Originally posted by kirksey957 Here's something that a person in recovery from alcoholism might say: "I said some bad things that reflect the bad attitude I have." Everyone is making excuses for him. I keep hearing "it was the alcohol making him say that." Maybe the alcohol was just bringing out the truth of what he really feels and he is just too dishonest to admit it.
Absolutely. He's been unmasked. No matter how much alcohol a decent person would drink, he or she would never utter racist comments.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Absolutely. He's been unmasked. No matter how much alcohol a decent person would drink, he or she would never utter racist comments.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Absolutely. He's been unmasked. No matter how much alcohol a decent person would drink, he or she would never utter racist comments.
No one knows the intent of his monologue without at least being there. In a drunken state, he may have been simply uttering outlandish shock, owing to the sheer absurdity of it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH No one knows the intent of his monologue without at least being there. In a drunken state, he may have been simply uttering outlandish shock, owing to the sheer absurdity of it.
According to the police report, Gibson then launched into a "barrage" of anti-Semitic statements, including, "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."
Just the sort of thing the average person says to express outlandish shock.
Freaky, as someone who supports God damning your own flesh and blood to an eternity of agony for not sharing your particular religious beliefs, should we trust your profound ethical insights into this matter too?
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Absolutely. He's been unmasked. No matter how much alcohol a decent person would drink, he or she would never utter racist comments.
It was a missed opportunity. Sort of like when Jimmy Swaggert did his tearful confession. How refreshing it would have been if he had just said, "I am a complicated man and don't understand why I like whores so much, but that is who I am."
Originally posted by kirksey957 It was a missed opportunity. Sort of like when Jimmy Swaggert did his tearful confession. How refreshing it would have been if he had just said, "I am a complicated man and don't understand why I like whores so much, but that is who I am."
So, should he have said, ""I am a complicated man, and don't understand why I dislike Jews so much, but that is who I am."?
Not like to arouse too much sympathy.
But maybe he could donate a few million to some worthy Jewish cause to prove the sincerity of his apology.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole So, should he have said, ""I am a complicated man, and don't understand why I dislike Jews so much, but that is who I am."?
Not like to arouse too much sympathy.
But maybe he could donate a few million to some worthy Jewish cause to prove the sincerity of his apology.
Well, he might add something like "I want to be better than I am at the moment."
Is this not an interesting lesson in salvation taking a long time as opposed to merely "belief."
People often say things drunk that they would not say when they are sober. As Nemesio pointed out (in the Debates forum), alcohol has a tendency to break down our inhibitions. I really have not found that people say something when drunk that they don’t really believe—or some part of them doesn’t believe.
Now, when he’s sober and reasonable, Mel may well repress his anti-Jewish feelings. He may find them despicable himself—which is why he might try to hide them even from himself, not admit them even to himself.
Alcoholics may spend years deceiving themselves about their alcoholism. After all, the first step in getting an alcoholic on the road to sobriety is getting him (or her) to admit to himself that he’s an alcoholic: it’s called “first step.” Mel may be well advised to do a first-step with regard to the anti-Jewish stuff as well as his alcoholism (ought to include it in fifth step as well).
Originally posted by vistesd I really have not found that people say something when drunk that they don’t really believe—or some part of them doesn’t believe.
That's a Catch-22 situation, isn't it?
If they agree they believe it when they're sober, then you say "Look! I told you so!"
If they deny it when they're sober, then you argue they're repressing it.
It seems to be that you are starting with the "In Vino Veritas" premise. It isn't really a falsifiable proposition, is it?
Originally posted by lucifershammer That's a Catch-22 situation, isn't it?
If they agree they believe it when they're sober, then you say "Look! I told you so!"
If they deny it when they're sober, then you argue they're repressing it.
It seems to be that you are starting with the "In Vino Veritas" premise. It isn't really a falsifiable proposition, is it?
If you look at this situation from a "Catch 22" perspective, you (the person with the drinking problem) are simply living into the denial that you can control the outcome of your drinking if you can control the consequences of it. I think they call it "denial and delusion." There is a step in AA that talks about taking " a fearless moral inventory." Sitting back and contemplating how to look good or resenting the Catch 22 nature of the world does not help this inventory take place.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Absolutely. He's been unmasked. No matter how much alcohol a decent person would drink, he or she would never utter racist comments.
mel gibson
04 Aug '06 20:551 edit
Back to Top