mel gibson

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

Point well-taken. 🙂

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

Are you dismissing the possibility of healing and change? Or is that what you meant by "correction?"

Originally posted by vistesd
Point well-taken. 🙂

I'm not sure I actually had a point. 😛

Personally, I don't judge Mel Gibson to be a bigot based on this incident alone (there is the issue of not distancing himself from Holocaust deniers in that interview he gave which leads me to think he might very well be a repressed one). But, he has at least publicly asked for forgiveness, and shows some signs of remorse. I'm inclined to give him that (although, strictly speaking, I'm not the direct object of offence) -- at least as a first-offence consideration.

Originally posted by vistesd
Are you dismissing the possibility of healing and change? Or is that what you meant by "correction?"

Is complete and permanent healing and change possible such that they will not reveal themselves even when the person is drunk?

Note: all of this is from a modern psychoanalytical perspective. Personally, as a Christian anthropologist, I do believe that complete change and healing are possible as effects of grace.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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'r ...[text shortened]... ily what happened in Mel Gibson's case.

EDIT: I see vistesd's already responded.

You finished the point well. This is truly the point that judges need to consider: realizing that--- as visted suggests--- racism is not the isse, as much as a desire to tweak the nose of the 'establishment,' if that is what his intentions were. Without any of us having the benefit (?) of being present, speculation on his intents is just that.

I highly doubt that Mel is an idiot. If he truly were against jewry, he certainly is not dull enough to be ignorant of how inflammatory such beliefs could be, especially in light of the furor that was raised up to a year prior to the release of the film. That being said, even in a drunken state, he certainly wouldn't offer a genuine confession: self-preservation is a basic human instinct.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not sure I actually had a point. 😛

Personally, I don't judge Mel Gibson to be a bigot based on this incident alone (there is the issue of not distancing himself from Holocaust deniers in that interview he gave which leads me to think he might very well be a repressed one). But, he has at least publicly asked for forgiveness, and shows some sig ...[text shortened]... peaking, I'm not the direct object of offence) -- at least as a first-offence consideration.

Basically, I take the point that you and Freaky are making to be that there are more possibilities than just that (1) Mel (or anyone else in such a case) is simply an unreconstructed bigot, or (2) was just ranting inanities that do not signal any kind of problem at all.

NOTE: Am sitting here icing my back after lifting something I shouldn’t have, and am thinking through a bit of pain, which may not be helpful to my ability to achieve some clarity here...
:'(

Originally posted by vistesd
NOTE: Am sitting here icing my back after lifting something I shouldn’t have, and am thinking through a bit of pain, which may not be helpful to my ability to achieve some clarity here...
:'(

Depends - there are occasions where I feel a little discomfort actually focuses the mind. Every job interview I've ever successfully cleared came after less than four hours of sleep the previous night! 😀

Originally posted by vistesd
Basically, I take the point that you and Freaky are making to be that there are more possibilities than just that (1) Mel (or anyone else in such a case) is simply an unreconstructed bigot, or (2) was just ranting inanities that do not signal any kind of problem at all.

NOTE: Am sitting here icing my back after lifting something I shouldn’t have, and am ...[text shortened]... gh a bit of pain, which may not be helpful to my ability to achieve some clarity here...
:'(

For me, I see Mel's actions more as reactionary than immediately revealing. Clearly a good sign for him that the pressure got to his thinking, but not (IMO) a sign that the drinking got to the truth.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is complete and permanent healing and change possible such that they will not reveal themselves even when the person is drunk?

Note: all of this is from a modern psychoanalytical perspective. Personally, as a Christian anthropologist, I do believe that complete change and healing are possible as effects of grace.

Is complete and permanent healing and change possible such that they will not reveal themselves even when the person is drunk?

Answer as I sit here: I honestly don’t know. I suspect so however: I suspect that prejudicial attitudes, beliefs and feelings can be relinquished, such that there is nothing left to reveal. The same for the desire to rebel and shock that Freaky mentions.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]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.[/b]

So not sharing your religious beliefs, after being exposed to them, is not necessarily tantamount to rejecting the offer of the gift of salvation?

So, I (or anyone) may in fact not be rejecting the gift of salvation, even thought I (or they) reject your religious beliefs?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Is complete and permanent healing and change possible such that they will not reveal themselves even when the person is drunk?

Answer as I sit here: I honestly don’t know. I suspect so however: I suspect that prejudicial attitudes, beliefs and feelings can be relinquished, such that there is nothing left to reveal. The same for the desire to rebel and shock that Freaky mentions.[/b]

Is that the Buddhist speaking? 😉

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You finished the point well. This is truly the point that judges need to consider: realizing that--- as visted suggests--- racism is not the isse, as much as a desire to tweak the nose of the 'establishment,' if that is what his intentions were. Without any of us having the benefit (?) of being present, speculation on his intents is just that.

I highl ...[text shortened]... e certainly wouldn't offer a genuine confession: self-preservation is a basic human instinct.

That being said, even in a drunken state, he certainly wouldn't offer a genuine confession: self-preservation is a basic human instinct.

Yes, but even that can be broken-down or rebelled against (e.g., some cases of suicide). Not saying that about the specific case at hand (Mel), but just in general. Alcoholism itself is an example of an addiction that undermines one’s sense of self-preservation. I don’t think you have to hang out with AA folks for too long before you will confirmation after confirmation of that.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is that the Buddhist speaking? 😉

Well, the Zennist, maybe... 😉

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not sure I actually had a point. 😛

Personally, I don't judge Mel Gibson to be a bigot based on this incident alone (there is the issue of not distancing himself from Holocaust deniers in that interview he gave which leads me to think he might very well be a repressed one). But, he has at least publicly asked for forgiveness, and shows some sig ...[text shortened]... peaking, I'm not the direct object of offence) -- at least as a first-offence consideration.

If he showed genuine signs of remorse, it implies he had something to be genuinely remorseful for--which rather precludes ironic pretense at being an anti-Semite.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For me, I see Mel's actions more as reactionary than immediately revealing. Clearly a good sign for him that the pressure got to his thinking, but not (IMO) a sign that the drinking got to the truth.

I bet you'd defend Winona Ryder on the grounds that (as she claimed) she removed goods from the clothing store just to practice for a forthcoming movie role. I mean, it's possible, isn't it? Anyone suggesting otherwise--on the basis of prima facie evidence--would be jumping to conclusions. Give a movie star a break!