Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: On Nothing to Fear Scan0014
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
Scan0014.pdf
The Octogenarians 
Sounds like a reluctant admission that the vaunted objectivity that is often presented as a modus operandi principia is a myth. David Hume rules ! What is the constitutional reference to Gold Star status?
In response to DS:
Sir, in your self-assigned largesse of thought, you passionately defended policy issues. However, it appeared that the nature of the post to which you responded was the question of the pathology of the Republican Party’s nominee. Did we misinterpret that you gave us your Rorschach inkblot test vision? Of course, there’s not right or wrong answer in that test … just a window into what the mind is thinking.
I thought long and hard about Trump’s pathological condition, and one point became very clear to me as to a major difference between Donald and Hillary. At the RNC, the Benghazi mother who disparaged Hillary drew no retribution whatsoever from Hillary. On the other hand, at the DNC, the Khan family drew vitriol of such severity from Donald that members of his own party spoke out against him. Speaking one’s mind, when one’s mental state is called into question, is hardly a plus factor in securing party unity and support. It doesn’t take a psychiatrist to understand that.
It sure shouldn’t !
I think that Daedal2207 is making reference to my comment of Aug 4, 2:32.
No myth here. Efforts at objectivity do not deny the existence of subjectivity in human behavior. In fact, subjectivity must be acknowledged because emotions, whether they are based in true or false beliefs, have objective consequences. Consequences provide for us measurable criteria which support judgments as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of emotional states. I made no reference to a “constitutional” link to Gold Star status. Apparently there is a collectively held sentiment to the effect that when it comes to Gold Star families the extreme nature of their loss makes any criticism (or hint of criticism) of their ideas a line that should not be crossed. Sympathy with those who have so suffered is justified. We as caring people would not want to add weight to another’s emotional burden. But there does seem to be something unethical when a political party spotlights the opinions of people who because of their special loss acquire a status that protects them from being cross-examined. I am not being partisan; the Republicans did the same thing.
It seems that when any Gold Star family chooses to enter the public arena of ideas, the context changes. The loss of one’s child then becomes for them a shield which is denied to their opponents. The public is denied a fair exposure to the full range of argument. Sympathy for Gold Star families is justified – but we should be smart enough to acknowledge that sometimes a stringent application of this emotion is costly.
I agree with the assertion you made concerning the weighting factors used for the death of a child or other family member of a Gold Star family. Obviously, those same factors aren’t in play when weighting the value of a Black Lives Matter family member or of the comments made by their family members.
I have restored this PDF although it is almost identical to the SB comment.As a post it may attract more commentary. It is a powerful reminder that a loss or denial of empathic understanding is not limited to one group.A call for empathic understanding having come most recently and loudly from a disrespected(by Trump).Muslim father who happens to be the father of a dead war hero.and apparently a pretty good lawyer.( although not a constitutional one)The discerning will also see Trump’s unwarranted attack on his wife as significant.if not diagnostic.So men y’all,it’s not necessarily oxytocin(certainly not oxycontin) that can predispose behavior.
An addendum to the psychological concern of the candidate. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/trump-the-candidate-unfit-to-serve-737086019759. Continues to be a disturbing concern.
MSNBC commentators and many others have said that Trump “attacked” Khizr Khan and his wife. It seems that this is the offending statement which was presented in a Stephanopoulos interview: “He was very emotional … he looked like a nice guy to me. His wife … if you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say.”
And the airways exploded! This is a truthful description of the Khan presence at the Democratic convention. “Looked like a nice guy” cannot be considered an attack – or can it? Is it an attack in the sense that Trump mentioned that Mrs. Khan stood by silently? This seems to be a suggestion that maybe a sharia-ordained subordination of the wife’s role was a factor, but would this be an attack on her or them? Or, are the politically stated opinions and manner of presentation of Gold Star parents totally off limits – to be considered free of criticism, no matter how emotionally, factually, logically, distorted they might be?
I guess this to be the case. A line had been tripped that upset even many Republicans. The land where knowledge resides contains within it emotional minefields. And the minesweepers will be condemned. We live in interesting times!