Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Is Michael Moore right to praise British way of medicine?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Is Michael Moore right to praise British way of medicine?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:29 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

The author of the article I cited above, for example, takes Al Gore to task for his manipulative claims on the environment -- in this case, deforestation.

Al Gore wrote:

One tragic example of the loss of forests and then water is found in Ethiopia. The amount of its forested land has decreased from 40 to 1 percent in the last four decades...The effects of the prolonged drought that have resulted have combined with the incompetence of its government to produce an epic tragedy, famine, civil war, and economic turmoil have wreaked havoc on an ancient and once-proud nation.

James C. McCann wrote:

Is there an empirical foundation for the precise, didactic deforestation figures offered by Gore? From where do those deforestation statistics derive...?

Gore's comments...rested upon a thirty-year history of involuted citations of unsubstantiated "fact" in the absence of field evidence...These statistics on Ethiopia's twentieth-century deforestation have been repeated in meetings, in policy briefings, and in university lectures on several continents, always without a foundation in evidence from Ethiopia's actual landscapes...

Ethiopia's forest degredation narrative...asserts a historical baseline...when no systematic survey data was available...[it] makes a specific argument that degredation is cumulative and has its origins in human mismanagement...it makes an apocalyptic forecast.

First, there is nothing in the quotes you place here that states that Gore is irrefutably wrong. McCann makes an argument that I am unaware of being designated Gospel. Please show us where his work is claimed as more than theoretical.

To claim Gore is using propaganda when he is, by your own account, using much-used info. Do you know that Gore was aware of McCann's work? Do you know that Gore wasn't persuaded by other researchers that McCann is off? I can't help thinking the answer to both questions is, "No." If so, you have just engaged in....

propaganda and character assassination.

Not for the first time.

All this while the Arctic is starting its slow cooling from the lowest arctic minimum ice extent in our records. But, yes, let's argue over whether Gore was correct about how many trees there were in Ethiopia. It is so much more relevant. Nevermind those droughts in Australia, either...

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:35 am Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

keane wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

maybe it's time for you to try a new tact with him?

Maybe you should upbraid the one who spittles this and that and can't be bothered to stop using name-calling in every post? Also the one who has responded to not one of my posts since joining with 1. relative content or 2. without insulting.

It is not I who needs a new tack, my dear Ms. Bird. As long as he wishes to be juvenile, I shall make him pay for it. He is welcome any time to start posting like an adult.

I'm sure the irony of this post is lost on no one but you.

I'm sure the irony will never seep into your biased little brain, friend. Feel free to check every post Gopher has made in response to me. Don't forget to include the thread swamped under by the fools with irrelevant posts.

Now be quiet until you get some objectivity. When was the last time you upbraided gopher for being insulting? Never? That's what I thought.

Get some ethics, friend.

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:35 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

If only you could prove your own points that way!

SPINOZA

Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:52 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Big_Bird: let us return to this moment in this exchange:

Gopher wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

I think he serves a purpose. While there are plenty of thoughtful people who are able to 'see through' his tactics, there are so many other people who need things put to them in simple and sensational terms before they will begin to demand any action, or even consider the issue at all...

Sounds like Goebbels.

I would rather cultivate and nurture an informed, reasonable republican democracy than one that relies on mass-oriented propaganda campaigns.

I recall your arguing that this was very necessary, all for the greater good, of course. But at the end of the day, it remains propagandistic and manipulative.

We know that Moore chronically does this.

"Of his journalistic style, Moore said: "It's the op-ed page. You don't say that's not journalism. I present my opinion, my take on things, based on indisputable facts. They could be wrong. I think they're right.""

http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2007/story/0,,2083430,00.html

Quote:

I mentioned some of us seeing similar issues in the global-warming debate. Thus our skepticism about at least some of its claims.

Explain your skepticism to these people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Gopher wrote:

The author of the article I cited above, for example, takes Al Gore to task for his manipulative claims on the environment -- in this case, deforestation.

Al Gore wrote:

James C. McCann wrote:

Is that the final word on this? You need to show that you know that in order to make this point.

Quote:

The above can very easily be taken out of context - for example, not understand the bit I've underlined. It's an extremely odd sentence to the layman, because the adjective "Amazonian" presupposes appearance on the South American continent, which, I assume but don't know because there's no context, the writer disputes.

