and that, upon dying, your soul goes to Heaven. Wouldn't that make you a winner?

Or, again, are we to just accept that only your own assessment of the relationship between dying and winning counts here?

[WendyDarling]

Most reasonable, rational people would not agree that the overwhelming majority of soldiers wanted to become winners in heaven or that they were suicidal. My way of thinking might be crass, even ugly in some light, but it's more honest than how you are trying to rebuff my point. Death from this life is not winning, when the vast majority of people place utmost value in remaining in the game of life.