Military Members with Mental Health Issues aren't strong

Post Reply New Topic

There are better things to attack Trump for.

His statement was ambiguous. I didn't really take offense. Strong/weak are subjective words. Basically if you like someone you are going to think they are strong. If you dislike someone you are going to think they are weak.

It is strong to come out of a war and suffer no PTSD. It is also strong to come out of war and seek treatment for PTSD. It is also strong to suffer from PtSD and get by on one's own. It is also strong to commit suicide when one feels it is their only way out (some might say). All of these are strengths in one person's mind and all of these things are weaknesses in another person's mind.

Basically Trump made a statement that doesn't really mean anything at all and we are analyzing it to death.

I do think Trump very narrow-mindedly divides people into "loser" and "winner" categories. There are better examples to show this though.

Can you describe or quote the inconsistency so we're both on the same page as to what it is?



You cannot take morality out of human behaviour. I get that you are coming at this from a social science point of view and that perhaps you don't believe people have moral capacity; that what we do is determined by environment and genetics. I agree that it is hard to differentiate between genetics and character and perhaps character is determined by such; but environment does not determine one's character.


I'm not sure that we can tell who is stronger. There is not enough information; and it's not a competition anyway.

I think it's self-evident, and it doesn't really impact on the rest of the conversation, so I'm content to put it aside.



Do you also believe, then, that there's no such thing as good parenting and bad parenting? Or that something innate determines whether someone leads a (for example) life of crime?



The point is not competition, nor have I implied such. Your model for character seems both arbitrary and subjective to me. I don't think you've demonstrated a moral justification for opposing the hypothetical Trump position we alluded to.

Well, you went and made me look back through the thread. I still can't find the inconsistency. So if you wouldn't mind, could you defend the statement you made or is it to much effort to condescend to a mind as small as you seem to think mine is.


Good parenting helps; bad parenting does not ensure evil.


It is subjective in that we can never truly know the value of each other, morally. It's not arbitrary; I'm not sure what aspect of my argument you find arbitrary.

Here is what my favorite Veterans' charity says about Trump's proposals.

We appreciate the passion and focus of Mr. Trump to improve the health and well-being of America’s veterans and agree with some elements of his plan. However, while his proposal to give every veteran a card to purchase private sector medical care may be well-intentioned, it would be disastrous for the men and women who served.

Encouraging all veterans to seek care in the private sector which lacks the expertise to treat military and combat injuries and illnesses, and which does not typically provide integrated or coordinated care, would lead to worse health outcomes for many veterans.

In addition, economists estimate such a plan would be at least two to three times more expensive than the current VA health care budget; between $1 – $2 trillion dollars more in the first ten years. This proposal would bust the federal budget, bankrupt the VA health care system and could lead to significant new costs on veterans for care they have already paid for with their blood, sweat and sacrifice.

Disabled American Veterans.

************************
Purchasing private care to opt out of government provided care is typically what rich people do.

Sorry, but I'm not in the habit of rising for bait. It might come as something as a blow to the ego of some people, but I'm not interested in consideration of anything but the words of people who post here. Whatever insecurities you have regarding your own competence are entirely your own business.



So you concede that bad parenting does have an effect. I'd be interested in your answer to my other question here.



You've just explained why with your suggestion that you cannot measure it. Again, I don't believe you can justify your objection to the straw-Trump hypothesis based on your personal model of "strength of character". Whether I (or others) agree with your model is immaterial. What matters is that your criticism of Trump is not internally consistent with your moral ideology.

Sweetie the only bait I want you to rise for is to explain how I'm being inconsistent. Good grief, just explain your comment. I'm beginning to think you can't, you're making such a fuss about it.


Again, It is hard to know what Trump actually means because his self-expression is so poor. I am inclined to think that he does view illness as a weakness because he seems to be a simplistic sort of thinker.

But you seem to be assuming that for something to be significant it has to be measurable. Social scientists often seem to think this, but I don't think it is the case. We don't have the tools to measure everything and we have to accept that at this time there are some unknowns and unknowables. Another's character is one of these things.

I believe that I've made a compelling argument as to why that's unsound.



Hardly. I'm suggesting that something cannot be evaluated if it is not measurable. My point is to demonstrate that your objection to Trump is based entirely on those "unknowns and unknowables" - such as the inner workings of Trump's mind. You're making assumptions of intent that would require supporting evidence which we're not privy to.