# Michael Moore = Liar. Why? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 14, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240 "2004-06-14T04:15:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/161 "2004-06-20T21:32:08Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > can you give any reason why you disagree with them other than they prove your point incorrect? See post #141. To summarize - The site claims A.) It looks like South Park and B.) it was strategically placed in the film near Matt Stone’s interview. A) - it doesn’t. B) - it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/162 "2004-06-20T21:33:27Z")
In a related vein, it looks like Moore is moving heaven and earth to make sur e **Fahrenheit 9/11** stands up to all the fact-checking his detractors can throw at it: > [@](#): > > [**Will Michael Moore’s Facts Check Out?**](http://nytimes.com/2004/06/20/movies/20SHEN.html) > MR. MOORE usually revels in his role as the target of conservative attacks, and his delight in playing the mischievous, little-guy bomb-thrower has brought him fame, wealth and the devotion of fans more interested in rhetorical force than precision. But with “Fahrenheit” he has taken on his biggest and best-defended target yet, and **his production staff says that on his orders they have taken no chances in checking and double-checking the film, knowing Bush supporters would pounce on factual mistakes.** > > Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style “war room” to offer an instant response to any assault on the film’s credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of “oppo,” or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. **He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine’s legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film.** And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation. > [@](#): > > **"We have gone through every single word of this film — literally every word — and verified its accuracy,"** said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a “fact-checking bible,” with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film’s lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations. > > That said, Mr. Moore’s fact-checkers do not view the film as straight reportage. “This is an Op-Ed piece, it’s not a news report,” said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. “This is not The New York Times, it’s not a network news report. **The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual’s view of current events.** And I’m a very firm believer that it is within everybody’s right to examine the actions of their government.” ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/163 "2004-06-20T21:40:37Z")
it doesn’t look or sound anything like south park! unless a midwestern american accent = South Park. do you not think if Matt Stone had actually done the piece he would want to be credited it for it in the movie? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/164 "2004-06-21T00:05:32Z")
The weirdest thing about F-911 to me is that Moore had obtained footage of an Iraqi detainee being sexually abused (which he uses in his film) months before the story broke on Abu Ghraib, and he says that he did not notify any authorities. He told Lauer that he had agonized over that one but, in the end, decided that the film would suffer if news of such torture leaked before the movie played. Even if he isn’t a liar — and I believe he is — he is certainly a jackass. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/165 "2004-06-21T01:06:46Z")
> [@The Gaspode](#): > > Moore is trying to do ‘new journalism’ in movie form, i.e. having the reporter take a very active part in the story. My beef with Moore is that he does too much grandstanding. I’m sure F911 will have enough interesting and thought provoking things in it, but when I saw the trailer with Moore driving around a truck with a loudspeaker, reading the patriot act to Capitol Hill, I had to roll my eyes. Pulling stunts like that can only hurt him. I read in a review that that scene is only one of two (I think) scenes in which Moore appears, and the narration is minimal as well. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/166 "2004-06-21T01:13:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The weirdest thing about F-911 to me is that Moore had obtained footage of an Iraqi detainee being sexually abused (which he uses in his film) months before the story broke on Abu Ghraib, and he says that he did not notify any authorities. He told Lauer that he had agonized over that one but, in the end, decided that the film would suffer if news of such torture leaked before the movie played. Even if he isn’t a liar — and I believe he is — he is certainly a jackass. You are misrepresenting what he said. Why don’t you post the entire quote instead of rephrasing it? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/167 "2004-06-21T03:10:41Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Well, gosh, and since you don’t get it, obviously the rest of the world doesn’t, right? :rolleyes: I don’t see anyone else jumping in to defend your claim that “I don’t think it looks like _South Park_” is a fair substitute for “I don’t think Michael Moore intended people to think it was by the creators of _South Park_”. If anyone does buy that, they’re welcome to speak up and explain their reasoning. > [@](#): > > - > > No, I said it before in a previous thread. Which I mentioned. \*Which you have _since_ mentioned. You didn’t say you were referring to your statements in another thread in post #132. You still haven’t bothered to _link_ to your post in that other thread, which is customary when one wants to introduce information found somewhere else. Which part of “You’ll note that I’ve stated several times that I disagree with the site’s assertion on that score” was meant to indicate to me (the “you” that was supposed to be doing the “noting”) that the other one of these “several” (actually “two”) statements was not in this thread at all? The [post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4913152&postcount=203) I presume you are referring to took place on the last page of a three-week-old thread. That’s what I was meant to “note” now? Granted, I had previously participated in that thread, but given that you couldn’t remember its contents correctly it’s a lot to ask me to do so, especially since on the preceeding page I had already [posted](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4906826&postcount=186) that I was leaving that thread because I was going out of town. And looking at your post, I see that not only does it not say “I disagree that Moore intended people to think the cartoon was by the creators of _South Park_”, it doesn’t even say “I don’t think the cartoon looks like _South Park_.” It says: > [@](#): > > Though I wouldn’t have assumed the cartoon was from the South Park guys… the voice talent used struck me as markedly similar to that of South Park. This is just a statement that _you_ wouldn’t have _assumed_ that it was by the same people. You don’t say anything about the “look” of the cartoon at all, and you _do_ say that the voices are similar. This isn’t a denial that the cartoon resembles _South Park_. It’s a _confirmation_ that the cartoon resembles _South Park_, although not in the same way that the “Bowling for Truth” site specifically mentioned. > [@](#): > > \*They are not equivalent, that much is true. I couldn’t substitute them the other way, but I can substitute them in the way that I did. \*Not if you want to be honest and make sense, you can’t. > [@](#): > > - > > Incorrect, thanks for playing. In the logical structure of the site’s assertions (though calling them logical can be quite generous) it puts forth a conclusion based primarily on two pieces of evidence… both of which I disagree with. Therefore, it must follow that I find fault with the conclusion. I could not say that I disagree with the conclusion and expect you then to interpret that I don’t think the animation is imitative of South Park’s … but the other direction is fine. It’s like breaking a table… I could break the big flat surface on top, or I could choose to attack the legs it stands on, which I have done. \*I don’t know what sort of logic training _you_ have, but I didn’t spend all those hours pounding out proofs to be fooled by something like this. A conclusion can be true even if the argument isn’t sound. [One cannot reject the conclusion of an argument simply by discovering a given argument for that conclusion to be flawed.](http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm) It doesn’t “follow” that you find fault with the conclusion just because you don’t buy the premises. For instance: 1. If the cartoon was by Matt Stone, Michael Moore must have met Stone while making _Bowling for Columbine_. 2. The cartoon was by Matt Stone. * * * 1. Michael Moore met Stone while making _Bowling for Columbine_. This is a valid argument, and the conclusion is true. However, premise 2 is false and premise 1 is questionable. If you were to say “But that cartoon _wasn’t_ by Matt Stone!” it would not necessarily mean that you disagreed with the conclusion. It certainly isn’t a _statement_ of disagreement with the conclusion. A statement of disagreement with the conclusion would take the form “I disagree with the conclusion” not “I disagree with the premises”. You may continue to insist that, in defiance of both English grammar and logic, “I found the animation style very dissimilar to South Park… but the voice talent somewhat similar” satisfies your claim that you stated several times that you disagreed that Moore intended people to mistakenly believe that the animation was by the creators of _South Park_…but this is pretty strange behavior from someone willing to brand Moore a liar for saying “his own NRA website” in reference to Charlton Heston. I have yet to see anyone come up with an example of Michael Moore expressing himself anywhere near as poorly, illogically, or misleadingly as you have done on this point. But for some reason anytime Michael Moore fails to express himself with perfect clarity he’s a big fat liar out to trick the American people for his own selfish gain. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/168 "2004-06-21T12:16:33Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I don’t see anyone else jumping in to defend your claim that “I don’t think it looks like _South Park_” is a fair substitute for “I don’t think Michael Moore intended people to think it was by the creators of _South Park_”. If anyone does buy that, they’re welcome to speak up and explain their reasoning. And I would hope they wouldn’t. I don’t really need any help. > [@](#): > > Which you have _since_ mentioned. You didn’t say you were referring to your statements in another thread in post #132. You still haven’t bothered to _link_ to your post in that other thread, which is customary when one wants to introduce information found somewhere else. Which part of “You’ll note that I’ve stated several times that I disagree with the site’s assertion on that score” was meant to indicate to me (the “you” that was supposed to be doing the “noting”) that the other one of these “several” (actually “two”) statements was not in this thread at all? > > The [post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4913152&postcount=203) I presume you are referring to took place on the last page of a three-week-old thread. That’s what I was meant to “note” now? Granted, I had previously participated in that thread, but given that you couldn’t remember its contents correctly it’s a lot to ask me to do so, especially since on the preceeding page I had already [posted](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4906826&postcount=186) that I was leaving that thread because I was going out of town. And looking at your post, I see that not only does it not say “I disagree that Moore intended people to think the cartoon was by the creators of _South Park_”, it doesn’t even say “I don’t think the cartoon looks like _South Park_.” It says: It wasn’t important enough to me to dig up the old post, but thank you for doing so. But I acknowledged that I hadn’t pointed out my reasons in that thread already : > [@CandidGamera](#): > > On review, I must withdraw one part of the point - I didn’t end up mentioning the things in the previous thread. (Though I stand by my declaration in this thread.) What I said in the previous thread is that I didn’t see the association between the cartoon and the South Park fellows… I wouldn’t have assumed it came from them, in other words, based on what I saw. > [@](#): > > Not if you want to be honest and make sense, you can’t. Sure I can. I am honest, and it makes perfect sense to me. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what sort of logic training _you_ have, but I didn’t spend all those hours pounding out proofs to be fooled by something like this. A conclusion can be true even if the argument isn’t sound. [One cannot reject the conclusion of an argument simply by discovering a given argument for that conclusion to be flawed.](http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm) It doesn’t “follow” that you find fault with the conclusion just because you don’t buy the premises. For instance: > > 1. If the cartoon was by Matt Stone, Michael Moore must have met Stone while making _Bowling for Columbine_. > 2. The cartoon was by Matt Stone. > > * * * > > 1. Michael Moore met Stone while making _Bowling for Columbine_. > > This is a valid argument, and the conclusion is true. However, premise 2 is false and premise 1 is questionable. If you were to say “But that cartoon _wasn’t_ by Matt Stone!” it would not necessarily mean that you disagreed with the conclusion. It certainly isn’t a _statement_ of disagreement with the conclusion. A statement of disagreement with the conclusion would take the form “I disagree with the conclusion” not “I disagree with the premises”. I already acknowledged the site’s arguments as less than logical, but I think the situation here is still applicable. Why? The two points in the cartoon-authorship structure _are the sum totality of the evidence that Moore wanted to mislead_. In your structure, we have other evidence for the conclusion. IE : the face to face interview between the two. In other words, BfT’s author was making use of all available evidence - all of which I dispute - and you’re purposefully avoiding the most direct evidence, to make a strained-logic argument. > [@](#): > > You may continue to insist that, in defiance of both English grammar and logic, “I found the animation style very dissimilar to South Park… but the voice talent somewhat similar” satisfies your claim that you stated several times that you disagreed that Moore intended people to mistakenly believe that the animation was by the creators of _South Park_…but this is pretty strange behavior from someone willing to brand Moore a liar for saying “his own NRA website” in reference to Charlton Heston. I have yet to see anyone come up with an example of Michael Moore expressing himself anywhere near as poorly, illogically, or misleadingly as you have done on this point. But for some reason anytime Michael Moore fails to express himself with perfect clarity he’s a big fat liar out to trick the American people for his own selfish gain. Again, I recanted on the “several”. See above. ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/169 "2004-06-21T13:04:42Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Fine. That’s the NRA’s version of events. [here’s another](http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/history.html). Ha-ha-ha… Great link. BTW, who’da thunk that the book is endorsed by such a sterling group as the VPC. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/170 "2004-06-21T14:51:17Z")
My point precisely - your version of the NRA’s history was on one end of the spectrum, my cite was on the other. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/171 "2004-06-21T14:55:13Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Sure I can. I am honest, and it makes perfect sense to me. Which is all you need if you want to talk to yourself. But again, in attempting to communicate with other people, “it makes perfect sense to me” isn’t quite enough. > [@](#): > > - > > I already acknowledged the site’s arguments as less than logical, but I think the situation here is still applicable. Why? The two points in the cartoon-authorship structure _are the sum totality of the evidence that Moore wanted to mislead_. \*The sum totality of the evidence presented by that site. You have brought up two more data points yourself in this thread: that the voices sound _South Park_-esque to you, and “the puzzling fact that clips from South Park appear in BfC at all”. Someone could disagree with the “Bowling for Truth” evidence, but use yours (or some other as yet unmentioned evidence) to reach the same conclusion: that Moore was intentionally trying to mislead people. In other words, it’s possible to think that “Bowling for Truth” was right for the wrong reasons. It _doesn’t_ follow that anyone who states disagreement with the site’s premises disagrees with the conclusion. Given that you mentioned an additional potential supporting premise of your own in the very same sentence in which you rejected one of the site’s, it seems particularly unreasonable to expect others to read this as a clear statement of disagreement with the site’s conclusion. > [@](#): > > - > > In your structure, we have other evidence for the conclusion. IE : the face to face interview between the two. In other words, BfT’s author was making use of all available evidence - all of which I dispute - and you’re purposefully avoiding the most direct evidence, to make a strained-logic argument. \*I had to use an example where there was other available evidence, or you wouldn’t know that the conclusion was true despite the faulty premises. But one could make a valid but unsound argument with a true conclusion and completely nonsensical premises: 1. If the moon is made of green cheese, my username is Lamia. 2. The moon is made of green cheese. * * * 1. My username is Lamia. Or, to be less silly, I could rework my earlier example this way: 1. If the cartoon was by _South Park_ creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, Michael Moore must have met them both while making _Bowling for Columbine_. 2. The cartoon was by Matt Stone and Trey Parker. * * * 1. Michael Moore met Parker while making _Bowling for Columbine_. Again, valid argument, but premise 1 is questionable and premise 2 is false, so it’s unsound. But is the conclusion true or not? More importantly for our purposes here, what does my rejection of premise 2 and questioning of premise 1 tell you about my beliefs in regard to the conclusion? If I haven’t stated my opinion of the conclusion, can I resonably expect you to understand what it is based on my statements about the premises? Could I fairly claim that my rejection of the premises was a statement of disagreement with the conclusion? It is not logical to reject a conclusion solely because a given argument in support of that conclusion is flawed. This means it is also not logical to claim that rejecting a premise or an entire argument is the same thing as rejecting the conclusion. > [@](#): > > \*Again, I recanted on the “several”. See above. \*Now all you need to do is recant the rest and say that you’ll be less hasty to call other people liars because they don’t always say things in the best or clearest possible way, and we’ll be in perfect agreement. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/172 "2004-06-21T15:09:59Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Which is all you need if you want to talk to yourself. But again, in attempting to communicate with other people, “it makes perfect sense to me” isn’t quite enough. Ah, but the only person for whom I have evidence of a communication failure is you, and bluntly, that’s really not important to me. > [@](#): > > The sum totality of the evidence presented by that site. You have brought up two more data points yourself in this thread: that the voices sound _South Park_-esque to you, and “the puzzling fact that clips from South Park appear in BfC at all”. Someone could disagree with the “Bowling for Truth” evidence, but use yours (or some other as yet unmentioned evidence) to reach the same conclusion: that Moore was intentionally trying to mislead people. Eh, the voice thing I don’t buy as evidence of anything, but I will go on record and say that the clips from South Park, located as they are, don’t connect to the cartoon in BfC in any way. So, there, a third piece of “evidence” disputed. Happy now? > [@](#): > > In other words, it’s possible to think that “Bowling for Truth” was right for the wrong reasons. It _doesn’t_ follow that anyone who states disagreement with the site’s premises disagrees with the conclusion. Given that you mentioned an additional potential supporting premise of your own in the very same sentence in which you rejected one of the site’s, it seems particularly unreasonable to expect others to read this as a clear statement of disagreement with the site’s conclusion. I don’t view my comment on the voices as supportive of the conclusion. Many cartoons have voices similar to other cartoons - there’s a subset of silyl voices that are easy for a lot of people to do, and they get used over and over again. > [@](#): > > I had to use an example where there was other available evidence, or you wouldn’t know that the conclusion was true despite the faulty premises. The fact that we know it is true outside of the premises is precisely the problem. > [@](#): > > But one could make a valid but unsound argument with a true conclusion and completely nonsensical premises: > > 1. If the moon is made of green cheese, my username is Lamia. > 2. The moon is made of green cheese. > > * * * > > 1. My username is Lamia. Again we have external evidence. > [@](#): > > Or, to be less silly, I could rework my earlier example this way: > > 1. If the cartoon was by _South Park_ creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, Michael Moore must have met them both while making _Bowling for Columbine_. > 2. The cartoon was by Matt Stone and Trey Parker. > > * * * > > 1. Michael Moore met Parker while making _Bowling for Columbine_. Better. If this were presented to me, I would say, as you did, that 1 assumes too much, and 2 is false. For that reason, I disagree with the conclusion. It is implied that I disagree with the conclusion _because there is no other reason to believe it_, if I dispute the premises. We’re still skirting dangerously close to the issue that I said I wouldn’t discuss again. I’m closing the dialogue regarding the statement-quibbling from my end. Obviously we have different understandings here, we’re not reaching an agreement, and it’s wasting tremendous amounts of my time. You can say more if you like, but I’m done. If you believe my understanding of logic and the implications thereof are wrong, good for you. If you believe I intentionally meant to deceive, you’re wrong, but you’re welcome to believe it. > [@](#): > > Now all you need to do is recant the rest and say that you’ll be less hasty to call other people liars because they don’t always say things in the best or clearest possible way, and we’ll be in perfect agreement. But I wasn’t hasty. And you and I will never be in perfect agreement on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/173 "2004-06-21T15:42:12Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Ah, but the only person for whom I have evidence of a communication failure is you, and bluntly, that’s really not important to me. You’ve wasted a lot of time and words on something that’s not important to you, then. That’s a shame. If communicating with me doesn’t matter to you, you could have saved us both some trouble by simply not telling me what I was supposed to be “noting” in the first place. > [@](#): > > - > > If you believe my understanding of logic and the implications thereof are wrong, good for you. \*I _know_ your understanding of logic and the implications thereof are wrong. One reason why I have been willing to spend so much time on this is that it’s important to me that people understand these things properly. And I don’t just mean you, I mean anyone else who might still be paying attention and could be confused on this point. It _isn’t_ true that disproving the premises also proves the conclusion false or that disputing the premises necessarily indicates a lack of belief in the conclusion. Believing otherwise isn’t only incorrect, I think it’s actually dangerous because it could lead people to make judgement errors in other areas. > [@](#): > > - > > If you believe I intentionally meant to deceive, you’re wrong, but you’re welcome to believe it. \*If it means anything to you, I don’t believe that to be the case. I believe that you are probably a man (woman? giant turtle of unspecified sex?) of at least average honesty and probably no less than average grasp of logic. But you have been wrong here. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/174 "2004-06-21T16:01:50Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > You’ve wasted a lot of time and words on something that’s not important to you, then. That’s a shame. If communicating with me doesn’t matter to you, you could have saved us both some trouble by simply not telling me what I was supposed to be “noting” in the first place. It began for me with your reply to the post wherein I mentioned BfT. I am, and always have been, a defensive fellow. I perceived that as a personal shot, based on our previous interactions, and began in earnest. Shortly after that, it became a matter of simple momentum. > [@](#): > > I _know_ your understanding of logic and the implications thereof are wrong. One reason why I have been willing to spend so much time on this is that it’s important to me that people understand these things properly. And I don’t just mean you, I mean anyone else who might still be paying attention and could be confused on this point. It _isn’t_ true that disproving the premises also proves the conclusion false or that disputing the premises necessarily indicates a lack of belief in the conclusion. Believing otherwise isn’t only incorrect, I think it’s actually dangerous because it could lead people to make judgement errors in other areas. Let me try one more analogy on for size - it just came to me. I’m viewing the situation somewhat like a criminal court case… Moore as the defendant, BfT as the prosecutor. The prosecutor has chosen what he feels is the strongest evidence for the conclusion that Michael Moore is guilty of attempting to mislead people into thinking the cartoon was done by the South Park guys. The prosecutor presents his evidence to me, a juror or judge. I evaluate the evidence. I find it lacking. Therefore I must disagree with the prosecutor’s conclusion that Moore is guilty. Moore may in fact be guilty, and given the other things I have observed, I’m biased enough that it should taint my judgment against the man, but in this case, there’s nothing to support the conclusion. I cannot say with certainty that he is innocent, but I have no reason to think he is guilty. Of course, the rules in a court of law force you to explicitly state such, but this isn’t really a court - yet I’m still working on a basic assumption of innocent until proven guilty. Does that help at all? > [@](#): > > If it means anything to you, I don’t believe that to be the case. I believe that you are probably a man (woman? giant turtle of unspecified sex?) of at least average honesty and probably no less than average grasp of logic. But you have been wrong here. The problem is that the situation isn’t purely a logical argument. I try to fit it in that mold as much as I can, because it gives me some useful vocabulary and thought structure, but it’s not quite a perfect fit. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/175 "2004-06-21T16:05:27Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I read your earlier post, what I said was that they don’t stock guns at the bank branch for distribution to anyone who opens an account, which is what Moore filmed. Being a registered dealer gave the branch the ability to do a background check. > > 1 - Bank is a registered firearms dealer - Fact > 2 - Bank gives away guns to CD buyers - Fact > 3 - Bank performs background check at the branch - Fact > 4 - Bank normally sends customers to an offsite dealer to pick up guns - Fact > 5 - Bank normally gives away guns at the branch - Not Fact > 6 - Bank normally stores guns inside the branch - Not Fact > > The last three lines get deliberately muddied by the way Moore filmed this topic. The way he filmed it, one would think #'s 5 and 6 were true, as opposed to false. That, to me, is a misrepresentation of the facts, designed to give viewers a skewed view of the situation. > > I would like to point out that NOBODY has attempted to dispute facts 1-3, those are freely admitted by everybody, it is 4-6 that are the bone of contention. Nobody said he was a liar because the bank didn’t give away guns, it was because they don’t give them away at the branch, which is what Moore depicted. Saying over and over that 1-3 are true is fine, but nobody is disputing that in the first place. [Here’s a link to further discussion on the topic]]([kuro5hin.org](http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/9/24/53736/8924)) from someone who has reviewed the outtakes from that scene. The outtakes can be accessed through a link on the page as well. Here’s a quote from the author of that site. > [@](#): > > In the outtake, Jacobson [the employee who worked with Moore] explains the policy more specifically. Moore can pick the gun up immediately from their vault (which is not “two hours away”, as some reports have claimed) – he specifically asks Jacobson whether this can be done in the bank and Jacobson responds that it will only take a few minutes. The outtakes show him going through the complete background check and a bank employee returning from the bank’s vault with the gun. The policy which the WSJ article refers to, the outtake shows, applies only to people who cannot come to the bank to pick up their gun. In these cases, customers have to pick it up at a licensed firearms dealer near them because the gun cannot be shipped directly. It’s not Moore who lies – his critics do, with impunity. I watched the outtakes, and more than once the bank employees indicate that the guns are on-site and available. The gun is brought out in the box by an employee, who pulls it out for Moore. It is evident from the actions of the bank employees that nothing has been prearranged, unless they are all acting. Given that they have not claimed this since, such an excuse is dubious. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the veracity of this charge against Moore and BfC look at the outtakes. I would suggest that those, such as **Cheesesteak** withdraw their claims of lying or misrepresentation. On your list above, items 4-6 appear to be reversed. That is, they should respectively be “Not Fact”, “Fact”, and “Fact.” ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/176 "2004-06-21T16:22:16Z")
Nice one **Hentor the Barbarian**. The woman in the outtake clearly says that if you couldn’t pick up the gun at the bank then you could do so at a dealer. Now from BfT > [@](#): > > Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped. [http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm](http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm) Who’d have thunk it? Inconsistencies from that site? I never would have guessed 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/177 "2004-06-22T07:59:11Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Let me try one more analogy on for size - it just came to me. I’m viewing the situation somewhat like a criminal court case… Moore as the defendant, BfT as the prosecutor. The prosecutor has chosen what he feels is the strongest evidence for the conclusion that Michael Moore is guilty of attempting to mislead people into thinking the cartoon was done by the South Park guys. The prosecutor presents his evidence to me, a juror or judge. I evaluate the evidence. I find it lacking. Therefore I must disagree with the prosecutor’s conclusion that Moore is guilty. Moore may in fact be guilty, and given the other things I have observed, I’m biased enough that it should taint my judgment against the man, but in this case, there’s nothing to support the conclusion. I cannot say with certainty that he is innocent, but I have no reason to think he is guilty. Of course, the rules in a court of law force you to explicitly state such, but this isn’t really a court - yet I’m still working on a basic assumption of innocent until proven guilty. Does that help at all? I’m not having any trouble following your thought process, and I think it is quite reasonable and fair (if not strictly logical in the academic sense) to hold an “innocent until proven guilty” view of such claims. But I still do not see how I, or any other reader, could possibly have been expected to realize that these were your standards and then correctly infer your opinion of the “Bowling for Truth” site’s allegation _before_ you had explicitly stated that you didn’t buy it. “Innocent until proven guilty” isn’t even a universal standard for the legal system, and it’s certainly not the way all people form their personal judgements. I’d be wrong an awful lot if I attempted to predict the views of strangers based on the assumption that they operated under such a belief system. Opinions could also vary as to what constitutes sufficient proof. You’re the one who introduced the site’s allegation of intentional cartoon trickery into the discussion in the first place, and it would have saved a lot of trouble if you’d just said flat-out _then_ that you had reasonable doubt as to its accuracy. Adding a simple parenthetical comment such as “…that’s a mistaken impression many seem to get from the film, and one that BowlingForTruth seems to think Moore wanted to convey (although I doubt he really did)” would have been enough. I’d still be puzzled as to why you wanted to mention it at all if you didn’t agree with it, but at least your personal opinion would have been clear from the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/178 "2004-06-22T08:29:26Z")
Any Time, Michael My Boy - Christopher Hitchens hands the fat idiot his ass. > [@](#): > > To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery. Imagine that. The fat idiot laying his grubby greasy fingers on not only Brandury’s great novel but also 1984; the best book bar none. Oh the horror! The disgust! > [@](#): > > A short word of advice: In general, it’s highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It’s also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history. Aw, that’s gotta hurt! 🙂 [http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/179 "2004-06-22T10:02:53Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Any Time, Michael My Boy - Christopher Hitchens hands the fat idiot his ass. > Imagine that. The fat idiot laying his grubby greasy fingers on not only Brandury’s great novel but also 1984; the best book bar none. Oh the horror! The disgust! > Aw, that’s gotta hurt! 🙂 > > [http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) I take it that Hitchens can prove that “recent history” has been “rewritten” in this movie? Judging by what he wrote, Hitchens is looking for contradictions that aren’t there. His big point about “Troops shouldn’t be there in the first place” contradicting “There wasn’t enough troops sent out” isn’t necessarily a contradiction. Troops should never have been sent out in the first place. However, seeing as the troops were sent out, there should have been enough troops and equipment sent out to ensure their safety. How is that a contradiction? Hitchens is certainly weighing heavily on the Ad Hominem also. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2004, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240/180 "2004-06-22T10:17:56Z")
> [@leander](#): > > You are misrepresenting what he said. Why don’t you post the entire quote instead of rephrasing it? Why don’t _you_? You’re the one challenging my veracity. What a thug you are for defending Moore’s refusal to notify authorities about abuses of Iraqis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-moore-liar-why/250240.md?page=10)