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 (1,380 Views)
psyfi
psyfi
who
Jul 31 2005, 10:51 PM
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.

I would just like to point out something relevant to this thread which is that one of the way Radial Islam motivates people to take their own and others' lives is through WORDS, speech, talk, discussion, conversation. Anybody who thinks that words don't have import and make a difference ought to contemplate that fact. Words persuade for good or for ill. Hitler was a great speaker and it was his words that turned a culture down a direction that killed untold millions. Jane Fonda's words, her ideas, set up and reinforced a chain of events that brought much pain to many. I mean the woman just got spit at during one of her book signings, the pain being still fresh for some. The guy was of course wrong to do that but it shows that even today, there are those out there who perceive her as having inflicted great harm by her actions and the lies she told during the Vietnam era.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Jul 31 2005, 05:13 PM
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.

What a pantload.

She INTENDED no harm posing on top of a AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) gun that shot at our plans? You believe that bull**** (yes, I self-edited).

Just because she claimed she intended no harm does NOT generate a "given that she intended no harm". Deeds, not words. She exercised her free speech rights? IN NORTH VIETNAM? Because she didn't have the friggin' guts to do it here? Traitorous sow! One does NOT follow one's conscience by touring POW camps (the enemy's not ours) and posing on weapons used to shoot down OUR aircraft. That is complete crap.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT SHE DID during the Vietnam War? DO YOU? Free speech, my a$$. Free speech does NOT give someone the right to say anything they want, but I guess you didn't know that.

She is being trashed because of what she has done, not because she opposed to something. By the way, I still believe that you can be against the war and be patriotic, BUT the way most who demonstrated their opposition did it in an unpatriotic way. Having "Die ins" and blocking ports shipping supplies is NOT patriotic. You are making excuses for agitation and vandalism.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
As you well know AB, the 60s were the watershed decade which brought us civil rights as well as feminism (equality for women) and was the decade people got together and told the government they were tired of them sacrificing all our young men for thier agendas.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
psyfi
Aug 1 2005, 09:04 AM
I would just like to point out something relevant to this thread which is that one of  the way Radial Islam motivates people to take their own and others' lives is through WORDS, speech, talk, discussion, conversation. Anybody who thinks that words don't have import and make a difference ought to contemplate that fact. Words persuade for good or for ill. Hitler was a great speaker and it was his words that turned a culture down a direction that killed untold millions. Jane Fonda's words, her ideas, set up and reinforced a chain of events that brought much pain to many. I mean the woman just got spit at during one of her book signings, the pain being still fresh for some. The guy was of course wrong to do that but it shows that even today, there are those out there who perceive her as having inflicted great harm by her actions and the lies she told during the Vietnam era.

I'm not saying that words don't persuade. I'm saying that they don't have to persuade and that therefore, when they do, the people persuaded need to accept responsibility for having been persuaded.

In the radical islam example that you mentioned, there is also a key difference. One reason it is successful in having the influence you spoke of is because, for those people, it boosts morale. People are much more likely to allow words to influence them to a more positive state than they are for a more negative one - like the decrease in morale that you claim Jane Fonda caused with the military.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
ImpulseEngine
Aug 1 2005, 09:09 AM
I'm not saying that words don't persuade. I'm saying that they don't have to persuade and that therefore, when they do, the people persuaded need to accept responsibility for having been persuaded.

In the radical islam example that you mentioned, there is also a key difference. One reason it is successful in having the influence you spoke of is because, for those people, it boosts morale. People are much more likely to allow words to influence them to a more positive state than they are for a more negative one - like the decrease in morale that you claim Jane Fonda caused with the military.

In fact, many factors are involved in persuasion. These include the credibility (of which Jane Fonda now has none) power, level of attractiveness, and social status of the source; existing attitudes of the receiver of the message; emotions of the receiver (e.g., high fear leads to attitude change); the degree to which the persuasive message requires change on the part of the receiver; gender (e.g., females are influenced more if unfamiliar with content); the degree to which the message is repeated; and several other factors. It is the pressure exerted by all of these factors that makes it difficult for people to easily shrug off certain messages. It is also how people are influenced by others' messages, my original point being that we exert an influence on one another.

