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 (1,381 Views)
psyfi
psyfi
who
Jul 30 2005, 10:01 AM
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."

who, I think I essentially agree with you. It seems to me that the basic conflict regarding all of this is what it takes to determine our reactions to perceptions. I say we can do it, yes even unto death of a loved one BUT not without the help of God in a miraculous way. To pass it off as just "something we can do" is to be less than mindful of the strength we bring to our perceptions and the power it takes to change them. Also, as Franko pointed out, the notion that we can decide our own perceptions is often used by abusers to absolve themselves from horrendous deeds.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
ImpulseEngine
Jul 30 2005, 10:07 AM
No. I'm saying that what you think determines how you will feel. It doesn't have to be happy thoughts.

You seem to be saying that the actions of other people do not affect how we think and feel. I do not believe this. I think we are all interconnected and another's actions do affect our thoughts and feelings.

If we go back to the hypothetical of a gang attacking you for fun and cutting off your nose and eyes, then would you say this would not affect your thoughts and emotions since you and you alone determine how you think and feel?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Psyfi and IE - I think that the main difference in the examples that you have used are that Psyfi has used personal examples.

Of course we are influenced by the people who are close to us and whom we know in everyday life.

However - I see IE's point in that Jane Fonda is not someone I know personally. What she thinks and what she says should not have an influence on me and should not be able to hurt me. My husband can hurt me. My children can hurt me. My friends can hurt me.

But who the hell is Jane Fonda to me? Why should her words hurt me personally. I don't know about others. But I can separate myself from the cult of celebrity and not let the actions of someone I do not personally know hurt me.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
^^
Very good distinction Minuet.

who
Jul 30 2005, 03:46 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jul 30 2005, 10:07 AM
No.  I'm saying that what you think determines how you will feel.  It doesn't have to be happy thoughts.

You seem to be saying that the actions of other people do not affect how we think and feel. I do not believe this. I think we are all interconnected and another's actions do affect our thoughts and feelings.

If we go back to the hypothetical of a gang attacking you for fun and cutting off your nose and eyes, then would you say this would not affect your thoughts and emotions since you and you alone determine how you think and feel?

We're not discussing physical harms. Jane Fonda expressed her free speech through both words and limited actions none of which did any more than communicate. There is a huge difference between that and your example.

Did you forget to explain why you believe "Jane Fonda's actions resulted in the loss of vet's limbs and lives in Vietnam" or are you choosing not to...?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Minuet
Jul 30 2005, 04:42 PM
Psyfi and IE - I think that the main difference in the examples that you have used are that Psyfi has used personal examples.

Of course we are influenced by the people who are close to us and whom we know in everyday life.

However - I see IE's point in that Jane Fonda is not someone I know personally. What she thinks and what she says should not have an influence on me and should not be able to hurt me. My husband can hurt me. My children can hurt me. My friends can hurt me.

But who the hell is Jane Fonda to me? Why should her words hurt me personally. I don't know about others. But I can separate myself from the cult of celebrity and not let the actions of someone I do not personally know hurt me.

Min, to many men and women of that era who fought in Vietnam, Jane Fonda IS personal. If we were not in the jungle fighting or locked in away in a cage as a POW, can we really assess the impact of her words as having no influence upon them. When these people saw her sitting on an antiaircraft gun, one of which just last week killed a bud and a friend in their unit, I don't think that can be interpreted impersonally by most. Sure, sitting at our computers an era later, it may not mean so much but clearly this is a case where we need to walk in the other guys shoes before we dismiss their responses and reactions to Ms. Fonda. We need to be down in that pit of death and brutality and then tell ourselves, oh it is all just words.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
ImpulseEngine
Jul 30 2005, 06:44 AM



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



Thanks for your incredibly self-righteous sarcasm.


Franko.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
ImpulseEngine
Jul 30 2005, 05:04 PM
who
Jul 30 2005, 03:46 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jul 30 2005, 10:07 AM
No.  I'm saying that what you think determines how you will feel.  It doesn't have to be happy thoughts.

You seem to be saying that the actions of other people do not affect how we think and feel. I do not believe this. I think we are all interconnected and another's actions do affect our thoughts and feelings.

If we go back to the hypothetical of a gang attacking you for fun and cutting off your nose and eyes, then would you say this would not affect your thoughts and emotions since you and you alone determine how you think and feel?

We're not discussing physical harms. Jane Fonda expressed her free speech through both words and limited actions none of which did any more than communicate. There is a huge difference between that and your example.

IE

This thread started out with Jane Fonda protesting the war. It has been brought out by many that her physical words and other actions caused harm to others both physically and in their mental state.

I am trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you are a universe onto yourself and that nothing anyone else does affects you? If not, exactly what are you saying?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
who
Jul 30 2005, 09:21 PM
IE

This thread started out with Jane Fonda protesting the war. It has been brought out by many that her physical words and other actions caused harm to others both physically and in their mental state.

Actually, it has been claimed, which doesn't automatically make it so. I specifically asked you more than once to explain how she caused anyone physical harms and I haven't heard that explanation yet. Personally, I am unaware of anything she has done that resulted in physical harm to anyone else. And so I still await that explanation and supporting evidence.

