Originally posted by vistesdDon't you think every person will have sentiments of some kind that are, and (in the moral sense) ought to be, "repressed"?
People often say things drunk that they would not say when they are sober. As Nemesio pointed out, alcohol has a tendency to break down our inhibitions.
Now, when he’s sober and reasonable, Mel may well repress some his anti-Jewish sentiments. He may find them despicable himself—which is why he might try to hide them even from himself, not admit them even to himself.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, if you recognise these "sentiments" in yourself and you recognise them as being irrational they are something to be addressed and corrected.
Don't you think every person will have sentiments of some kind that are, and (in the moral sense) ought to be, "repressed"?
Originally posted by WajomaWhat's the difference between 'correction' and 'repression' again?
No, if you recognise these "sentiments" in yourself and you recognise them as being irrational they are something to be addressed and corrected.
Not all of our views (especially those borne of emotion/intuition) are creatures of reason. Merely recognising them as irrational does not make them go away.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat a lot of hot air has been generated by a trivial incident concerning a person of little account.
What's the difference between 'correction' and 'repression' again?
Not all of our views (especially those borne of emotion/intuition) are creatures of reason. Merely recognising them as irrational does not make them go away.
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo correct something...you correct it. To repress something...you shove it to one side knowing that it is wrong.
What's the difference between 'correction' and 'repression' again?
Not all of our views (especially those borne of emotion/intuition) are creatures of reason. Merely recognising them as irrational does not make them go away.
Emotion without reason is the mark of a lunatic, do you go around laughing maniacally for no reason, do you fall in love with some one for no reason, do you get angry for no reason. Reason first then emotion.
Intution is similar to faith i.e. the belief in something without proof or reason, you can have it, it's going to trip you up sooner than later.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaJust more hot air from downbelow.
To correct something...you correct it. To repress something...you shove it to one side knowing that it is wrong.
Emotion without reason is the mark of a lunatic, do you go around laughing maniacally for no reason, do you fall in love with some one for no reason, do you get angry for no reason. Reason first then emotion.
Intution is similar to faith i. ...[text shortened]... omething without proof or reason, you can have it, it's going to trip you up sooner than later.
Originally posted by lucifershammerMore "expert" views? There's no sense talking to you; you put an idea in your "mind" and it becomes inalterable reality. "Zero evidence"? What a joke you are.
Bald assertions. Zero evidence. Secret Decoder Ring Defence.
Just in case you've forgotten, this is the 'Debates' forum, no1.
[b]Back to you: give some "hard facts" to support your thesis that his comments are getting gigantic play because of the Passion.
I was hoping you'd ask. Slate was the first mainstream news site to break the news. ...[text shortened]... understand how news works. It's pretty much the same around the world.[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, no1 -- you're the joke here. At least I try to support my positions with evidence; if someone wants to demonstrate my position is wrong I expect them to actually make an argument supported by evidence. If they make their case and disprove mine, I happily withdraw it.
More "expert" views? There's no sense talking to you; you put an idea in your "mind" and it becomes inalterable reality. "Zero evidence"? What a joke you are.
And you're supposed to be the lawyer here. Sheesh!
EDIT: And yes, I do mean zero evidence. Your main defence so far has been (paraphrased) "You're not American; you don't understand American culture" -- a clear variant of the Secret Decoder Ring defence.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaEmotion without reason is the mark of a lunatic, do you go around laughing maniacally for no reason, do you fall in love with some one for no reason, do you get angry for no reason. Reason first then emotion.
To correct something...you correct it. To repress something...you shove it to one side knowing that it is wrong.
Emotion without reason is the mark of a lunatic, do you go around laughing maniacally for no reason, do you fall in love with some one for no reason, do you get angry for no reason. Reason first then emotion.
Intution is similar to faith i. ...[text shortened]... omething without proof or reason, you can have it, it's going to trip you up sooner than later.