I wouldn't say that radical Islam boosts morale. It plays on guilt and the desire to be in Heaven eternally in a religion that offers a very minimal salvation framework.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Jane Fonda, just like the rest of us has every right to express her political opinion and use whatever resources she has to promote it within the bounds of the law. I applaud her standing up for her convictions despite enormous chastizement.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 1 2005, 09:35 AM
What a pantload.

She INTENDED no harm posing on top of a AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) gun that shot at our plans? You believe that bull**** (yes, I self-edited).

Just because she claimed she intended no harm does NOT generate a "given that she intended no harm". Deeds, not words. She exercised her free speech rights? IN NORTH VIETNAM? Because she didn't have the friggin' guts to do it here? Traitorous sow! One does NOT follow one's conscience by touring POW camps (the enemy's not ours) and posing on weapons used to shoot down OUR aircraft. That is complete crap.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT SHE DID during the Vietnam War? DO YOU? Free speech, my a$$. Free speech does NOT give someone the right to say anything they want, but I guess you didn't know that.

She is being trashed because of what she has done, not because she opposed to something. By the way, I still believe that you can be against the war and be patriotic, BUT the way most who demonstrated their opposition did it in an unpatriotic way. Having "Die ins" and blocking ports shipping supplies is NOT patriotic. You are making excuses for agitation and vandalism.

People that protested that war did so because A) they felt the US had no business being in that war and/or B) they knew the war wasn't going well for us and they didn't want more harm to come to our troops.

Point A means having the best interest of our country in mind. Point B means having the best interest of our soldiers in mind.

Any harm that was considered acceptable by those protestors was only acceptable because it was viewed as the LESSER of two evils.

Whether those views were accurate or not is beside the point of this discussion. Those views represent the INTENTIONS of the protestors.

So yes, Jane Fonda intended no harm.

====================

Now to everyone opposing me in this thread:

I hear claim after claim of harms that Jane Fonda personally caused. If you're not going to give me specific examples of physical or mental harms and back them up with sources that explain how it is that Jane Fonda was personally responsible for those harms, then I will have to assume you can't and that your arguments are really just speculation. I have already established that I disagree with that speculation so unless you can do better than that, I see no reason to continue this discussion as we're just going in circles at this point.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Aug 1 2005, 07:47 AM
As you well know AB, the 60s were the watershed decade which brought us civil rights as well as feminism (equality for women) and was the decade people got together and told the government they were tired of them sacrificing all our young men for thier agendas.

Revisionist hippie bull...

Civil rights struggles had been going on since the FIFTIES. It didn't just magically appear because LBJ was armtwisted into signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You really should read your HISTORY. Feminism? Oh please. Bra burning and all that nostalgia about chicks not shaving their pits? Yadda, yadda, yadda. As for people getting together and singing kumbaya and telling the government BS, it was not as widespread as you think. As I said before, most Americans SUPPORTED Vietnam, and it wasn't until a generation of whiny leftist boomer journalists on nostalgia trips had to exorcise their demons about their own degenerate behavior that we've gotten to where we are today.

"The 60s... just another decade, but with drugs!" Yeah, there's a slogan.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Aug 1 2005, 08:26 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 1 2005, 09:35 AM
What a pantload.

She INTENDED no harm posing on top of a AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) gun that shot at our plans? You believe that bull**** (yes, I self-edited).

Just because she claimed she intended no harm does NOT generate a "given that she intended no harm". Deeds, not words. She exercised her free speech rights? IN NORTH VIETNAM? Because she didn't have the friggin' guts to do it here? Traitorous sow! One does NOT follow one's conscience by touring POW camps (the enemy's not ours) and posing on weapons used to shoot down OUR aircraft. That is complete crap.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT SHE DID during the Vietnam War? DO YOU? Free speech, my a$$. Free speech does NOT give someone the right to say anything they want, but I guess you didn't know that.

She is being trashed because of what she has done, not because she opposed to something. By the way, I still believe that you can be against the war and be patriotic, BUT the way most who demonstrated their opposition did it in an unpatriotic way. Having "Die ins" and blocking ports shipping supplies is NOT patriotic. You are making excuses for agitation and vandalism.

People that protested that war did so because A) they felt the US had no business being in that war and/or B) they knew the war wasn't going well for us and they didn't want more harm to come to our troops.

Point A means having the best interest of our country in mind. Point B means having the best interest of our soldiers in mind.

Any harm that was considered acceptable by those protestors was only acceptable because it was viewed as the LESSER of two evils.