Quote:

Why would Gore and the others do this, Big_Bird -- in Ethiopia, in the Amazon, or in Michael Moore's "America?" We have already answered this, above, no? And you approve, right? You clarify that you dislike it. But, ultimately, you think it is necessary.

Do you have evidence that it was done fraudulently and not innocent incompetence? Gore too, like Moore, brought a problem (global warming) to the attention of Americans and other citizens (in the way Big_Bird described above---bringing big, complex things to the hoi polloi in relatively simple, sensationalist ways.

Quote:

But in the meantime, people like Moore, Gore, and those who would follow them uncritically here, have created a series of metaphors and an all-too-familiar discursive trope.

Use plain English.

Quote:

One with a moral at the end of the story that almost always features modern capitalism as the villain.

Whether your equation of left-wing politics with concern for the environment is valid remains an open question.

Moore attacks healthcare in the US. Moore's subliminal point in 'Sicko' relates to the structure of American society - not modern capitalism. Bit of a difference you've chosen to ignore.

Quote:

One
You -- and I am speaking in the plural -- endorse this to further the greater good. People are not intelligent or wise enough to deal with reasonable debate, or at least they will not take the action you want them to take without being manipulated. Yet your metaphors and discursive trope have taken on a life of their own, you yourselves have bought into them as if they represented reality itself, and, like our cracker-eating friend Spinoza, above, you will defend these metaphors and discursive trope to the bitter end because you have invested much if not all of your political capital and emotional involvement into their being "true."

Whiny prose.

Quote:

This is why some of us view some of your claims suspiciously. Like Gore's statistics out-of-thin-air or Slater's Amazonian tree-types that never existed in the Amazon (or anywhere else on the South-American continent, for that matter), you are not even discussing issues like "health-care" or "global warming" per se in-as-much as seizing on them as convenient pretexts to further your own radical-leftist, anti-capitalist, and, in Moore's case, antiAmerican political agendas...

The charge of anti-Americanism against someone who doesn't take your perspective on things is extremely anti-American.

Quote:

This is not to suggest that I reduce the entire issue to this, or say that there is no room for health-care reform or that global-warming does not pose problems that we ought to address. But your manipulative style nevertheless clouds and muddles the debate with, from your point-of-view, I think, things like "baggage" and "resistance" you would be better off without. Again, why not simply speak plainly and reasonably on these and other issues? Cite data fairly, honestly, and, most of all, non-manipulatively?

It's manipulative of you to show evidence of what you feel are manipulations without actually providing evidence that they're fraudulent (and not incompetent). You need to know this (and make sure your reader subsequently knows this) in order to make the above point.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 5:01 am Post subject:

Spinoza: now you are acting not only the burro, but an especially obtuse one. "American society?" What forces have shaped "American society," Spinoza...? Your commitment to apologizing for and defending your hero to-the-death is admirable, however.

"Trope" is not "plain English?" I would advise you to get out of proudly showcasing British slang and get into educated English for a change. Until then, get a dictionary.

The below text is to further clarify my position for Big_Bird.

Big_Bird wrote:

...if you want to get results, you have to manipulate the population in the most effective manner. And unfortunately, a large percentage of people do respond to sensationalist propaganda.

In the example I cited, above, Gore relied on a narrative trope, a declinsionist one sure to excite the population, and cited no evidence whatsoever. Some may wish to apologize for this until the end of time. Just an innocent error, they might allege, in Gore's defense. But at the end of the day, scholars have shown that he simply and unforgiveably made it up as he went along because it suited his political purposes, come what may.

This trope saw patches of forest in the savanna and concluded that native misuse had resulted in the forest's destruction over time, thus harming Ethiopia's "environment" and thus contributing to the global trend that threatens to, according to some environmentalists, negatively impact all human and other life on this planet.

Many people in high places looked at this and concluded that there must have been a larger forest in the past. They based this on nothing more than their impression that small patches of forest must mean that there had been a larger forest there in the past. That which remained must have been the forest's last-stand, so to speak -- no pun intended.

Gore took all of this uncritically and at face value. His alleged 40 to 1 percent decrease seems to have been one of those 46.7% of all statistics that people who cite them invent on-the-spot. Who knows? As I have already clarified, Gore has never responded and cited his source or expanded on how he arrived at this conclusion. He merely retreats to his "something-must-be-done!" position.

