Hilarious, yes, but still a totally false equivalency. Barry is nowhere near as retarded as Bush. You got one quote. One. Those Bush quotes aren't even the tip of the iceberg. Dude was DUMB, man. Fucking stupid. Calling him retarded is an insult to the mentally challenged. There's a guy working down in the lobby of my building selling popcorn as part of a special needs program. He'd make a better president than Bush did.
Okay, first, the poster gets the main theme of the movie wrong. It is not about gun control. Moore realizes in the movie that guns are not the problem. We are not gun nuts. We are just nuts. Canada has no gun control, plenty of guns, and little gun violence. Moore points this out quite clearly.
Next, the poster raises "good points?" Did you read them? He basically negates all his own points. I responded below, pointing out how silly his so called points are. I'm not repeating myself here for your benefit. Read below.
Right, I agree that Moore writes movies that support his views. He writes movies to make a point. But, as in Bowling for Columbine, he will let facts change his mind. He set out to write a pro gun control movie, but when confronted with evidence that shows his premises are incorrect, he changes his mind, and lets us see the process.
The thing is, movies that present both sides do not change people's minds. When you let people think for themselves, they will think what they have always thought. If you do try to change their minds, they will still think what they have always thought. Most people find changing their minds quite painful.
Finally, do you honestly suppose that there is such an animal as the bias free documentary, where both sides are presented fairly? If you believe that, I have a documentary film about the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.
You raise a very good point, emotions can be powerful and accurate tools for quickly processing complex, incomplete, and contradictory information. However, there is a reason that rational thought has superseded emotions. Emotions are home to unseen biases, they arrive at conclusions quickly but are not always accurate. Emotions can not examine the methods they used to arrive at a feeling. Logic can, but most people make logic a slave to emotions. They feel first, think second. They use a pretense of logic to justify their emotional response. But it is important to remember that emotions and rational thought are two separate things. Claiming that one arrived at a conclusion after thinking it through carries more weight with others than a "gut feeling," and with good reason. It is dishonest to claim that one is being logical when in fact logic is only playing a subordinate role to the feeling of certainty.
I am positing that most people who criticize Moore do not like the conclusions he reaches. He says things which can cause cognitive dissonance in most people. People do not like the feeling of having their world view invalidated, and Moore's films invalidate some people's world views. This feels like a death threat to most people.
Feeling their core identity threatened, they naturally do not like the person who made them feel that way. But they have no logical reason for feeling that way, and they can not admit that their world view was threatened. Admitting your world view has been threatened means it actually can be threatened, which means that there are contradictions in it. So they have to invent reasons for not liking the man that have nothing to do with the fact that he basically showed them they are living a lie.
Good point, except for the part where Moore wasn't purposefully misrepresenting the truth. He can't help it that some people take things too literally. And some people take things too literally, to try to make a point. They get outraged about things because they want to get outraged. The outrage came first, and then a reason was found for the outrage, but the outrage preceded the reason.
Oh give it a rest, anonymous. Do you have any idea how bad your pathetic excuses look? You aren't playing eleven dimensional chess here. You aren't fighting the good fight. You are a bunch of clueless angry loons looking for any excuse for a bit of mindless destruction. Anonymous is a goddamn clown cannon, lobbing retarded circus freaks in random trajectories, hurting what you try to help and helping what you try to hurt. You are a joke.
I think your drastically missing the point, they don't want to disrupt core business process and have already stated this. They are simply trolling these companies by mangling the customer facing entities. As far as the amazon.com attack it's/b/latent its another entry level blogger who hasn't invested any time into the topic whatsoever. 1200 end systems DDoSing Amazon cloud is at best a thorn and nothing more. With more interest and that number increasing...it can become very disrupting.
Hey look everybody, it's defensive denials and excuses from Anonymous. Don't worry, bug guy, we're all still terrified of your awesome powers. We all believe you when you say this was all according to plan, and we all know you could have taken down Amazon if you'd really wanted too. Don't cry, nobody is calling you and your associates pathetic failures and loser script kiddies who have an overly inflated sense of their impact on world events.
