Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Which is a fundamentally false adage, especially in this age where we are seeif more and more young people hurt or kill themselves over words.

So you're saying they did not choose to kill themselves? There are very, very few words that prompt an intrinsic response in humans, if any. We always have a choice on how to handle what's said to us, no matter how insultingly it may be intended.

No words cause an intrinsic response in humans, language is learned. That doesn't mean humans control what they will be offended by, that presupposes a gated system of emotional response. Humans don't really have that.

Shuma... I'm struggling to understand this. Are you saying that being "offended" is really derived from our upbringings? (culturely, religiously, etc)? As in, we don't have a choice?

Yes. That's a pretty basic and well agreed upon principal or neuroscience. Taboos are a learned social construct that we likely evolved to better facilitate cohesion in small scale tribal groups. There are things that humans will instinctively react to negatively (pain, darkness, disorientation, hunger, etc), but they're usually pretty basic and even those are often overcome by experiential development. When something offends you you don't decide whether you're offended or not, offense is an automatic emotional response to stimuli, not a cognitively derived course of reaction.

I personally believe that President Obama is defending our national security by campaigning. By doing so, he is protecting us against a potential Romney presidency. At least Obama believes in something; all Romney believes is that he wants to be President because power is fun. Oh, and that he should cut taxes on himself and his friends who are helping him in his campaign.

 Seaward wrote:

Again, I disagree. I've often had time to consider whether something actually offends me or not.

No, you've often had time to decide whether or not new stimuli is something to which you should have been offended by. You then reach a conclusion and change your actions according to your decision. If you were offended you would have been offended. The human brains most basic tool is experiential development, you deciding to become offended or not to is a part of that development. Once it is something you've decide to be offended by (in an actual responsive way, not just a logical and directed one) you will be offended by it. You don't just block that gak out and say to yourself "I don't feel like being offended today". That'd be the same as walking outside and saying "I don't feel like being cold, so I just won't feel the cold".

@lonelictor

personally believe that President Obama is defending our national security by campaigning. By doing so, he is protecting us against a potential Romney presidency. At least Obama believes in something; all Romney believes is that he wants to be President because power is fun. Oh, and that he should cut taxes on himself and his friends who are helping him in his campaign.

I'm voting for Romney because I'm his friend

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Again, I disagree. I've often had time to consider whether something actually offends me or not.

No, you've often had time to decide whether or not new stimuli is something to which you should have been offended by. You then reach a conclusion and change your actions according to your decision. If you were offended you would have been offended. The human brains most basic tool is experiential development, you deciding to become offended or not to is a part of that development. Once it is something you've decide to be offended by (in an actual responsive way, not just a logical and directed one) you will be offended by it. You don't just block that gak out and say to yourself "I don't feel like being offended today". That'd be the same as walking outside and saying "I don't feel like being cold, so I just won't feel the cold".

I'd love to see any evidence whatsoever to prove those assertions. I'm fairly certain you just ginned up a neuroscience degree at Kinko's in order to try and win a debate not ultimately all that germane to the original discussion.

You think they had a reason to be offended, I do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
@lonelictor

personally believe that President Obama is defending our national security by campaigning. By doing so, he is protecting us against a potential Romney presidency. At least Obama believes in something; all Romney believes is that he wants to be President because power is fun. Oh, and that he should cut taxes on himself and his friends who are helping him in his campaign.

I'm voting for Romney because I'm his friend

I'm voting for him just because HuffPo liberals annoy me more than Hotair conservatives at the moment. It was the other way around last election.

 Seaward wrote:

You think they had a reason to be offended, I do not.

Of course they had a reason to be offended. They were offended after all. This isn't a matter of reason, its a matter of what you thin is legitimate reason, and from my perspective a highly selective understanding on what is legitimate.

After all, you seem quite offended that they were offended because your abstract concept of offense was called into question.

 dogma wrote:

Of course they had a reason to be offended. They were offended after all. This isn't a matter of reason, its a matter of what you thin is legitimate reason, and from my perspective a highly selective understanding on what is legitimate.

Clearly I must be some sort of cyborg from the future, then, as I manage to make it through life without having my perspective on the actions of others dictated by an emotional hair trigger.

After all, you seem quite offended that they were offended because your abstract concept of offense was called into question.

I do?

 Seaward wrote:

Clearly I must be some sort of cyborg from the future, then, as I manage to make it through life without having my perspective on the actions of others dictated by an emotional hair trigger.

That has nothing to do with my comment, which further indicates that you're quite engaged on an emotional level, so much so that you're making irrational comments.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Clearly I must be some sort of cyborg from the future, then, as I manage to make it through life without having my perspective on the actions of others dictated by an emotional hair trigger.

That has nothing to do with my comment, which further indicates that you're quite engaged on an emotional level, so much so that you're making irrational comments.

Are you not the one who's been pretending to be a neuroscientist now? Sorry, you guys have blended together a bit after fifteen pages.

Anyway, as to your comment, no, the mere fact that they were offended does not indicate they had a valid reason to be.

 Seaward wrote:

Are you not the one who's been pretending to be a neuroscientist now? Sorry, you guys have blended together a bit after fifteen pages.

No, but I have a pretty solid background in neuroscience, which has really has little to do with what the two of you were talking about. You're talking about psychology (with a bit of philosophy of mind), not neuroscience, and you brought it up first.

 Seaward wrote:

Anyway, as to your comment, no, the mere fact that they were offended does not indicate they had a valid reason to be.

So what you said above was mistaken?

 AustonT wrote:
Words fail me.

Really?

Alright, since you have no choice in the matter at all, what words are your particular self-destruct code? What could be said that would force you to end your own life, without question?

You're making a strange argument, man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
No, but I have a pretty solid background in neuroscience, which has really has little to do with what the two of you were talking about. You're talking about psychology (with a bit of philosophy of mind), not neuroscience, and you brought it up first.

I'm talking neither, actually.

So what you said above was mistaken?

Almost never, no.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm talking neither, actually.

Then why are you questioning neuroscience credentials?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Almost never, no.

You didn't say "valid" above.

 dogma wrote:

Then why are you questioning neuroscience credentials?

Because I suspect the other guy of making gak up.

You didn't say "valid" above.

That's probably true, but I did say it five or six pages ago.

 Seaward wrote:

Because I suspect the other guy of making gak up.

So you think that you're qualified to determine who has neuroscience credentials?

You must be quite eminent.

Interesting, looks like the maker of the movie has a criminal past and may have violated a court order prohibiting him from Internet usage without prior authorization. His previous convictions don't really have anything to do with this whole video thing. Looks like a lot of old financial fraud things.

Could be authorities clasping at straws though as well.

If nothing else it shows that the guy has a history of having bad judgement.

 d-usa wrote:
Interesting, looks like the maker of the movie has a criminal past and may have violated a court order prohibiting him from Internet usage without prior authorization. His previous convictions don't really have anything to do with this whole video thing. Looks like a lot of old financial fraud things.

Could be authorities clasping at straws though as well.

If nothing else it shows that the guy has a history of having bad judgement.

I don't think there's any question the flick was intended to see how much provocation you could possibly pack into a $20 budget. I'm just with the op-ed Melissia posted earlier in the thread: it's such obvious bait. Why would you fall for it? What does that accomplish?

Bottom Line...Movie was stupid.

If we have learned anything about stupid movies, the best thing to do is ignore them. Then they go away.

Case in point..The Last Temptation of Christ" was very controversial and offensive to Christians when it came out in 1988. When I tried to watch it 15 years later, on rental, I found out why.

Then you had reactionary preachers protesting the movie outside of movie theaters, that only increased peoples desire to go and see "what all the controversy was about".

Anyway you didn't have mobs of Christians going around burning down Hollywood studios. I also don't remember people in the administration (republicans at the time) coming out and condemning the movie.

GG

Republican politicians certainly came out and condemned The Last Temptation of Christ as a way to score political points. Censorship was discussed as a possible legitimate response to it.

Heck, Republicans were happy when the Dixie Chicks were kicked off the radio stations in the south for daring to criticize Bush Jr. Free Speech my butt...

