Tuesday, July 2, 2013
on gun control
[I] That's true, it's never just a single factor: the shooter game addiction combined with easy availability of guns makes a deadly combination for susceptible people.
For most people, probably not a problem. But if you know someone with even slight emotional or mental issues who's into first-person shooters, and then buys a real gun... let it be a red flag. [/I]
Yes, there are multiple factors. And chances are small any given gun owner will kill someone else, even if there are many risk factors. However the stakes are high.
And sometimes individuals with few red flags idiotically kill: extraordinarily high availability and distribution of weapons in US, makes a near statistical certainty that they will be misused to a much greater extent than in countries where their supply is limited and strictly controlled.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Actually, I do think there are clear evidence for the biological basis of mental illnesses. Mental illnesses run in families, and some people have genetic predispositions towards them. Many details of mental illnesses remain unknown, and social environment does play a role, but it's not causal in nature. For example it's well known that people are born with a set level of happiness, which social environment cannot permanently AND drastically affect (although it may affect it temporarily and/or incrementally)
At the core of the debate here are different philosophical beliefs about human nature. Those who deny the biological basis of mental illnesses must belief in the humans as a blank slate. A belief incongruent with all the modern genetic research, and what we all know now about the human nature.
At the core of the debate here are different philosophical beliefs about human nature. Those who deny the biological basis of mental illnesses must belief in the humans as a blank slate. A belief incongruent with all the modern genetic research, and what we all know now about the human nature.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Re: Paradise Now (2005)
Yeah, it's seems that Middle-East culture of honor and a bellicose religion like Islam is a deadly combination.
It's like the Bedouin saying: ""I against my brother [i.e. the particular strain of Sunni or Shiah) , my brothers and I against my cousins (Sunni or Shiah) , then my cousins and I against strangers (i.e. Jews)"
In this mindset, there would be always someone to fight even if the entire world was a caliphate, since there would be always someone with a slightly different interpretations of the Islam than your. And depending on who holds reigns of power, "heretics" will be discriminated, ostracized, prosecuted, jailed and even killed. The way Saddam Hussein treated Shiah and Bashar al-Assad treats Sunni.
It's like the Bedouin saying: ""I against my brother [i.e. the particular strain of Sunni or Shiah) , my brothers and I against my cousins (Sunni or Shiah) , then my cousins and I against strangers (i.e. Jews)"
In this mindset, there would be always someone to fight even if the entire world was a caliphate, since there would be always someone with a slightly different interpretations of the Islam than your. And depending on who holds reigns of power, "heretics" will be discriminated, ostracized, prosecuted, jailed and even killed. The way Saddam Hussein treated Shiah and Bashar al-Assad treats Sunni.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Comments for Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America
Unfortunately the field of Psychiatry is still in the dark ages in comparison with the rest of the medicine. And like a somatic patient 200 years ago may have fared better untreated than treated with blood letting and leaches. So are the mentally ill patients today may be better not taking crude psychiatric medicine.
Yet denying that the brain dysfunction is the basis of all mental illnesses strikes as anti-intellectual.
*****
First of all the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The function of brain and how it relates to mental illnesses is still a black box for us. However there is an effort to trivialize mental illnesses to a cultural phenomenon and that strikes as intellectually dishonest as defending status quo.
*****
Actually "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" was also said by Carl Sagan, my favorite scientist and an atheist. Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we don't know one way or the other, we just haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge.
And by status quo I mean using INEFFECTUAL methods to treat mental illnesses like depression. And unfortunately there is enough evidence to strike down just about all the tools in the mental health arsenal as statistically ineffectual compared to the placebo. These includes: drugs like SSRI; even the most esteemed forms of "talk therapy" like CBT & alternative medicine remedies like St John Wort. The only reason talk therapy & St John Wort is promoted is due to fewer side effects, not proven effectiveness, as the author Irving Kirsch of the "Emperor's New Drugs" wrote.
At the same time should we just deny the existence of mental illness as the biological anomaly, just because we can't effectively treat it? And that's what I mean by turning it into a cultural phenomena. Yes: the stresses of modern culture do acerbate the manifestations of the mentally illnesses. But just like let's say with stomach ulcers: it's wasn't the type "A" personality or the stress of the daily existence at the root of their formation, but bacterial infection like H Pylori. So it could be the "Toxoplasma gondii" and/or a combination of genetic and environmental factors at the root of Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.
Just because we don't know the origin and effectual treatment of mental illnesses doesn't mean we should either apply ineffectual treatments towards it, or deny it's biological basis. We should invest massively and effectually to unlock the mysteries of mental illnesses, like we did in uncovering the causes and treatments for AIDS. Throwing our hands in defeat and solely blaming the modern culture for the cause of mental illnesses, is akin of South African beliefs of AIDS being caused by spirits and supernatural forces.
