The lies of Michael Moore.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lew:
Pina my man-

you are incorrect in your statement that there is no objective truth. In the realm of Op-Ed, you are correct. But you're discounting the realm of science (or, should I say, the scientific method).

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whoops, sorry bout that. I probably wasn?t as clear as I?d hoped to be. I intended to make an observation that there is no such thing as objectivity in the world of documentary film making not in the world at large. I was trying to refute the idea that moore?s film did not adhere to the criteria necessary for it to be categorized as a documentary. It is my opinion that there is no such thing as objectivity in any work of man, be it ?fiction? or ?non-fiction?. It is always an interpretation in one way or the other so objectivity is not only not a parameter that must be met but it is literally impossible for any work to achieve.

Quote:

---

Yes, many of those who are dissecting Moore's film are biased, and will do/say anything to discredit the film. But, at the same time, to the extent that Moore makes factual allegations, those need to withstand scrutiny. And make no mistake- the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the claim, and not on the skeptics to disprove the claim.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Within reason I think you?re right about the onus of proof but there is a limit to how far people can reasonably be expected to defend their work. Sure, if it?s a documentary you should have to be able to point to the documents that you used. Documentary - documents. (I?m sure there?s a latin phrase that fits the bill but damned if I can think of it.) But you shouldn?t be expected to have to defend the same thing over and over after you have made reasonable efforts to provide the proof, especially when the ones who are bringing you to task have no problem making false allegations about the information you have put on the screen. The binLaden no fly thing comes to mind.

The problem really comes in when you have a group of determined, fanatical detractors (pronounced karl rove) who are motivated by the desire to discredit the film at any cost. There?s really no seeking after the truth involved in the campaign to destroy the film and there really isn?t even a genuine questioning of the facts in the film. The particulars of the questions actually become secondary to the fact that you are questioning at all.

What seems to be happening is that the conservative media machine, and it is a machine, are acting in a coordinated fashion through ?talking points? that are circulated which are then used to go after one point at a time en mass. What happens then is that people are bombarded by the same criticism coming at them from multiple sources which lends the criticism weight just by virtue of hearing it from mulitple sources at the same time. Then, even if the point is disproven, it still hangs in air and people take it as fact just because they?ve heard it over and over. The fact that the general media seems to be too lazy to check the facts about many of these allegations and just rubber stamp them on through reinforces the ANC?s (Average News Consumer's) perception that these critiques are somehow valid.

You really have to hand it to the dirty tricks wing of the white house as they have this down pat. (Speaking of Nixon . . . [img]smile.gif[/img] )

Plus there's something a little unsettling about folks that spend a great deal of time attacking a movie they refuse to see. First, almost by definition, they are uncritically regurgitating the opinions of others who have seen the movie. Obviously not just any opinion, but opinions that they like the sound of and yet are unable to evaluate themselves. Second, they are unable to judge the significance of the objections; some objections are actually about things that are not in the movie, were not said, or are of extremely low significance. For example an extended discussion of the Patriot Act is intentionally ignored and reduced to whether or not a certain person had a toll free telephone number when the movie came out...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pi?a:
I have taken those who are trying to find fault with it to task and demanded that they back up thier claims

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">See there in lies the problem with discussing issues with you. I like you, you bring discussion to this board and I actually enjoy talking to you, even though sometimes I would love to shove my foot up your ass [img]wink.gif[/img] . However, I am not sure who you think you are in this great big world, but no one, under any circumstances unless their name is God, Mamma or Pappa (obviosulsy my grandparents), can demand anything from me. You take me to task for the things I believe in, but not once is your thirst satisfied with the fact that, it is simply the way I believe. You need to know why, who, what, where and when and quite frankly I don't feel the need to justify myself to anyone unless they are those three people, and of course Lindsay. I don't know, I am rambling. I just get a little pissed when people can't except things for what they are, their opinions or beliefs, that and demanding things.

Quote:

---

What I wrote in reference to attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11 was:
I have argued for seeing it, I have taken those who are trying to find fault with it to task and demanded that they back up thier claims, and I have said that it is an important and historically significant work and that people should see if for no other reason than that it is so socially powerful.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Quote:

---

You responded in part with:
However, I am not sure who you think you are in this great big world, but no one, under any circumstances unless their name is God, Mamma or Pappa (obviosulsy my grandparents), can demand anything from me.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Context is everything. When I used the term "demand" I was talking specifically about demanding proof of those who make factual claims about something, in this case Fahrenheit 9/11.

As Lew pointed out the "the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the claim". So if you are going to come on a public board and make factual claims then you are going to have people demand proof of you. Goes with the territory.

As far as opinions and beliefs are concerned, have any that you want. I might make fun of you for them or I might even agree with you but I won't demand you back them up.

<font size="1">[pause]</font>

Unless . . .

<font size="1">[pause]</font>

you use as them as the basis for an attack on something else. Then they become fair game.

You of course, have every right to refuse to answer, the term "none of your damned business" is in my vocabulary for a reason and gets exercised on a regular basis, but you do need to realize that if you are going to bring your beliefs into a discussion to support some other action or belief then having it questioned is just to be expected.

I happen to beleive that god is an enormous jelly doughnut (Hitchikers Guide?). Now I expect that if I were to state that after the good natured ribbing I would recieve from my buddy Trav died down that no one would question it, or care for that matter.

But if I start saying that bush is evil because the enormous jelly doughnut decrees it then maybe, just maybe, I should expect a few gentle probes about my beliefs, and a few friendly questions after my sanity.

Don't get bogged down in contextually defined semantics when you hear the word "demand". I'm not going to hunt you down, put a hood on your head and wire up the boys to get you to fess up.

.

.

.

I don't own a hood. [img]smile.gif[/img]

ROTFLMAO! That was a funny post, minus the hood part [img]wink.gif[/img]