Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

[PvK]

Attrocities, even if I accept all your premises as fact without questioning, the logic of what you wrote seems absent.

You acknowldge logic, and then dismiss it based on fixed belief:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
You make good points, but the problem with Moore is that he HATES debating his point of view.
... and ...
There is no debating this movie. It is a one sided representation of one mans hatred of another. Nuff said.

Then you write as if you know both Moore's intention and the facts:

He just wants everyone to accept it as reality when in fact it is just jibberish and conspiricy theories.

Then, I certainly hope your Last line is ironic and not serious:

... Hell if Disney pulled it from the US market then you know there was something wrong with it.

What's sad is that Baptist/corporate Disney does determine a significant part of Americans' education and exposure to ideas, by its huge presence in the entertainment media.

Not to mention Fox and the rest of the corporate US "news" media, with their IQ 90 or less target demo pretending to fill the role of journalists, and thereby obstructing public contact with intelligent journalism.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by Slynky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogscoff:
...
Are you sure you're watching the news and not the Cosby Show?
...

Good point... The Cosby Show is way more intelligent and open-minded than the current US entertainment/corporateagenda/news/entertainment/industry.

PvK

---

Actually, I read (a long time ago) that the Cosby Show contained subtle racism...that there was an intent in the show to show caucasions in the same kind of negative light that some many shows (before that) showed African-Americans.

---

Ok. I omitted the background that I'm no fan nor advocate of the Cosby Show, either.

PvK

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
There is no debating this movie. It is a one sided representation of one mans hatred of another. Nuff said.

Why would I want to pay Moore to see his no counter point documentarial attack on the Bush when he himself has admitted that it is a bit "far fetched" and such.

Well, to extract a quote from below:

"But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your first amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat."

Personally, you're free to feel how you feel (in fact, I served to help maintain those freedoms) but I have to agree with the above remark. I, being a somewhat intelligent and open-minded individual, have a hard time understanding people who hate something and do so without the privilege of having firsthand knowledge of it. Good thing everyone doesn't do that all the time, or so-and-so would would hate Asians merely because of all the stories his (biased) friends told him.

Me? I'm not scared of looking into something I disagree with just to see if all the related material I based my opinions on prior to this event were, in fact, erroneous themselves! Currently, on the US/Iraq topic, many many more highly educated/informed people than you and I have began to wonder what the heck was going on as there still have been no weapons of mass destruction and just recently, a panel has shown there to be (it seems) no connection between Al Queda and Iraq. You would think intelligent and open-minded people would begin asking questions instead of blindly accepting what the administration told them (us) over a year ago.

[Atrocities]

PvK I don't mean to confuse you or any one. I honestly just don't really care to debate sematics or peoples take on what they think was said.

I trust in that people will either accept what I say or will not. If they choose not to then that is fine with me.

When the debate turns south and every word is reflected upon for meaning, that is when I say take it or leave it for whatever you want it to mean.

If you want to break down what I said and try to use it against me well that is your given right and I really could careless.

[AMF]

The point I was trying to make is that it is not semantics at all, in fact, it's the opposite. Words do have meaning (unless you're a hardcore deconstructionist, and there are probably very few of those on this forum I suspect) and by your words it really does appear that what you said was that you don't care about the movie, you care about Moore. Which is fine. Repeat: fine. BUT but to then take that statement as a condemnation of the movie is contrary to basic logic. Am I getting it wrong?

So, just to be snarky ( ) I'll repeat an earlier question: if "farhenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly identical, would you go see it?

Originally posted by Atrocities:
PvK I don't mean to confuse you or any one. I honestly just don't really care to debate sematics or peoples take on what they think was said.

I trust in that people will either accept what I say or will not. If they choose not to then that is fine with me.

When the debate turns south and every word is reflected upon for meaning, that is when I say take it or leave it for whatever you want it to mean.

If you want to break down what I said and try to use it against me well that is your given right and I really could careless.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Slynky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atrocities:
There is no debating this movie. It is a one sided representation of one mans hatred of another. Nuff said.

Why would I want to pay Moore to see his no counter point documentarial attack on the Bush when he himself has admitted that it is a bit "far fetched" and such.

Well, to extract a quote from below:

"But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your first amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat."

Personally, you're free to feel how you feel (in fact, I served to help maintain those freedoms) but I have to agree with the above remark. I, being a somewhat intelligent and open-minded individual, have a hard time understanding people who hate something and do so without the privilege of having firsthand knowledge of it. Good thing everyone doesn't do that all the time, or so-and-so would would hate Asians merely because of all the stories his (biased) friends told him.

Me? I'm not scared of looking into something I disagree with just to see if all the related material I based my opinions on prior to this event were, in fact, erroneous themselves! Currently, on the US/Iraq topic, many many more highly educated/informed people than you and I have began to wonder what the heck was going on as there still have been no weapons of mass destruction and just recently, a panel has shown there to be (it seems) no connection between Al Queda and Iraq. You would think intelligent and open-minded people would begin asking questions instead of blindly accepting what the administration told them (us) over a year ago.

