Pretty much anything that does no harm is ok with me. Let me turn the question around. How does lying to an entire country for the purpose of fomenting war fit within your delicate morality?
Well, I don’t agree with Bush’s lies. That doesn’t mean I approve of Moore’s handling of Bowling.
What makes you think, elucidator, that lies told to advance a cause you agree with are helpful in any way? And I don’t think those lies cause “no harm,” either. They make the anti-gun lobby, which I happen to think is a noble cause, out to be a paper tiger–thus strengthening the gun lobby.
Why are you hijacking this thread for your agenda?
Lying to further a cause simply makes me believe that the truth wouldn’t have worked. Not a particularly stirring endorsement of whatever Moore’s agendas might be.
The editing of the Heston speeches, in particular, shows a dearth of intelligent reasoning. “I can’t argue against what he really said, so I’ll make it seem like he said something else instead.”
Clever.
Julie
I’m confused - are you saying that he advocated the Civil Right movement of the 50s and 60s, which advocated equal rights for minorities, and marched with Dr. King, to promote civil rights for whites?
Oh, and regarding the NRA meeting in Denver.
Hypothetically, if they could call the whole thing off, and did, then you very same people would most likely be shrieking ‘see! they knew their actions were responsible! They felt guilty and called it off!’
The NRA took the best option available - held their pre-scheduled, legally mandated meeting, but toned it down from a rally to what was minimally required by charter. There’s no way they could’ve handled it with more class, I think.
And they still get fried for it.
I think this thread had already been hijacked a plenty by the other agenda. You know, the ‘moral clarity’ bunch that had no problem with this war but go into a lather at the mere mention of Mr Moore.
Amusing indeed.
Just in case I misunderstood, the post above was an attempt to demonstrate how a post would read if written by someone who had a prefrontal lobotomy, right?
I’m guessing your thesis is that such a post from such a person would consist of “Well, you guys are jerks, so whatever Moore does is kewl.” I’m not certain that I agree that would be the sort of post such a person would make. It’s not nearly lucid enough, for one thing.
Nonetheless, it’s interesting and all, but I’m not certain as to how it applies to this thread, since I don’t believe anyone’s mentioned the war, moral clarity, etc. and lobotmies were never discussed anywhere from the OP forward.
Perhaps you misposted into the wrong thread?
Fenris
Really?
Colour me unamused by you, who have chosen to behave in a seemingly martyr-like fashion, trying to derail the thread further.
The point of the thread was: Did Moore lie or not?
Thus far, evidence says he did.
If you do not have evidence to prove he didn’t lie, take your agenda to a thread of your own creation and stop hijacking this one.
I totally agree with you.
MM might “lie” or not, I am still convinced that the message given by Heston was not changed.
I am still convinced that MMs points are valid.
What I find funny is the hatred that the right wing is spitting against MM just because he has a different opinion, whereas Bush & Rumsfeld and even Powell lie in a outrageous fashion and it does not even get mentioned.
I do not want to hijack the thread, but remember the “proves” for the WMD presented at the UN by Powell? The invoices were signed by people which had quit their office 10 years before. Blix went as far as calling it a straight fraud. The result: A war.
On the other hand Michael Moore. Result: A discussion about gun politics.
Don’t you agree that the reactions to these politics are out of their proportions?
I don’t know if you are acquainted with the news, but there has been much discussion throughout the country about the perception(which I agree with) that the President and his cronies have lied to us.
Just because you agree with Moore’s thesis doesn’t change the fact that he lied to support his argument.
If you want to find authentic, supportable citations that prove Moore’s thesis, fine.
As it stands now, Moore’s “documentary” as well as his Oscar are of dubious nature.
Before you jump to conclusions, I’m not a Republican. I just prefer an ugly truth to a convienient and pretty lie. Which makes it quite ironic in the end that Moore had a show called the Awful Truth.
I will assume that, as an intellectually honest person, you would say the same things about a polemicist of a different persuasion - say, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.
Fact, fiction, whatever - as long as they mean to stir up trouble and discussion, what they do is fine with you, and you would never object.
Right?
Regards,
Shodan
“Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend.” - Mao Tse Tung
Sure. I’m perfectly capable of fact checking. I don’t actually read Ann Coulter, except on occassion to verify that she actually said something like “let kill all their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” (As another poster remarked, she is proof positive that rabies is not invariably fatal). What little I have read, I note that she does not deal in “facts” (i.e., something you can look up to verify), but tends toward gross generalizations that cannot be challenged on a basis of fact, only as opinion.
Compare her to Molly Ivins (May the Good Lord bless her and keep her all the days of her life). She posts facts, tells you where she got them and where to find them. Different style altogether.
I don’t object much to pundits and thier ilk spinning. What the hell, let 'em rock and roll. Of course, there is no comparison between that sort of benign mendacity and basing foreign policy and military adventures on weak intelligence and outright fabrication, as we have recently witnessed.
