One again, destitute of any solid position, the right hand side of the podium abandons honest debate and resorts to personal attacks.
I have yet to see one debate between conservatives and progressives where the conservatives were not the first one to abandon the issue and level personal attacks upon either the subject, the opponent, or both.
I would love to see some sort of neo-Godwin’s Law that equates personal attacks with Godwin’s Nazi references.
Actually, the liberals in this thread were making personal attacks way back on page one, long before a single ill-advised fat joke was made at Moore’s expense. Which in turn prompted the liberals to ignore any attempts at honest debate and let loose another flood of personal attacks.
This seems to be the standard in the vast majority of the GD threads I have read. Perhaps we’re reading different threads.
OK, let’s look.
The first personal attack in this thread, quote “I hate Michael Moore with a passion,” unquote, appears in this post.
And, gee, guess what Max? It’s yours.
Sorry - hit submit when I meant to hit preview… at least all my coding was good.
Anyway, I meant to add:
Perhaps you confuse disagreement with your position as personal attacks. It seems to go hand in hand with confusing a personal attack as a persuasive argument.
How is that a personal attack? It’s an opinion. The first personal attacks in the thread were from the people who called me an ignoramous for not liking him.
Perhaps I was a bit hasty with my first post, but if you’d read any of my other posts you’d see that this is a totally unfounded characterization.
In all fairness, this thread remained quite civil and objective for the most part, until gatopescado made the donut comment anyway. But my Godwin’s Law comment was made in a context much broader than just this thread.
Because, repeatedly, in every forum from the NYT to the SDMB, the discussion of Farenheit 9-11 is forced back to Mr. Moore’s character, and there is never any debate about the specific issues he raises. Especially in the media, the issues are summarized as non-specifically as possible and then dropped.
His character and motives always come up, and are discussed at great length. However, the issues are all but ignored.
This isn’t surprising to me. If a someone is thought to be a dishonest manipulator of the facts, how can a person intelligently discuss the facts as he presents them?
The same way they invade a country?
Zaggy, Zaggy, Zaggy…I hate to say this, but touche.
And while I see your point and how you could so quickly (and quick-wittedly) leap to point out to me the irony of my post, you have to understand that although I recognize your premise, I unfortunately must still disagree with it.
Regards.
(Damn, I wish **Shodan **hadn’t thought of that first!)
Okay, then, if you’re not satisfied with Zagadka’s immediate impalement of your comment.
Here’s how:
First, by watching the film.
Second, by isolating and listing his claims, and selecting those you think are false, misleading or just mistaken.
Third, by analysing these claims, and pointing out any logical fallacies, mistaken premises, distorted quotes, unsupported claims, or baseless assumptions, and then providing citations to back up your analyses.
(Hint: Simply stating “That claim is absurd,” is not an analysis, much less an effective refutation. Further characterization of the claim as “unpatriotic,” “liberal,” “treasonous,” or “paranoid” is not an effective refutation, either; it is a personal attack referring back to the claimant.)
Gee. It’s amazing how much you can discuss and evaluate a given statement without once even attributing the claim to someone, much less evaluating whether or not he’s made false statements in the past.
bughunter, I don’t believe most people want to (or for that matter would) go to all that trouble. Do you realize what you’re asking people to do? If I think someone’s a dishonest manipulator of facts, I usually discount whatever they have to say out of hand. I usually assume also that I don’t have, and short of making it a major project in life, wouldn’t be able to obtain, access to the information I would need in order to sift through all the bullshit to get at the truth. And I don’t most other people would either.
And why should I? If he can’t acheive his purpose honestly, why should I think that his purpose has any legitimacy? This kind of thing is what causes commentators like Rush Limbaugh (who I don’t listen to by the way, but whose comments sometimes reach my ears) to say things like, “To tell the truth is self-defeating…if you’re a liberal!”
Sounds exactly like the current presidential Admin.
Except, I do wade through their bullshit.
Well, that’s your opinion, of course. And you’re entitled to it. You think Bush lied. I think he was either misinformed or that Iraq’s weapons were shipped off before we could find them. Neither of us can prove the other wrong. I realize this, it appears you don’t.
