PROJECT INSPIRE'S VIDEO "ONE SOUL" a turnoff to m

HindaRochel

Mon, Aug 03 2009, 4:13 am

I really don't understand your argument OP. The coverage of the children who were abused was covered in depth. They summed up Craig's efforts, and how valuable they were. AND THEN he continues to answering the call of a spiritual slavery.

If there had only been a quick clip I might have agreed with you. But they fairly well covered the original 60 minutes piece. Did you think they would show the WHOLE 60 minute piece?

They showed a quick clip of Masada and spoke about the physical death of Jews by the Nazis & their partners the Arabs in "Palestine" (the words of the clip).

The point was to relate these things to the desperate conditions of spiritual death and slavery existing in those who are not frum.

Really, I don't think you could have expected more. It wasn't about the Holocaust, Masada or child slavery. It was about how we are losing Jewish lives now, through a more insidious, but less violent means.

And Fox, I'm not sure what you are driving at, but these films were meant to inspire others to get up and do and not think they can't, what critical thinking did you think should imply?

They have other books that tell how to actual do kiruv.

I have no idea what you are referring to about a $2000 dollar purse and tzniut, & I do understand getting stuck on a thought, but that is usually the fault of the person listening, not the speaker. (For instance, a woman once gave a talk where she used the example of tehina being used to moisten meat that was eaten on Shabbat. I kept thinking "tehina doesn't moisten. & "Who puts tehina on meat?" But her example was a good one, it was MY thinking that was the problem.

Critical thinking is the responsiblity of the listener. What is important? Why is the person using that example? Getting stuck as I did was my fault, not the speakers. Even if I felt the example was wrong (because I didn't think it would moisten meat) I was getting stuck in a thinking rut, rather than excepting "She feels it moistens. Her point is just as we moisten the meat with something to make it more palatable so we should moisten and I forget, because as I said MY THINKING wasn't truly critical.

It is a long piece, I had nothing to do with it and do not know but from my point of view it is well done.

shabri

Mon, Aug 03 2009, 7:28 am

amother wrote:

sarab wrote:

So please pm me on this message or something but don't
continue to uninspire others who might've watch that movie and gone out and saved a couple more jews...

I'm not bashing Kiruv people. I think they're noble and holy. If only you'd know what I do day and night, you'd be surprised. I probably speak to and try to help more Baalei Tshuva than most here. I still feel the film portrays us poorly.

sarab wrote:

Don't you know that you are supposed to help your
own people before anyone else

AGAIN, I'm not bashing Kiruv people. I'm just unimpressed with the producers of that film for their poor choice in inserting footage of children chained to looms to prevent them from running away, with no mention of it. It doesnt matter if it happened yesterday or 20 years ago. I believe it shows a degree of apathy.

Sorry but I think you totally missed the point. First of all, the film was NOT for kiruv people, but rather for all of us to attempt to inspire someone in our lives. The point was NOT to leave it for the kiruv people.

Second, the film was trying to highlight the Silent Holocaust. Remember the line that the Nazi sais, "American Jews will take care of themselves" We are in danger of losing more people out there than Hitler would ever have been able to kill. And to take a movie whose point is to inspire others to make a difference and bash it to me is like getting a letter/phone call in 1942 with the ability to help save some Jews and turning around and bashing it to others on the basis of some misprint. Before you posted this, did you maybe think of the ramifications?

I think its intersting how you, OP can be so concerned about the plight of the children, but so not concerned about the plight of your own people.

And, I also think you are wrong. Yes they showed the scenes but they didn't not mention it. They HIGHLIGHTED was to do about it. A large chunk on the film was about this kid (Greg I think) and his organization. They talked about how it got started and some of the projects that they do. In fact, I don't know what they couldhave said more about the organization.

Fox

Mon, Aug 03 2009, 11:47 am

HindaRochel wrote:

And Fox, I'm not sure what you are driving at, but these films were meant to inspire others to get up and do and not think they can't, what critical thinking did you think should imply?

They have other books that tell how to actual do kiruv.

I have no idea what you are referring to about a $2000 dollar purse and tzniut, & I do understand getting stuck on a thought, but that is usually the fault of the person listening, not the speaker. (For instance, a woman once gave a talk where she used the example of tehina being used to moisten meat that was eaten on Shabbat. I kept thinking "tehina doesn't moisten. & "Who puts tehina on meat?" But her example was a good one, it was MY thinking that was the problem.

Critical thinking is the responsiblity of the listener. What is important? Why is the person using that example? Getting stuck as I did was my fault, not the speakers. Even if I felt the example was wrong (because I didn't think it would moisten meat) I was getting stuck in a thinking rut, rather than excepting "She feels it moistens. Her point is just as we moisten the meat with something to make it more palatable so we should moisten and I forget, because as I said MY THINKING wasn't truly critical.

Wikipedia summarizes the concept of "critical thinking" far more succinctly than I could:

Quote:

Critical thinking is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do in response to observations, experience, verbal or written expressions, or arguments. Critical thinking might involve determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true.

My point is not about the danger getting stuck on the minutiae, but the danger of not exercising "reflective judgment." I believe this is an especially dangerous problem with regard to ostensibly "frum" materials, such as books or films.

The first problem is that many materials that may appear to be "frum" represent their creators -- not daas Torah. It is crucial for consumers of such materials to exercise reflective judgment about the conscious and subconscious messages contained in such material and whether they are consonant with daas Torah.

In an attempt to avoid the first problem, a second problem arises. Many authors and producers make a point of having their materials receive haskamas from talmidei chachomim. This is all well and good, but by definition, a talmud chachum is probably not familiar with the subtle and insidious nature of rhetorical devices. This is particularly true with film/video-based materials, where a variety of visual and sound images are combined to affect the viewer.

The final problem is that such materials become "sacred cows" -- to challenge them at any level is interpreted by others as an attack on the motivations or sensibilities of the producers. Not only is this a logical fallacy, but it actually elevates irresponsibility to an article of faith!

Your example regarding the moistening of meat perfectly illustrates my point. You used critical thinking skills to evaluate the argument, evaluate the "expertness" of the speaker, tested it against your knowledge of halacha (and I assume you would have sought guidance from a rav had you found any serious discrepancies between the speaker's words and your own knowledge), and found that her "argument" was valid.

But what if you had done none of that? You would have been completely at the mercy of someone who might or might not have been giving appropriate advice -- and whose agenda might have been carefully disguised.

The specific danger of film/video is that it penetrates our brains at a subconscious level. Why do you think gedolei hador of both our and previous generations have spoken against television in general? If it were only about the content, we could simply limit our viewing to "appropriate" content, using
TiVO to edit out commercials! But it's not -- and many of our gedolim recognized this at some level. The more we learn about brain chemistry and mapping, the more we realize just what an effect the lights-camera-action has on us.