AWKWARD ZOMBIE

It really doesn't come off as a Stockholm syndrome metaphor for me; I don't think that was ever the writer's intent. I think Belle genuinely felt for the Beast and the fact that Belle was forced to stay with him (for whatever reason) was genuinely just a storytelling requirement, i.e: if Belle wasn't forced/coerced (in some way) to remain in Beast's presence the story wouldn't have allowed Belle the time needed to relate to or understand this creature she would have ordinarily ran a mile from.

I try to be wary of reading too much into stories that way and avoid 'colouring' them with hidden meanings - unless the writer freely admits those meanings were intended.

Yeah, I definitely don't buy into the Stockholm Syndrome idea. I think at the end of the day, it's just a kid's movie.

Also, thanks for the information about Stockholm Syndrome, Winchester. Some of the stuff you mentioned I'd never heard before.

I agree that Beauty and the Best is not about Stockholm Syndrome, though I'd say it more for Winchester's reasons than just it being a "kid's film" (I'd also like to point out that it is based on a fairy tale as well).

Here's a follow-up question though: are all situations of stockholm-syndrome "bad"? If course anything involving violence towards any number of individuals is awful, but say the situation has the threat of violence if the rules ("don't leave this space", "don't disobey", etc.) are ignored, but otherwise you still eat decently, sleep in good conditions, and have the chance for fun from time to time, so long as you're kept tabs on. If you've spent enough time with your captors, would it be wrong to feel some sort of empathy for them as human beings, even if you don't want them to succeed? Additionally, now that I've typed all that out, how far is the line between the society we live in, what with laws and banks and such, and a hostage situation like I've described?

To clarify, I'm just thinking aloud, not throwing any personal beliefs out there.

Topic: Should people be allowed to carry swords with them so long as they have a license and use them in self defense only?

My Stance: They should, for in recent statistics it has been shown that of the many murders performed in the past few years, a majority of them have been committed with firearms, and less than 1% of them have been committed with swords. This shows that firearms are the tools of murderers and brigands. Of the murders committed in self defense, 95% of them have been committed with firearms, while barely any of them have been committed with swords. Firearms are much too dangerous to ignore any longer, and should be banned everywhere. We must switch to swords, a cleaner, more nobler weapon, and cease prosecution of openly carrying a sword at once!

Swords are kinda clunky and if you aren't properly trained... (which let's face it... people who carry swords casually aren't the type to actually have any formal training) it's pretty likely accidents will occur.

About a decade or so back, Australian gun laws were tightened after a mass shooting in Port Arthur. Guns being harder to get meant common thugs turned to bladed weapons. A relative of mine was hacked to death with a machete on his bucks night.

So the laws for bladed weapons were also tightened.

I guess my point is weapons are the opposite of safety, and that it's much more likely that people who are carrying weapons are planning to use them.

Also your statistics are flawed. Of course guns are preferred where guns are allowed, they are quicker, easier to conceal and one doesn't need very extensive training to hurt someone with a gun.

To be honest I think you're trolling.

Was listening to the radio. Some Christian speaker came on, talking about the Devil and free will. Presenter stated that God gave humanity/angels free will because having a bunch of automatons worshiping God doesn't bring him any glory.

When someone questioned what happens when you get to heaven, the speaker stated that people still have free will, but they no longer have the capacity to sin.

Thoughts?

Its an oxymoron, if you truly have free will you have the capacity to commit sin. If you don't have the capacity to commit sin, you're not free you're restricted.

I always thought that a person who lived in heaven just didn't sin of their own free will. If they did sin, then their soul was sent back down to flagellate the sin out.

Thats like cutting off someone's legs and saying they can still walk but no longer have the capacity to run

They have wings, why would they want to run?

Think about it this way, a person has spent their entire life trying to get into Heaven. If Heaven takes away their capacity to sin, then that also means they take away the person's ability to fuck up and lose what they've worked so hard to achieve.

Thats an argument that just shows off how flawed the idea of Heaven actually is. You cant claim Heaven is this perfect place of eternal bliss if you essentially lobotomizes the people who end up there, because you know what? Humans are flawed, they want to sin, they want to indulge in bad things, if you take that away you end up with a drone, not a human being. Thats not a Paradise, thats an asylum that keeps all of its patients doped to their eyebrows so they wont act out.

Choosing to give up your free will is also an act of free will. They willingly become drones.

edit: I wish it was possible to delete one's own posts

If Heaven is real, then presumably Hell is too, at which point the choice is reduced to coercion, since you're essentially told to give up your free will or get violated by demons. Heaven is no longer a reward in that case, its the lesser of two evils.

edit: I actually thought I knew things about theology lol this is embarrassing