Quote:
 
I am trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you are a universe onto yourself and that nothing anyone else does affects you? If not, exactly what are you saying?
I have explained it over and over in this thread as best I can. Perhaps if you read Minuet's reply, it will help clarify. She stated it very well.

If I was a soldier and I watched my buddies being tortured in front of my eyes while I was helplessly tied up or imprisoned, it would certainly lower my morale because it would be physical violence to my comrades that I would be personally witnessing. But if someone I don't even personally know like Jane Fonda, has what I consider to be bad things to say, why should that affect me? And frankly, if you think such a minor thing can lower the morale of an army, then you must not think very highly of the strength of our military at that time.

Personally, I do think highly of our military at that time and strongly believe that they had the mental toughness to withstand the verbal criticism or anything else that Jane Fonda did. Morale did not decrease because of her. There were many things that may have contributed to low morale - the war itself didn't go so well for us for example - but Jane Fonda wasn't one of them. And to be perfectly honest, I think that to claim her words and "photo opps" lowered troop morale, is an insult to mental strength of those troops.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Franko
Jul 30 2005, 08:09 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jul 30 2005, 06:44 AM



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



Thanks for your incredibly self-righteous sarcasm.


Franko.

:rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Jul 31 2005, 11:53 AM
who
Jul 30 2005, 09:21 PM
IE

This thread started out with Jane Fonda protesting the war. It has been brought out by many that her physical words and other actions caused harm to others both physically and in their mental state.

Actually, it has been claimed, which doesn't automatically make it so. I specifically asked you more than once to explain how she caused anyone physical harms and I haven't heard that explanation yet. Personally, I am unaware of anything she has done that resulted in physical harm to anyone else. And so I still await that explanation and supporting evidence.

Quote:
 
I am trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you are a universe onto yourself and that nothing anyone else does affects you? If not, exactly what are you saying?
I have explained it over and over in this thread as best I can. Perhaps if you read Minuet's reply, it will help clarify. She stated it very well.

If I was a soldier and I watched my buddies being tortured in front of my eyes while I was helplessly tied up or imprisoned, it would certainly lower my morale because it would be physical violence to my comrades that I would be personally witnessing. But if someone I don't even personally know like Jane Fonda, has what I consider to be bad things to say, why should that affect me? And frankly, if you think such a minor thing can lower the morale of an army, then you must not think very highly of the strength of our military at that time.

Personally, I do think highly of our military at that time and strongly believe that they had the mental toughness to withstand the verbal criticism or anything else that Jane Fonda did. Morale did not decrease because of her. There were many things that may have contributed to low morale - the war itself didn't go so well for us for example - but Jane Fonda wasn't one of them. And to be perfectly honest, I think that to claim her words and "photo opps" lowered troop morale, is an insult to mental strength of those troops.

Why do you support a person such as this? Because she is anti-Bush?

Physical harm is your goalpost? How about MENTAL harm? How about demoralization? How would you like it if a fellow citizen haranged you about serving your country? How would you like it if a fellow citizen supported the enemy in a conflict? Don't give me this "it was an unpopular war" BS. Most Americans SUPPORTED Vietnam. Of course nowadays we've had 30 years of the Walter Cronkites and the other leftist press shoving their version of history down our throats since the 60s. Newsflash, if it weren't for lefty boomer nostalgia, the 60s would have just been another decade.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 31 2005, 03:09 PM
Don't give me this "it was an unpopular war" BS. Most Americans SUPPORTED Vietnam. Of course nowadays we've had 30 years of the Walter Cronkites and the other leftist press shoving their version of history down our throats since the 60s. Newsflash, if it weren't for lefty boomer nostalgia, the 60s would have just been another decade.

Don't you think that the 60s made some real changes in the country, a few of which were actually needed? This country was very racist and this the 60s did change. It also changed the general mindset to make it more tolerant of many things and I think these changes were also needed. The problem was that thoughtful reflection on ways in which American could change somehow shifted into a mission, a crusade against almost all traditional American values. Of course, this crusade required many things, one of which was changing history. Still, I do remember a war that grew increasingly unpopular not because the people were against it outright but because of the fact that the politicians and not the military were fighting it and, as might be expected, doing so very poorly. Therefore you had two groups of opposers to the War in Vietnam, those who were against it for ideological reasons and those who were against it because it was a war that was not being properly fought and our guys were dying for nothing.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Jul 31 2005, 04:09 PM
Why do you support a person such as this? Because she is anti-Bush?

Physical harm is your goalpost? How about MENTAL harm? How about demoralization? How would you like it if a fellow citizen haranged you about serving your country? How would you like it if a fellow citizen supported the enemy in a conflict? Don't give me this "it was an unpopular war" BS. Most Americans SUPPORTED Vietnam. Of course nowadays we've had 30 years of the Walter Cronkites and the other leftist press shoving their version of history down our throats since the 60s. Newsflash, if it weren't for lefty boomer nostalgia, the 60s would have just been another decade.