McCann and other environmental historians reviewed multiple sets of data (overhead imagery over time from research satellites, aerial photography now housed in historical archives and dating much earlier from air-recon or -survey missions, and a systematic look at colonial-era reports and travelers' accounts) and concluded that the native human presence there had actually resulted in the creation of these patches of forest where none had previously existed. The kind of forest Gore and others had imagined must have once existed in fact never existed. They had got the process there the-other-way-around. Further, the native human presence was leading to an increase in biodiversity over time in some areas.

All of this might have been comical but for the human consequences: from early "conservationist" advocates to contemporary "save-the-planet" partisans like Gore, outsiders have advised late-colonial-era and modern nationalist-era Ethiopian governments to adopt harsh and indeed suppressive policies to prevent the native human presence (various local peoples and cultures on the ground in various parts of Ethiopia) from "further eroding Ethiopia's forest." This involved not only restricting their economic activities but also controling their freedom-of-movement -- that is, migration, seasonal or otherwise -- with military force.

This Michael-Moore-style propagandistic approach, then, this desperate need to manipulate information or simply invent it in order to ensure that people you assume to be stupid (again, like Hitler and the rest of the Nazi leadership, Moore thinks "the people," that is "the American people" in his case, are the stupidest people on the planet) get your point and take the desired action sometimes harms innocent people.

Have you considered these kinds of consequences...?

Last edited by Gopher on Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:58 pm; edited 3 times in total

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 6:27 am Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

If only you could prove your own points that way!

There is only one reason to so strenuously claim another person is incoherent: it is to protect yourself. Don't you find it odd it is the same small group that repeats this tripe, friend?

Expand your horizons: think for yourself.

Be a man: Look at virtually ANY post by gopher in response to me. What do you see? Bullshit. How you defend that, I do not know. But in doing so, you demean yourself, not me.

I keep the spotlight on Gopher because I consider him the single least honest poster on these boards and because of his complete hypocrisy. Why? Look at what his constant howling has achieved: you believe it even though you can pull up any post of his in response to me and find.... nothing but insults and derision. He uses BLT in EVERY post. What do you say about it? Nothing. Hypocrisy. I offer critique. He offers straw men. You prefer the latter. Your choice, but consider how it reflects on you.

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 6:36 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

He uses BLT in EVERY post. What do you say about it? Nothing.

Why shouldn't he? You were banned, yet you have come back under a different pseudonym. You are "sandwich boy," and you were banned for doing the same crap you're doing now.

Gopher "insults" you? At least he does it in a mature way. You stoop to childish levels. I would much rather see people engage in discourse of the level of Gopher than to see people scream and insult in the style of EFLTrainer.

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 6:40 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Gore took all of this uncritically and at face value.

You say he believed it? But didn't you call it... propaganda?

Quote:

...these patches of forest where none had previously existed. The kind of forest Gore and others had imagined must have once existed in fact never existed. They had got the process there the-other-way-around.

Again, they believed it to be true? You DID call it propaganda, right?

Quote:

This Michael-Moore-style propagandistic approach, then, this desperate need to manipulate information or simply invent it in order to ensure that people you assume to be stupid (again, like Hitler and the rest of the Nazi leadership, Moore thinks "the people," that is "the American people" in his case, are the stupidest people on the planet) get your point and take the desired action sometimes harms innocent people.

You contradict yourself, little friend.

Have you considered the consequences self-contradiction?

Your call for considering the effects is weak. It inherently states that because someone may be damaged by mistakes along the way, do nothing. And all this from one tiny, tiny part of the global warming issue. This is what naysayers do: they cherry pick and ignore the huge preponderance of other data.

Been to the ol' Arctic of late? How about Australia? No? Suggest you visit. IF your bread is getting a bit expensive, call your not-so-local Aussie wheat farmer.

Last edited by keane on Thu Sep 27, 2007 6:47 am; edited 1 time in total

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 6:45 am Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

keane wrote:

He uses BLT in EVERY post. What do you say about it? Nothing.

I have not been banned. Check my start date, friend. You OK insults by your friends, but not people you disagree with. This is small. This is illogical. This is what is wrong with the world. This is why I post as I do. Anyone with so little intellectual honesty deserves no respect. My postings are an object lesson to you and people like you. It reveals for you the limits of your intellect: you cannot see past the style to the content.

This is especially true since posts I make with zero commentary from myself receive the same elementary school-level treatment from you and your ilk. You want me to treat you like an adult? Act like one. Hold yourself and your ilk to account. If you will not, you are nothing but a blow-hard and a hypocrite.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:30 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

maybe it's time for you to try a new tact with him?

