The lies of Michael Moore.

Printable View

July 8th, 2004, 12:06 PM
travelinman

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Continue Article

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#Con...ontinueArticle

[ July 08, 2004 09:07 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]
July 8th, 2004, 02:34 PM
reason

I haven't been able to find it online, but Richard Cohen's column in last Sunday's Enquirer was quite good. Cohen - one who is known to be critical of the president - wrote that the Michael Moore movie was so biased to the point that it functioned only to humor those who already hate Bush. His fear was that the falsehoods and the innaccuracies of Fahrenheit 911 would only serve to sway those on the fence - over to the Bush side.

I have yet to find any columnist who has defended the Moore movie as a bastion of accurateness.

[ July 08, 2004 11:34 AM: Message edited by: reason ]
July 8th, 2004, 02:38 PM
cincygreg

Arent documentaries supposed to be an unbiased presentation of factual information?

OOPS!
July 8th, 2004, 04:17 PM
cincygreg

So you agree that his film is NOT A DOCUMENTARY.

It is just a bunch of anti Bush rhetoric and basically a one sided opinion that is not based entirely on fact.

Well good then, we finally agree on something.

Now about you and Kerry and Edwards being pro war...
July 8th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Sean Pa

I love it when the RIGHT get worried.
July 8th, 2004, 04:39 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cincygreg:
Arent documentaries supposed to be an unbiased presentation of factual information?

OOPS!

Yeah, kinda like people who rant about how wrong it is without actually seeing it.

OOPS! indeed.<hr /></blockquote>Well, I've not seen it, and I won't see it. I just refuse to give Moore the money.

I've read enough commentary on the movie to know what its failings are. Even those who don't like Bush acknowledge that Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. Both Richard Cohen and Leonard Pitts have commented to that effect.

[ July 08, 2004 02:39 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
July 8th, 2004, 04:47 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by cincygreg:
So you agree that his film is NOT A DOCUMENTARY.

Sigh. No CG, I didn't. I was disputing your definition by pointing out your own lack of credibility. (I really shouldn't have to explain these things, should I? I mean, I know you're not that bright but this is simple stuff, c'mon now.)

A documentary is a presentation of the facts as the documentarian sees them. It is always going to be a subjective execise supported with factual information. This is true of any documentary ever made.

Moore has presented what he sees as factually true. You, and other mindless little neocon-bots, seem to be so badly threatened by it that you won't even so much as make that highly radical step and, [shudder], see it before parroting the ranting and whining of the uber-conservative hit squad.

Instead you turn to junior high debate tactics and shout nyaa nyaa nyaa at the big bad scary thing.
July 8th, 2004, 05:04 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
Well, I've not seen it, and I won't see it. I just refuse to give Moore the money.

I've read enough commentary on the movie to know what it's failings are. Even those who don't like Bush acknowledge that Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. Both Richard Cohen and Leonard Pitts have commented to that effect.

Sorry reason, but secondary sources on this one just don't cut it. I can read reviews about Spidey 2 till they come my ass but it's not even remotely the same as seeing the movie.

The "I'm not giving my money to moore" excuse is about as weak a one as I've ever heard. A couple of bucks to see the movie that is rocking the bush white house into frothing at the mouth rage. A bargain, if for no other reason than it's historical value.

You've always struck me as someone who tries to stay informed. Why you let your prejudices keep you from seeing this film is beyond me.

Hey, I hate the asswipe in the white house but I sat through his last state of the union address. Gritting my teeth and shouting at the television perhaps, which with gritted teeth is no small feat, but I watched.
July 8th, 2004, 05:29 PM
travelinman

And you expect us to believe you would go to the movies and pay money to see George Bush's speech?

Right.
July 8th, 2004, 05:45 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by reason:
Well, I've not seen it, and I won't see it. I just refuse to give Moore the money.

I've read enough commentary on the movie to know what it's failings are. Even those who don't like Bush acknowledge that Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. Both Richard Cohen and Leonard Pitts have commented to that effect.

Sorry reason, but secondary sources on this one just don't cut it. I can read reviews about Spidey 2 till they come my ass but it's not even remotely the same as seeing the movie.

The "I'm not giving my money to moore" excuse is about as weak a one as I've ever heard. A couple of bucks to see the movie that is rocking the bush white house into frothing at the mouth rage. A bargain, if for no other reason than it's historical value.

You've always struck me as someone who tries to stay informed. Why you let your prejudices keep you from seeing this film is beyond me.

Hey, I hate the asswipe in the white house but I sat through his last state of the union address. Gritting my teeth and shouting at the television perhaps, which with gritted teeth is no small feat, but I watched.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry, after spending a couple years debating those tools on the Michael Moore bulletin board (now Upsizethis.org), I made the decision never to give the man my money. So the decision to not patronize Michael Moore came long before Fahrenheit 911.

We as consumers often have little power against those with the money. In this case, I'm the poor consumer and Michael Moore, most ironically, is the powerful "corporation."

My greatest source of power is to withhold my money.

Trust me, this is an independent decision.

As far as relying on third party sources, mind you I've read both sides, both liberal and conservative. I've yet to see anyone claim Moore is fair or accurate with the facts, with many of the same situations mentioned over and over, and new ones mentioned with each new commentary.

We all know what Moore's MO is. I don't need to see his movie to confirm it.

[ July 08, 2004 02:47 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
July 8th, 2004, 05:50 PM
reason

Quote:

A documentary is a presentation of the facts as the documentarian sees them.

It's what Moore edited out that bothers me. What ended up on the editing room floor is the material necessary to make the Moore film a documentary.
July 8th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
And you expect us to believe you would go to the movies and pay money to see George Bush's speech?

Right.

Money is fleeting. Time is finite. I spent time watching the jackass. Time that no amount of money will ever get back. But I did watch.

Besides, I don't know if you've noticed this but watching tv isn't free. All those tacky ads must be there for some reason or other. Oh yeah, it's how we pay for broadcast television.
July 8th, 2004, 06:30 PM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by travelinman:
And you expect us to believe you would go to the movies and pay money to see George Bush's speech?

Right.

Money is fleeting. Time is finite. I spent time watching the jackass. Time that no amount of money will ever get back. But I did watch.

Besides, I don't know if you've noticed this but watching tv isn't free. All those tacky ads must be there for some reason or other. Oh yeah, it's how we pay for broadcast television.<hr /></blockquote>Whatever
July 8th, 2004, 06:31 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
I'm sorry, after spending a couple years debating those tools on the Michael Moore bulletin board (now Upsizethis.org), I made the decision never to give the man my money. So the decision to not patronize Michael Moore came long before Fahrenheit 911.

Reason

Just because you decided "long before" does not mitigate the fact that you are operating from a prejudiced base and are purposefully remaining ignorant on a subject that you seem to feel passionately about.

While you would probably hate the movie and would most likely see it through the context of your dislike for moore you still owe to yourself to see it for yourself.

I have no illusions that you are going to be won over by the power and the majesty (or the subliminals of bush killing kittens) of the work but you undercut your own credibility when you refuse to see something on the basis of not liking the author. Especially if you are going to take a public stance on the work.
July 8th, 2004, 06:33 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
Whatever

What next, "speak to the hand?"

I thought you said you had a college education.
July 8th, 2004, 06:36 PM
travelinman

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
[
I thought you said you had a college education.

I do, but wasting it on you is pointless.

[ July 08, 2004 03:37 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]
July 8th, 2004, 06:49 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by travelinman:
And you expect us to believe you would go to the movies and pay money to see George Bush's speech?

Right.

Money is fleeting. Time is finite. I spent time watching the jackass. Time that no amount of money will ever get back. But I did watch.

Besides, I don't know if you've noticed this but watching tv isn't free. All those tacky ads must be there for some reason or other. Oh yeah, it's how we pay for broadcast television.<hr /></blockquote>I won't give George Bush a cent of my money, nor do I listen to his speeches. Regardless, I have a pretty good idea where he stands on the issues.

I won't waste my time or money on Bush. Nor will I waste my time or money on Moore.
July 8th, 2004, 07:01 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pi?a:
[qb][
I thought you said you had a college education.

I do, but wasting it on you is pointless.
[QB]<hr /></blockquote>Oh, so you're saving it up. I've often suspected as much from the general lack of thought evident in the majority of your postings.
July 8th, 2004, 07:13 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
I won't give George Bush a cent of my money, nor do I listen to his speeches. Regardless, I have a pretty good idea where he stands on the issues.

I won't waste my time or money on Bush. Nor will I waste my time or money on Moore.

reason

I really do understand where you're coming from. I only had to watch O'really once to know that he's a grandstanding fool and as for rush and his like well, I've listened more than once but it's an experience that I'm hesitant to repeat. Mostly I use other sources to keep up with thier antics but I prefer to listen to segments in context like al franken tends to present when debunking them. (He's actually one of the few who makes the extra effort to present more than just out-of-context sound bites.)

The only problem I have with your approach is that it's a form of willful ignorance. Again, I know that we cannot hope to keep up with current affairs without informational gatekeepers to help us process the immense volume of data but some things just are so socially significant that even if you loathe the one presenting the information, or even loathe the information itself, that it is incumbent on supporters and detractors alike to make the extra effort to be informed.
July 8th, 2004, 07:31 PM
gae

Quote:

A documentary is a presentation of the facts as the documentarian sees them.

Seems like Merrian Webster disagrees with you, Tomas.

Quote:

Main Entry: 1doc?u?men?ta?ry
Pronunciation: "d?-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: adjective
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>

Ah, WTH. When have you ever let reality intrude on your arguments?
July 8th, 2004, 07:35 PM
cincygreg

Pina, you really should look into a laxitive or something because you are completely full of shit. LOL!

Do you actually think I give a damn what the hell you say?

Your posts are just fodder for my amusement.

Get a grip, buy a clue, just stop trying to make yourself look so arrogant and self absorbed.

Moore lies, you support liars. You support those who support war.

Sounds to me like you are exactly what you despise.
I'd vote for Bush just to negate your vote. LOL!
July 8th, 2004, 07:38 PM
cincygreg

Oh, and thanks for the Definition Gae.
I was gonna use it myself, but I thought Pina might actually know.
(I didnt want to put him down by acting like he's stupid)

[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
July 9th, 2004, 01:55 AM
Lew

I've been telling you people for years but no one believes me....

If you watch Pro Wrestling, you will understand how the world works. Inside the squared circle, there is a concept known as "heat." It's more or less a slang term for crowd interest in a particular wrestler. It doesn't matter if they cheer or boo you, so long as you have their attention. More often than not, it's the bad guys that make (or break) the show.

And it's not just wrestling, it's in all forms of entertainment. Why did people watch "Dallas"? Because of J.R. Why do people watch "American Idol"? Because of Simon. Every James Bond film has the same formula; what separates the good ones from the bad ones is not Bond, it's the Bond villain. THE BAD GUYS RULE!!!

I give Moore all the credit in the world. He knows the right group to piss off, and he knows what schtick to play up to get 'em pissed. Right now, he has tremendous "heat" and it shows no sign of slowing.

But in the end, it's important to remember he is but a character, and to that end, he can say what he wants.

Personally, I don't think conservatives should get so bent over him (that's exactly how he made his multi-millions). But at the same time, liberals shouldn't champion him as their savior, either.

It's all schtick, bay-bee.....
July 9th, 2004, 03:45 AM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by cincygreg:
Arent documentaries supposed to be an unbiased presentation of factual information?

OOPS!

Yeah, kinda like people who rant about how wrong it is without actually seeing it.

OOPS! indeed.
July 9th, 2004, 04:01 AM
cincygreg

The Hezbollah now endorese Moores Movie.
July 9th, 2004, 11:38 AM
jumper69

Pina, one of the things that makes an interesting debate is the debaters ability to entertain the other's point of view.

In other words, you may not agree with Trav, or Greg, or even me. But to the extent you evangelize Moore's film and by default Moore himself, makes you seem as unwilling to entertain other points of view as you so readily criticize us for (sorry for the butchered sentence).

You're no better than the right Pina.

[ July 09, 2004 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Jumper69 ]
July 9th, 2004, 01:16 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Lew:
I've been telling you people for years but no one believes me....

If you watch Pro Wrestling, you will understand how the world works. Inside the squared circle, there is a concept known as "heat." It's more or less a slang term for crowd interest in a particular wrestler. It doesn't matter if they cheer or boo you, so long as you have their attention. More often than not, it's the bad guys that make (or break) the show.

And it's not just wrestling, it's in all forms of entertainment. Why did people watch "Dallas"? Because of J.R. Why do people watch "American Idol"? Because of Simon. Every James Bond film has the same formula; what separates the good ones from the bad ones is not Bond, it's the Bond villain. THE BAD GUYS RULE!!!

I give Moore all the credit in the world. He knows the right group to piss off, and he knows what schtick to play up to get 'em pissed. Right now, he has tremendous "heat" and it shows no sign of slowing.

But in the end, it's important to remember he is but a character, and to that end, he can say what he wants.

Personally, I don't think conservatives should get so bent over him (that's exactly how he made his multi-millions). But at the same time, liberals shouldn't champion him as their savior, either.

It's all schtick, bay-bee.....

You hit the nail on the head. I, too, recognize Michael Moore for who he is. He is an entertainer...not a documentarian.

Nothing wrong with that. He is who he is. I actually have a perverse admiration of the guy. He's found his niche, he plays it well, he makes his millions.

What I can't stomach are those who see his flicks and hang on every word as if it's gospel truth.
July 9th, 2004, 04:46 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by Jumper69:
[QB]In other words, you may not agree with Trav, or Greg, or even me. But to the extent you evangelize Moore's film and by default Moore himself, makes you seem as unwilling to entertain other points of view as you so readily criticize us for (sorry for the butchered sentence).
QB]

Jumper

I may be passionate and very willing to take on people head to head here but I have not "evangelized" moore's film. That is if you are using the term to indicate uncritical promotion of michael or his works.