You fucking cretin, how can you claim that I both did and did not address an issue? He raised the central theme of the movie as an issue. I showed that he completely misunderstood the theme of the movie.
Next, he says "Moore may have had a point about the ammo, but fails to mention K-Mart was in the process of maybe someday banning sales of ammo." Riiiiiight.
So his only legitimate point was that Moore ambushed Dick Clark. Oh my fucking god, a documentary maker ambushing a subject. Don't watch 60 Minutes dude, your head will explode.
And he didn't point out that Clark's poor fudge packer had no better options than to work for Clark. Well, that was the whole point of the movie, how did you miss it? Capitalism offers people a choice between starving to death or eating whatever shit is served to them.
I think we all agree, the past is over. This is still a dangerous world. It’s a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked “Is our children learning?” “Will the highways of the Internet become more few?” “Do you have Blacks in Brazil?” “Why dont’t the French have a word for ‘entrepreneur’?”
How many hands have I shaked? They misunderestimate me. I am a pitbull on the pant leg of opportunity. I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family! Knock down the toll booth! Make the economy gooder! Vulcanize society! Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
The first link has nothing to do with Micheal Moore, except to say in a very partisan fashion that the commercial they ARE critiquing is even more dishonest than he is.
The second link raises several issues, and rates most of them as "true" or "mostly true." The ones that are rated false, such as "America supports single payer" are debatable. Nowadays, most Americans DO support a single payer system, though that might not have been true at the time of the movie. Many of the points labeled as false are only false on a technicality, like the claim that youth are evenly split on support for capitalism and socialism. That is true, according to politifact, the falsehood is in the timing, as the one poll they cite happened after the 2008 election, and they say that Moore claimed it to be true before the election.
Of the six points raised in the second link, four are rated as true, mostly true, or partly true. Of the nine "related points" raised in the sidebar, seven are rated true, mostly true, or partly true. I think you should check the links you use to support your positions, to see if they actually support your positions, or do the opposite.
Point well made, and point taken. I will only point out that esteemed television news shows such as "Sixty Minutes" also make use of the adversarial interview. Is it grandstanding when a journalist ambushes a subject and asks them uncomfortable questions? If so, then journalists do a lot of grandstanding.
I agree with More's politics, but I did not consider Heston insensitive. I thought it was obvious that Moore was illustrating the stupidity of the 'cold, dead hands' rhetoric by comparing it to actual cold, dead hands. He was not trying to make it seems as though Heston had made that comment at Columbine, IMHO.
Why would I want to argue about the statement? It's true. I wouldn't argue against the statement, but against the unstated premise that killing people is better than letting them commit a crime. It isn't an infuriating statement, it just appears uninformed and ill-considered.
Do you have proof that the footage of Flynt that was purported to be post layoff was actually shot pre layoff?
I assert that the footage of Flynt that was presented as post-layoff was actually post-layoff, and not pre-layoff. And I have provided just as much evidence as you have.
I think it is pretty clear that Micheal Moore is winning arguments amongst the undecided, and that it is only partisans amongst the opposing "choir" who remain unconvinced.
Again with the generalities. Micheal Moore IS good, not only can he manipulate people, he can evidently erase all evidence of manipulation from their brains, rendering them incapable of even pointing out HOW they had been manipulated! The man is an evil genius!
No, you didn't point out anything. You linked to something you claim illustrates your point, not to anything specific. Here is my rebuttal, using your same technique: go google "Micheal Moore telling the truth." There, now I have refuted your point with the same intellectual rigor that you provided. Wheee! Isn't debate fun?
This is good, it is almost an example. You've come the closest of anyone so far, anyway. I've heard this before, though, and the worst that can be said is that the certain lines were taken out of context. It is not as though meanings were reversed or Moore edited the speech to make it sound as though Heston were saying something the opposite of what he was actually saying.
