logo Sign In

Mel Gibson is nuts — Page 2

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CompMovieGuy said:


All I know is that if youre going to pick this example, lets not be all "hands across America" for this Gold Digger, which she most clearly is.

People like her is whom I loathe.

show me where in Federal or California law that is says its legal to threaten a gold digger with acts of violence or commit acts of violence on same. 

Also how does that fact that she's a gold digger make it ok to use racial slurs?

Finally, he did more that use racial slurs,  he made it clear how he felt about African Americans and Mexicans.

xhonzi said:

 It takes 2 to... something, something?

but only one to use the n-word 

p.s. I am not changing the of this thread.   If you wish to talk about tangos, create another thread for it.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

xhonzi said:

 It takes 2 to... something, something?

but only one to use the n-word 

p.s. I am not changing the of this thread.   If you wish to talk about tangos, create another thread for it.

 I was just correctly guessing the relevancy of the picture, that's not my official opinion...

P.S. You can and will change the thread title.  I want to talk about the Tango, dang it!

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

then create another thread for it.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

CompMovieGuy said:


All I know is that if youre going to pick this example, lets not be all "hands across America" for this Gold Digger, which she most clearly is.

People like her is whom I loathe.

show me where in Federal or California law that is says its legal to threaten a gold digger with acts of violence or commit acts of violence on same. 

Hmm.  Maybe there isn't, but there should be.  ^_^

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

Look, I'm not saying whether Mel Gibson is crazy or not.  I honestly don't know enough about him to make that kind of a decision.  But in a general sense you don't think violence is justifiable against someone who's attempting to rob you blind?

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

There is a reason why there are laws against domestic violence and when the person on the receiving end is holding a child, the character of that person becomes largely an irrelevance.

His choice of verbal goading ties in with his anti-semitic statements quoted elsewhere.

Even if the guy doesn't mean it the fact that he thinks that saying that black people are more likely to rape his wife because of her clothing is a good way to win an argument (even for a split second) says as much about his attitude to women in general as well as his attitude to people with different skin colours.

Hopefully the guy will take a bit of time to reflect upon the attitude and teachings of the founder of the faith he took so much time and effort into making a popular and appropriately grisly movie about and try harder to follow his example rather than a large number of idiots who claim to follow him.

We all say things and do things we later wish we hadn't, often not meaning to do them at the time but responding in the heat of the moment.

Sometimes these can be the most personally edifying moments of our lives and reveal the ugliest side of ourselves which we repress without reflection at our peril.

Composed self-discipline with reflection is common sense, good manners and the best way to avoid expensive legal bills.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Gaffer Tape said:

Look, I'm not saying whether Mel Gibson is crazy or not.  I honestly don't know enough about him to make that kind of a decision.  But in a general sense you don't think violence is justifiable against someone who's attempting to rob you blind?

its a question of whether you are stopping a literal actual physical robbery in progress, or using violence in retaliation.      If this woman had committed actual robbery(in the past tense),  he could call the cops.   You don't take the law into your own hands. 

Bingowings said:

Even if the guy doesn't mean it the fact that he thinks that saying that black people are more likely to rape his wife because of her clothing is a good way to win an argument (even for a split second) says as much about his attitude to women in general as well as his attitude to people with different skin colours.

quoted for truth.

Author
Time

Well, I suppose I should have said "could be justifiable" as I'm not a big condoner of violence either.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Look, I'm not saying whether Mel Gibson is crazy or not.  I honestly don't know enough about him to make that kind of a decision.  But in a general sense you don't think violence is justifiable against someone who's attempting to rob you blind?

its a question of whether you are stopping a literal actual physical robbery in progress, or using violence in retaliation.      If this woman had committed actual robbery(in the past tense),  he could call the cops.   You don't take the law into your own hands.

Robbery for someone like Mr Gibson is not a life and death issue (possibly not even an issue of substantial personal injury).

If someone is trying to steal your ability to exist physical force may have some justification (if possible with as much moderation as the situation allows).

Hitting someone who may have manipulated you into giving up some of a large amount of money who is holding a child is wrong on so many levels it's barely worth discussion.

Author
Time

Aaand, I believe I said I was speaking in a general sense, not the specific circumstances of Mel Gibson (which I'm not even fully up to date on).

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

all I know is that woman on the tape accused Gibson of attacking her while she was holding their child.  He never denied doing so. 

Author
Time

And all I know is I never wrote a single word in regards to that.  I suppose we can move on now.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

Hopefully the guy will take a bit of time to reflect upon the attitude and teachings of the founder of the faith he took so much time and effort into making a popular and appropriately grisly movie about and try harder to follow his example rather than a large number of idiots who claim to follow him.

Also quoted for truth.

Author
Time

The instances when using violence to repel the loss of greenbacks alone is in anyway appropriate are mercifully beyond the comprehension of most (if not all) the people known to us.

It's only remotely considerable in places of absolute poverty where the loss of a small piece of metal or a small green piece of paper could result in homelessness and starvation.

Physical injury is a different matter.

Author
Time

Oh, for God's sake, fuck it!  I was just bringing up the issue for the purpose of debate!

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

calm down, Gaffer.   

Bingowings said:

The instances when using violence to repel the loss of greenbacks alone is in anyway appropriate are mercifully beyond the comprehension of most (if not all) the people known to us.

I'm not so sure I'd totally agree here.   I think if someone were robbing me or my house, I think I'd have to right to try and stop them(and use reasonable means of violence).    I don't think I have to just stand there and just let myself or my house be robbed.   If however, the deed is already done,  the thing to do is call the cops, not retaliate on your own.     I also don't believe that Gibson literally meant that she robbed him, merely that she conned him out of his money.  

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I appreciate that some people attribute a great deal of sentimental value to personal property and there is an obvious financial value loss when you are robbed.

But if there is no obvious physical peril in the situation why risk creating some for yourself over something that can eventually be replaced or the loss of it rationalised? I can't think of any inanimate object I own worth using violence to protect.

If you can prevent the situation by any non-violent means it makes sense to try but if the theft is going to happen and only an act of violence can prevent it why bother?

The criminal may get caught, or may not, notch it down to experience (sometimes unpleasant things happen).

If there is a risk to life and limb, things which can not be replaced, then there is an argument to be made for a physical response if it's possible and then if possible that response should be moderated by the conditions of the threat (you could make things worse than they need to be by over-reacting).

Tax money (and we pay enough of it) should go towards paying professionals appropriately and training and equipping them well to prevent crime and catch criminals. We should take appropriate steps to secure what we would rather not lose and set something aside if we do need to replace those things should we lose them.

Something Mr Gibson should have considered before throwing his weight and words around (I imagine he could afford a lawyer and insurance and the police would investigate any fraud they had evidence of).

Untrained, unequipped, inexperienced people (generally speaking) make lousy law enforcers.

 

Author
Time

Warbler said:

then create another thread for it.

Is that a challenge?

Author
Time

I agree with pretty much all you say in this post.  What caused me to lose my temper was that I was beginning to get the impression you were continually implying that I was in favor of all the things you are currently speaking out against when I never said anything to indicate that.  So let me just make myself perfectly clear.

First off, I didn't even mean to get involved in this thread in the first place.  In general, I agree with C3PX's paraphrasing of the Firefly quote that everyone is some kind of son of a bitch.  Everybody's going to say or do things they're not proud of, but most people have the good fortune to not have their poor judgment exposed and analyzed on an international level.  So I have no idea about Mel Gibson.  I admit I didn't listen to the tapes or keep up because, honestly, I don't care.  I honestly care more about the general actions he may or may not have committed than what he specifically did.

I long ago stated that I miswrote what I intended earlier in positing the question if violence against what is essentially a thief could be considered justifiable, not that it was.  So, without futher ado, here is what I think.  Legally and rationally speaking, you're right, a person shouldn't "take the law into their own hands" and physically punish someone.  But I have to admit, if I heard that a known manipulator and swindler was caught by someone he/she had swindled and received a massive beatdown in response, I would have absolutely no sympathy, shrug, and say, "Well, that person got what he/she deserved."

