Was He or Not

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You imply that all such action would be associated with an unstable person. Are most traitors unstable? Or do they rationally choose to change sides. If you don't discount what he has said about this country, the military, Afghanistan and its people, it rings more of a rational decision to do what he did than an unstable one.

Or it simply bolsters the position that he had lost it.

Your dot . . . dot . . . dot implication seems to leave what you call pillorying out of the "full story". He was "pilloried" by his fellow soldiers, then and now, more than by anybody else.

I'm sure his peers felt betrayed. I don't fault them for that.

The Devil's Advocate persisting beyond reason becomes . . . how do you put it . . . vapid.

I still haven't reconciled the justification for the outright venom directed at an active duty service member on limited information. Is that reasonable?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Or it simply bolsters the position that he had lost it.

How so? I don't see any bolstering of such a position by his actions or words. Please clarify.

I'm sure his peers felt betrayed. I don't fault them for that.

What was the "limited information" which caused those peers to "feel" betrayed?

I still haven't reconciled the justification for the outright venom directed at an active duty service member on limited information. Is that reasonable?

-spence

So, on the one hand you don't fault his peers for "outright venom", but if someone else responds as they do, then the "outright venom" is not justified. And, what was the "limited information" which informed Susan Rice to say that Bergdahl served with "distinction"? How have you "reconciled the justification" for all that?

Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?

And is "outright" an absolute?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How so? I don't see any bolstering of such a position by his actions or words. Please clarify.

It could be interpreted as a sign of his mental state.

What was the "limited information" which caused those peers to "feel" betrayed? So, on the one hand you don't fault his peers for "outright venom", but if someone else responds as they do, then the "outright venom" is not justified. And, what was the "limited information" which informed Susan Rice to say that Bergdahl served with "distinction"? How have you "reconciled the justification" for all that?

I never said his peers were showing outright venom, that was a broader remark.

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit. She could have followed with...and then something went wrong, but we're not really sure what happened. Perhaps this was implied.

Can the truth be considered "outright venom"? And if the truth is relative to "context" and "perception," then who are you to pronounce someone else's perception "outright venom"?

And is "outright" an absolute?

Truth can certainly be venomous depending on how it's used. A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit.
-spence

If she was trying to state that, she would have stated that, correct? I mean, I presume she's not a moron, right?

No limits to how far you'll bend over backwards when these people say stupid things, God forbid you just admit the truth. She said he "served" with honor and distinction. Simple words, with only one possible meaning. You "serve" after you enlist.

This is yet another fiasco resulting with egg on his clueless face. Raise the concept of "inept" to an art form...the whole administration, it's actually staggering.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

. A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence

no kidding...we read your posts

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It could be interpreted as a sign of his mental state.

His words clearly express his mental state. If they were incoherent, that might be "a sign" which might be interpreted as a confused mental state. But that would have to be "bolstered," as you put it, by a pattern of incoherence. As well as a pattern of strange behaviors. His statements were coherent, and his actions coincided with his words. Where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state?

I never said his peers were showing outright venom, that was a broader remark.

Yes, the "broader context" of "outright venom" supposedly spewed by others, were mostly reiterations of remarks by his peers. So the "broader context" of "outright venom" was quite homogenous amongst his peers and non-peers. I would assume, then, that his peers were showing "outright venom."

As for Rice's words. I think she was just trying to state that signing up to serve your country is certainly an honorable thing that deserves merit. She could have followed with...and then something went wrong, but we're not really sure what happened. Perhaps this was implied.

Refer to what Jim in CT said.

Truth can certainly be venomous depending on how it's used.

Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?


A bit of truth is often used to mask a bigger lie.

-spence

Refer to what scottw said.

BTW, is "outright" an absolute?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

His words clearly express his mental state. If they were incoherent, that might be "a sign" which might be interpreted as a confused mental state. But that would have to be "bolstered," as you put it, by a pattern of incoherence. As well as a pattern of strange behaviors. His statements were coherent, and his actions coincided with his words. Where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state?

So being in a bad metal position means you can't articulate your feelings? He signed up for the service which is a rational and honorable thing, then walks unarmed into a dangerous situation which is a very irrational thing.

Yes, the "broader context" of "outright venom" supposedly spewed by others, were mostly reiterations of remarks by his peers. So the "broader context" of "outright venom" was quite homogenous amongst his peers and non-peers. I would assume, then, that his peers were showing "outright venom."

You're just making that up. His peers certainly were critical of him as a deserter and had suspicions about his later actions that don't appear to have merit according to the military. This doesn't go nearly as far as some in the media who were quick to take this to an extreme and personal place.

Venomous, in the context of human discourse, means "malicious, malignant, spiteful, etc. Are you saying that those who believe they are telling the truth about Bergdahl, including his peers, are being malicious, malignant, spiteful? Could you please explain how that works?

Little is known about the "truth" so how could those think they're speaking to it?

The event became politicized overnight in an attempt not to understand but to attack. Malicious, malignant and spiteful all seem to fit.

-spence