Hello Mr. Claims Investigator,
…Next, I want to thank you for finally resolving your double standard with regard to your own gullibility. Recall that at first when you asked if I were “homicidal” or “suicidal” you displayed total gullibility when I said “no”.
In particular you wrote, “…Well if you want to deny it then there’s nothing I can do. If you say no, I’ll assume it’s no…”
Like I said: total gullibility, as if human beings are utterly incapable of lying about their darkest thoughts and impulses.
But you’re not always so gullible, correct? For example, you are decidedly not gullible –fiercely skeptical, in fact — when I tell you that my autistic obsessions effectively disable me for any task that requires focus and concentration and which is not suitably relevant to my presenting obsession. Yes, in that sort of situation, suddenly human beings are all liars and cheaters — malingerers, am I right?
Yes, when it comes to any sort of disability that doesn’t require hospitalization — a scenario that is not a matter of life and death — suddenly in that sort of situation you become the most serious and dedicated of critical thinkers. In that situation, absolutely nothing escapes your scrutiny.
Recall that my question to you was, “So, if it’s a matter of life and death, you give me the benefit of the doubt, but if I tell you that my obsessions effectively disable me, suddenly you’re ‘not buying it’? Why the weird double standard?”
But it’s really not so weird at all, when you think it through. No, that double standard of yours makes perfect sense when you consider the “secondary gains” associated with each side.
For example, the secondary gain of your eager gullibility on the one hand follows from the fact that a life or death scenario implies a potentially lengthy hospital stay which in turn means an automatic approval for the disability claim and an expensive benefit payout to the claimant. So, anytime a claimant answers “no” to the questions about suicidal or homicidal thoughts you’re highly motivated to snatch up that kind of answer quickly and without question (total gullibility). In response to those suicide/homicide questions a “no” response puts the claim in the realm of deniability, which offers you and your employer an irresistible secondary gain.
On the other hand, once you’ve gotten the claim into the realm of deniability, being totally gullible becomes expensive and now the secondary gains can only derive from the fiercest sort of skepticism, which you manifest with such robotic commitment and consistency that even when the expense of the claim (mine, for example) will be paid by your employer’s competitor (MetLife), you just can’t stop yourself from trying to prove that my autistic obsessions are not a “legitimate disability“.
Holy crap, amigo! Why do you care one way or another if my disability is legitimate? What’s it to you anyway? It looks to me like you’re on some sort of automatic pilot.
But at least you did finally resolve your double standard, and I definitely appreciate the effort you made to do so. I think you went in the wrong direction to resolve it, but at least you picked a direction to commit to. As I understand it, you resolved your double standard by committing wholeheartedly to skepticism and by choosing to staunchly disbelieve my utterly sincere and truthful claim that I am neither homicidal nor suicidal. And as proof of your newfound commitment to total and relentless skepticism you then called the Police Department in Cary, NC to confess to them your wholly irrational fear that I might actually travel 500 miles to your house in order to harm you or someone in your family, and to petition them to rescue you from your childish imagination run amok.
Luckily the Cary Police are not as delusional as you appear to be.
But at least now your apparent delusions are internally consistent, which is surely a good thing. Honestly, I think you resolved your double standard totally bassackwardsly. Instead of intensifying your irrational fears as you did by acting unreflectively on them (like a coward, really), I think you could have and should have chosen to resolve the double standard instead simply by granting me the same benefit of the doubt regarding my disabled status as you were so readily willing to grant for my utterly sincere and truthful claim that I’m neither suicidal nor homicidal.
My friend, I am philosophically, ideologically, and demonstrably opposed to violence: I have no history of violence; I have no interest in violence; I own no guns nor weapons of any kind. I don’t even play violent video games. I wish you no harm, Mr. Claims Investigator, but in any case it is not me that you fear. Rather, you fear your own ignorant misunderstanding of me. I am not your misunderstanding of me, sir. Your misunderstanding of me is entirely a figment of your own imagination, over which I have no control. If you cannot even control it yourself, then I urge you to follow the same advice you keep giving me: seek medical attention.
To be continued…
[Note: when part 3 is published I will post a link to it here.]