Whether those views were accurate or not is beside the point of this discussion. Those views represent the INTENTIONS of the protestors.

So yes, Jane Fonda intended no harm.

====================

Now to everyone opposing me in this thread:

I hear claim after claim of harms that Jane Fonda personally caused. If you're not going to give me specific examples of physical or mental harms and back them up with sources that explain how it is that Jane Fonda was personally responsible for those harms, then I will have to assume you can't and that your arguments are really just speculation. I have already established that I disagree with that speculation so unless you can do better than that, I see no reason to continue this discussion as we're just going in circles at this point.

We've given you what her actions caused. If you don't accept it, tough noogies. Stop making excuses for this traitorous scum.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Not only are you wrong, you are amusingly so.

When was the million man March on Washington?

When were blacks first allowed to attend college with whites?

Perhaps the civil rights movement had been going on that long, but it wasn't until the 60s until they made any real headway.

Where is your source that most Americans supported Vietnam? At what point would that be? Before or after 100,000 young men had died there for no good reason?

The only thing about the 60s that's revisionist is in YOUR OWN MIND. :rotfl:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 1 2005, 09:27 AM
Dr. Noah
Aug 1 2005, 07:47 AM
As you well know AB, the 60s were the watershed decade which brought us civil rights as well as feminism (equality for women) and was the decade people got together and told the government they were tired of them sacrificing all our young men for thier agendas.

Revisionist hippie bull...

Civil rights struggles had been going on since the FIFTIES. It didn't just magically appear because LBJ was armtwisted into signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You really should read your HISTORY. Feminism? Oh please. Bra burning and all that nostalgia about chicks not shaving their pits? Yadda, yadda, yadda. As for people getting together and singing kumbaya and telling the government BS, it was not as widespread as you think. As I said before, most Americans SUPPORTED Vietnam, and it wasn't until a generation of whiny leftist boomer journalists on nostalgia trips had to exorcise their demons about their own degenerate behavior that we've gotten to where we are today.

"The 60s... just another decade, but with drugs!" Yeah, there's a slogan.

Wait a second. It is true that civil rights struggles were going on in the 1950s but things turned in a massive way during the 1960s and it was due, in large measure, to huge protests and great support for those protests. My ex-husband, who is African-American, and I got married in 1965 and let me tell you, even then things were tough in terms of racism. We got stared at wherever we went. We couldn't sit too long in a car because if the police came by, they would stop and ask me if I was alright (and this was in Los Angeles!). You saw maybe, one or two black faces on television and that was it and usually these were the faces of servants. In a short decade, an unbelievable amount of change had taken place which continued to escalate in scope in the decades following. It was a change that was profoundly needed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Quote:
 
Not only are you wrong, you are amusingly so.

When was the million man March on Washington?

When were blacks first allowed to attend college with whites?

Perhaps the civil rights movement had been going on that long, but it wasn't until the 60s until they made any real headway.

Where is your source that most Americans supported Vietnam? At what point would that be? Before or after 100,000 young men had died there for no good reason?

The only thing about the 60s that's revisionist is in YOUR OWN MIND.


:clap: :clap: :clap:
| Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
psyfi
Aug 1 2005, 10:23 AM
ImpulseEngine
Aug 1 2005, 09:09 AM
I'm not saying that words don't persuade.  I'm saying that they don't have to persuade and that therefore, when they do, the people persuaded need to accept responsibility for having been persuaded.

In the radical islam example that you mentioned, there is also a key difference.  One reason it is successful in having the influence you spoke of is because, for those people, it boosts morale.  People are much more likely to allow words to influence them to a more positive state than they are for a more negative one - like the decrease in morale that you claim Jane Fonda caused with the military.

In fact, many factors are involved in persuasion. These include the credibility (of which Jane Fonda now has none) power, level of attractiveness, and social status of the source; existing attitudes of the receiver of the message; emotions of the receiver (e.g., high fear leads to attitude change); the degree to which the persuasive message requires change on the part of the receiver; gender (e.g., females are influenced more if unfamiliar with content); the degree to which the message is repeated; and several other factors. It is the pressure exerted by all of these factors that makes it difficult for people to easily shrug off certain messages. It is also how people are influenced by others' messages, my original point being that we exert an influence on one another.

I wouldn't say that radical Islam boosts morale. It plays on guilt and the desire to be in Heaven eternally in a religion that offers a very minimal salvation framework.