****
Well I always read (or rather listen as audio) books I review, including this one. And while it's true he did not state point blank that mental illnesses are not biological in nature, he did review very sympathetically "The Myth of Mental Illnesses" and it's author Thomas Szasz. I haven't read any of the Dr Szasz books but he did said that: "mental illnesses are not real in the sense that cancers are real. Except for a few identifiable brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, there are "neither biological or chemical tests nor biopsy or necropsy findings for verifying or falsifying DSM diagnoses". There are no objective methods for detecting the presence or absence of mental disease"
And these kind of arguments from ignorance are what frustrate me, someone who suffers from mental illnesses (severe depression) from very young age, and know that mental illnesses must be grounded in biology and genetics as my family history of mentally illnesses clearly indicates.
I agree that many mental illness may go into remission and seemingly fully disappear for a period of time. And probably treating depression with SSRI, it's like treating common cold with antibiotics: not only useless but potentially harmful. But as with common cold, just because we recover from illnesses such as depression, doesn't mean it's not grounded in biology.
Perhaps, even better (although far from perfect) analogy is that with the oral herpes: like depression it's chronic and incurable, most remedies are useless and it goes into dormancy by itself without any treatment. Environmental factors like stress and lack of sleep may trigger the formation of cold sores, but they don't by themselves cause oral herpes.
A possible genetic links is described in Peter's Kramer's "Against Depression. And while I am skeptical now about the authors enthusiastic embrace of antidepressants. I still find very convincing his explanation of the possible genetic link to one's response to stress and depression. For example those with two long forms of a gene are very resilient in the face of stressful environment: such people will get through Holocaust and lose everything and survive without a debilitating psychological scar. On the other hand those with two short forms of a gene interpret relatively minor setbacks very painfully, for them a failed job interview or a romantic relationship may merit contemplation and even execution of suicide. People with one long and one short version of the gene fall somewhere in between.
So while the author of this books and that of the "Manufacturing Depression" and others, may blame current social and economic pressures, alienation and discontent as the causes of the depression epidemic. However, the reason a segment of the people succumb to this, and others don't, is due to their genetic makeup leading them to be less resilient in the face of persistent stress, which in turn triggers in vulnerable individuals depression and other mental illnesses.
So yes, I am all for increasing social net, closer community bonds and more "hugs". But I am also for better genetic screening to reduce births of individuals predisposed to pernicious mental illnesses. And that's were I agree with Peter Kramer: we shouldn't neither glorify nor demonize mentally ill people. Rather we should treat them with care and respect, yet recognize that their suffering is real and their illness is real. And being mentally ill in the modern time, is much more debilitating & maladaptive than during our ancestral past when we lived in close-knit communities. And considering all that we should take a firm stand against depression, like we are firmly against cancer and other somatic illnesses.
Yet denying that the brain dysfunction is the basis of all mental illnesses strikes as anti-intellectual.
*****
First of all the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The function of brain and how it relates to mental illnesses is still a black box for us. However there is an effort to trivialize mental illnesses to a cultural phenomenon and that strikes as intellectually dishonest as defending status quo.
*****
Actually "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" was also said by Carl Sagan, my favorite scientist and an atheist. Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we don't know one way or the other, we just haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge.
And by status quo I mean using INEFFECTUAL methods to treat mental illnesses like depression. And unfortunately there is enough evidence to strike down just about all the tools in the mental health arsenal as statistically ineffectual compared to the placebo. These includes: drugs like SSRI; even the most esteemed forms of "talk therapy" like CBT & alternative medicine remedies like St John Wort. The only reason talk therapy & St John Wort is promoted is due to fewer side effects, not proven effectiveness, as the author Irving Kirsch of the "Emperor's New Drugs" wrote.
At the same time should we just deny the existence of mental illness as the biological anomaly, just because we can't effectively treat it? And that's what I mean by turning it into a cultural phenomena. Yes: the stresses of modern culture do acerbate the manifestations of the mentally illnesses. But just like let's say with stomach ulcers: it's wasn't the type "A" personality or the stress of the daily existence at the root of their formation, but bacterial infection like H Pylori. So it could be the "Toxoplasma gondii" and/or a combination of genetic and environmental factors at the root of Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.
Just because we don't know the origin and effectual treatment of mental illnesses doesn't mean we should either apply ineffectual treatments towards it, or deny it's biological basis. We should invest massively and effectually to unlock the mysteries of mental illnesses, like we did in uncovering the causes and treatments for AIDS. Throwing our hands in defeat and solely blaming the modern culture for the cause of mental illnesses, is akin of South African beliefs of AIDS being caused by spirits and supernatural forces.