First off, she intended no harm. Secondly, no one has yet established that she - and I mean she, not some scapegoat accusatory figment of imagination - actually caused any harm. I have asked it in this thread and NOT ONE PERSON has come forward and justified the claim with an explanation or evidence that she has caused any physical or mental harm. But I see several people throwing that accusation around.

Second, given that she intended no harm, what she was doing is exercising her freedom of speech in order to publicly follow her conscience. Just what the heck is wrong with that? It sure beats the average complacent ambivalence I too often see. And I also don't understand anyone who complains about someone exercising their freedom of speech just because someone's speech doesn't agree with their personal values and when that speech does not intend harm. In her case, it actually intended good. I mean honestly, do we value freedom of speech or do we only value what agrees with our own viewpoint...?

By the way, for the record, I personally couldn't care less about Jane Fonda herself. I'm spending time in this thread not for her, but for the principle I have repeatedly mentioned. This trashing of her is very similar to disgusting mislabeling of those opposed to the Iraq War as "unpatriotic" - nothing could be further from the truth.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
ImpulseEngine
Jul 31 2005, 03:13 PM


By the way, for the record, I personally couldn't care less about Jane Fonda herself. I'm spending time in this thread not for her, but for the principle I have repeatedly mentioned. This trashing of her is very similar to disgusting mislabeling of those opposed to the Iraq War as "unpatriotic" - nothing could be further from the truth.



Ahh, we finally come to the heart of the matter. I figured all your ravings in this thread really boiled down to the "war in Iraq".

I don't know or recall of any posters in this thread mentioning that Jane Fonda shouldn't have the right to free speech, or any other person for that matter. You seem to keep trying to insinuate that point.


1. We all have the right to free speech.


2. Then we all have the right to comment, adore, or criticize what that person said with their "free speech". That's also part of free speech.


While I agree that calling Jane a "media whore" lacked taste, the fact of the matter is that a lot of people from the Vietnam era still have issues with her behaviour and shenanigans. Those people are just exercising their free speech, though.


Yes, there are some who might exercise their "free speech" and say that those against the war in Iraq is "unpatriotic". While this is obviously a simplistic attitude, they're still entitled to their opinion, are they not? What you find "disgusting" might seem entirely appropriate to someone else's viewpoint.

I found Saddam's regime to be "disgusting". I'm glad we deposed him.

Sorry, just exercising my free speech. We can argue the moral ramifications of the war in Iraq till the cows come home, but will be totally within the realm of the subjective; unless you're claiming knowledge of absolute Truth.

Somehow I doubt that you would have gone to bat if this thread had trashed or poked fun at Rush Limbaugh.


Would you?


BTW, I was against the war in Vietnam, as well, but for different reasons than the hippie culture at that time. A lot of people were "trashing" returning US war veterans, many who returned home to a divided country calling them 'baby killers'.

A term used more than once by...... you guessed it. Hanoi Jane.


Peace.



Franko


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Franko
Jul 31 2005, 08:07 PM
  Ahh, we finally come to the heart of the matter.  I figured all your ravings in this thread really boiled down to the "war in Iraq".

NO! You're wrong! I just threw that in there to emphasize what I was saying about the principle of free speech. In fact, I almost didn't because I figured someone would jump on that one sentence just like you did. It didn't take very long. :rolleyes: Nothing I have said in this thread has anything to do with Iraq specifically.

Look, all you people who think Jane Fonda had such an influence are claiming that her words are stronger than at least the mental backbone of our military of that time. Do you REALLY believe that? The whole idea is ludicrous! Think about it. I mean it. THINK about it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
This has become long and complex with many topics and sub-topics. I agree that we determine how we respond to our perceptions. I would extend this to determining our perceptions. Humans are complex with complex memories of the past. Some of our memories are available to our awareness and some are not. Our perceptions and our responses to these perceptions are largely determined by this largely subconscious memory of the past.

We are affected by the people that we interact with. How we are affected and the extent that each of us is affected by another is largely determined by our memories of the past. One person may affect one person only a little and another quite a bit as determined by their memories of the past.

It seems that some appear to be affected by Jane Fonda quite a bit and others not much as it appears from the responses here. If anyone is unfamiliar with Jane Fonda in relation to Vietnam I suspect there is quite a bit of information available in a Google search. It has been suggested that Jane Fonda used only words. Do not forget the old adage of the pen being mightier than the sword.

The US is a very divided country now. On important issues there is a near 50/50 split and emotions run high. Perhaps the biggest issue is that of Radical Islam and the fear that it can induce. Another common adage is that divided we fall. I believe we are in a war with Radical Islam. If the US and the rest of the world remains divided it will fall. Part of the reason for the results of Vietnam were the division of the US at the time. Jane Fonda and others represent that previous division and the way the troops were treated when they returned home.

Some may not agree that we are in a war with Radical Islam. Some may not agree that it was wise to invade Iraq. I think most can agree that we are in a war in Iraq now. I believe that together we can win this war and bring a large percentage of our troops home within a year. If we become more divided this only helps the enemy. I think for many Jane Fonda represents division now just as she did during Vietnam.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus