|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I've never seen any of his films or read any of his books... |
...but you are going to jump into this discussion defending the man anyway, just because you don't like Bill O'Riley? Come on.
I, too, strongly disagree with O'Riley and others -- Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh immediately come to mind -- but I have seen enough of Moore's "work" to know b.s. when I see it.
And calling him "scholarly" represents the height of absurdity. He failed to even graduate college.
You can take this or leave it, Ya-ta. But at least look at Moore and his assertions before defending his methods and applauding his politics. Or at least listen to what some of those who claim he has maligned them are saying...
| Quote: |
A few years ago Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"
Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me -- I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.
The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels... |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/main619287.shtml
And Spinoza: you are either a partisan or so far out of the loop over there in Korea that you truly lack familiarity with what I reviewed for you in my post. So sorry, I am not going to come here and reinvent the wheel with respect to the credibility issues that surround Michael Moore. |
This information in that link is not evidence that Moore's assertions are wrong. It's also a weak source, full of colloquialisms.
It does not follow that Moore's work lacks scholarlyness from the assertion that he didn't graduate college.
I said that Moore's books have a list of sources and references, as I recall. Moore seeks to back his points up rather than merely assert. Is this not the case? Are Moore's citations incorrect?
I wanna see a complete refutation of Moore. I wanna see real evidence of deliberate misinformation, not evidence of one-sidedness. If not, I shall continue to accept his theses to some extent and consider him a very worthwhile opponent of Right Wing America and the disgusting subhuman pollution that festers there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
I think Michael Moore's movies are very entertaining, but anyone who tkes them as factual documentaries is a complete idiot *cough* OH *cough* or has a serious agenda against the U.S. government.
We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false. |
Oh good Lord.
*We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies.
Yup, full of lies, we know. But where please?
*The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number).
And what conclusion does the author feel I should draw from this observation about the free toll number? Assuming this indeed false, okay, and?
*The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false
The bold lacks justification and doesn't even follow from the premises. |
Read the damned link, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
I think Michael Moore's movies are very entertaining, but anyone who tkes them as factual documentaries is a complete idiot *cough* OH *cough* or has a serious agenda against the U.S. government.
We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false. |
Oh good Lord.
*We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies.
Yup, full of lies, we know. But where please?
*The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number).
And what conclusion does the author feel I should draw from this observation about the free toll number? Assuming this indeed false, okay, and?
*The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false
The bold lacks justification and doesn't even follow from the premises. |
Read the damned link, please. |
I can't be arsed. The bit you quoted sucked beyond belief and I see little reason to pursue the rest, given you presumably think the bit you quoted is the most meaty bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| I wanna see... |
You challenged me when I mentioned Moore's appealing to emotion and his inciting the far left's righteous outrage, remember?
It has something to do with bringing people like you to a state where reasoned debate is no longer possible, where only angry allegations and counter-allegations remain. And, moreoever, closed-mindedness predominates. Hardly helpful in a democratic environment where constructive debate, above all else, is increasingly needed.
In any case, there is nothing that I could posssibly present here that would satisfy you and change your mind, Spinoza. You know what you know and that is that.
Again, good for you. But Moore will only continue to appeal to those who are already caught up in his extremist politics, not unlike...
| Spinoza wrote: |
| ...and the disgusting subhuman pollution that festers there. |
...yourself.
Another leftist extremist, a malcontent, full of bile, caught up in rigid but artificial either/or choices, who righteously believes that two wrongs make a right, and that the ends justify the means.
I wager you have it in your head that, since I object to Moore, then I must be a non-thinking, overly-patriotic W. Bush defender, no? Part of America's "festering, disgusting subhuman pollution?" Thanks but no thanks. I think I just wasted my time here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apologies for the pollution comment. That was very rude and, yes, I'm angry as hell and wanna see right wing America get anally raped. Damn! There I go again.
Still waiting for the lies. I know I'm rude, but I've asked you to comment specifically on Moore's lies and inaccuracies and you've actually refused. Can you at least refer me to previous threads discussing the matter for me to pursue? Remember - if Moore's as wrong as you folks say, I'll reject any association I once had with Moore's views. I'm risking complete ridicule on my beloved Daves. I wanna see Moore crushed to justify the boo boys. Until then.....I'm sorry, but I'm pretty happy with Moore's findings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| ...I'm pretty happy with Moore's findings. |
No doubt you are.
But you have studiously ignored the two human subjects -- Fred Barnes and Sgt. Peter Damon -- who have gone on the record with strong objections that Moore not only cited them out of context, but manipulated their interview in the editing process to mischaracterize their views and/or outright fabricated their responses to support his "research findings." You call this mere one-sidedness. But Moore has crossed the line and waded into propaganda territory.
You do not seem to object to this, because you applaud his aims. That is, again, your right. But stop this stubborn refusal to recognize what Moore is doing.
No academic or scholarly press would tolerate such liberties with human subjects. As you may or may not know, some of us value intellectual honesty and integrity and not all of us fall back into defining our work as "satire" when pressed on such issues... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| ...I'm pretty happy with Moore's findings. |
No doubt you are.
But you have studiously ignored the two human subjects -- Fred Barnes and Sgt. Peter Damon -- who have gone on the record with strong objections that Moore not only cited them out of context, but manipulated their interview in the editing process to mischaracterize their views and/or outright fabricated their responses to support his "research findings." You call this mere one-sidedness. But Moore has crossed the line and waded into propaganda territory.
|
I haven't studiously ignored it. I did the opposite of ignore the article in the OP, where the case against Moore collapsed.
Why are you still pursuing this argument, at least with regard to Damon?
| Quote: |
| No academic or scholarly press would tolerate such liberties with human subjects |
"Sgt Damon appeared for 16 seconds out of a 2-hour and 10-minute film and that the quotes were used verbatim and not manipulated to make him appear to hold an anti-war viewpoint"
(the link in the OP)
| Quote: |
| As you may or may not know, some of us value intellectual honesty and integrity and not all of us fall back into defining | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