****
Well I always read (or rather listen as audio) books I review, including this one. And while it's true he did not state point blank that mental illnesses are not biological in nature, he did review very sympathetically "The Myth of Mental Illnesses" and it's author Thomas Szasz. I haven't read any of the Dr Szasz books but he did said that: "mental illnesses are not real in the sense that cancers are real. Except for a few identifiable brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, there are "neither biological or chemical tests nor biopsy or necropsy findings for verifying or falsifying DSM diagnoses". There are no objective methods for detecting the presence or absence of mental disease"
And these kind of arguments from ignorance are what frustrate me, someone who suffers from mental illnesses (severe depression) from very young age, and know that mental illnesses must be grounded in biology and genetics as my family history of mentally illnesses clearly indicates.
I agree that many mental illness may go into remission and seemingly fully disappear for a period of time. And probably treating depression with SSRI, it's like treating common cold with antibiotics: not only useless but potentially harmful. But as with common cold, just because we recover from illnesses such as depression, doesn't mean it's not grounded in biology.
Perhaps, even better (although far from perfect) analogy is that with the oral herpes: like depression it's chronic and incurable, most remedies are useless and it goes into dormancy by itself without any treatment. Environmental factors like stress and lack of sleep may trigger the formation of cold sores, but they don't by themselves cause oral herpes.
A possible genetic links is described in Peter's Kramer's "Against Depression. And while I am skeptical now about the authors enthusiastic embrace of antidepressants. I still find very convincing his explanation of the possible genetic link to one's response to stress and depression. For example those with two long forms of a gene are very resilient in the face of stressful environment: such people will get through Holocaust and lose everything and survive without a debilitating psychological scar. On the other hand those with two short forms of a gene interpret relatively minor setbacks very painfully, for them a failed job interview or a romantic relationship may merit contemplation and even execution of suicide. People with one long and one short version of the gene fall somewhere in between.
So while the author of this books and that of the "Manufacturing Depression" and others, may blame current social and economic pressures, alienation and discontent as the causes of the depression epidemic. However, the reason a segment of the people succumb to this, and others don't, is due to their genetic makeup leading them to be less resilient in the face of persistent stress, which in turn triggers in vulnerable individuals depression and other mental illnesses.
So yes, I am all for increasing social net, closer community bonds and more "hugs". But I am also for better genetic screening to reduce births of individuals predisposed to pernicious mental illnesses. And that's were I agree with Peter Kramer: we shouldn't neither glorify nor demonize mentally ill people. Rather we should treat them with care and respect, yet recognize that their suffering is real and their illness is real. And being mentally ill in the modern time, is much more debilitating & maladaptive than during our ancestral past when we lived in close-knit communities. And considering all that we should take a firm stand against depression, like we are firmly against cancer and other somatic illnesses.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I tend to get into a new relationship like 2 weeks after a breakup, and I do not feel guilty. That may be one of my flaws
See, by classifying your inability to feel guilty as a "flaw", you may betray a subconscious guilt about it.
Yet women get really horny during certain times while they are pregnant
Well it makes a lot of evolutionary sense to be horny while pregnant. Basically, if you're pregnant you can have sex without consequences of having a baby while perhaps scoring some extra resources from men you have sex with.
Most women do not have two babies a year. I think the dynamics are equal between men and women when women are not producing yet
It's about the potential. Had we not have modern birth controls and access to abortion, most women may have had a baby every year or two.
Men's desire to have sex is not diminished by the knowledge it won't result into babies, as his desire for fat & sweet food is not diminished by knowing he won't have to face hunger.
Well I was stating in statistical terms. Most men may not want to have intercourse if proposed by an old, obese woman with poor hygiene. However most (if not virtually all) women may not agree on the spot to have intercourse even if proposed by a male supermodel.
In fact they had a study when a cute girl on campus offered guys to have intercourse, and the vast majority agreed. Whereas when a cute guy asked to have sex to girls on campus, not a single one took up on his offer. And I doubt that after the sexual liberation, women refused (at least primarily) because of some social standards, rather than their own, ingrained standards.
I do agree that religion may influence a lot of our mores, but as they saying goes: "man created god in his image", that is the vengeful, sexist, homophobic and characterize by all the other attribute of the typical ancient patriarch.
Regarding animals they may deploy different strategies, for example females cats allow to be screwed by a bunch of toms, and then they release their eggs, so the fittest sperm gets the prize.
Bonobos stereotypically make make much more love than war and chimps vice versa. Humans are equally related to both chimps and bonobos. So they can be a mixed bag. Still it's hard to deny the typical emotions humans experience in the interactions with the opposed sex. Free-love communes have been tried and failed. And situations when one husband has multiple wives are much more common then vice verse. So, while random stuff does happen, the evolutionary logic remains strong & sound amidst all the noise.
In fact they had a study when a cute girl on campus offered guys to have intercourse, and the vast majority agreed. Whereas when a cute guy asked to have sex to girls on campus, not a single one took up on his offer. And I doubt that after the sexual liberation, women refused (at least primarily) because of some social standards, rather than their own, ingrained standards.
I do agree that religion may influence a lot of our mores, but as they saying goes: "man created god in his image", that is the vengeful, sexist, homophobic and characterize by all the other attribute of the typical ancient patriarch.
Regarding animals they may deploy different strategies, for example females cats allow to be screwed by a bunch of toms, and then they release their eggs, so the fittest sperm gets the prize.
Bonobos stereotypically make make much more love than war and chimps vice versa. Humans are equally related to both chimps and bonobos. So they can be a mixed bag. Still it's hard to deny the typical emotions humans experience in the interactions with the opposed sex. Free-love communes have been tried and failed. And situations when one husband has multiple wives are much more common then vice verse. So, while random stuff does happen, the evolutionary logic remains strong & sound amidst all the noise.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Evolutionarily speaking, a woman who get penetrated by an unfit man, is more likely to produce an unfit baby. Whereas a man can penetrate women indiscriminately fit or unfit, since he's not the one getting stuck with those babies.
So a man is inherently opportunistic when it comes to sex, whereas a woman is inherently discriminating. And culture only tends to reflect these tendencies, not generate them. And saying otherwise is akin of blaming western culture for not encouraging men breastfeed babies. Culture stems from biology, not vice verse.
Now, speaking about gay sex, Viagra probably makes the job staying erect on demand much easier. And I am not saying gay sex is not natural, since it happens all the time in nature. It's just that there is no evolutionary pressure for male penis and male (or female) anus to conform to each other, like there was strong evolutionary pressure for male penis and female vagina to conform to each other.
Since men with too big or too small penises in relationship to most vaginas did not tend to leave many offspring. And so vagina who was too small to accept most penises or too big to keep one in place, did not had much success either. On the other hand the fact that most male penises are too big for most anuses (and hence cause pain without lubrication), did not result in any fewer babies. In fact when it comes to female anus, there might had been evolutionary pressure for the female anus to be too small for male penis (and vice versa) in order to prevent misplacing the sperm. Since men hardwired for plugging the holes would have had challenge penetrating anus if their partner experienced pain.
So a man is inherently opportunistic when it comes to sex, whereas a woman is inherently discriminating. And culture only tends to reflect these tendencies, not generate them. And saying otherwise is akin of blaming western culture for not encouraging men breastfeed babies. Culture stems from biology, not vice verse.
Now, speaking about gay sex, Viagra probably makes the job staying erect on demand much easier. And I am not saying gay sex is not natural, since it happens all the time in nature. It's just that there is no evolutionary pressure for male penis and male (or female) anus to conform to each other, like there was strong evolutionary pressure for male penis and female vagina to conform to each other.
Since men with too big or too small penises in relationship to most vaginas did not tend to leave many offspring. And so vagina who was too small to accept most penises or too big to keep one in place, did not had much success either. On the other hand the fact that most male penises are too big for most anuses (and hence cause pain without lubrication), did not result in any fewer babies. In fact when it comes to female anus, there might had been evolutionary pressure for the female anus to be too small for male penis (and vice versa) in order to prevent misplacing the sperm. Since men hardwired for plugging the holes would have had challenge penetrating anus if their partner experienced pain.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
May (2002): Is May a monster ?
Is May a monster ?
by CinematicExplorer (Tue Dec 5 2006 01:48:58)
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are so many bad horror movies. A good one is incredibly hard to make. It has to feel a fundamental sympathy for its monster, as movies as different as "Frankenstein," "Carrie" and "The Silence of the Lambs" did. It has to see that they suffer, too. The crimes of too many horror monsters seem to be for their own entertainment, or ours. In the best horror movies, the crimes are inescapable, and the monsters are driven toward them by the merciless urgency of their natures. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ebert Is May a monster ?
