[atoav]

Most internal mental states that have any impact on the actions of an individual are leaky. That is because they affect actual real world actions.

So given a set of actions you can infer a likely set of mental states — this is also done in the court room. Can you always infer with 100% accuracy and with every colorful detail fleshed out? No. Do you typically need to? No.

[envsubst]

> this is also done in the court room.

And we have we gone through that process to look at the issue from all sides and hear arguments from all parties? No.

You don't need to know intent to fire or punish someone anyway. In this case we can dismiss people for improper action, without demeaning them personally.

[atoav]

If you read my post again you will notice I didn't say anything about the situation at hand. I just refuted your general statement that one cannot reason about mental states from the visible actions.

I agree that one should be cautious with early accusations or hopping on trains just because they are rolling.

[envsubst]

And if you read what I said, before your comment, you'll see its about this particular situation.

[atoav]

Yeah, but my comment doesn't has to be. I am allowed to go into your direction, generalize your statement or put it into a different environment and examine it. How else should people discuss things?