A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, as usual my post went right over your head.
Sonship talked about a "Leviticus challenge" whilst simultaneously claiming not to know where in the thread it was. Given that up until that point, the only place where Leviticus was mentioned was in the post you quote one wonders how he knew there was a Leviticus challenge at all.

"...one wonders how he knew there was a Leviticus challenge at all."

Instead of assuming he's lying try to assume he's telling the truth, and then you will no longer need to wonder.

Obviously someone brought up the fact that you had referred to the book of Leviticus. And I remember who it was who brought it to our attention. Apparently you've already forgotten, or are still attempting to shift our attention away from your embarrassing boo boo.

Why go to all this effort to avoid admitting a mistake? Do you believe the appearance of being correct is more important than actually getting it right?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, as usual my post went right over your head.
Sonship talked about a "Leviticus challenge" whilst simultaneously claiming not to know where in the thread it was. Given that up until that point, the only place where Leviticus was mentioned was in the post you quote one wonders how he knew there was a Leviticus challenge at all.

No, as usual my post went right over your head.

As usual your ego hovers way above your IQ. 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead

No, I am not true.
------------------------------

I see. Well over on the thread about gravestones you said that you don't want one because it would be a waste of space and money.

I will ask to be cremated if I ever get around to writing a will before I die. Graveyards are such a waste of space. (not to mention money). -twhitehead

If you're not true how do you know you're not a perfect waste of space and money now?


No, just to learn English.
------------------------------------

As I said, when you spice up your posts with little put downs and ad homs content is bound to be lacking.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have provided two sources that agree with me. Have you read the thread?

In fact, my usage is the more common one, as demonstrated by this sentence.
I also ask you to consider the phrase 'fact finding'.

"Fact finding" is not like rock collecting. Facts are information, a type of value judgement. They exist only in our minds.

Originally posted by apathist
"Fact finding" is not like rock collecting. Facts are information, a type of value judgement. They exist only in our minds.

Hmm. Suppose I define a fact as “what is the case”—regardless of our judgments about it, or our ability to know what the facts actually are? What exists in our minds then is judgment about what are or are not “the facts”. Such judgments might be wrong—or ill-considered. But what does it mean to assert that they are the only (possible? ) facts?

To define a fact as what “exists” (as a concept, an idea, a representation, an image?) in our minds—or, more to the point—in my mind (since the notion that there are other minds might also be just a judgement that exists in my mind) . . .

Does that not implicitly lead to some sort of solipsism?

Suppose I were to rather say that the representations that appear in my mind may or may not reflect “the facts”. Suppose I were to test those representations against my ability to function in the world—with no further assertion/negation? I might end up with something as simple as, “It seems to me that if I eat certain foods, I become healthier” (as measured by certain statistics that I also subsume under that rubric of “seems”—e.g., “It seems to me that these particular measures are, ceteris paribus, reasonable.” )

That kind of approach actually seems to me to be closer to what you generally propose on here (and with which I tend to be in agreement).

Originally posted by vistesd
Hmm. Suppose I define a fact as “what is the case”—regardless of our judgments about it, or our ability to know what the facts actually are? What exists in our minds then is judgment about what are or are not “the facts”. Such judgments might be wrong—or ill-considered. But what does it mean to assert that they are the only (possible? ) facts?

To de ...[text shortened]... e to be closer to what you generally propose on here (and with which I tend to be in agreement).

How can something be established as a fact if it is not true?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Obviously someone brought up the fact that you had referred to the book of Leviticus.

Who was that? If it is so 'obvious', why did you not give more detail?

Originally posted by sonship
If you're not true how do you know you're not a perfect waste of space and money now?

At least try to make sense sometimes.

As I said, when you spice up your posts with little put downs and ad homs content is bound to be lacking.
I note that you are yet to give a single reference where your usage of the word 'true' is used. When you spend all your time complaining about little put downs, content is bound to be lacking.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why go to all this effort to avoid admitting a mistake?

Because I haven't made a mistake. Just because You, Fetchmyjunk and sonship all claim I have - but are each making different, incompatible claims, doesn't mean I have made a mistake. It is noted that Fetchmyjunk and sonship are not accusing each other of being wrong, although the disagree completely over the meaning of the word 'fact', and sonship has a weird definition for the word 'true' which I suspect Fetchmyjunk does not subscribe to.

It is also noted that the whole thread, from the very start was a bit of a farce given that sonship could have simply looked up 'brute fact' on Wikipedia if he really wanted to know what it meant.

Do you believe the appearance of being correct is more important than actually getting it right?
Perhaps you could tell us, are you true? Are you going to answer that question, and are you going to accuse either Fetchmyjunk or sonship of refusing to admit when they are wrong, because one of them has a different answer to that question from the other, therefore one of them is wrong. Instead, you will only attack me. Clearly you and they have no interest whatsoever in 'getting it right'. You only participated in this thread to attack me. The thread itself was only created to attack me. There was never ever any interest from any of you three in 'getting it right'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is very clear that the assembly that witnesses the blasphemy is to do it. Are you suggesting that perhaps the word has more than one meaning? Or are you saying context matters?

And it is very clear to me that the 'assembly' was the jewish community which the book of Leviticus was addressing.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And it is very clear to me that the 'assembly' was the jewish community which the book of Leviticus was addressing.

On what basis was it clear to you? It doesn't say that in what I was quoting. Read it again.

It says 'the entire assembly must stone them.". Clearly, (regardless of context) this implies the people who witness the blasphemy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
On what basis was it clear to you? It doesn't say that in what I was quoting. Read it again.

It says 'the entire assembly must stone them.". Clearly, (regardless of context) this implies the people who witness the blasphemy.

Yes and those people that witnessed it were the Jewish community. Duh. Or are you trying to say I was part of that assembly that the book of Leviticus was addressing?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Yes and those people that witnessed it were the Jewish community. Duh.

How do you know who the book was addressing? From the quote I gave it seems pretty general and looks like it should apply to every assembly. Why are you restricting it to the Jewish community? Are Gods instructions not absolute?

And why did it take you so long to even answer my question about the verse? Did you have to do some extensive research?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How do you know who the book was addressing? From the quote I gave it seems pretty general and looks like it should apply to every assembly. Why are you restricting it to the Jewish community? Are Gods instructions not absolute?

And why did it take you so long to even answer my question about the verse? Did you have to do some extensive research?

Since we disagree on who the 'assembly' in this case is shall we call in a neutral 3rd party to help resolve the issue? 😵

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Since we disagree on who the 'assembly' in this case is shall we call in a neutral 3rd party to help resolve the issue? 😵

No. I want you to explain how you know which assembly is being referred to. Right now, you seem to be just guessing - or making it up. The quote says nothing whatsoever about the Jewish community. You are being illogical.