Was it Gopher who jumped on this thread and started attacking you? I know that Gopher is no sweet little choirboy. In fact, he can be a bit of a scallywag. But, he is very likeable in his own perculiar way, and an alright bloke at the end of the day. I've regularly found myself doing battle with him, since the first week he joined in fact. We even had the odd spat, initially. But these days we argue with each other goodnaturedly, even when we vehemently disagree, and I very much enjoy having him around as an adversary. I enjoy debating him. He challenges me and keeps me on my toes! We have fun slugging out our differences of opinion, sometimes poking fun at each other, even. But we never feel the need to harbour a grudge. Your feud has got so out of hand. I do recall, a few months ago, Gopher making the offer that he ignore you and you ignore him. I think that was a very sensible idea. Perhaps you might reconsider it?

There are one or two posters on this forum I actively dislike. I just ignore them, for the most part. I see them chattering away on a thread, and just ignore the thread. Or they come to try and goad me on, and I just ignore it. There are much better ways to spend my time.

keane wrote:

It is not I who needs a new tack, my dear Ms. Bird. As long as he wishes to be juvenile, I shall make him pay for it. He is welcome any time to start posting like an adult.

How long do you intend to make him pay for it? We all end up paying for it by having to endure it ruining good threads.

In fairness to you, it annoyed me quite a bit when many of the regular posters here started harping on about you being ELF when you joined in your present incarnation. I wish they could have just let it go, and let you start with a new slate, as keane. I also find myself having little patience with those who focus on who you are, instead of the topic you are discussing. Frankly I find this a pain in the arse. I wish they'd stop being such w@nkers. But your continued obsession with Gopher strikes me as somewhat unhealthy. I think it's time to put this feud behind you, and accept Gopher's offer to ignore you if you ignore him. I will then certainly upbraid him if I then see him breaking his word. How about it?

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:55 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Big_Bird: let us return to this moment in this exchange:

Gopher wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Sounds like Goebbels.

I would rather cultivate and nurture an informed, reasonable republican democracy than one that relies on mass-oriented propaganda campaigns.

I recall your arguing that this was very necessary, all for the greater good, of course. But at the end of the day, it remains propagandistic and manipulative.

Why can't propaganda be used for the greater good? Why is it necessarily always evil?

Quote:

We know that Moore chronically does this. Your original post lists quite a few British who easily recognize Moore in fact did this in SiCKO via ridiculously-biased data selection.

True. Most thoughtful people are able to deal with more sophistication. However, there are people who can only be persuaded by these methods. Also, as I have already said, Moore's tactics ensure it becomes topical, which provides an environment which enables others to then offer their opinions or knowledge for public consumption. Then the more 'highbrow' media can take it up and discuss it in a manner more palatable to you.

Quote:

I mentioned some of us seeing similar issues in the global-warming debate. Thus our skepticism about at least some of its claims.

The author of the article I cited above, for example, takes Al Gore to task for his manipulative claims on the environment -- in this case, deforestation.

Al Gore wrote:

James C. McCann wrote:

Candace Slater did the same thing in the Amazon and with its Indian peoples and cultures in her article "Amazonia as Edenic Narrative." She cites and documents very thoroughly, among other things, people referring to Amazonian tree-types that unfortunately have never appeared on the South-American continent in the first place...

Why would Gore and the others do this, Big_Bird -- in Ethiopia, in the Amazon, or in Michael Moore's "America?" We have already answered this, above, no? And you approve, right? You clarify that you dislike it. But, ultimately, you think it is necessary.

I think this needs putting in perspective. Scientists deal with theory. They are constantly trying to find the theory that best fits the facts. Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes, theories are discarded, or the consensus moves against it. This is a regular occurance in the natural sciences. Finding flaws in a theory about a specific aspect of environmental research does not mean it is prudent to dismiss the beliefs of the majority of environmental scientists. They may be wrong, but they are in a much better position to judge than those outside the discipline. If they say we have cause to worry, we probably do.