In that case, Occam’s Razor is something to consider. Which is more likely:
-Bush lied.
-Bush was misinformed by all our intelligence agencies and Iraq exported all their WMD before we could find any.
One explanation involves a poltician lying. The other involves a massive government conspiracy to trick the president and a major smuggling operation undertaken by a heavily surveilled country.
Do you not think your underlying premises (premisi?:D) may be in error?
A “massive government conspiracy” implies – no flat-out states – that deliberate efforts were made to deceive Bush. You can’t prove that. And no major smuggling opperation would be necessary to move a few mobile labs and/or weapons, which would be more than enough to do a great deal of damage.
And was this “massive government conspiracy” the same one that convinced most other Middle East countries, most European countries, the U.N., and even Bill Clinton himself, as he has recently affirmed, to believe Iraq had WMD?
Mmmmm. Couple a questions, you don’t mind? Clear up a few little details, minor points…
Just how big is a “mobile lab”? You say it would be a small matter to smuggle a few of these out of the country. So you must have some rough idea, right? Clearly, smaller than the Hindenberg, right? 'Cause that might kind of “stick out”, know what I mean? Small enough to throw on a big flatbed 18-wheeler, you think? Throw a tarp over it?
And when do you figure the Iraqis first exhibited thier genius for miniaturization? I really hadn’t heard anything about the Iraqi scientists having some special talents in the area of miniaturization of laboratory equipment. Maybe because nobody ever thought it was very useful, the production of bonsai bunsen burners, itty bitty petri dishes, tres petit vacuum apparatus. But, apparently, this has been quite the obsession amongst the very cream of Iraqi scientists.
Now, I haven’t been in a lot of biology labs, a few, but they’re pretty darn big. Lots and lots of glassware, equipment, those big bulbuous-pointy things that shoot big sparks. Must have really busted thier humps, science wise, to shrink that down to mobile size.
And the stoical humor of it all. How do you hire a guy to cook up deadly microbial and chemical combinations in transit when you might hit a pothole. Ooopsy! Time to go die-die!
So I’ve been curious about this, all along, about these “mobile labs”. And at last, I come across someone with some genuine expertise on the subject, someone who knows just about how easy they would be to smuggle. Well, heck, if you know that much you know more than me, that’s for sure! You may know more than anybody, for all I can tell.
So whaddaya think there, Starv Approximately how big is a mobile bio-chemical warfare lab? Bigger’n my double-wide, you think?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Well, luci, lemme see if I can ‘splain it where you’ll understand. You see, you’re forgetting that the type of labs you’re talking about also require room for all the students’ desks and chairs.
Do you have television or any news magazines there in the ol’ double-wide? If so, I’m amazed you haven’t seen any of these. I’ve seen films of the actual ones, by cracky, right smack dab in the deserts of Iraq they were, too. Not too terribly big. I’d say roughly between an 18-wheeler and a UPS van, somewhere in there.
Hope this helps. Lean back now in that luxurious double-wide of yours (after the strip joints close, that is), crank up the stereo, crack open a cool one and enjoy the rest of your night now, y’hear?
Yeehaw! 
Come on, Luci. You arent’ that old.
-Those big ol’ electronic computation machines of days gone by now fit in little boxes. You probably have one near you as you read this.
-As far as those clay pots and metal cauldrons used to brew up The Pox and whatnot, they can make them of a exceedingly small size these days. If you wander off to your kitchen (wait, not yet!), and open the ‘cupboards’, you’ll find a variety of receptacles of an approximate size that could be used to grow the nasties.
-On top of all that, the firepits that once were used to heat said cauldrons have since been replaced by small portable devices that can produce great amounts of heat. When you are in the kitchen checking on those receptacles, you may or may not see a large box with a glowing spiral metal thingee on top. Don’t touch it! But if you put your hand a reasonable distance away from it, you can feel the heat coming off!
We truly live in an age of wonders, I tell you.
Outstanding. Simply outstanding.
Actually, it’s a different kettle of fish to demonstrate “dishonest manipulator of facts” than lying.
But these things’re the subject of a thousand other threads…