If I recall, the comment that caused the uproar was Heston's "cold dead hands" comment. Was Heston insensitive enough make a comment about cold dead hands at Columbine? No. Was Moore trying to make it seem as if he were that insensitive? I don't think so. I think everyone could tell that they were two different speeches, what with the completely different stage, clothing, lighting, etc.
But I will give you a point for illustrating a technique that Micheal Moore uses that may be considered a bit over the top and manipulative. I think I can understand why some people don't like it. I guess it could be considered "hitting you over the head to make a point."
I know he is convincing people because (and here I will use the technique his detractors have been using all along) I READ IT ON THE INTERNET. There. That is all the proof I need, based on the standards of evidence used so far.
God is a monster, agreed, and I was using the phrase humorously, thus the olde-timey "Lord God Himself" phrasing. The idea being that a hypothetical perfect and omniscient being could lecture these assholes on The Truth for all of eternity and they still wouldn't believe anything they don't feel like believing, because they are not fact based thinkers, they are emotion based feelers.
Care to provide an example of his sleazy argumentation tricks? No? Well, I had to ask, just for form's sake. I've been asking everyone. Amazingly, no one has replied with anything concrete, just a bunch of appeals to emotion. Speaking of bad argumentation, you have it.
Show me where Micheal Moore does anything even remotely similar to your made up analogy. I can't even understand what you are comparing. Give some specifics of him doing what you claim.
Slashdot Mirror
That, at least, is completely honest. Personally, I don't like liver. Some people like liver. Funny old world, innit?
nothing untrue
Noted.
but full of exaggerations, omissions, and misleading assumptions.
These are weasel words. One person's 'exaggeration' is another person's 'emphasis.'
BfC:
He said, she said. Hearsay. Not actual evidence.
F9/11:
Who put Saddam in power, FFS?
C:aLS
Wal Mart claims they canceled policies, and you believe that they carried out that cancellation? Okay.
Sicko:
You got nothing but opinion here. You could not cherry pick ANY stats that make look like the best. Go ahead, try.
Congratulations. You came closer to presenting actual applicable evidence than anyone else!
Hilarious, yes, but still a totally false equivalency. Barry is nowhere near as retarded as Bush. You got one quote. One. Those Bush quotes aren't even the tip of the iceberg. Dude was DUMB, man. Fucking stupid. Calling him retarded is an insult to the mentally challenged. There's a guy working down in the lobby of my building selling popcorn as part of a special needs program. He'd make a better president than Bush did.
Okay, first, the poster gets the main theme of the movie wrong. It is not about gun control. Moore realizes in the movie that guns are not the problem. We are not gun nuts. We are just nuts. Canada has no gun control, plenty of guns, and little gun violence. Moore points this out quite clearly.
Next, the poster raises "good points?" Did you read them? He basically negates all his own points. I responded below, pointing out how silly his so called points are. I'm not repeating myself here for your benefit. Read below.
Right, I agree that Moore writes movies that support his views. He writes movies to make a point. But, as in Bowling for Columbine, he will let facts change his mind. He set out to write a pro gun control movie, but when confronted with evidence that shows his premises are incorrect, he changes his mind, and lets us see the process.
The thing is, movies that present both sides do not change people's minds. When you let people think for themselves, they will think what they have always thought. If you do try to change their minds, they will still think what they have always thought. Most people find changing their minds quite painful.
Finally, do you honestly suppose that there is such an animal as the bias free documentary, where both sides are presented fairly? If you believe that, I have a documentary film about the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.