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.

I cannot remember saying that the film is a paragon of objectivity. It aint. I don't think it should be and I don't think that I have suggested that it is.

What it is though is a documentary by an individual who honestly believes that what he has put on the screen is an accurate reflection of what is going on in the world. Disagree with it if you want to but be ready to back up that disagreement with fact, not fabrication as so many in the right wind propaganda machine are so desperately trying to do right now.
July 9th, 2004, 05:18 PM
Piña

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
You hit the nail on the head. I, too, recognize Michael Moore for who he is. He is an entertainer...not a documentarian.

Actually he's both. Just because his work is passionate and entertaining does not mean that it is not also a documentary. It's geared to impact people at a gut level but the information that it presents is factual and documented. You may not like the choices that moore makes for inclusion not the connections that he makes but then it's not your view of the world that he is presenting.

Gae, in another thread, presented the definition of "documentary" as an argument against the movie fitting into that category.

Quote:

Main Entry: 1doc?u?men?ta?ry
Pronunciation: "d?-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: adjective
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE

Now she didn't include a citation so I can't tell what was there and what is her opinion but I can get the definition from www.dictionary.com which reads

Quote:

doc?u?men?ta?ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc?u?men?ta?ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

Now the only point that anyone could reasonably make to support the idea that moores film does not fit this definition would be that he most certainly does editorialize. I contend that all documentaries to one degree or the other do editorialize if in no other way than the choices of material to include or not include and the way those materials are presented.

In the real world there is no such thing as true objectivity. Any work is an expression of opinion with the main difference being the degree to which those opinions are apparent. Moore is very apparent but he also backs up those opinions with documentation.

Now you may not like moore's film and you may contend that facts that he has presented are untrue but they are documented and I believe that moore sees them as factually true. Just because he has chosen to present them powerfully does not in and of itself negate the documentary nature of his work. Nor does anyone's belief that he is wrong.

People are trying to tear the film down in any way possible. It's practically a right wing feeding frenzy. Now I contend that it is a documentary. I also agree with it's content, which critics are still attacking by nitpicking points that aren't even made in the movie. They love to play the almost the truth game and sneak little lies into the mix to base their arguments on.

I have said that people should see for the movie for themselves so that at the very least they can see where the right wing is fabricating arguments against the movie and moore. Relying on second hand information just doesn't cut it as the favorite tactic of the karl rove media machine is to overwhelm the opposition by drowning people in lies via coordinated media attacks, seeing what sticks and then denying that they lied in the first place. The end effect is that people hear the lies so much and so frequently that the begin to accept in uncritically. The old repeat it enough and it becomes true tactic which he is master of.

I only say that people should take a look and see how they are being misled about the movie instead of just saunteering up for thier daily allotment of slop. A couple of bucks to see what everyone is so worried about: priceless.
July 9th, 2004, 08:27 PM
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).

The witnesses who saw the Titanic sink said that the hull broke in two.

Of course, the review board simply discounted this because, let's face it, that can't happen, and those witnesses were delirious anyway, so that theory can't be chucked.

Of course, in 1985 they find the Titanic, in two pieces, far apart, indicating that, yep, she broke in two before she hit bottom. A victory for scientific investigation.

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.

I have heard this, but I don't know if it's true- supposedly, Moore interviewed Richard Berg (sp?)but said he left that scene out of the movie out of respect for his family. Problem is, I've also heard that the movie was cut and pressed before Berg was murdered (and oh yeah, he was murdered; spare me this "beheaded" crap).

Like I told you earlier, I still need to see the film, but bottom line is that scenario can be proven/disproven objectively. The first step would be to determine whether Moore did interview Berg. The next step would be to determine whether Moore said he was deleting the scene out of respect for the family. The third step would be to determine when the movie was pressed. If, in fact, the movie was pressed after Moore said he was being respectful to the Berg family, then in plain and simple terms Moore is lying. There's no subjectivity there, he's being an opportunistic liar.

In the alternative, maybe Moore didn't make the statement, or maybe it was made before the film was pressed. That, too, can be proven.

So yeah, there is a lot of subjectivity in all this, but it's wrong to just write everything off as op-ed.
July 9th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Piña

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).

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.

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] )
July 9th, 2004, 11:14 PM
LanDroid

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...
July 9th, 2004, 11:39 PM
Raven Soul

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

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.
July 10th, 2004, 12:40 AM
Piña

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.



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.

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.

[pause]

Unless . . .

[pause]

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]
July 10th, 2004, 02:34 AM
Raven Soul

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