Psyfi,

I don't disagree with you that there are many sources of influence. But in the end, it is the person who allows him/herself to be influenced. I'm speaking of who has the responsibility or blame. Different people respond differently. If external events truly made you respond a certain way, then we would all respond the same way. But instead we all bring a different set of circumstances, different personalities, different temperaments, etc. to every situation.

If you suddenly ran up to me and yelled "You idiot! You moron! You pathetic scum!", I would undoubtedly become at least somewhat irritated and maybe completely angry with you. On the other hand, if I was walking into a situation where I knew people were going to call me names and then you did that, I'd probably be no more than mildly annoyed. And if I became mildly annoyed, it's because I allowed it. After all, I knew it was coming. The difference is not at all in what happened external to me - that was identical. The difference is within ME. In one situation I was prepared and in the other I wasn't. So I'm able to respond differently.

Now how about our military? Do you suppose they were completely unaware of protestors until Jane Fonda came along? Were they caught unprepared? Do you suppose their training taught them nothing about how to mentally cope with oppression? I mean, come on! They could potentially become POW's, but they can't cope with protestors??? They're supposed to be able to potentially stand up to physical and mental torture, but they can't shrug off some people who protested? I'm sorry, but it would have to be a pretty weak military to allow morale to drop on account of protestors. I don't believe that they were weak at all.

What I think you and others in this thread are missing is that morale dropped for many reasons. Among the larger reasons were A) conditions in Vietnam were terrible compared to most fighting situations the US had previously experienced and B) we were expected to be our usual victorious selves, but the war didn't go very well for us. If you took away A and B, I don't care what any protestors did, morale would have been great. That's why I'm saying far too much is being inaccurately attributed to Jane Fonda.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
IE, I am not disagreeing with you that ultimately we can change our emotions, perceptions, and so forth. I am only saying that sometimes that change requires so much it takes a miracle because of the pressure exerted upon the situation from a wide variety of factors. These factors are not so easily overcome in many circumstances. As I pointed out to Min, we can say that Jane Fonda just spoke words (though of course she did far more), but those words can put a tremendous pressure on somebody in a given set of circumstances. The pressure exerted on us so far removed from the situation vs. the pressure exerted on those fighting a war in a jungle who were often the target of her lies can be tremendously different. Consequently, what is needed to just shake off these words can be small for us and HUGE for others. It is insufficient to just say well we are responsible for how we feel or think without realizing what it can sometimes take in order to exert that responsibility and acknowledging that it can take A LOT OF EFFORT, far more than we can even imagine.

The foregoing is why you cannot really state that, “Well our guys were prepared.” How do you REALLY prepare for combat, difficult combat in the worst of conditions? How do you prepare for losing friends fighting beside you? How do you prepare for the fact that while you are dodging bullets, killing people, getting shot, grieving the loss of buds, the pin-up girl on your locker back at base is suddenly calling you a baby killer and telling lies about how you are massacring every Vietnamese man, woman in sight. Just what kind of preparation is there for that? You are right, very right, that other factors (and many of them) contributed to low morale. But ask the guys who were there how they felt about Jane Fonda. Ask them what their experience was? You can read exactly how they felt at lots of online sources and they say the effects of her protests and her lies were BAD indeed, angering them and causing them pain. She was a negative influence on them which is to say her words gave them more crap to deal with than they were already undergoing and they were undergoing plenty which is why this airhead should have thought before she spoke.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Aug 1 2005, 08:34 AM
Not only are you wrong, you are amusingly so. 

When was the million man March on Washington?

When were blacks first allowed to attend college with whites?

Perhaps the civil rights movement had been going on that long, but it wasn't until the 60s until they made any real headway.

Where is your source that most Americans supported Vietnam?  At what point would that be?  Before or after 100,000 young men had died there for no good reason? 

The only thing about the 60s that's revisionist is in YOUR OWN MIND.  :rotfl:

Um, Einstein, 100,000 Americans didn't die in Vietnam. You really should check your facts before putting fingers to keyboard. Then again, I'm sure you're just the victim of revisionist history...

The freedom marches, and the bus strikes, and the protests began in the FIFTIES. Blacks were first allowed to attend college with whites back in the nineteenth century. The 60s were just the "loudmouth, spoiled brat, boomer" decade.

You might actually want to study them instead of watching episodes of The Wonder Years... it might also help if you were alive and remembered it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus