Las Vegas

Status
Not open for further replies.
andrushkiwt said:
objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I'll send you that dictionary for christmas.
Click to expand...

Dude, stop showing yourself up. "Is presented as objective", does not mean "is objective". It is you who has to look up the word "presented". Kindergarten stuff!

andrushkiwt said:
And why do I have to explain something I "believe" in. I did not say it IS offensive, I said I "believe" it is offensive.
Click to expand...

That's right. I asked you to please explain. I didn't say that you have to explain. Get that dictionary and grammar book out again.

Given your tenuous grasp of logic and your difficulty with language, I wasn't expecting anything much from you.
 
kickingtone said:
Dude, stop showing yourself up. "Is presented as objective", does not mean "is objective". It is you who has to look up the word "presented". Kindergarten stuff!
Click to expand...

Hey bud, do you remember when Kellyanne Conway described "alternative facts"? Merriam Webster went out of their way to tweet the following in response to her absurd claim - Merriam-Webster on Twitter: "?A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality. https://t.co/gCKRZZm23c"

See, what you want this definition to say is "having subjective reality". Unfortunately, it does not. Objective can be proven. If I "present to you objective reality", then I am PROVIDING YOU WITH FACTS/REAL INFORMATION.

You are so dedicated to twist the words "fact" and "objective" into what you want them to be that it is comical. Sorry!
 
kickingtone said:
Given your tenuous grasp of logic and your difficulty with language, I wasn't expecting anything much from you.
Click to expand...

Geez! How did I ever get selected into a Doctorate program, beating out 275 other straight A students?! Hmm... Well, bac too dem boocks
 
andrushkiwt said:
Hey bud, do you remember when Kellyanne Conway described "alternative facts"? Merriam Webster went out of their way to tweet the following in response to her absurd claim - Merriam-Webster on Twitter: "?A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality. https://t.co/gCKRZZm23c"

See, what you want this definition to say is "having subjective reality". Unfortunately, it does not. Objective can be proven. If I "present to you objective reality", then I am PROVIDING YOU WITH FACTS/REAL INFORMATION.

You are so dedicated to twist the words "fact" and "objective" into what you want them to be that it is comical. Sorry!
Click to expand...

Oops! There go your comprehension problems, yet again!

"Presenting something AS objective reality" does not mean "presenting objective reality".

It is so funny that you consider yourself logical, but slip up on the most rudimentary concepts.

It has got to the point where I have to ask you to go and look up the word, "as". :o:o:o
 
kickingtone said:
"Presenting something AS objective reality" does not mean "presenting objective reality".
Click to expand...

So if I show you my cup of coffee and say that it is my dog, I am showing you a fact. Ok.

Ok.

I see what I'm dealing with now.

Here is my standard auto-response to any post from you on this topic in the future.

"A fact is something that is true or can be proved with evidence. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience".
 
andrushkiwt said:
So if I show you my cup of coffee and say that it is my dog, I am showing you a fact. Ok.
Click to expand...

Nope, for the simple reason that it is not reasonable. It stands no chance of appearing to be or presenting as a fact.

On the other hand, police statements, for example, are taken as facts, even though they can be updated. The police would say, "these are the facts as we know them", or "those were the facts as we knew them at the time".

This is also the case even in science. "Atoms are indivisible" was ONCE a SCIENTIFIC FACT. IT ISN'T ANY MORE.

Scientists presented it as a fact. That does NOT mean that it is TRUE.

Also, scientific facts today may not be facts tomorrow, or they may be disputed facts.
 
kickingtone said:
Nope, for the simple reason that it is not reasonable. It stands no chance of appearing to be or presenting as a fact.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you don't get to be the judge of what is reasonable or not. I am presenting to you that my cup of coffee is a dog, and based on your definition of "fact" it is so. That's the purpose of having definitions. Until the Supreme Court states their dissenting opinion on the word, it is exactly what the definition says it is, and according to you my statement is correct. Your argument blows up when you say, "well, that one isn't reasonable, but..". It doesn't work that way, sorry.

edit: lol. you realize you are now elongating the definition to include "...if it is reasonable". What other accommodations would you like to make this word be what you want it to be?

