Josh wrote:What Szdfan was saying, to me, was that empirical truth is definitely possible to determine - but that a certain type of person tends to pop up in cases like this who challenges the idea that we can know the truth at all.
If you are replying to me, please allow me to state very clearly: Truth can be known. I have never, to my knowledge, challenged the idea that truth can be known. So if that was directed at me, your insinuation is false. If it wasn't, well, now I have made myself clear on the matter.
Josh wrote:I do not want anyone to agree blindly with me. If someone really wants to know, I can share evidence with you, and other people involved (like Metzger) have done the same.
In my life, I have seen too many false narratives supported by "evidence" that is misrepresented etc. to not be a little jaded about "evidence". I tend to trust evidence that is fully made available in full context and available for examination. Then I want to hear the other party's response to the evidence. After all such, hopefully the truth of the matter can be discovered.
This is how a courtroom allegedly works. I have been a jury foreman on a case where "proof" was offered in the form of evidence. But as I explored, the evidence fell apart in a spectacular manner. We unanimously ruled in favor of the defendant and some of the jury was offended at the duplicity and how close they got taken for a ride by the narrative the evidence was supposed to provide.
All that to say, claims of "I have evidence" when that claim is used to promulgate and/or control a narrative, tend to be red flags for me.
Josh wrote:The problem here is that certain folks pop up saying "there are two sides to this story". A few weeks ago, quite a few people popped up here on MennoNet saying there are "two sides to the story" with Jeriah Mast, and that we needed to be quiet.
I missed that. I mostly say people urging caution before wholesale buying into any narrative. That stance by onlookers has proven to be a very wise stance. I missed anyone saying "we" needed to be quiet. At first glance, that seems to be a bad response and I'd like to see it for myself. Who said that and where?
Josh wrote:The simple fact is, being quiet hasn't worked. It's time to speak up boldly and honestly for truth, despite the naysayers.
Humbly, accurately, and boldly speaking up for truth is very important. It's something a lot of people groups, in particular the one in focus on this forum, have done poorly at. It's something that makes enemies. Those who speak up and have influence have a serious responsibility to wield their voices in a responsible manner.
I don't have hidden knowledge, and I am not part of a conspiracy or a cabal of power or involved in a secret war. I just thought Josh had adequately explained where he stood and also thought RP had concerns that I normally share.