---

I am informed about Mr. Moores tactics and choices when it comes to making his documentaries. I may not have seen his movie to know that it is what it is.

[ June 16, 2004, 18:10: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[AMF]

Dude! The Cosby show rocks! It's like the "Leave it to Beaver" of the 80-90s!

Originally posted by PvK:
...I omitted the background that I'm no fan nor advocate of the Cosby Show, either.

PvK

[ June 16, 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by alarikf:
The point I was trying to make is that it is not semantics at all, in fact, it's the opposite. Words do have meaning (unless you're a hardcore deconstructionist, and there are probably very few of those on this forum I suspect) and by your words it really does appear that what you said was that you don't care about the movie, you care about Moore. Which is fine. Repeat: fine. BUT but to then take that statement as a condemnation of the movie is contrary to basic logic. Am I getting it wrong?

So, just to be snarky ( ) I'll repeat an earlier question: if "farhenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly identical, would you go see it?

[/QB][/quote]

I guess the point your trying to make is that I should see the movie before commenting on it. I understand that POV however knowning the Man who made the movie allows me an insight into what the movie will have to say. I simply do not wish to suffor that kind of one sided arguement.

I have neither read or seen anything about this movie that would redeem it enough in my eyes for me to consider seeing it.

I am sorry, but that is how I honestly feel.

Edit
I did respond to your question. (OBTW good question too )

quote:
Thought experiment: if "Farenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly the same, would you see it?

No I would not. Again it boils down to a one side view. I just want the full picture not someones subjective views on it who refuse to listen to or suffor counter opinions.

[ June 16, 2004, 18:18: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[AMF]

I'll take the bait

So, let me see. First, I think I must not have been that clear. I didn't intent to say that having an opinion of the movie based on an opinion of Moore is "jacka**ed" in some way. Rather I'm just saying it's illogical. Illogical in the sense that from an logic 101 "If A= B and B = C then A = C" point of view.

So, with that in mind, when you say "my opinion that it is a bad movie without having seen it first is an abrgation of my 1st ammendment would be in and of itself an abrogation of my first amendment rights."

Is absolutely true logically and content-wise. But just to clarify: you're stating the same right that people claim when they say "Hey, no one can force me to vote!"

Is absolutely true. And pretty silly, as well.


It is also true, as you state, that "I am free to have my own opinion of this movie and the man without ever having seen it."

But, it is not valid, therefore, to claim that you are making this statement based on logic, nor can you then, legitimately, make further claims based on logic.

And, just becuase you dared someone too, you then go on to say "no matter what someone else may think or say about my right to comment on this movie without having seen it, is false logic." But the entire earlier statement is based on false logic. Now I've confused myself, actually, but its clear to me that we've reached a point herein where a meeting of the minds seems unlikely, since we're effectively talking using two different langauges. (I really do need to bone up on my habermas to understand this better)

From Webster's:

ad hom·i·nem : Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

More at:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Here we go again. Fore the record I could careless about seeing the movie and quite frankly I don't need some one telling me that I am a jackass for having my opinion even though I have not seen the movie and that I have no right to say that I don't want to see it based off of my opinion of Moore. To accept the logic that I must see the movie before I can say I don't want to, or that my opinion that it is a bad movie without having seen it first is an abrgation of my 1st ammendment would be in and of itself an abrogation of my first amendment rights.

Simply put, I am free to have my own opinion of this movie and the man without ever having seen it. I know Moore and that is enough for me to say that this movie is a continued representation of his historical pattern to only present his one sided views.

Now feel free to call me what you wish, but please keep in mind that no matter what someone else may think or say about my right to comment on this movie without having seen it, is false logic. And if you quote me on this, and I know someone will, keep in mind that if I upset you enough to quote me, then you take the internet far to seriously.

[AMF]

Cool, now I got it.

Why are you "sorry"? especially for how you "honestly feel"? gads, one should never be sorry for that, of all things! Oh, but, wait, you probably mean "sorry" in the sense of not apoligizing for an action but apologizing for perceived offense given. Well, no offense taken here, so no worries there. Sorry!

Did't see your reply earlier. Thansk for the clarification. My bad.

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I guess the point your trying to make is that I should see the movie before commenting on it. I understand that POV however knowning the Man who made the movie allows me an insight into what the movie will have to say. I simply do not wish to suffor that kind of one sided arguement.

I have neither read or seen anything about this movie that would redeem it enough in my eyes for me to consider seeing it.

I am sorry, but that is how I honestly feel.

Edit
I did respond to your question. (OBTW good question too )

quote:
Thought experiment: if "Farenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly the same, would you see it?

No I would not. Again it boils down to a one side view. I just want the full picture not someones subjective views on it who refuse to listen to or suffor counter opinions.