A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay, I have to pick up on this.

In my Jainist thread I linked to a site in my OP to provide further info about the subject I was discussing, and you took great delight in highlighting a comment that didn't support my assertion that Jainists were not atheistic. (As they believed in a Perfect Being).

Feel free to go back and review that thread.
I did not say you had made the statements on the site you referenced.
I did not say you supported the statements on the site you referenced.
I merely questioned the fact that you had stated that the site you referenced was the source of your information, yet the site you referenced said something different from what you were saying.
You admitted that the site was not the sole source of your information. Further it can be said that your other sources disagree with that site and thus one of them is likely wrong. One resolution may be that Jainists have a variety of beliefs and it is wrong to make too specific a statement about what Jainists believe - or at least it should be qualified.
And I accepted your explanation without complaint.

Why is it ridiculous for Fetchmyjunk to think you will agree with everything in your given quote, but not ridiculous for you to think I will agree with everything written on a site I linked to?
Fetchmyjunk claimed that part of the quote was a statement by me.
Fetchmyjunk refused to quote it in context.
The piece of the quote in question was part of a two part definition giving two distinct meanings for a word. If a word has two distinct meanings, they cannot both be applied at all times.
Suppose for example, I said that Fetchmyjunk was ducking the issue. And he claimed that ducks have feathers and he doesn't have feathers. If I quoted a dictionary showing two meanings of 'duck' would I be supporting him that ducks have feathers and thus contradicting myself? Would sonship jump in and announce that everybody is a duck?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay, I have to pick up on this.

Now I could have pointed out that your source contradicts itself:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/beliefs/universe_1.shtml

Jains believe that the universe we perceive really exists and is not an illusion. It contains two classes of thing: jivas - living souls, and ajivas - non-living objects, which include everything else, including space.

Akasa is space:
the place in which the 'things' above function
it extends beyond the loka - i.e. beyond the boundaries of the universe

But would I be right to therefore claim that you contradicted yourself by referencing the source?

[edit]On second thoughts that first quote is ambiguous so it may not be a contradiction.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Feel free to go back and review that thread.
I did not say you had made the statements on the site you referenced.
I did not say you supported the statements on the site you referenced.
I merely questioned the fact that you had stated that the site you referenced was the source of your information, yet the site you referenced said something different f ...[text shortened]... hers and thus contradicting myself? Would sonship jump in and announce that everybody is a duck?

Come on sir, that's a lot of words to use when all you really had to say was 'sorry, my bad.'

It may not be a brute fact, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Come on sir, that's a lot of words to use when all you really had to say was 'sorry, my bad.'

It may not be a brute fact, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

Except that nowhere in what I said was the equivalent of 'my bad'. I stand by my points that:
1. contents of quotes are not necessarily agreed to by the poster.
2. Fetchmyjunk took part of my quote out of context.
3. In your case, you were at fault as you had claimed to be relying on that source when you were, in fact, not.
4. I accepted your 'my bad' without fuss.

I can have your cake and eat it.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Come on sir, that's a lot of words to use when all you really had to say was 'sorry, my bad.'

It may not be a brute fact, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

Unfortunately there is a certain ego that gets in the way of those 3 words.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it isn't. A fact is something that is so. Facts aren't necessarily known, and facts are not 'true'.

If as you say, "A fact is something that is so", how can they be "so" if 1. "they aren't necessarily know?" and 2. "not true"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If as you say, "A fact is something that is so", how can they be "so" if 1. "they aren't necessarily know?" and 2. "not true"?

Do you dispute that something not known can be so?

As for "not true", context context context.
I actually said " not 'true' "
Notice the quotes? Notice that there is a difference between "not 'true'" and "not true"?
So, have you made up your mind yet whether or not sonship is 'true'?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Unfortunately there is a certain ego that gets in the way of those 3 words.

Am more interested in your ego sir that prevents you from uttering the 3 words:

'Absolutes don't exist.'

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except that nowhere in what I said was the equivalent of 'my bad'. I stand by my points that:
1. contents of quotes are not necessarily agreed to by the poster.
2. Fetchmyjunk took part of my quote out of context.
3. In your case, you were at fault as you had claimed to be relying on that source when you were, in fact, not.
4. I accepted your 'my bad' without fuss.

I can have your cake and eat it.

Stay away from my cake. 😠

Your point 1 needs a slight adjustment:

1. contents of quotes, 'or links to other websites', are not necessarily agreed to by the poster in their entirety.

(It is not reasonable to assume a site linked to by a poster will be agreed with 100% even if cited as the source. Indeed, more slack should be given to a website link than a quote, due to the significantly larger amount of information on a website).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you dispute that something not known can be so?

As for "not true", context context context.
I actually said " not 'true' "
Notice the quotes? Notice that there is a difference between "not 'true'" and "not true"?
So, have you made up your mind yet whether or not sonship is 'true'?

Do you dispute that something not known can be so?

Don't see how it is possible for something to be so but not known.

As for "not true", context context context.
I actually said " not 'true' "

So in what context would you say something is not 'true'? Saying context over and over proves nothing, unless you can provide an example of a context where a fact is not true. I have asked you quite a few times but so far you haven't produced the goods.

So, have you made up your mind yet whether or not sonship is 'true'?

Are you saying 'sonship' is a fact?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Am more interested in your ego sir that prevents you from uttering the 3 words:

'Absolutes don't exist.'

Sorry dear ghost but self defeating statements aren't exactly my thing, and just by the way I just also happen to think that torturing babies for fun is not ever right, in any universe. 😛

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Stay away from my cake. 😠

Your point 1 needs a slight adjustment:

1. contents of quotes, 'or links to other websites', are not necessarily agreed to by the poster in their entirety.

At times, they are not even agreed to at all. Which was one of my points about the Bible quote. Nobody would actually think I agreed with the verses I quoted.

(It is not reasonable to assume a site linked to by a poster will be agreed with 100% even if cited as the source. Indeed, more slack should be given to a website link than a quote, due to the significantly larger amount of information on a website).
Of course. But given that you cited it as the source of your information, it was reasonable of me to point out that it disagreed with what you said had come from that source. Once you explained that you had actually got information from other sources, the issue was resolved.
If I can't have your cake, then how about a sandwich?

Originally posted by twhitehead
At times, they are not even agreed to at all. Which was one of my points about the Bible quote. Nobody would actually think I agreed with the verses I quoted.

[b](It is not reasonable to assume a site linked to by a poster will be agreed with 100% even if cited as the source. Indeed, more slack should be given to a website link than a quote, due to th ...[text shortened]... m other sources, the issue was resolved.
If I can't have your cake, then how about a sandwich?

So which parts of the dictionary definition that you quoted did you not agree with and why?

Originally posted by twhitehead
At times, they are not even agreed to at all. Which was one of my points about the Bible quote. Nobody would actually think I agreed with the verses I quoted.

[b](It is not reasonable to assume a site linked to by a poster will be agreed with 100% even if cited as the source. Indeed, more slack should be given to a website link than a quote, due to th ...[text shortened]... m other sources, the issue was resolved.
If I can't have your cake, then how about a sandwich?

Certainly sir, though please be mindful not to allow Fetchmyjunk to follow you to the buffet.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So which parts of the dictionary definition that you quoted did you not agree with and why?

I agreed with all of it. But all of it was two distinct meanings of the word fact. My usage in this thread was the first meaning. I fully accept, and have stated so multiple times, that there is the other usage in which facts are 'true'. But this thread is about 'brute facts' and in particular, my usage of the term. Even 'brute fact' has other usages.