Re: Is May a monster ?
by dharmabum (Tue Dec 5 2006 03:38:30)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Yes, and rather obviously. The girl ends up murdering four people and sewing them together, not to mention her rather heartbreaking and meaningless murder of a noisy cat (a moment in the film which I'm not quite sure was relevant or justified, outside of shock value). She then scoops out her own eyeball to contribute to the Frankenstenian mess. Let's just say that happened in real life... I'm pretty sure the media and most people would be comfortable labelling her a monster. She gets up to stuff that even widely accepted real life "monsters" like Manson would get queasy thinking of. What is interesting about the last few frames of the movie is the promise of her redemption; through monstrous action, she may no longer be a monster.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sun Jan 21 2007 08:48:05
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Is May a monster ?
by slabossiere (Mon Jan 22 2007 08:00:10)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Isn't the cat her first kill? (I've only seen this once, hopefully I'm remembering correctly) I think it comes first in her series of killing, so it is her first step toward truly becoming a monster. Many murderers start out with animal abuse/mutilation first. I thought it was an important scene, it showed the character's development.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Is May a monster ?
by ChainsawQuartet (Mon Apr 30 2007 08:55:52)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
It depends. If you watch the full movie, then no, she is not a monster. It shows that she was driven to her ways. She was already mentally unstable (what the hellw as with her mom and the wrapping on the soozy box? lol) and being ignored didn't help. The only scenes I felt she did something really evil were when she killed the cat, when she killed Blank, and when she killed Polly. None of them deserved it. Adam was just a pussy who wanted to get into her pants and then when she got weird he got all freaked out. \ But, if you only watch the last 20 minutes, then yes, she's a monster.
Re: Is May a monster ?
by Red_Rabbit (Sat Jun 9 2007 20:45:32)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
She was a murderer, and she didn't have to be. ---------- "We must not remind them that giants walk the Earth."
by CinematicExplorer (Tue Dec 5 2006 01:48:58)
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are so many bad horror movies. A good one is incredibly hard to make. It has to feel a fundamental sympathy for its monster, as movies as different as "Frankenstein," "Carrie" and "The Silence of the Lambs" did. It has to see that they suffer, too. The crimes of too many horror monsters seem to be for their own entertainment, or ours. In the best horror movies, the crimes are inescapable, and the monsters are driven toward them by the merciless urgency of their natures. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ebert Is May a monster ?
Re: Is May a monster ?
by dharmabum (Tue Dec 5 2006 03:38:30)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Yes, and rather obviously. The girl ends up murdering four people and sewing them together, not to mention her rather heartbreaking and meaningless murder of a noisy cat (a moment in the film which I'm not quite sure was relevant or justified, outside of shock value). She then scoops out her own eyeball to contribute to the Frankenstenian mess. Let's just say that happened in real life... I'm pretty sure the media and most people would be comfortable labelling her a monster. She gets up to stuff that even widely accepted real life "monsters" like Manson would get queasy thinking of. What is interesting about the last few frames of the movie is the promise of her redemption; through monstrous action, she may no longer be a monster.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sun Jan 21 2007 08:48:05
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Is May a monster ?
by slabossiere (Mon Jan 22 2007 08:00:10)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Isn't the cat her first kill? (I've only seen this once, hopefully I'm remembering correctly) I think it comes first in her series of killing, so it is her first step toward truly becoming a monster. Many murderers start out with animal abuse/mutilation first. I thought it was an important scene, it showed the character's development.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Is May a monster ?
by ChainsawQuartet (Mon Apr 30 2007 08:55:52)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
It depends. If you watch the full movie, then no, she is not a monster. It shows that she was driven to her ways. She was already mentally unstable (what the hellw as with her mom and the wrapping on the soozy box? lol) and being ignored didn't help. The only scenes I felt she did something really evil were when she killed the cat, when she killed Blank, and when she killed Polly. None of them deserved it. Adam was just a pussy who wanted to get into her pants and then when she got weird he got all freaked out. \ But, if you only watch the last 20 minutes, then yes, she's a monster.
Re: Is May a monster ?
by Red_Rabbit (Sat Jun 9 2007 20:45:32)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
She was a murderer, and she didn't have to be. ---------- "We must not remind them that giants walk the Earth."
