Military Members with Mental Health Issues aren't strong

Post Reply New Topic

You just proved my point = seems to be a logical fallacy in that claim. I didn't.

For those who object, I have two questions:

Q1: Are you suggesting that having a mental health issue is a strength?

We refer to the mentally ill as vulnerable because it is a weakness. What matters is whether we ascribe blame for that weakness to the mentally ill person, or whether we're recognising the weakness in order to provide the support which they need. Which brings me to:

Q2: With that in mind, listen to what Trump was actually saying, in context and in its entirety. Is he admonishing mentally ill people for being weak, or is he recognising their vulnerability and offering support?

Well said. It could go either way. I think we are discussing two different kinds of weakness. Weakness of character and weakness of physical existence. For a long time these have been blurred. Probably because not a lot was known about either physical or mental health. But we have made great strides with regard to health in the last century. So now that we have more knowledge about these things we have to reconcile these two weaknesses. One carries a judgment and one does not.
Which Trump was referring to is as usual unclear. I'll give him credit for this: the man knows how to hedge his bets.

Perhaps Trump does not know the true difference between weakness and strength?

I have read that Trump's final evasion of the draft relied upon a bone spur in his foot - which didn't stop him playing a number of sports that put stress on the feet then or afterwards. He produced the bone spur excuse (or reason, his supporters may say) when he could no longer use the "need to complete studies" excuse (or reason).

His bone spur is very small potatoes to me. Especially when you think of the men and women who came home with no feet or no legs. Is Trump stronger and more courageous than the people he inferred were weak? I don't think so. His supporters may though.

Even if I thought he was of the opinion that it's an inherent weakness of character or personality - which would require fanciful speculation on my part - I don't see that as a problem if his intention is to provide support. His desire to do so is, in my opinion, proof that he doesn't hold them accountable for their frailties, whatever his personal beliefs happen to be.



It seems pretty clear - albeit typically clumsily put - to me, but I'm not particularly vested either way.

I do ... if he thinks that weakness of character can be defined by being ill then I disagree with him. To the contrary, I think that facing illness takes a great deal of strength. It is unfortunate politically that he does not know this.

Trump is a jackoff when it comes to tolerating difference. I've known people like him in my own life.

He even insulted prisoners-of-war because they were "captured."

This is not a man whom I want occupying the Presidential Chair.

So many things about this man are offensive. I can't help but think that he is the Republican's way of getting back for Obama. Like, if you stuck us with him then we will stick you with something you will hate as much, even if we have to shoot the whole country in the foot.

If you're going to quote me, quote the post in its entirety. You're arguing against a straw-Trump.

I specifically stated that it would require fanciful speculation, the point being that it would necessitate drawing conclusions that are not consistent with known information. We would also have to qualify what constitutes a "weakness of character" and how character strengths and weaknesses relate to psychological disorders.

From a psychological perspective, character traits are those behaviours which we develop throughout childhood in response to environmental demand. A "weakness of character" would be best described as an undesirable character trait e.g. repression of emotion or excessive analysis (I hope the irony of these examples isn't lost on anyone).

To cut a long story short (and to avoid excessive analysis), you say character weakness, I say personality pathology. Both amount to pretty much the same thing. Weakness of character is very much something which can be defined as an illness.

Is it likely Trump was making this point? Well, no. I doubt he has anywhere near the interest in human dysfunction that I do.



Likewise, there's little-to-no information regarding Trump's opinion on this, leaving us only with further fanciful speculation.

Ellipses indicate truncated text.


I'm talking about it in the abstract. That is, it is not a character weakness to be ill; Trump thinks it is; Trump is wrong. If that is the case; but like I said, we only have his words to go on and they are not clear.


Ah. This is where we disagree. I think character is intrinsic. Some people show incredible strength of character under horrific circumstances. Some people get out of the draft by complaining about a bone spur. Your character is who you are. It is how you handle things and what makes you good or evil.


As above.


Again. A fundamental point of disagreement.


Don't be so sure. He's a study in human behaviour I'd wager.

I support that. Values are the qualities which each individual considers the most important. The particular values which any one person chooses as most important tell and enormous amount about their character traits. For better or worse: "Greed is Good" (the film) demonstrates that kind of link for worse; not many people disagreed with that theme of the film.
"The Great Gatsby" is a far more elegant and nuanced work, depicting the falseness of the belief that materialistic values can conceal if not repair lives damaged by past rejection (amongst other themes). We all make choices based on what we value the most. And that reveals character more accurately perhaps than anything else. Nearly all of the timeless works of novelists address the values=character, they describe something real about human life generally in fictional context, which is what great novelists typically do.

In that context, it is interesting to recall that what are now grouped together as "personality disorders" were previously termed "character disorders" (to refer to the same entities more or less).

I have not seen much in the way of logic when it comes to posters on WP defending Trump. I guess if they (Trumpies) have an agenda then they will embellish Trump's other "fine" qualities to hide what is blatantly apparent to everyone else.

Here in Oz we have the same situation with liberal-conservative party supporters. Nowadays they avoid getting interviewed on TV because they look particularly stupid.

Well the good news is that we can salvage a decent conversation from what might otherwise have been a partisan mess.

Sadly I must retire to the land of nod soon, but not before rolling a few balls.

First of all, you're using character to mean resolve. Whilst that's not an uncommon usage, I believe that resolve is plastic to experience rather than either intrinsic or a set value. I think it's also fair to point out that resolve is but one facet of what constitutes a character. As such, your model is simplistic, but I'll work with it for the sake of argument.

So, with all that said, within your model of 'character = resolve', it would still be reasonable to state that someone whose resolve was incapable of coping with the horrors of war had a weaker character than someone who endured the same but was unaffected. If the measure of character is "how you handle things", then is it not accurate to say that e.g. a soldier with no physical wounds but severe PTSD has a weaker character than the soldier who lost a limb but came home and devoted all their energies towards helping others who were even worse off than they?

N.B. I'm trying to remain within the framework of what I understand is your perspective at this point. In reality, I believe that the complexities of human behaviour are far too nuanced to boil down to a handful of traits and flaws.

Finally, I'm obliged to ask at this point if you believe that "character" is immutable. Your position seems to hinge on the notion that strength of resolve is inherent rather than environmental, but I contend that this would render afflictions such as PTSD impossible, as the cause of PTSD is, of course, experiential - and therefore environmental.

Anyhoo, I won't be too put out if you choose not to continue this line of discourse. I'm all too aware of the potential can of worms it might represent.

I don't think so. Resolve is sticking to your values. Character is having them in the first place.


That is how one can observe character, but character is sometimes invisible. Only the individual can know their own character, but it can sometimes be observed by their actions.


For example, a soldier has PTSD and is back home and it is affecting his daily functioning. He has an illness not a character flaw. But what he does next can show character; for example, does he close himself off or does he ask for help? If he asks for help then he is demonstrating strong character because he is taking steps to take care of himself.


I like The Iliad. Achilles is a moral hero. He puts justice above groupthink.

That's not consistent with what you said earlier, but I digress. Your understanding of human character runs counter to my understanding of human behaviour and modern psychology.



I'm not disagreeing that it takes a certain strength of character to cope with adversity. The point is that some are prone to react negatively to adversity in the first place. It's not a moral judgement, it's an evaluation of relative strengths of individuals.

Who is stronger? The guy who comes through the war without suffering PTSD or his squad-mate whose experiences are virtually identical, who suffers from PTSD but bravely struggles to get by? Whether or not you agree that it's one or the other, you're recognising that strength of character is affected by experience - i.e. it's not an innate value.