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time

I don't know how physically strong this woman is but Gibson seems to be accepting she was holding a child when he was doing this.

It's beyond defense of any kind perform such an act.

He should have left it to the lawyers to figure out and tried to remain composed.

After doing what he did he should have apologised for the violence and backed down.

The only person we know for sure did something out of place was the man Gibson who really needs to spend the large amount of money he has left and could continue to raise getting his anger and substance abuse problems under control.

He has done some good work (though very little recently) but his good fortune is largely down to luck, not everyone has that luck and not everyone hits people holding children and then shouts off about it after the fact.

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

But if there is no obvious physical peril in the situation why risk creating some for yourself over something that can eventually be replaced or the loss of it rationalised? I can't think of any inanimate object I own worth using violence to protect.

If you can prevent the situation by any non-violent means it makes sense to try but if the theft is going to happen and only an act of violence can prevent it why bother?

its the principal of the thing.   The thief is helping himself to something he has no right to. 

Bingowings said: We should take appropriate steps to secure what we would rather not lose and set something aside if we do need to replace those things should we lose them.

all of that is easier said then done.  Also, there is no way you can 100% guaranty that someone won't breaking into your house and rob the place.  When a theft happens, it is the thief's fault not the victim's.

Gaffer Tape said:

I agree with pretty much all you say in this post.  What caused me to lose my temper was that I was beginning to get the impression you were continually implying that I was in favor of all the things you are currently speaking out against when I never said anything to indicate that. 

Are if you meaning this for me or Bingowings or both?   If me or both, I'm sorry for upsetting you.  I never once thought you'd be in favor of hitting someone holding a child.    But I did misunderstood your first post in this thread I didn't realize that you weren't defending Gibson.   I also hadn't realized that you hadn't listened to the tapes. 

Gaffer Tape said:

So let me just make myself perfectly clear.

First off, I didn't even mean to get involved in this thread in the first place.  In general, I agree with C3PX's paraphrasing of the Firefly quote that everyone is some kind of son of a bitch.  Everybody's going to say or do things they're not proud of, but most people have the good fortune to not have their poor judgment exposed and analyzed on an international level.  So I have no idea about Mel Gibson.  I admit I didn't listen to the tapes or keep up because, honestly, I don't care. 

ok, you don't have to care,  but I can't understand agreeing with C3PX's statement  without listening to the tapes.   Sure no one's perfect,  but some people are worse sons of b****es than others.  How can you conclude that this isn't true of Gibson without listening to the tapes?    Perhaps if you listened to the tapes, you'd find out that Gibson was more than just the normal average type son of a b****, maybe you'd conclude that he was a really bad son of a b****.   There is only one way to know for certain.  

I'm not saying you should listen to the tapes, just don't draw conclusions without doing so.

Gaffer Tape said:

But I have to admit, if I heard that a known manipulator and swindler was caught by someone he/she had swindled and received a massive beatdown in response, I would have absolutely no sympathy, shrug, and say, "Well, that person got what he/she deserved."

yeah, I see what you are saying.   I probably wouldn't feel too sorry for the swindler either.  But I would be forced to recognize that the beatdown was technically illegal. 

Author
Time

OK

Mel Gibson is bad
The Gold-Digging blackmailing mail order Russian bride is worse

And thats how people see it, people dont like over the top (Gibson) but they especially dont like people who try to screw other people over and then get caught doing it (email extortion, and yes that is confirmed)

/thread

Moth3r said: No, there is no video embedding option in this forum software (thank god!)

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CompMovieGuy said:

OK

Mel Gibson is bad
The Gold-Digging blackmailing mail order Russian bride is worse

And thats how people see it,

what people are these and who are you to speak for them?

 

for the record,  I never said I approved of what the woman was doing, nor have I said she was an angel.    I certain condemn extortion.