Newest definition of "fact", according to you: "a piece of information presented as having objective reality, regardless of its truth, as long as it is reasonable."

yeah. that sounds right. :facepalm:

Good Lord how much time can I spend on one dude who doesn't know what words mean.
 
andrushkiwt said:
Sorry, you don't get to be the judge of what is reasonable or not. I am presenting to you that my cup of coffee is a dog, and based on your definition of "fact" it is so. That's the purpose of having definitions. Until the Supreme Court states their dissenting opinion on the word, it is exactly what the definition says it is, and according to you my statement is correct. Your argument blows up when you say, "well, that one isn't reasonable, but..". It doesn't work that way, sorry.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You haven't presented it as objective reality. What you have presented is something unreasonable. Anybody who is convinced by your presentation (please shout) may take it as fact.

And yes, I do get to choose what is or is not reasonable. So does everyone else. That is why facts can be debated and disputed.

Your definition of fact as "truth" belongs to fundamental religion. It is your argument that blew up, and that is why you failed to address the rest of my post and discussion of scientific facts.
 
kickingtone said:
Your definition of fact as "truth" belongs to fundamental religion.
Click to expand...

Synonyms for fact, the quality of being actual

actuality, factuality, materiality, reality

Thesaurus.com. Look it up.

Antonyms: fantasy (basically what you have going on), misstatement, falsehood.

Your argument loses. Sorry!
 
andrushkiwt said:
Synonyms for fact, the quality of being actual

actuality, factuality, materiality, reality

Thesaurus.com. Look it up.

Antonyms: fantasy (basically what you have going on), misstatement, falsehood.

Your argument loses. Sorry!
Click to expand...

Less of the kindergarten stuff, please! :D

Looking words up in a thesaurus is what is giving you no depth of understanding.

A fact is something that has a NOMINAL DEGREE of objectivity.

You are confusing fact with "religious truth".

Facts can conflict and be superseded. Religious truths tend not to be.

In FACT, the body of information that we call scientific knowledge contains many contradictory facts.

Even mathematical systems, which have a more stringent standard of logic, contain inconsistencies in fact, often expressed as paradoxes.
 
kickingtone said:
A fact is something that has a NOMINAL DEGREE of objectivity.
Click to expand...

"A fact is something that is true or can be proved with evidence. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience".
 
andrushkiwt said:
"A fact is something that is true or can be proved with evidence. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience".
Click to expand...

According to your definition, can something that was a fact cease to be a fact?

1. No. A fact forever remains a fact.

2. Yes. A fact can cease to be a fact.

Please select. :rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by kickingtone
There is a difference between somebody giving you the facts and you deciding that they don't add up, and deciding before they have given you any inkling of their version of the facts.

Originally Posted by andrushkiwt
I think the issue is that they don't have all the facts yet. It seems some are taking errors as being facts, and like I said, the quicker they push to get "facts" out, the more likely they are to get them wrong.

As I wrote in the beginning, if there are errors or misstatements, then they weren't fact to begin with. That is why we shouldn't judge until the "facts" are in. The police are spewing info as soon as they get it, hoping to satisfy the need-to-know's. The more they keep doing this, the less accurate and reliable the information will be. The longer they take, more thoroughly they investigate, the more they will uncover, and closer they will get to, the truth. When we have objective information, then we can put together what happened. Until then, it is speculation.

If I hear/read the word "fact" one more time goddamn time...
 
andrushkiwt said:
If I hear/read the word "fact" one more time goddamn time...
Click to expand...

You like to skip questions that you can't answer, don't you. Once again..

andrushkiwt said:
"A fact is something that is true or can be proved with evidence. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience".
Click to expand...

According to your definition, can something that was a fact cease to be a fact?

1. No. A fact forever remains a fact.

2. Yes. A fact can cease to be a fact.

Please select. :rolleyes:
 
kickingtone said:
You clearly don't, which is why you can't answer a simple question.
Click to expand...

Well, before I head out for a bit, here's this:

If I have a glove on my hand, but turns out that it was a sock, then was it ever really a glove? Nope. It was always a sock.

If they are releasing information as fact, but turns out to be false, then it never really was fact.

And that is where your argument falls apart.

Now go pester someone else about nonsense and illogical thinking. Good day. The end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top