mel gibson

Originally posted by treetalk
You've never been really drunk, have you?

I have on occasion (though never to the point of vomiting or falling over), and I have expressed feelings and thoughts inadvisedly. But they haven't been racist. It would never occur to me, drunk or sober, to condemn Jews, or any other generic category of human being, as a race. Not so much because I have a moral impediment against doing so, but because it simply doesn't make any sense to do so. One might as well condemn all redheads, chessplayers, or people aged 35 as a group. I confine my drunken diatribes to individual humans, or genuinely homogenous small groups, who annoy or disgust me.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
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."

http://cdn.digitalcity.com/tmz_documents/gibson_wm_docs_072806.pdf

Just the sort of thing the average person says to express outlandish shock.

Freaky, as someone ...[text shortened]... ular religious beliefs, should we trust your profound ethical insights into this matter too?

should we trust your profound ethical insights into this matter too?
Your sarcasm is ill-placed for a few reasons. Technically, the physical matter labled 'flesh and blood' cannot withstand even a few moments in a lake of fire. Expiration would be fast and furious, far short of the everlasting damnation of which the Lord Jesus Christ spoke which is reserved for Satan and his fallen angels.

The soul is what is cast into the lake of fire, not flesh and blood.

Hell was not designed for man, and is not even a possibility for the same, without an express desire on the part of the individual to be there. That being said, what kind of monster of a man would I be to deny anyone--- let alone my very own children--- their choice of final destination? A soul is not cast into the LOF for not sharing my insignificant "religious beliefs." Who am I?

A soul is cast into the lake of fire only for rejecting the gift of salvation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]should we trust your profound ethical insights into this matter too?
Your sarcasm is ill-placed for a few reasons. Technically, the physical matter labled 'flesh and blood' cannot withstand even a few moments in a lake of fire. Expiration would be fast and furious, far short of the everlasting damnation of which the Lord Jesus Christ spoke which ...[text shortened]... I?

A soul is cast into the lake of fire only for rejecting the gift of salvation.[/b]

What kind of monster of a man would I be to deny anyone--- let alone my very own children--- their choice of final destination?

A rather nice, thoughtful, humane monster.

A soul is not cast into the LOF for not sharing my insignificant "religious beliefs." A soul is cast into the lake of fire only for rejecting the gift of salvation.

So, would your child go to hell or not, simply in virtue of not sharing your beliefs? You appear to be contradicting the earlier statement you endorsed.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I have on occasion (though never to the point of vomiting or falling over), and I have expressed feelings and thoughts inadvisedly. But they haven't been racist. It would never occur to me, drunk or sober, to condemn Jews, or any other generic category of human being, as a race. Not so much because I have a moral impediment against doing so, but because ...[text shortened]... diatribes to individual humans, or genuinely homogenous small groups, who annoy or disgust me.

One might as well condemn all redheads, chessplayers, or people aged 35 as a group. I confine my drunken diatribes to individual humans, or genuinely homogenous small groups, who annoy or disgust me.
Again, you (and others) are missing the point. While your drunken utterances may have been harmlessly ill-advised by your perspective, who is to say how glaringly reprehensible they were by those around you?

For instance, I currently live in an area where homegrowns are subtly prejudiced toward blacks. I say "subtle" because I am not black and therefore am privvy to the private thoughts: overt action is reduced to disinterested toleration, discernable only to those on the receiving end of it, or to those with keen human dynamic skills.

Typical of this area, those same homegrowns do not travel far, are not exposed to any great variety of culture. Their experiences, while legitmate in their own right, nonetheless are/were purposely limited, and have the unintended result of diminished perspective. Is that wrong?

So when a member of the greatest generation takes me aside and extolls the virtue of a particular business because "they don't hire a bunch of niggers," am I to recoil in shock? Or, do I consider the source? If this man's very limited exposure to blacks has been predominately bad, is that his fault? Is he to suspend judment indefinitely?

Race really isn't the issue here. With respect to Mel's drunken ramblings, without any of us being there, it is impossible to judge the intent of the same. It is quite comical, however, for those in this forum to presumptously determine that these rantings (which constitute less than a tenth of a single per cent of the man's public offerings) somehow speak of his 'true inner self.' What a crock.

Maybe what he needs to do is get drunk again and record an apology, so that all those who wish to sit in judgment of him will believe he actually means it.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
What kind of monster of a man would I be to deny anyone--- let alone my very own children--- their choice of final destination?

A rather nice, thoughtful, humane monster.

A soul is not cast into the LOF for not sharing my insignificant "religious beliefs." A soul is cast into the lake of fire only for rejecting the gift of f not sharing your beliefs? You appear to be contradicting the earlier statement you endorsed.

So, would your child go to hell or not, simply in virtue of not sharing your beliefs? You appear to be contradicting the earlier statement you endorsed.
Anyone who rejects the offer of that gift of salvation, will be cast into the LOF, regardless of religious affiliation. That is what I endorse, and that is what I have endorsed without contradiction or apology throughout my brief tenure on this site.

Originally posted by kirksey957
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." S ...[text shortened]... od or resenting the Catch 22 nature of the world does not help this inventory take place.

Taking a fearless moral inventory does not mean you've got to hit yourself on the head with things you don't need to or that you've got to go on a serious guilt trip. That's not being fearless -- it's a disguised form of self-pity.

Now, the thrust of my post was not Mel Gibson's situation. It's the general assumption that people's comments when they are drunk reflect their "true" selves/feelings/views. I'm saying there's no reason to accept that view as a universal truth; not to mention it's a position that cannot be easily falsified (faith, anyone?)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Taking a fearless moral inventory does not mean you've got to hit yourself on the head with things you don't need to or that you've got to go on a serious guilt trip. That's not being fearless -- it's a disguised form of self-pity.