 Mannahnin wrote:
Republican politicians certainly came out and condemned The Last Temptation of Christ as a way to score political points. Censorship was discussed as a possible legitimate response to it.

If your point is that both sides are full of hypocrites who will play the, "I am offended on behalf of America!" card whenever they find it politically expedient to do so, I do not think you will get much argument.

I think you're drawing a false equivalence, there. For the past thirty-two years, at least, creating and maintaining the image of a "culture war" has been a recognized and key part of the Republican party's strategy to seize and hold the conservative Christian vote.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Republican politicians certainly came out and condemned The Last Temptation of Christ as a way to score political points.....

Sure they did, but were they upper eschelon of Reagan/Bush?

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
Case in point..The Last Temptation of Christ" was very controversial and offensive to Christians when it came out in 1988. When I tried to watch it 15 years later, on rental, I found out why.

It was offensive to some Christians. You might recall that it was made by a Catholic, after all. It was a meditation on the sacrifice of Jesus. If he had written it as a paper reflecting those themes and ideas no one would have have cared, and might have even lauded him for the consideration and thoughtfulness. A man thought about what his faith meant and reaffirmed it, and a select group of people went flying rodent gak insane, most of which never watched it or didn't watch the entirety of it. Jesus isn't portrayed as gay or as a pedophile or a necrophiliac or some tasteless bit of sensationalism. He is portrayed as a human being (oh get the tar and feathers!), and as being tempted one last time by Satan by giving him a life with a wife and children (the horror! the horror!) and in the end he still chooses to do what is needed of him. He is shown grappling with decisions and showing doubt, which, it seems, is to much for some, but seems pretty reasonable and considerate to others. The movie isn't a attack on faith, or on Christians, it is a celebration of faith and empathy for the difficulties Jesus must have endured.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Interesting, looks like the maker of the movie has a criminal past and may have violated a court order prohibiting him from Internet usage without prior authorization. His previous convictions don't really have anything to do with this whole video thing. Looks like a lot of old financial fraud things.

Could be authorities clasping at straws though as well.

If nothing else it shows that the guy has a history of having bad judgement.

I don't think there's any question the flick was intended to see how much provocation you could possibly pack into a $20 budget. I'm just with the op-ed Melissia posted earlier in the thread: it's such obvious bait. Why would you fall for it? What does that accomplish?

It is obvious to us, not to them. In the ME not everyone has 3 computers and internet access. This video was actually seen by the leaders of the mobs and spread around through word of mouth. It was used by anti-American elements in the countries because there was an actual change of mindset going on and they wanted it stopped. They don't understand how our society works, they probably think this is a state-sanctioned movie that's playing in theaters across the country. Not some laughably idiotic half-ass production people see on YouTube (the scourge of humanity). The people in these countries are puppets of the Clerics. With little education or any political savvy. All you have to do is draw a fething picture of Mo and they are ready for blood. I don't understand how we think we're going to change anything in that part of the world.

You didn't know the country music radio stations were right wing?

 Jihadin wrote:
You didn't know the country music radio stations were right wing?

The Dixie Chicks didn't know it.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

It is obvious to us, not to them. In the ME not everyone has 3 computers and internet access.

I'd potentially buy that for Libya, but my understanding that a huge portion of the coordinating for the Egyptian revolution was done via social networking sites.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Republican politicians certainly came out and condemned The Last Temptation of Christ as a way to score political points. Censorship was discussed as a possible legitimate response to it.

I don't recall anyone shooting rocket launchers at anyone else over The Last Temptation of Christ.

I believe that was the point being made. If someone were discussing some sort of censorship of youtube and not killing US officials I don't think we'd be having this conversation.

 Monster Rain wrote:

I don't recall anyone shooting rocket launchers at anyone else over The Last Temptation of Christ.

That may simply be because everyone was asleep by the time the credits rolled. Boring-ass movie.

Social networking devices...twitter on cell phones...not much of the interenet. Slice of the world is here on Dakka. Besides americans and europeans living in the ME have you seen anyone else post here that was actually from/in the ME?