Fast: a claim about preference, as in relativistic either or claims based on non-reifiable criteria such as vanilla or chocolate and terrorist or freedom fighter. In the end it is a preference which is which.

Ken it doesn't matter what I say in reference to its truth, it matters what I and other do in reference to what I say.

Oh, so you're saying that whether someone is a terrorist or not is a matter of opinion. Well, that's not true. It is a matter of fact whether someone is a terrorist or not.

A man and woman can indeed argue about whether a sexual encounter was rape.

Whether someone did or did not do a certain action is for all practical purposes a matter of fact. But how this action is described in emotional/ethical terms is something else.

A man and woman can indeed argue about whether a sexual encounter was rape. A judge is going to want the details. Of course then we are already dealing with history, and possibly different versions of it. In the case of terrorism, the bombing of Dresden could be called "terrorism." One can describe the fact of person planting explosive device in relatively neutral terms. But terms like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" are simply more complicated. They are loaded with non-factual baggage.

If you would like to draw circles let me oblige.

Refer back to the beginning of the thread, re-read, repeat.

It does? Why? It mattered that the Earth was round and not flat even if everyone said it was flat and acted as if it was. In fact, that everyone acted as if it was flat was exactly the matter! It inhibited exploration for a long while because people were afraid they would fall off the edge of the Earth.

Exactly Ken That was the matter, people acted as if it were flat. Later when it was assumed that it was round people acted that way. The matter of inhibited exploration is being conflated with the notion of progress which is an ideological notion with no empirical merit. there is no way of knowing that people's lives were any better post earth roundyness. The simple notion of better in regards to lives has no empirical merit. People lived lives when the earth was flat, people lived lives after it was round. You are imposing ethical claims that I have not made.

I'd be more than willing to draw any shape you want, as long as I can get a straight response out of you

Do you think that being a terrorist is a matter of opinion, or a matter of fact? (and remember the difference between opinion and matter of opinion that ken pointed out earlier)

It is a matter of fact, for the exact reason I have already posted.

Well, then there is no dispute. All that other cultural/sociological talk has nothing to do with what was being spoken about in this thread. I'm not trying to be mean, but you see that, right?

Matter of fact is the interpretation of a fact

Exactly Ken That was the matter, people acted as if it were flat. Later when it was assumed that it was round people acted that way. The matter of inhibited exploration is being conflated with the notion of progress which is an ideological notion with no empirical merit. there is no way of knowing that people's lives were any better post earth roundyness. The simple notion of better in regards to lives has no empirical merit. People lived lives when the earth was flat, people lived lives after it was round. You are imposing ethical claims that I have not made.

You aren't confusing an opinion with a matter of opinion, but you're confusing an opinion with a matter of fact. We can have an opinion about a factual matter, but facts remain just what they are despite that opinion.

By the way, can you explain how a person can simultaneously be both a freedom fighter and a terrorist? Never mind how different people from different cultural backgrounds can have differing opinions.

Oh, no, no. That's not what facts are. A fact is that which is true independent of our interpretation. When we say matter of fact, we mean that it is a matter that is either true or false (I think this would mean a truth-bearer is present, like a proposition). And this is contrasted with matters of opinion, which are matters which, I think, have no truth-value.

Again, our interpretation, agreement, or understanding is another matter. What is true is true, what is the case is the case, regardless if we interpret, agree, or understand it to be.

A fact is a fact, there is not even a basic comprehention of a fact without it being interpreted. A person cannot even recognize a fact without a corresponding interpretation of that fact.