Now, the thrust of my post was not Mel Gibson's situation. It's the general assumption that people's comments when the ...[text shortened]... th; not to mention it's a position that cannot be easily falsified (faith, anyone?)

Taking a fearless moral inventory does not mean you've got to hit yourself on the head with things you don't need to or that you've got to go on a serious guilt trip.

Agreed, absolutely—and I was told exactly that when I did a fifth step (not AA, but that doesn’t matter). What it does require is that one be absolutely and unflinchingly honest with oneself.

...the general assumption that people's comments when they are drunk reflect their "true" selves/feelings/views

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “true” here, unless you mean real or actual. I have known people who, on the level of thinking, were convinced that any form of bigotry, mentally as well as behaviorally, was both irrational and wrong—and yet irrationally and intensely disliked certain groups of people based on their race, religion or ethnicity. It was something they struggled with. All I am saying is that sometimes, when the barriers were down, so to speak, those irrational prejudices could come flooding out verbally. Later, they were embarrassed and ashamed.

In such cases, simply saying “I didn’t really mean any of that”—while on one level true—does not address the issue within themselves.

You mention both feelings and views. Again speaking from my own experience, I have not known anyone, while under the influence, to say things that they neither felt nor thought, at least in that moment.

_____________________________

I don’t really see it as a Catch-22 situation. I don’t see alcohol as some kind of “truth detector.” I see it as a complex psychological question. That is why my suggestions were intended in a therapeutic vein (in this case, from a 12-step perspective). I wouldn’t apply the Catch-22 to the following either, but I think you can see how one might (and, as you say, it is not falsifiable)—

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8,9)

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
...or genuinely homogenous small groups, who annoy or disgust me.

What would be an example of a genuinely homogenous small group?

Originally posted by vistesd
Taking a fearless moral inventory does not mean you've got to hit yourself on the head with things you don't need to or that you've got to go on a serious guilt trip.

Agreed, absolutely—and I was told exactly that when I did a fifth step (not AA, but that doesn’t matter). What it does require is that one be absolutely and unflinchingly honest with on ...[text shortened]... nd just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8,9)[/b]

All I am saying is that sometimes, when the barriers were down, so to speak, those irrational prejudices could come flooding out verbally. Later, they were embarrassed and ashamed...
I have not known anyone, while under the influence, to say things that they neither felt nor thought, at least in that moment.
This is precisely the presumptuousness to which I referred. You are assuming there exists a latent reality beneath the surface somehow unleashed by lowered inhibitions. In opposition, perhaps what was unleashed was not a reality, per se, as much as a rebellion. Again, saying something for the shock value due to decreased defenses.

For instance, were Mel accused of having an affair with, say, Connie Rice, he may---in a state of drunkenness--- blurt out false 'confessions' strictly for the shock value of the same.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Taking a fearless moral inventory does not mean you've got to hit yourself on the head with things you don't need to or that you've got to go on a serious guilt trip.

Agreed, absolutely—and I was told exactly that when I did a fifth step (not AA, but that doesn’t matter). What it does require is that one be absolutely and unflinchingly honest with ...[text shortened]... nd just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8,9)[/b]

Now, let's say a person has bigoted feelings and he does not repress (in the psychological sense of hiding from himself) them - he acknowledges them and tries to "correct" them (either in the sense of changing them by exposing himself to contrary data or by acknowledging them but not acting on them).

If this person gets drunk, isn't it still possible that they will reveal themselves?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b] All I am saying is that sometimes, when the barriers were down, so to speak, those irrational prejudices could come flooding out verbally. Later, they were embarrassed and ashamed...
I have not known anyone, while under the influence, to say things that they neither felt nor thought, at least in that moment.
This is precisely the p ...[text shortened]... tate of drunkenness--- blurt out false 'confessions' strictly for the shock value of the same.[/b]

In opposition, perhaps what was unleashed was not a reality, per se, as much as a rebellion.

Okay, I think I see what you’re saying—but whence then the rebellion? What part of my character, say, in rebellion against what? And who am I trying to shock and why?

In other words, suppose while drunk I start some bigoted rant solely because I want to rebelliously shock and/or offend at least some people—and that what I say in that state does not reflect in any way what I believe or feel (again, I think I get the point you’re making there)—does not that desire then become the issue that needs to be addressed? (Once more, I mean therapeutically, for self-healing.)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, saying something for the shock value due to decreased defenses.

For instance, were Mel accused of having an affair with, say, Connie Rice, he may---in a state of drunkenness--- blurt out false 'confessions' strictly for the shock value of the same.

Thanks - that's the point I've been trying to make.

Let's say you're a guy who's just not anti-Semitic (repressed or otherwise). You make this film that you consider your masterpiece, and everyone accuses you of anti-Semitism. You take a lot of flak over it; and it places a lot of pressure on you.

Isn't it possible that at some point, when you're drunk, you might just think "What the heck! They want anti-Semite -- I'll give them anti-Semite! That should give them something to really write about!"? Remember, drink is supposed to lower your inhibitions -- including outrageous and irrational thinking.

Note: I don't think this is necessarily what happened in Mel Gibson's case.

EDIT: I see vistesd's already responded.

Originally posted by vistesd
does not that desire then become the issue that needs to be addressed?

It does. Is there any reason to think it is not happening in this case?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Now, let's say a person has bigoted feelings and he does not repress (in the psychological sense of hiding from himself) them - he acknowledges them and tries to "correct" them (either in the sense of changing them by exposing himself to contrary data or by acknowledging them but not acting on them).

If this person gets drunk, isn't it still possible that they will reveal themselves?

Yes, as long as they are there.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, as long as they are there.

Then there really is nothing that person can do (except maybe not drink), is there?