False Colors with possible Spoiler
- Thread starter Ben
- Start date
Hey, what can I say? I was on holiday, enjoyed the Thanksgiving feast, and got caught up in the spirit of bountifulness. So . . . are we ready for dessert?
No, but if you replace “his own” with “Origin’s”, you’d be on the mark.
Also, a little advice: If in retreat you’re going to unleash a generality, you’d better make sure it won’t turn around and chase after you instead. Which brings me to . . .
I’ve already explained why the word’s meaning in this case is ambiguous (including how it might not be saying anything about Tolwyn’s state of mind). People can disagree, as Quarto does, over whether we have the right to take account of such ambiguity, but I’d hope all of us would agree that personal likes/dislikes about WC should never enter the picture. Yet yours do. The most natural meaning of “deranged” is insanity, but you’re not about to accept that as a possible meaning here because, as you’ve confessed, you don’t want to see Tolwyn in any way excused for his actions. So no, Raptor, it wasn’t my viewpoints you attacked above, only your own.
But that’s exactly what you’re doing. If you say, which you did, that I’m not talking correctly about canon as canon, then that’s where we are.
But as I’ve already explained, and pretty clearly I thought, I don’t regard most of the kinds of canon we have as “inviolate” since, among other reasons, I believe Origin has the right to alter its conception of the WC universe any time it wants. Nor do I believe that Origin intends everything it has said or done to be taken literally since, among other reasons, I don’t believe Origin envisions the Concordia as having no more than seven and no less than eight AMGs at the same time. Now in practice, you and I would probably differ only a small percentage of the time on whether a given canon statement was credible on its face. You’d say it’s credible by definition, while I’d say it’s credible because there’s no reason to doubt that Origin meant what it said. On this general level, there’s no inconsistency within our respective positions, they’re only inconsistent with each other. However, in terms of proof of some contention, I think you have to concede that even under your theory not all relevant canon is of equal weight. For example, Maniac’s reference within The Price of Freedom to “Crazy Geoff” is simply not as “telling” a canon statement as the bald statement in the advertisement (taken literally) that Tolwyn is “deranged”. (A character’s comment/opinion versus a narrative statement of fact.)
A beautiful, plum-pudding of a statement. It illustrates both your philosophy of canon and the consequences of that philosophy. (And it indicates how you’d answer most of the questions I posed in my prior post.)
All in all, a rather Platonic conception. I like it . . . I reject it for the reasons I gave in my prior post . . . but I like it.
No, that would be fan fiction. Generally speaking, under both our viewpoints of canon, our freedom is constrained by the boundaries that Origin and only Origin establishes in the canon sources. (Practically speaking though, I’ll concede that whereas you see us bound in chains, injected with a muscle relaxer, hung upside down, and submerged in a sealed tank of water, I only see us bound in chains.)
No, but if you replace “his own” with “Origin’s”, you’d be on the mark.
Also, a little advice: If in retreat you’re going to unleash a generality, you’d better make sure it won’t turn around and chase after you instead. Which brings me to . . .
I’ve already explained why the word’s meaning in this case is ambiguous (including how it might not be saying anything about Tolwyn’s state of mind). People can disagree, as Quarto does, over whether we have the right to take account of such ambiguity, but I’d hope all of us would agree that personal likes/dislikes about WC should never enter the picture. Yet yours do. The most natural meaning of “deranged” is insanity, but you’re not about to accept that as a possible meaning here because, as you’ve confessed, you don’t want to see Tolwyn in any way excused for his actions. So no, Raptor, it wasn’t my viewpoints you attacked above, only your own.
But that’s exactly what you’re doing. If you say, which you did, that I’m not talking correctly about canon as canon, then that’s where we are.
But as I’ve already explained, and pretty clearly I thought, I don’t regard most of the kinds of canon we have as “inviolate” since, among other reasons, I believe Origin has the right to alter its conception of the WC universe any time it wants. Nor do I believe that Origin intends everything it has said or done to be taken literally since, among other reasons, I don’t believe Origin envisions the Concordia as having no more than seven and no less than eight AMGs at the same time. Now in practice, you and I would probably differ only a small percentage of the time on whether a given canon statement was credible on its face. You’d say it’s credible by definition, while I’d say it’s credible because there’s no reason to doubt that Origin meant what it said. On this general level, there’s no inconsistency within our respective positions, they’re only inconsistent with each other. However, in terms of proof of some contention, I think you have to concede that even under your theory not all relevant canon is of equal weight. For example, Maniac’s reference within The Price of Freedom to “Crazy Geoff” is simply not as “telling” a canon statement as the bald statement in the advertisement (taken literally) that Tolwyn is “deranged”. (A character’s comment/opinion versus a narrative statement of fact.)
A beautiful, plum-pudding of a statement. It illustrates both your philosophy of canon and the consequences of that philosophy. (And it indicates how you’d answer most of the questions I posed in my prior post.)
All in all, a rather Platonic conception. I like it . . . I reject it for the reasons I gave in my prior post . . . but I like it.
No, that would be fan fiction. Generally speaking, under both our viewpoints of canon, our freedom is constrained by the boundaries that Origin and only Origin establishes in the canon sources. (Practically speaking though, I’ll concede that whereas you see us bound in chains, injected with a muscle relaxer, hung upside down, and submerged in a sealed tank of water, I only see us bound in chains.
