Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Guess who is Protesting the War in Iraq?; She is at it again!
Topic Started: Jul 27 2005, 08:30 AM (1,382 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Disagreeing with Bush's policies is not the same as being "hateful" towards the man.
| Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Has anyone asked where Hanoi Jane is going to fill up her biodiesel bus? Is she going to keep a hundred cases of Wesson on board, or is she going to pull up behind the nearest McDonalds and find out if they're emptying their grease traps?

Admiral,

I have heard that McDonald's is the greatest source of natural gas. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 12:12 PM
Disagreeing with Bush's policies is not the same as being "hateful" towards the man.

Has no one here been hateful towards Bush?

Are people not disagreeing with Jane Fonda's actions?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

who
Jul 29 2005, 12:19 PM
gvok
Jul 29 2005, 12:12 PM
Disagreeing with Bush's policies is not the same as being "hateful" towards the man.

Has no one here been hateful towards Bush?


I'd need you to show me some specific examples to answer this question.
| Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Moderator Comment

Gentlemen,

Let’s keep the thread on track please. The topic of the thread is Jane Fonda and her bus ride.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
psyfi
Jul 29 2005, 01:04 PM
IE, the idea that we are the sole causative agent in our emotional states is a view that simply is not in touch with the phenomenological world about us. We are not islands unto ourselves, unconnected and separated from the people around us. We are often moved by what others say, inspired by their words, lifted by their actions and also dispirited, hurt, and in pain by other words and actions. We are not alone in the effects of our seeing (perception). If a mother is an addict or nuts, this affects and influences her children.  If a spouse is a cheat and a liar, this affects and influences the emotional state of his or her partner. If your boss cuts your salary by 1/3rd, that has very real effects that you have to deal with. We cannot so easily dissociate from the words or actions of  those that have meaning for us. If you are putting your life on the line every single day and here comes some unfeeling bitch telling the world that the Viet Cong are treating the POWs terrifically, sitting on an antiaircraft gun that you know probably has killed and/or will kill your collective, the idea that she has no influence on your emotional state is incredibly naive with respect to the nature of how human beings experience the world. It would quite literally take a miracle for her not to have influence on one's emotional state under those circumstances.
I disagree. When something "bad" happens - a mother is an addict, a spouse cheats, your boss cuts your salary, etc. - the first thing that really causes your negative emotional state is YOUR internal reaction that decides it is bad. If you thought "cool, my mother is an addict and I like to drink too", or "cool, I was looking for an excuse to divorce that spouse anyway" or "I'm glad my boss cut my salary because now he just handed me the final straw I needed to justify leaving this job" - then your reaction would be completely different. The circumstances themselves would be identical, but your internal reaction changes everything. People are more in control of their own emotions than they realize - if they want to be and choose to be. Personally, if I was one of the soldiers you are referring to, would I allow myself to get angry about Jane Fonda's behavior? I quite possibly might. But would I allow it to affect me so deeply that it would lower my morale? No way! Why would Jane Fonda be so important to me that her opinion would have that affect on me? I repeat, if those soldiers morale lowered, it was ultimately their own doing.

Quote:
 
Regarding the treatment of the POWs, I don’t give a fig what she witnessed. If she had even a tiny bit of a brain in her head, she would have known who she was with and what they were doing to Americans. I never went to Viet Nam and yet I knew that they were torturing our guys. Come on, get real.
Just like you readily accept that we have been torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo? Forget what the real truth is because you can't know without witnessing it for yourself. So you have to assemble an opinion on the available information. If I'm not mistaken, the opinion that you have arrived at is that nothing has reached the level of torture. So you readily speak out and say none has been going on. Now if Jane Fonda held a similar belief back then and personally witnessed nothing like torture going on, why would that be any different? It doesn't mean she was correct. But it does mean she was reasonable in forming her opinion. And no you didn't know they were torturing our guys in Vietnam. You believed it very strongly until such time as it became factually established - which it wasn't when Jane Fonda said they were being treated well.