Murderball (2005): Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by CinematicExplorer (Tue Dec 5 2006 00:49:47)
"During a discussion after a festival screening of the movie, he [Zupan] was asked, "If you could, would you turn back the clock on that day?" You could have heard a pin drop as he answered: "No, I don't think so. My injury has led me to opportunities and experiences and friendships I would never have had before. And it has taught me about myself." He paused. "In some ways, it's the best thing that ever happened to me." Ebert Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by JesusPlayingGolf (Thu Dec 7 2006 10:44:51)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
"self-decieving himself" With grammar like that, no one will take you seriously.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by staledevil1221 (Sat Dec 9 2006 17:19:22)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Your question is this, I edited it so it makes sense: " Is Zupan decieving himself by glorifying his misery ? " Your question is flawed from the start. Your concept of a disabled person suggests that they are miserable, period. Not everyone who is disabled lives a life of misery, pain and self loathing. Everything Zupan said in that quote can very easily be true, he's not miserable and he is making the best of the life he was given, end of story. Don't assume disabled people are always miserable.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by nebraskagirl1 (Wed Dec 13 2006 15:20:33)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
I agree with the post that takes the assumptions in this question to task. I'd add that asking people to "turn back the clock" is a nonsense question because it asks for a nonsense answer. We are a compilation of everthing that happens to us. If you "turned back the clock", you could not begin to predict who you would be now. In my research of families who survive catestrophic circumstances, they describe what I have come to call "the new normal." Ideas of returning to normal are ludicrous, your normal is whatever and wherever you are. I was in a car accident 14 years ago. I fracture my odontoid (C-2), cracked the body of C-6 and fractured C-7. I had non-displacing fractures and thus, was not paralyzed although I wore a halo for 19 weeks. Due to my injuries, I have nerve damage in both arms. The medications I take are contra-indicated for pregnancy so my husband and I are not sure we can have biological children and I have daily pain. (this is not a comparison to the gentlemen in the movie, just a description of my experience) At least once a year, at physical therapy or in public, people ask me if I wish it had not happened. While I'd love to be out of pain cycles, spend less on medical bills, and not worry about the toxic effects of my medication (which is not pain killers, incidentally) on any future children, I know who I am from the past I have experienced, just like the rest of the world. If I change that, what other wonderful things from my life would I no longer have?
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by The_Black_Avenger (Wed Dec 27 2006 04:59:21)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
To be honest I think it makes for a more interesting movie but I think it's a perhaps inadvertent lie. The question I heard when they were on a talk show was "If there was a cure for your condition, would you take it?" And I believe 2 of the guys, including Zupan, said no. Which makes for dramatic moviemaking. But I don't believe it.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by beat-takeshi (Sat Dec 30 2006 18:37:41)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Like said a previous message here the question is non sensical anyway and you assume that quadriplegics are miserable anyway That would be like asking "If you could fly where would you go first ?" Possible answers : -(crazy/artist/dreamer) : "but I already fly". -(equally non sensical) : "I'd fly over the ocean" -(realist) : "Nobody will fly in a foreseeable future" etc...
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by TheGodfather1215 (Thu Jul 26 2007 20:07:07)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
UPDATED Thu Jul 26 2007 20:10:20
Im still a little hazy on what the original poster was actually asking. Are they asking if Zupan is being phoney when he says that the accident was a blessing in disguise? Well, the fact that he is now disabled allows him to travel the world. He has a hot girlfriend. His disabilty hasn't really slowed him down at all. If he never had the accident he would probably be in the same position as his friend Igo, just a sort of townie with a regular job, living a dull ordinary life. I think one of the things this movie was trying to show was that his friend, who everyone probably considers "the lucky one" because he escaped the accident basically unscathed, is not leading anywhere near the exciting life his paralyzed friend now is. So I know some people will probably roll their eyes when this guys says what happened to him was a positive thing, but I believe him. http://massopinion.blogspot.com/
by CinematicExplorer (Tue Dec 5 2006 00:49:47)
"During a discussion after a festival screening of the movie, he [Zupan] was asked, "If you could, would you turn back the clock on that day?" You could have heard a pin drop as he answered: "No, I don't think so. My injury has led me to opportunities and experiences and friendships I would never have had before. And it has taught me about myself." He paused. "In some ways, it's the best thing that ever happened to me." Ebert Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by JesusPlayingGolf (Thu Dec 7 2006 10:44:51)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
"self-decieving himself" With grammar like that, no one will take you seriously.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by staledevil1221 (Sat Dec 9 2006 17:19:22)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Your question is this, I edited it so it makes sense: " Is Zupan decieving himself by glorifying his misery ? " Your question is flawed from the start. Your concept of a disabled person suggests that they are miserable, period. Not everyone who is disabled lives a life of misery, pain and self loathing. Everything Zupan said in that quote can very easily be true, he's not miserable and he is making the best of the life he was given, end of story. Don't assume disabled people are always miserable.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by nebraskagirl1 (Wed Dec 13 2006 15:20:33)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
I agree with the post that takes the assumptions in this question to task. I'd add that asking people to "turn back the clock" is a nonsense question because it asks for a nonsense answer. We are a compilation of everthing that happens to us. If you "turned back the clock", you could not begin to predict who you would be now. In my research of families who survive catestrophic circumstances, they describe what I have come to call "the new normal." Ideas of returning to normal are ludicrous, your normal is whatever and wherever you are. I was in a car accident 14 years ago. I fracture my odontoid (C-2), cracked the body of C-6 and fractured C-7. I had non-displacing fractures and thus, was not paralyzed although I wore a halo for 19 weeks. Due to my injuries, I have nerve damage in both arms. The medications I take are contra-indicated for pregnancy so my husband and I are not sure we can have biological children and I have daily pain. (this is not a comparison to the gentlemen in the movie, just a description of my experience) At least once a year, at physical therapy or in public, people ask me if I wish it had not happened. While I'd love to be out of pain cycles, spend less on medical bills, and not worry about the toxic effects of my medication (which is not pain killers, incidentally) on any future children, I know who I am from the past I have experienced, just like the rest of the world. If I change that, what other wonderful things from my life would I no longer have?