)And where exactly is this clear, unambigious statement from Origin that Tolwyn isn't mentally ill? Since you seem to think that it is so evident in the canon, please quote the source and the page numbers. That, after all, was what you required of those who argued that Tolwyn was mentally unsound. Since we have done so, it's now up to you to provide one of equal weight that counters it. The simple fact is that there is never a flat out statement from Origin that Tolwyn isn't mentally ill, certainly nothing with the power to counter the blunt statement made in the trailer. All you can do is string together inferances and assumptions and say "This must be so becuase..."
Er, did you even view that ad before launching into the debate? The trailer says, and I quoute "Fuelled by the horrors of war, a deranged human *mind* launches...." It is most definitely talking about state of mind, not about actions or behaviour or anything else.
And why exactly is insanity is the most natural meaning of deranged? Clinical insanity, beyond all hope of recovery and treatement is a far worse sitaution than those faced by most with mental illness. A person with mental illness can be described as "deranged" without meeting the test for legal and clinical insanity. You still seem to be stuck in the mindset that a person is either stark raving bonkers or is perfectly sound. As I recall, the grand sum of proof you offered in your original post that Tolwyn wasn't insane was that he wasn't talking to to himself about blue strawberries. Such a simplistic view overlooks just how complex a field mental illness is.
but you're not about to accept that as a possible meaning here because, as you?ve confessed, you don't want to see Tolwyn in any way excused for his actions. So no, Raptor, it wasn't my viewpoints you attacked above, only your own.
Again, that would only apply if one was working from a position of abysmal ignorance about the field of mental health, which seems to be that a person has to be at one of either two differant poles in a vast field, and that to think one can be anywhere in between, or be mentally ill and still be responsible for one's actions, is somehow self contradictory. People with mental illness are before the courts all the time on a variety of charges, and if convicted pay the price for their actions. To be declared clinically and legally insane one would have to very far gone, but not having gone that far is no way proof that that a person isn't mentally ill.
Oh, and I see that you're shifting to talking about me personally and my "prejudices" rather than trying to answer my arguments. I would suggest that you spend a little more time actually boning up on the canon, such as what that trailer says, and on the topic of mental health itself rather than resorting to argumentum ad hominem.
Best, Raptor
I’ve never made such a claim. In fact, I haven’t taken any position on Tolwyn’s mental health (well or ill). What I have argued is that what little canon you’ve cited so far to indicate his mental illness is not good enough to resolve the question, and so a more detailed look at the canon is required, something that I’m very interested in seeing done (even if you’re not) and by someone with a working knowledge of psychology.
You mean (gasp!) I’ve used logic? Darn! You nailed me pretty good there.
Only a deranged human mind would launch . . . well, you know what I mean. Besides, this is the second time you’ve quoted the ad.
You must have a deranged mind if you think you can get me to agree . . . oh, right, I guess that covers it again.
Nevertheless, I stand corrected. When I said “state of mind” in my last post, that was a poor choice of words. My point was only that, when used to exaggerate, the word “deranged” doesn’t have to mean mental illness. So while “a deranged mind” does entail a state of mind, it can be just basic stupidity, flawed logic, or damned pride.
Because that’s the most commonly understood meaning. And driving the point home many dictionaries, including the OED, principally use each word to define the other.
In addition, you shouldn’t assume that the person in Origin who composed the trailer, irrespective of his/her intent in choosing the word, was as knowledgeable about the range of mental illness as you are.
Hardly. There’s been mental illness in my extended family. Enough said.
I wasn’t offering any proof at all, just asking you to present some. As for the particular quote or line, it was from the movie The Caine Mutiny and does mention strawberries, but no colors.
No, I’ve tried, as always, to respond to each of your arguments. If I’ve missed one, you have only to flag it for me.
As for your prejudice against Tolwyn, you were the one who brought it front-and-center, stating that that’s why you wouldn’t want to make out a case that Tolwyn was clinically insane.
Anyway, I’ve mentioned it only twice. The first time, when you first admitted it immediately after saying that you didn’t believe Tolwyn was clinically insane. How could I not point out the obvious conflict of interest? What would you have done if our positions had been reversed?
I think I know the answer since this brings me to the second time, where I was responding to your charge that I had some personal viewpoint/prejudice/bias that was dictating my interpretation of the canon. (Do I detect a double standard?)
So no, your prejudice was fair game each time. (As it also would have been at Tolwyn’s trial had you been able to appear on behalf of Confed to discount any “insanity” defense.)
Well that’s always good advice. (Though I’ve cited much more canon in these posts than you have.) But I’ll promise to do that provided you promise to catch up on classic movies and novels.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I suppose I must throw my hat into the ring...
I must agree with Nemesis -- there's no clear indication that Tolwyn was specifically mentally ill. He was clearly in a different state of mind than he was earlier, but I don't see this necessarily meaning that he was clinically insane.
Similarly, claiming that this is so because the trailer says he was "deranged" is rediculous -- that could mean a zillion things, if it's even to be taken at face value... and even if it wasn't, trailers have been known to make silly claims (at the edge of the universe all hell is about to break loose!).
I must agree with Nemesis -- there's no clear indication that Tolwyn was specifically mentally ill. He was clearly in a different state of mind than he was earlier, but I don't see this necessarily meaning that he was clinically insane.
Similarly, claiming that this is so because the trailer says he was "deranged" is rediculous -- that could mean a zillion things, if it's even to be taken at face value... and even if it wasn't, trailers have been known to make silly claims (at the edge of the universe all hell is about to break loose!).