...
A perspective?
Any thing could be construed as proof.
Negating is denial.
Denial is often, and sometimes rightly, considered as proof:
Accusation, question and suggestion are inclusive of predetermined implication and..... causal factors
yet .."The lady doth protest too much, methinks" .so miss-associated
The difference - in terms of madness vs sanity- is, by general description, the (in)ability to make rational and reasoned credible subjective/objective argument. What's perhaps more interesting is the idea that the majority are sane in agreement, when in fact, this may not actually be the case and so can't be accepted as proof
Take 'Paranoia' as an example. It's a commonly used modern day (accusatory) term often exercised when ideas, or expressions of personal experience are not considered acceptable, appropriate and/or evidential.
Who judges whether these expressions are accurate, or not, given that any role is selected by underlying motivators that may be contrary to indication?
For example (a controversial but well established form): - Religion
Usually the first branch of religion any child encounters is through their parent - who, by default, has greatest influence over the child's immediate needs, experience and thought development.
Education is provided as the next tier and first obvious corroboration and constrained level in social engagement of order, directed doctrines and discipline (Rules - Morals - Values).
Within these two principle experiences of information, and socially accepted norms of authority, control is achieved and exercised with strategic implementation of rewards, punishment and establishing recognition in the absence of either (which in itself is a form of reward and/or punishment).
So underpinning this is what motivates those who select positions responsible for control.To understand that we have to consider how it's applied and what we know about each role in terms of what is socially expected and what has been associated historically as not.
In addition there are support roles within the frames of each - Family (Siblings, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins etc), peer groups, friends, community.
The principle roles in religious appreciation are generally: -
Parents
Teachers
Priests.
What do we know about each role that is good?
What has been established - in fact - as bad?
When we're able to acknowledge and understand these differences we're then in a better position to appreciate and judge our own motivations and choices: - those of others who may wish to influence, how they're rewarded and what that provides - and then judge with both subjectivity and objectivity.
Not forgetting that the majority of us would consider that simple exercise as too complicated to spend time considering in order to arrive at a fair conclusion.
Easier to apply labels and dis associations.......
.