If you want neat proofs, and theorems, stick with mathematics. Science is very messy and uncertain. It deals with theory, and theories are regularly challenged, and regularly discarded. But other theories stand the test of time, and become almost universally accepted. That man is causing climate change is one such theory, and unfortunately more and more evidence is being gathered which points to this theory being correct. <Shudders>

It's natural that media outlets, seeking to make money, may sensationalise certain findings, but this trivial or mischeivous handling of a story does not mean we should ignore these findings. If anything, the media has not paid enough attention to the warnings of the scientific community on this issue. In fact, it seems to many that the media has given far too much credence to mavericks, and the minority of dissidents in this discipline.

Quote:

But in the meantime, people like Moore, Gore, and those who would follow them uncritically here, have created a series of metaphors and an all-too-familiar discursive trope. One with a moral at the end of the story that almost always features modern capitalism as the villain.

I don't know enough about either Moore or Gore to know if they view modern capitalism as 'the villain.' But I think they are have both provided a service to society (and in Gore's case, the world), in that they've brought problems to the attention of the wider public. In fact, it is probaby the people who are most susceptible to propaganda and manipulation who are less likely to have already been engaged with these issues. Without the Gores and Moores, these people wouldn't give a rat's arse. Gore's film came not a minute too soon. If anything, it was 10 years overdue. We are potentially facing catastrophe and Gore does us a service by bringing this crisis to the attention of the ordinary man in the street.

Quote:

You -- and I am speaking in the plural -- endorse this to further the greater good. People are not intelligent or wise enough to deal with reasonable debate, or at least they will not take the action you want them to take without being manipulated. Yet your metaphors and discursive trope have taken on a life of their own, you yourselves have bought into them as if they represented reality itself, and, like our cracker-eating friend Spinoza, above, you will defend these metaphors and discursive trope to the bitter end because you have invested much if not all of your political capital and emotional involvement into their being "true."

I'm sorry, but I know very well that a significant portion of the electorate are not 'intelligent or wise enough to deal with reasonable debate.' Perhaps you are lucky enough to spend all your time socialising with thoughtful and educated people. In which case I envy you, Gopher (and can you introduce me to your friends?). But throughout my life I have met people who do not use critical thought, and who are easily manipulated by jingoistic nonsense or sensational scaremongering.

Since this manipulation takes place anyway, I find it appropriate that people seeking to persuade the general public use these methods.

I'm unable to address the rest of your comments above. Baby is grumpy, it's 5 am in the morning and I can barely think, and so I am quite bamboozled by your lovely writing! Laughing

Perhaps I'll address it when I am more capable! Wink

Quote:

Well, Gopher, it is healthy to be sceptical, and not accept gullibly anything you see on the telly or read in the paper. However, you ought not to dismiss something like this out of hand, and should instead to seek out serious literature by the scientific community itself before you turn your back on it. I'm afraid, though, following such a course of action in this instance may leave you feeling somewhat down in the dumps. Sad

Quote:

This is not to suggest that I reduce the entire issue to this, or say that there is no room for health-care reform or that global-warming does not pose problems that we ought to address. But your manipulative style nevertheless clouds and muddles the debate with, from your point-of-view, I think, things like "baggage" and "resistance" you would be better off without.

Again, why not simply speak plainly and reasonably on these and other issues? Cite data fairly, honestly, and, most of all, non-manipulatively?

Gopher, there is more serious and 'high brow' discussion existing side by side with this more tabloidesque debate. The latter does not negate the existence of the former. Ignore the latter and concern yourself with the former. Most thoughtful and intelligent people will be turning to other sources to explore these issues. Only the 'donkeys' will accept Moore or Gore's assessment of the issues without seeking further confirmation. For thoughtful people, Moore and Gore are just a starting point.

I'm completely buggered, so I apologise if I am incoherent in places. I'm too tired to proof read it! Good night!

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:51 am Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

Why can't propaganda be used for the greater good? Why is it necessarily always evil?

Ever read The Lord of the Rings? I see it very much like the Ring. I do not mean to be flippant or propose this as an exact analogy. I merely suggest an image that most might immediately understand.

In any case, I hope you would know that I try not to use words like "good" and "evil." It is a mistake, in my view, to go this way, to treat our audiences this way. Short-sighted. We may win this or that immediate victory but we will never make less-intelligent or gullible people any smarter or more sophisticated by treating them this way. And we remain vulnerable to someone more clever (there is always someone more clever) than us using the same thing against whatever our interests may be.

I realize I am going against the current on this (e.g., not only political and reform-oriented campaigns but everyday marketing and advertising campaigns as well; it is indeed embedded in most people's thinking that this is the way to go) -- and I think this especially ironic given this is primarily or ostensibly a board of educators. Very well. So be it.