Quote:
 
Regarding the fall of the South Vietnam government, are you aware of some of the things that occurred?  Over a million people were forced to move to the countryside. New Economic Zones (NEZ's) and re-education camps were established for "undesirable elements." Executions and other means of sanctioned death happened daily.  In the cities, typewriters were outlawed, and all residents were required to submit to the authorities a list of books they owned and report "all private conversations deemed contrary to the spirit of the revolution. During this time, our heroine Jane went there to celebrate the VC’s victory, had her son Troy, christened after a Viet Cong hero as oblivious to what these homicidal maniacs were doing as she was about the POWs. Her opinion on war is not as valuable as spit.
My knowledge of the Vietnam War is admittedly not very extensive.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
who
Jul 29 2005, 01:07 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 11:51 AM
Actually, I'm objecting to threads like this one that exist only to trash people.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with her viewpoint, Jane was just doing what she honestly believed was the right thing.  Why should someone be trashed for that?

Feel free to trash Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and the like if you wish - those who are truly bad people.  They're in completely different categories from Jane.

What about all the threads that trash Bush? Is he in the box with Hitler and Saddam Hussein or in the box with Jane Fonda?

Don't tempt me... :D

Seriously, Bush is in a completely different category. He is not a bad person like Hitler, but he's not in the same category as Jane Fonda either because he speaks and acts on behalf of the US. When people evaluate his words and actions, it's not just him they are evaluating, but also whether his words and actions are in the best interest of the whole country.

That said, I'm not in favor of threads that trash Bush either, but a lot depends on the definition of "trash". If someone is disagreeing with his policies and criticizes them, that's not trashing. If it appears that he is doing something illegal or unethical, it's right for people to question it and that's not trashing either. If someone calls him an "attention whore", however, that would be trashing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Fesarius
Jul 29 2005, 11:15 AM
Quote:
 
Has anyone asked where Hanoi Jane is going to fill up her biodiesel bus? Is she going to keep a hundred cases of Wesson on board, or is she going to pull up behind the nearest McDonalds and find out if they're emptying their grease traps?

Admiral,

I have heard that McDonald's is the greatest source of natural gas. ;)

I heard it was Taco Bell... hmmm. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 01:46 PM
psyfi
Jul 29 2005, 01:04 PM
IE, the idea that we are the sole causative agent in our emotional states is a view that simply is not in touch with the phenomenological world about us. We are not islands unto ourselves, unconnected and separated from the people around us. We are often moved by what others say, inspired by their words, lifted by their actions and also dispirited, hurt, and in pain by other words and actions. We are not alone in the effects of our seeing (perception). If a mother is an addict or nuts, this affects and influences her children.  If a spouse is a cheat and a liar, this affects and influences the emotional state of his or her partner. If your boss cuts your salary by 1/3rd, that has very real effects that you have to deal with. We cannot so easily dissociate from the words or actions of  those that have meaning for us. If you are putting your life on the line every single day and here comes some unfeeling bitch telling the world that the Viet Cong are treating the POWs terrifically, sitting on an antiaircraft gun that you know probably has killed and/or will kill your collective, the idea that she has no influence on your emotional state is incredibly naive with respect to the nature of how human beings experience the world. It would quite literally take a miracle for her not to have influence on one's emotional state under those circumstances.
I disagree. When something "bad" happens - a mother is an addict, a spouse cheats, your boss cuts your salary, etc. - the first thing that really causes your negative emotional state is YOUR internal reaction that decides it is bad. If you thought "cool, my mother is an addict and I like to drink too", or "cool, I was looking for an excuse to divorce that spouse anyway" or "I'm glad my boss cut my salary because now he just handed me the final straw I needed to justify leaving this job" - then your reaction would be completely different. The circumstances themselves would be identical, but your internal reaction changes everything. People are more in control of their own emotions than they realize - if they want to be and choose to be. Personally, if I was one of the soldiers you are referring to, would I allow myself to get angry about Jane Fonda's behavior? I quite possibly might. But would I allow it to affect me so deeply that it would lower my morale? No way! Why would Jane Fonda be so important to me that her opinion would have that affect on me? I repeat, if those soldiers morale lowered, it was ultimately their own doing.

Quote:
 
Regarding the treatment of the POWs, I don’t give a fig what she witnessed. If she had even a tiny bit of a brain in her head, she would have known who she was with and what they were doing to Americans. I never went to Viet Nam and yet I knew that they were torturing our guys. Come on, get real.
Just like you readily accept that we have been torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo? Forget what the real truth is because you can't know without witnessing it for yourself. So you have to assemble an opinion on the available information. If I'm not mistaken, the opinion that you have arrived at is that nothing has reached the level of torture. So you readily speak out and say none has been going on. Now if Jane Fonda held a similar belief back then and personally witnessed nothing like torture going on, why would that be any different? It doesn't mean she was correct. But it does mean she was reasonable in forming her opinion. And no you didn't know they were torturing our guys in Vietnam. You believed it very strongly until such time as it became factually established - which it wasn't when Jane Fonda said they were being treated well.

Quote:
 
Regarding the fall of the South Vietnam government, are you aware of some of the things that occurred?  Over a million people were forced to move to the countryside. New Economic Zones (NEZ's) and re-education camps were established for "undesirable elements." Executions and other means of sanctioned death happened daily.  In the cities, typewriters were outlawed, and all residents were required to submit to the authorities a list of books they owned and report "all private conversations deemed contrary to the spirit of the revolution. During this time, our heroine Jane went there to celebrate the VC’s victory, had her son Troy, christened after a Viet Cong hero as oblivious to what these homicidal maniacs were doing as she was about the POWs. Her opinion on war is not as valuable as spit.
My knowledge of the Vietnam War is admittedly not very extensive.

IE, regarding the causative agent of one’s emotional state, AGAIN I must say that you are speaking logically and I am speaking phenomenologically. The chances that somebody is going to be ABLE to say, “Cool, my kid drowned in a pool,” or “Cool, I just lost my job and now I will lose the mortgage on my home and not be able to put my kids through school,” or “Cool, I might be dead tomorrow and here is this woman supporting the enemy” are low indeed. It is not easy to change our emotional state in response to things. Yes, it can be done BUT on many occasions, doing it takes a literal miracle.

Jane Fonda was NOT reasonable in forming her opinion because many guys who were there and were seeing a hell of a lot more than she was were saying that torture WAS going on. If Fonda was being real, she might have said, “I saw no torture but I didn’t see all of the POWS and there are many reports that it is happening. Therefore, I am not in a position to give you any type of realistic account of what is happening.” But her VC buds wouldn’t have liked that and what was all important to her was the ass-kissing.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
psyfi
Jul 29 2005, 06:31 PM
IE, regarding the causative agent of one’s emotional state, AGAIN I must say that you are speaking logically and I am speaking phenomenologically. The chances that somebody is going to be ABLE to say, “Cool, my kid drowned in a pool,” or “Cool, I just lost my job and now I will lose the mortgage on my home and not be able to put my kids through school,” or “Cool, I might be dead tomorrow and here is this woman supporting the enemy” are low indeed. It is not easy to change our emotional state in response to things. Yes, it can be done BUT on many occasions, doing it takes a literal  miracle.

A miracle? :huh: No! :) But what you're saying translates to that they might not be fully in control of themselves. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that you then blame their lack of self control on someone else. They should accept full responsibility for any loss of morale that they allowed themselves to experience - or couldn't stop themselves from experiencing.

People do this all the time. They blame other people for their emotional state instead of accepting responsibility for their own emotional distress. I have a pretty extensive background in psychology. Maybe that's why it's more obvious to me.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 07:18 PM
psyfi
Jul 29 2005, 06:31 PM
IE, regarding the causative agent of one’s emotional state, AGAIN I must say that you are speaking logically and I am speaking phenomenologically. The chances that somebody is going to be ABLE to say, “Cool, my kid drowned in a pool,” or “Cool, I just lost my job and now I will lose the mortgage on my home and not be able to put my kids through school,” or “Cool, I might be dead tomorrow and here is this woman supporting the enemy” are low indeed. It is not easy to change our emotional state in response to things. Yes, it can be done BUT on many occasions, doing it takes a literal  miracle.

A miracle? :huh: No! :) But what you're saying translates to that they might not be fully in control of themselves. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that you then blame their lack of self control on someone else. They should accept full responsibility for any loss of morale that they allowed themselves to experience - or couldn't stop themselves from experiencing.

People do this all the time. They blame other people for their emotional state instead of accepting responsibility for their own emotional distress. I have a pretty extensive background in psychology. Maybe that's why it's more obvious to me.

I am not arguing against your logic. I am arguing against it being all that realistic in terms of the world we actually live in. We affect and influence others and to not recognize that is to miss the most basic level of social interaction. Have you ever been smiled at by somebody at just the right time and it felt so calming? Have you ever heard somebody that means the world to you say, “I love you?” Have you ever heard somebody that means the world to you say, “I hate you?” Have you ever lost a pet? Have you ever put your life on the line only to have somebody disparage your actions? I submit that only a sociopath would be able to disengage his emotions from any of these events, OR somebody who went to God and received that peace that passes all understanding which is what I mean by a miracle. I have two degrees in psychology and a lot of therapy under my belt. That may be why I see and acknowledge your logic but still argue against it.

I am reminded of a fellow named Nick that I knew in college. He was this very handsome and very brilliant fellow who was getting an M.A. in philosophy. During the course of the semester he began to live with this girl, a very gentle, very beautiful girl that adored him. He told me that he sat her down and they had a long talk about how monogamy was really a form of possessiveness, that jealousy was nothing but insecurity and that out of mutual respect for the wholeness of themselves and each other they should both continue seeing other people, enjoying others, and so forth. He said that his logic was brilliant and irrefutable. He said, “If you asked a computer to offer reasons, it would have said the same as I.”

However, despite his excellent logic, his marshaling of all the data he could supply, she balked. She said that he could date others but she loved him and just didn’t want to see anybody else. Nonetheless, she would wash his clothes and iron his shirt as he went out on dates, sometimes crying while she did it. Still, this did not satisfy Nick because he felt that she was coming from a place of insecurity with the crying and all and he pressured her to also date others. Reluctantly, she gave in. In a few months, she came to him and said that she had met somebody else and was going to move in with him.

Nick's logic remained firm. He asked her a few questions and then helped her to pack her bag. This was life, after all. There was always a chance that somebody else might be more attractive, more enjoyable, and so forth. He said that they packed her bags. This fellow came over, spoke briefly with Nick who was friendly to him and said he understood. She picked the bag up and left with the other guy. Nick sat on the couch and listened to her footsteps going down the stairs at which point, something happened. He couldn’t even believe that it happened. He found that somewhere deep within himself he was screaming, “NO! I MADE A MISTAKE! I WAS WRONG!” He told me that it took everything he could muster not to run out the door crying and shouting for her to please not leave him and come back! He told me that he learned an important lesson that day about love and logic and that sometimes in life the two just don’t mix very well. What I am saying here is that I don't dispute your logic that ultimately we are responsible for our own emotional state but I do hold that we are so connected and hooked into other people that logic be damned---their words and their actions nonetheless influence us.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 04:18 PM

People do this all the time.  They blame other people for their emotional state instead of accepting responsibility for their own emotional distress.  I have a pretty extensive background in psychology.  Maybe that's why it's more obvious to me.



Good.


Then why are you bothered so much by a few of us poking fun at Jane Fonda, a historically high-profile celebrity with a controversial track-record?

I like to poke fun at all sorts of celebrities and politicians: Hanoi Jane, Sean Penn, Bono, Aaarnooold, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Ted Kennedy.....etc. etc.

Making moral judgements and having prejudices is part of the enjoyment of having emotional and intellectual freedom.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Psyfi,

I think we need to agree to disagree at this point. I don't think either of us will change the other's viewpoint and we're just going to go in circles from here.

Franko
Jul 29 2005, 10:22 PM


Good.


    Then why are you bothered so much by a few of us poking fun at Jane Fonda, a historically high-profile celebrity with a controversial track-record?

I like to poke fun at all sorts of celebrities and politicians:  Hanoi Jane,  Sean Penn, Bono,  Aaarnooold,  Tom Cruise,  Brad Pitt,  Ted Kennedy.....etc. etc.

Making moral judgements and having prejudices is part of the enjoyment of having emotional and intellectual freedom.

Franko,

For me, it's a moral principle to do my best not to harm others in any way. That includes even verbally unless there's a constructive purpose. I don't see one in this thread.

Quote:
 
I like to poke fun at all sorts of celebrities and politicians: Hanoi Jane, Sean Penn, Bono, Aaarnooold, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Ted Kennedy.....etc. etc.
Why? Just because they're in the limelight and you're not? It sounds like you might have too much time on your hands. :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
ImpulseEngine
Jul 29 2005, 07:18 PM
psyfi
Jul 29 2005, 06:31 PM
IE, regarding the causative agent of one’s emotional state, AGAIN I must say that you are speaking logically and I am speaking phenomenologically. The chances that somebody is going to be ABLE to say, “Cool, my kid drowned in a pool,” or “Cool, I just lost my job and now I will lose the mortgage on my home and not be able to put my kids through school,” or “Cool, I might be dead tomorrow and here is this woman supporting the enemy” are low indeed. It is not easy to change our emotional state in response to things. Yes, it can be done BUT on many occasions, doing it takes a literal  miracle.

A miracle? :huh: No! :) But what you're saying translates to that they might not be fully in control of themselves. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that you then blame their lack of self control on someone else. They should accept full responsibility for any loss of morale that they allowed themselves to experience - or couldn't stop themselves from experiencing.

People do this all the time. They blame other people for their emotional state instead of accepting responsibility for their own emotional distress. I have a pretty extensive background in psychology. Maybe that's why it's more obvious to me.

I agree we determine our reactions to our perceptions. We are not usually in control of these reactions however. It seems to me that you are saying that whatever someone else does that affects you, you will have happy thoughts. Perhaps this is true but I doubt it.

If you are walking at night and a gang grabs you and cuts your nose off and removes your eyes I very much doubt that you will say, "Cool, now I get to experience life without my eyes or nose."

It is my belief that Jane Fonda's actions resulted in the loss of vet's limbs and lives in Vietnam. I do not think if you were the person that lost the leg you would say, "Cool, this will be interesting."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
who
Jul 30 2005, 11:01 AM
I agree we determine our reactions to our perceptions. We are not usually in control of these reactions however. It seems to me that you are saying that whatever someone else does that affects you, you will have happy thoughts. Perhaps this is true but I doubt it.

No. I'm saying that what you think determines how you will feel. It doesn't have to be happy thoughts.

In the case of what we're discussing, if the soldier's think "Wow! That's terrible!", then their morale will drop. But if they think "who cares about her opinion" then it won't have nearly the same impact. If morale dropped, it's because they made the choice to place such importance on it among other things.

who
Jul 30 2005, 11:01 AM
It is my belief that Jane Fonda's actions resulted in the loss of vet's limbs and lives in Vietnam.

How so?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus