Was He or Not

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So being in a bad metal position means you can't articulate your feelings?

Clearly articulating your ideas is not a "sign" of a bad mental position. I asked you where is the "sign" of an irrational or mentally disturbed state.

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.

According to "reports," as you like to say, he said or wrote things which were fulfilled by his walking into a dangerous situation--a calculated and desired action. Again, without a pattern of mixed and contradictory behavior, not a sign of an irrational mental state.

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.

The truth can be (actually is) extreme. And your perception of a "personal place" is your business. But it is not your business to decide for others what a "personal place" is. And to do so would certainly not cohere with the relativistic view you seem to espouse. "Personal place" would, to a relativist, depend on point of view. And even more, for you, on "context." Others may be speaking from a different context than yours and from a different point of view. Who are you to cast extreme aspersions to what other's have to say? Similarly, re my previous question, "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"?"



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

How could you think you're speaking to it? Aren't you and they speaking what they perceive as truth concerning what "little is known"?

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

-spence

Their you go again--the all-knowing Spence. You know what is in their minds and what their motives are in spite of knowing little or nothing about their true beliefs and convictions. I think they could accuse your attacking them as being "malicious, malignant and spiteful."

As for politicizing, "reports" (those sources to which you often like to refer) opine that the swap itself was a political, or politicized, calculation. I guess you and those "reports" speak from different contexts and perceptions.

Oh, BTW, is "outright" an absolute?