As an “intellectually honest person”, I’m sure you agree.
Did I just dream it or was there a cop in the movie that said that AFATK the kids went bowling?
Well, it was a pretty good and fair-put OP, Mockingbird. Definitely bookmark-worthy, especially because of a couple of long-term trolls finally jumping the shark on this Board in here.
jshore (is it possible for you to make a post on this Board without decrying the evil “right wing” in it? I wonder. Did a Republican step on your puppy when you were a kid or something?) The rate of households which own guns between Canada and the US and the number of guns per household are difficult to determine.
From research conducted by the Pacific Research Institute (Dept.
GAH, 177 Post St., San Francisco, CA 94108), they found the rate of households having at least one firearm to be thus:
Canada: 30.8%
US: 48.9%
However, how many guns are there? Even the Justice Department can’t get it right, it seems. From “U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime: Firearms, Crime, and Criminal Justice–Selected Findings, July 1995, NCJ-148201”, they say at the start:
OK…223 million, right? Wrong. Later on, they admit:
So…how many are left? No one knows precisely, and never will. Even my adopted country, the UK, has no real idea how many illegal firearms are held by the “gun gangs” in cities like Birmingham and London.
At least recent manufacturing statistics are available, as they might give a trend. From the same report:
What about Canada? It’s still hard to find good data. But here are some other sources:
From: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_25840.html
OK…so the answer is likely around 3 million, when you account for multiple firearm households, right?
Wrong.
From: http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_releases/survey-08202002.asp
OK…so let’s assume higher numbers here. Say 7.9 million firearms in Canada, and with a population of 31,902,268 ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html ), we get a rate of 0.248 guns/capita. However, in the US, with a population of 280,562,489 ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html ), we have possibly a rate of 0.830 per capita. In fact, if you just look at handguns produced since 1973, you get a rate of 0.142 per capita, more than half the Canadian rate from that one limited source alone.
So, at least it’s a start for seeing that the statement that there is an equivalent firearms ownership rate between the two countries is highly questionable.
I’ll try to remember that the next time I’m in South Africa . . .
Luc, I’m right with you on that one. I’ve worked for a S. African company for 5 years now and been there 4 times. Beautiful place, completely effed up. You know when people talk about crime, many say “My friend’s brother’s girlfriend’s hairdresser was once mugged…” Or something like that? Bad things happening to friend-of-friends and other people? Well, in South Africa every person I’ve talked to has a personal story to tell. “My brother was shot and killed.” “My best friend was raped and had her throat slit.” “I was car-jacked and shot at while they drove away.”
And what about those nice places like Rio? Yeah, safe as houses.
So, DthC, when are you going to put the cites that show how honest and sincere MM is? We’re waiting…
And for those who are shading MM’s account as not really lying, not technically lying, not intentionally lying or otherwise…What does it take for you folks? He lied! From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
Date: before 12th century
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
He made untrue statements (Bowling), he tried to deceive (Bank) and he created false and misleading impressions (Heston). What more do you want? HE LIED.
-Tcat
Having not seen this film, nor having any desire to do so, I can’t really comment here, but I’m wondering… In what way is the comment “this country was founded by white man” racist? I’m not trying to be dense, but it seems to me that it’s not factually inaccurate to point out that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc were, well, white.
Convinced, despite strong evidence to the contrary? Convinced, even though Moore pretty clearly staged scenes and pulled “facts” out of his ass in order to make his points in the first place?
Well, I can see where your level of reason lies… :rolleyes:
In a way, I would have liked to see Moore make a film that actually did prove his point, becuase I think there are good points there to be made… unfortunately, he didn’t make that film. Instead, he lied, invented, and obfuscated. You are apparently willing to forgive him for making a “documentary” which doesn’t actually document much of anything… I am not. I don’t care if someone is right-wing, left-wing, or dead-on center. Nobody gets to invent the truth to prove their predetermined agenda.
Actually, one did. Okay, maybe not. But, one can hardly argue that this thread is lacking in partisan content. And, in fact, the general tone is that Moore lied or got his facts wrong to support a far-left-wing anti-gun agenda. The fact, if you see the movie, is that his thesis (to the extent that there is a thesis…and he is not just raising questions) is a lot more complicated than the characterization of “anti-gun” implies. And, in fact, he compares the U.S. and Canada to conclude that guns, or at least guns alone, are not the issue accounting for the differences. Unfortunately, I think he got his facts wrong here…And, particularly didn’t consider the distinction between firearms in general and handguns in particular.
Thanks for the analysis. I didn’t realize just how little was known about gun ownership. My WAG is that the difference in handgun ownership is more dramatic because it was my impression that it is here that the differences between Canadian and U.S. laws are most different. But, I admit that I can’t remember what if any documentary evidence I saw supporting this.