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by The_Black_Avenger (Wed Dec 27 2006 04:59:21)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
To be honest I think it makes for a more interesting movie but I think it's a perhaps inadvertent lie. The question I heard when they were on a talk show was "If there was a cure for your condition, would you take it?" And I believe 2 of the guys, including Zupan, said no. Which makes for dramatic moviemaking. But I don't believe it.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by beat-takeshi (Sat Dec 30 2006 18:37:41)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Like said a previous message here the question is non sensical anyway and you assume that quadriplegics are miserable anyway That would be like asking "If you could fly where would you go first ?" Possible answers : -(crazy/artist/dreamer) : "but I already fly". -(equally non sensical) : "I'd fly over the ocean" -(realist) : "Nobody will fly in a foreseeable future" etc...
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by TheGodfather1215 (Thu Jul 26 2007 20:07:07)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
UPDATED Thu Jul 26 2007 20:10:20
Im still a little hazy on what the original poster was actually asking. Are they asking if Zupan is being phoney when he says that the accident was a blessing in disguise? Well, the fact that he is now disabled allows him to travel the world. He has a hot girlfriend. His disabilty hasn't really slowed him down at all. If he never had the accident he would probably be in the same position as his friend Igo, just a sort of townie with a regular job, living a dull ordinary life. I think one of the things this movie was trying to show was that his friend, who everyone probably considers "the lucky one" because he escaped the accident basically unscathed, is not leading anywhere near the exciting life his paralyzed friend now is. So I know some people will probably roll their eyes when this guys says what happened to him was a positive thing, but I believe him. http://massopinion.blogspot.com/
8 femmes (2002): Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by CinematicExplorer (Mon Dec 4 2006 22:34:20)
"Visually, it adores the women it introduces. Emotionally and intellectually, it mocks them." - Susan Stark Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by kwlcmxxx (Wed Dec 13 2006 11:40:23)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
i don't think that it is mocking the woman-kind but rather it is mocking the stereotypes.all female characters are deconstructed variants of standart stereotypes.the maid for instance is not a simple maid that one could find in any piece of art easily.her arrongance,her self confidance is striking.to classify,i guess it would be right to state that the movie is a kind of post-structuralist,feminist piece of art:)
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by jiemei (Mon Dec 18 2006 21:25:07)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
that's exactly what Ozon was trying to convey. it's not a film about female degradation, it's in fact very feminist. :)
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sun Apr 22 2007 20:09:12
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by obscure_note (Sat Aug 25 2007 07:40:30)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Aug 25 2007 07:43:04
Catherine Deneuve, in an interview here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2002_48_wed_01.shtml (around 3:20) says that Ozon likes actresses, but not women. Asked why she felt that way, Deneuve says because of the way Ozon portrays women in this movie. The interviewer then says that Ozon is paying a hommage to the old classic actresses, but Deneuve says that Ozon is only in love with the style concept of it, and that he doesn't really like women. When another reporter brought this up, Ozon got annoyed. From http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-106600913.html
When Catherine Deneuve was promoting 8 Women, she referred repeatedly to Ozon as a director who likes actresses but not women. There was no escaping her prickly observation; I read it in three interviews, then heard it on Woman's Hour while I was doing the washing up. Ozon gives a little shiver when I mention it. "Thank you, Catherine," he says sarcastically. "I am sure to love the actress Catherine Deneuve. I am not sure to love the woman Catherine Deneuve." The air crackles, the room falls silent. I wonder if he is waiting for a round of applause, or a chorus of jeers. "If I do a film in which she is my only star I'm sure she will be a dream, because she's an amazing woman." A short pause. "I think she likes it when a director is weak, or if he has lots of problems, because then she can be like a mother to him. But on 8 Women, I didn't give her the chance that she wanted to be my mother. I didn't need her as a mother - she was only my actress."
Interesting.
by CinematicExplorer (Mon Dec 4 2006 22:34:20)
"Visually, it adores the women it introduces. Emotionally and intellectually, it mocks them." - Susan Stark Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by kwlcmxxx (Wed Dec 13 2006 11:40:23)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
i don't think that it is mocking the woman-kind but rather it is mocking the stereotypes.all female characters are deconstructed variants of standart stereotypes.the maid for instance is not a simple maid that one could find in any piece of art easily.her arrongance,her self confidance is striking.to classify,i guess it would be right to state that the movie is a kind of post-structuralist,feminist piece of art:)
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by jiemei (Mon Dec 18 2006 21:25:07)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
that's exactly what Ozon was trying to convey. it's not a film about female degradation, it's in fact very feminist. :)
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sun Apr 22 2007 20:09:12
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by obscure_note (Sat Aug 25 2007 07:40:30)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Aug 25 2007 07:43:04
Catherine Deneuve, in an interview here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2002_48_wed_01.shtml (around 3:20) says that Ozon likes actresses, but not women. Asked why she felt that way, Deneuve says because of the way Ozon portrays women in this movie. The interviewer then says that Ozon is paying a hommage to the old classic actresses, but Deneuve says that Ozon is only in love with the style concept of it, and that he doesn't really like women. When another reporter brought this up, Ozon got annoyed. From http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-106600913.html
When Catherine Deneuve was promoting 8 Women, she referred repeatedly to Ozon as a director who likes actresses but not women. There was no escaping her prickly observation; I read it in three interviews, then heard it on Woman's Hour while I was doing the washing up. Ozon gives a little shiver when I mention it. "Thank you, Catherine," he says sarcastically. "I am sure to love the actress Catherine Deneuve. I am not sure to love the woman Catherine Deneuve." The air crackles, the room falls silent. I wonder if he is waiting for a round of applause, or a chorus of jeers. "If I do a film in which she is my only star I'm sure she will be a dream, because she's an amazing woman." A short pause. "I think she likes it when a director is weak, or if he has lots of problems, because then she can be like a mother to him. But on 8 Women, I didn't give her the chance that she wanted to be my mother. I didn't need her as a mother - she was only my actress."
Interesting.
How much blame psychopaths deserve ? (No Country for Old Men (2007))
I think classical psychopaths, like Anton, deserves less blame for what they do than people who act against their own ethical instincts when breaking laws and hurting other people.
Like a colorblind person wouldn't possible understand the difference between red & green, a full psychopath wouldn't understand the difference between right & wrong when it comes to other people. A psychopath is incapable to feel sympathy for other people. A psychopath genuinely believes he is the center of the universe, and other people & animals can be used and abused with impunity for his personal gain or pleasure.
Punishing a psychopath in an effort to condition him not to repeat his actions might be difficult, if not impossible, since as someone without receptors for physical pain, tends to traumatize himself inadvertently, even at his own peril, someone without "receptors" for ethical/emotional pain, will tend to traumatize others , even at his own peril.
Prisons are full of psychopaths. And I believe we should clinically test prison's population, and separate psychopaths from non-psychopaths. Non-psychopaths should be allowed to enter back the society as soon as they finish their sentence. While psychopaths, who previously committed violent crimes, should be transferred from prison to a highly secured apartments and kept there in a lifetime civil commitment.
True psychopaths are as much victims to their own nature, as other severely mentally ill patience, and I believe we should punish & judge people for what they do, not for who they are. And since psychopaths deeds stem from the nature of their being, we should not judge or punish them. Neither we can rehabilitate them, at least yet. Thus, lifetime civil isolation of violent psychopaths is the most ethical decision the society can make in regards to psychopaths.
Like a colorblind person wouldn't possible understand the difference between red & green, a full psychopath wouldn't understand the difference between right & wrong when it comes to other people. A psychopath is incapable to feel sympathy for other people. A psychopath genuinely believes he is the center of the universe, and other people & animals can be used and abused with impunity for his personal gain or pleasure.
Punishing a psychopath in an effort to condition him not to repeat his actions might be difficult, if not impossible, since as someone without receptors for physical pain, tends to traumatize himself inadvertently, even at his own peril, someone without "receptors" for ethical/emotional pain, will tend to traumatize others , even at his own peril.
Prisons are full of psychopaths. And I believe we should clinically test prison's population, and separate psychopaths from non-psychopaths. Non-psychopaths should be allowed to enter back the society as soon as they finish their sentence. While psychopaths, who previously committed violent crimes, should be transferred from prison to a highly secured apartments and kept there in a lifetime civil commitment.
True psychopaths are as much victims to their own nature, as other severely mentally ill patience, and I believe we should punish & judge people for what they do, not for who they are. And since psychopaths deeds stem from the nature of their being, we should not judge or punish them. Neither we can rehabilitate them, at least yet. Thus, lifetime civil isolation of violent psychopaths is the most ethical decision the society can make in regards to psychopaths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)