|
Shoonra, attacking the man doesn't prove him wrong or unreliable. You are speculating his mental health, and further assuming his current mental health is enough to discredit him. (I am not denying or admitting that he has mental health issues.) You are also assuming he wrote that introduction. You are also assuming your interpretation of that introduciton is spot on.
Furthermore, one's mental health does not discredit a man. John Forbes Nash, Jr received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994, however, he was sent to the mental hospital in 1959 for schizophrenia. Why would John Nash's work be so revered when he was found to have mental health issues? Simply because mental health does not prove facts to be wrong.
So how about you stop attacking the man and instead address his arguments, unless you have definitive proof produced by a psychological expert that states that the man is mentally incapable of pressing his rights with respect to the law of the land and showing others how to do the same. Because, it is quite evident that the man can produce a coherent argument in accordance to the law of the land. However, it appears as you're incapable of producing a coherent counter argument and instead result to hitting below the belt with speculation of one's mental health. :\
|