LOL! Do you make a list of pros and cons and evaluate the possibility of success before falling in love? Do you analyze the humour of a joke before laughing? Do you make a critical survey of a situation before getting angry?
To repress something...you shove it to one side knowing that it is wrong.
And how, precisely, is that different from correcting something?
EDIT: Note, I'm not saying there isn't a difference between correction and repression. I'm asking you to clarify exactly what it is.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, except that I am using the word repression in the psycholgical sense--trying to hide it from oneself--as opposed to say, restraining oneself from voicing/acting on such things. Also, my comments were (perhaps not clearly) intended in a therapeutic, not a moralistic, vein.
Don't you think every person will have sentiments of some kind that are, and (in the moral sense) ought to be, "repressed"?
Since there is a similar thread in Spirituality, I will confine myself to that one from here on, rather than saying the same things twice.
Originally posted by vistesdVistesd: "Since there is a similar thread in Spirituality, I will confine myself to that one from here on, rather than saying the same things twice."
Yes, except that I am using the word repression in the psycholgical sense--trying to hide it from oneself--as opposed to say, restraining oneself from voicing/acting on such things. Also, my comments were (perhaps not clearly) intended in a therapeutic, not a moralistic, vein.
Since there is a similar thread in Spirituality, I will confine myself to that one from here on, rather than saying the same things twice.
*Ivanhoe Rushes to Spirituality Forum to Follow Events*
Originally posted by lucifershammerBecause, as I said, I wasn't wondering about the film! I was wondering about
Why do you think my response was, "If you didn't wonder before, why are you wondering now? It's exactly the same film it was a month back"?
the sincerity of his comments.
Indeed, you rightly observe that it was the same film a month back, which is why my opinion
about the film (which is utterly irrelevant) has not changed.
However, my knowledge of Mel Gibson and his position on Jews (which is something that
might shape any film involving Jews) has changed. This is why I am wondering about the
sincerity of his denials.
Again, I disagree with you about the idea that a person's drunkenness would cause him to
say things antithetical to that person's stance. Alcohol reduces inhibitions, not causes new
feelings to emerge. That is, if I don't hate Jews, I'm not inhibiting the expression of (or
repressing the feelings of) hatred towards Jews. As a result, alcohol isn't going to inspire
me to hate Jews spontaneously.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe Gibson; I genuinely believe that he doesn't know where
the feelings came from (from one of his later apologies). I am inclined to think that he
has deep-seeded antisemitic thoughts that he needs to discover, acknowledge, confront and
overcome. Since I believe that, I am inclined to disbelieve his statements that there was
no antisemitic content manifested in his film (even if he was not consciously aware of it at
the time, which I am not sure about).
Are you ever going to address the main points of my post?
1) Mel Gibson has a right to have and voice vicious prejudices as long
as he doesn't discriminate; and
2) The media has turned this into a much bigger deal than it deserves.
Nemesio
P.S., I see IvanGimp is reccing all your posts. I thought it was illegal in the
RCC to have someone sucking you off all the time.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioAre you ever going to address the main points of my post?
Because, as I said, I wasn't wondering about the film! I was wondering about
the sincerity of his comments.
Indeed, you rightly observe that it was the same film a month back, which is why my opinion
about the film (which is utterly irrelevant) has not changed.
However, my knowledge of Mel Gibson and his position on Jews (which is so s. I thought it was illegal in the
RCC to have someone sucking you off all the time.
1) Mel Gibson has a right to have and voice vicious prejudices as long
as he doesn't discriminate; and
2) The media has turned this into a much bigger deal than it deserves.
Argh, why do you always have to return to these boring questions?
(2) first -- of course! But, as I pointed out to no1, this is about "news".
(1) -- In general, yes. Of course, if he were directly advocating discrimination/inciting violence, I might take a different view.
I thought it was illegal in the RCC to have someone sucking you off all the time
I think it's okay as long as he doesn't violate the First Commandment.