by slimboyfat 118 Replies latest jw friends
In my interpretation, jwfacts is a great website....
ADCMS:
SBF, by your definition, then, we could argue if all information was presented in sign language or in picture form, then everything would be factual.
Sign language speakers would dispute that their language does not use words.
Round? Do you mean flat? Again that's a subject I never brought up, Cofty did, repeatedly. I never found it a very useful conversation. Cofty used it rhetorically to undermine what I was really trying to say.
No.
I was having a conversation with somebody who resorted to the old "evolution is only a theory" canard.
I said that evolution was as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat.
You interrupted with the astonishing exhibition of pedantry; "it depends on what you mean by earth, it depends on what you mean by isn't, it depends on what you mean by flat".
Despite the meaning of my words being blatantly obvious in the context you felt the need to waffle on ad nauseum about the tyranny of facts.
I am wont to do that.
Sbf: on another thread you asked me to define what it means the earth is round...
i agree, its a rather silly thing to do, and i think that upon some more reflection this topic share some of that sillyness.
I thought you settled on "approximately spherical" rather than round.
If my point in this thread is to ask the question: is the apostate view of the "facts" of JW wrongness the only legitimate way to view the activities of JWs? Then I think that's not an entirely silly question.
If you don't believe in the existence of facts (as indicated in the OP), and you are not suggesting that he should change the name from Jwfacts.. In what way is this thread productive? A more useful question might be: Do facts exist, how can we know something to be true? Of course, that wouldn't have been as attention-seeking, would it..
The OP: "in view of the fact that 'there are no facts.." -- Maybe take a bit more time to plan out your 1st post in future, especially if you are using such an inflammatory thread title.
Inflammatory? I think I made it clear in the first post, and repeatedly since that I think jwfacts is a great site. It seems that rather than engaging my discussion you want to label it illegitimate on spurious grounds.
I am not sure what Nietzsche meant in context, but isn't it a fact to say, for example, that the Watchtower Society has misquoted other writers out of context, or that the Watchtower Society made predictions about Armageddon/world events that didn't happen?
In which case, which parts of JWFacts' site is 'interpretation'?