You raise a very good point, emotions can be powerful and accurate tools for quickly processing complex, incomplete, and contradictory information. However, there is a reason that rational thought has superseded emotions. Emotions are home to unseen biases, they arrive at conclusions quickly but are not always accurate. Emotions can not examine the methods they used to arrive at a feeling. Logic can, but most people make logic a slave to emotions. They feel first, think second. They use a pretense of logic to justify their emotional response. But it is important to remember that emotions and rational thought are two separate things. Claiming that one arrived at a conclusion after thinking it through carries more weight with others than a "gut feeling," and with good reason. It is dishonest to claim that one is being logical when in fact logic is only playing a subordinate role to the feeling of certainty.
I am positing that most people who criticize Moore do not like the conclusions he reaches. He says things which can cause cognitive dissonance in most people. People do not like the feeling of having their world view invalidated, and Moore's films invalidate some people's world views. This feels like a death threat to most people.
Feeling their core identity threatened, they naturally do not like the person who made them feel that way. But they have no logical reason for feeling that way, and they can not admit that their world view was threatened. Admitting your world view has been threatened means it actually can be threatened, which means that there are contradictions in it. So they have to invent reasons for not liking the man that have nothing to do with the fact that he basically showed them they are living a lie.
Snopes says those are all actual quotes from our dear ex-president. Idiots say the darndest things, don't they?
Good point, except for the part where Moore wasn't purposefully misrepresenting the truth. He can't help it that some people take things too literally. And some people take things too literally, to try to make a point. They get outraged about things because they want to get outraged. The outrage came first, and then a reason was found for the outrage, but the outrage preceded the reason.
Oh give it a rest, anonymous. Do you have any idea how bad your pathetic excuses look? You aren't playing eleven dimensional chess here. You aren't fighting the good fight. You are a bunch of clueless angry loons looking for any excuse for a bit of mindless destruction. Anonymous is a goddamn clown cannon, lobbing retarded circus freaks in random trajectories, hurting what you try to help and helping what you try to hurt. You are a joke.
I think your drastically missing the point, they don't want to disrupt core business process and have already stated this. They are simply trolling these companies by mangling the customer facing entities. As far as the amazon.com attack it's /b/latent its another entry level blogger who hasn't invested any time into the topic whatsoever. 1200 end systems DDoSing Amazon cloud is at best a thorn and nothing more. With more interest and that number increasing...it can become very disrupting.
Hey look everybody, it's defensive denials and excuses from Anonymous. Don't worry, bug guy, we're all still terrified of your awesome powers. We all believe you when you say this was all according to plan, and we all know you could have taken down Amazon if you'd really wanted too. Don't cry, nobody is calling you and your associates pathetic failures and loser script kiddies who have an overly inflated sense of their impact on world events.
You fucking cretin, how can you claim that I both did and did not address an issue? He raised the central theme of the movie as an issue. I showed that he completely misunderstood the theme of the movie.
Next, he says "Moore may have had a point about the ammo, but fails to mention K-Mart was in the process of maybe someday banning sales of ammo." Riiiiiight.
So his only legitimate point was that Moore ambushed Dick Clark. Oh my fucking god, a documentary maker ambushing a subject. Don't watch 60 Minutes dude, your head will explode.
And he didn't point out that Clark's poor fudge packer had no better options than to work for Clark. Well, that was the whole point of the movie, how did you miss it? Capitalism offers people a choice between starving to death or eating whatever shit is served to them.
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It’s a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
“Is our children learning?”
“Will the highways of the Internet become more few?”
“Do you have Blacks in Brazil?”
“Why dont’t the French have a word for ‘entrepreneur’?”
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pant leg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the toll booth!
Make the economy gooder!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
The first link has nothing to do with Micheal Moore, except to say in a very partisan fashion that the commercial they ARE critiquing is even more dishonest than he is.
The second link raises several issues, and rates most of them as "true" or "mostly true." The ones that are rated false, such as "America supports single payer" are debatable. Nowadays, most Americans DO support a single payer system, though that might not have been true at the time of the movie. Many of the points labeled as false are only false on a technicality, like the claim that youth are evenly split on support for capitalism and socialism. That is true, according to politifact, the falsehood is in the timing, as the one poll they cite happened after the 2008 election, and they say that Moore claimed it to be true before the election.
Of the six points raised in the second link, four are rated as true, mostly true, or partly true. Of the nine "related points" raised in the sidebar, seven are rated true, mostly true, or partly true. I think you should check the links you use to support your positions, to see if they actually support your positions, or do the opposite.
Point well made, and point taken. I will only point out that esteemed television news shows such as "Sixty Minutes" also make use of the adversarial interview. Is it grandstanding when a journalist ambushes a subject and asks them uncomfortable questions? If so, then journalists do a lot of grandstanding.
I agree with More's politics, but I did not consider Heston insensitive. I thought it was obvious that Moore was illustrating the stupidity of the 'cold, dead hands' rhetoric by comparing it to actual cold, dead hands. He was not trying to make it seems as though Heston had made that comment at Columbine, IMHO.
Why would I want to argue about the statement? It's true. I wouldn't argue against the statement, but against the unstated premise that killing people is better than letting them commit a crime. It isn't an infuriating statement, it just appears uninformed and ill-considered.
Do you have proof that the footage of Flynt that was purported to be post layoff was actually shot pre layoff?
I assert that the footage of Flynt that was presented as post-layoff was actually post-layoff, and not pre-layoff. And I have provided just as much evidence as you have.
I like a clean brain, which is why I choose to bathe it in the cool, clear waters of The Truth now and then. You should try it.
I think it is pretty clear that Micheal Moore is winning arguments amongst the undecided, and that it is only partisans amongst the opposing "choir" who remain unconvinced.
Again with the generalities. Micheal Moore IS good, not only can he manipulate people, he can evidently erase all evidence of manipulation from their brains, rendering them incapable of even pointing out HOW they had been manipulated! The man is an evil genius!
No, you didn't point out anything. You linked to something you claim illustrates your point, not to anything specific. Here is my rebuttal, using your same technique: go google "Micheal Moore telling the truth." There, now I have refuted your point with the same intellectual rigor that you provided. Wheee! Isn't debate fun?
This is good, it is almost an example. You've come the closest of anyone so far, anyway. I've heard this before, though, and the worst that can be said is that the certain lines were taken out of context. It is not as though meanings were reversed or Moore edited the speech to make it sound as though Heston were saying something the opposite of what he was actually saying.
If I recall, the comment that caused the uproar was Heston's "cold dead hands" comment. Was Heston insensitive enough make a comment about cold dead hands at Columbine? No. Was Moore trying to make it seem as if he were that insensitive? I don't think so. I think everyone could tell that they were two different speeches, what with the completely different stage, clothing, lighting, etc.
But I will give you a point for illustrating a technique that Micheal Moore uses that may be considered a bit over the top and manipulative. I think I can understand why some people don't like it. I guess it could be considered "hitting you over the head to make a point."
Fucking Examples, How Do They Work?
Anyone? Anyone? Examples. We are looking for examples here. Anyone? No? Color me shocked.
I know he is convincing people because (and here I will use the technique his detractors have been using all along) I READ IT ON THE INTERNET. There. That is all the proof I need, based on the standards of evidence used so far.
God is a monster, agreed, and I was using the phrase humorously, thus the olde-timey "Lord God Himself" phrasing. The idea being that a hypothetical perfect and omniscient being could lecture these assholes on The Truth for all of eternity and they still wouldn't believe anything they don't feel like believing, because they are not fact based thinkers, they are emotion based feelers.
Care to provide an example of his sleazy argumentation tricks? No? Well, I had to ask, just for form's sake. I've been asking everyone. Amazingly, no one has replied with anything concrete, just a bunch of appeals to emotion. Speaking of bad argumentation, you have it.
Show me where Micheal Moore does anything even remotely similar to your made up analogy. I can't even understand what you are comparing. Give some specifics of him doing what you claim.