I have stated my objections, then. Have your way with the rabble, Ms. Lenin. Cultivate their outrage, intimidate them, excite them, scare them, whatever...

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

You love making me look correct, don't you?

SPINOZA

Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Spinoza: now you are acting not only the burro, but an especially obtuse one. "American society?" What forces have shaped "American society," Spinoza...?

I'm gonna break this to you very.........very.......slowly........Gopher.

Michael Moore, in 'Sicko', is criticizing the healthcare situation in the US and - as we saw in the critiques in the OP - compares it unflatteringly (but arguably unfairly) with the British system, the country where modern industrial capitalism began. 'Modern capitalism' and 'American society' (structure of) are not synonyms. One can criticize the former, but be entirely pro-capitalism. Michael Moore may well dislike modern capitalism, but he does not overtly demonstrate this in his movies whereas subliminally (since the main points of his movies are aspects of American society, like gun ownership and healthcare) he arguably criticizes the United States.

Quote:

Your commitment to apologizing for and defending your hero to-the-death is admirable, however.

Silly me, eh? I mistook you for a serious observer. Had I known previously you're an utter buffoon with the intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot I'd not have bothered scrutinizing your utterly daft claims. No matter.

Quote:

"Trope" is not "plain English?" I would advise you to get out of proudly showcasing British slang and get into eduated English for a change. Until then, get a dictionary?

It just looks much better if you use plain English. Winston Churchill observed as much: "what if I'd said "hostilities will be engaged on the coastal parameter" instead of "we shall fight on the beaches"?"

Do you get me? Use of pompous expressions gives the impression you view debate as who has the more impressive capacity for expression rather than providing evidence for your assertions. Stick to everyday, ordinary discourse and you avoid that problem entirely.

You have no debate, sir, period. I've asked you about at least five things you've said that lack validity and you're utterly hopeless. Particularly juvenile is your belief that someone who asks for validation of assertions is a die-hard fan of, in this case, Michael Moore, a completely ridiculous straw man claim and - since you associate die-hard Moore fandom with buffoonery - an ad hominem attack also. There are some debaters on here who I totally wouldn't screw with, but seeing you in action is a joke! Laughing

Quote:

Gore took all of this uncritically and at face value. His alleged 40 to 1 percent decrease seems to have been one of those 46.7% of all statistics that people who cite them invent on-the-spot. Who knows? Gore has never responded and cited his source or expanded on how he arrived at this conclusion. He merely retreats to his "something-must-be-done!" position.

Can you demonstrate that this was done fraudulently - a deliberate attempt to mislead - and was not an inncocent (if rather embarrassing) misinterpretation of the evidence? We need to know this for certain if you�re to make this claim. I�ve said this already and you�ve simply repeated a more longwinded version of the same claim.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

The below text is to further clarify my position for Big_Bird.

Big_Bird wrote:

...if you want to get results, you have to manipulate the population in the most effective manner. And unfortunately, a large percentage of people do respond to sensationalist propaganda.

Sorry, Gopher - I was a little too tired to reply to this last night. I found much of it quite interesting, and appreciate the time you took to write it and further explain why you feel as you do.

As I have already discussed, science, and particularly natural science, deals with theories that are very often discarded. How did Gore's film hold up overall? I haven't seen it, but I imagine he couldn't be putting out anything too far fetched, even if parts of it have found to be contentious. After all, he'd have the scientific community come down on his head pretty fast if he was straying too far from accepted thinking.

It's interesting that they might have got it wrong about Ethiopia, but are there still compelling reasons to keep the forests, even though they may not have been as much of the nation's past as thought? I don't know enough about it, but off the top of my head I know there is a serious problem of desert encroachment in parts of Africa.

I agree that propaganda can be dangerous, especially when used by unscrupulous governments. But, it exists. I don't think that raising the issue of global warming - or problems with a nation's health system - is a particularly nefarious use of it. It is a shame that so many people are susceptible to these tactics, but what are you going to do about it? If you don't exploit it, you are not using all the tools available to you.

Gopher, I wish guns had never been invented. They have killed and maimed millions of people since their unfortunate invention, and millions more animals. But, since they have been invented, I accept that it is necessary for certain organisations (Police and Military, for example) to have access to them. I wish they were never used by anyone at all. But I accept that in the real world, there are legitimate reasons why some organisations must have them.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe