# Pin the ad on the hominem **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 29, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792 "2004-06-29T23:58:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**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:** [July 1, 2004, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/121 "2004-07-01T11:49:34Z")
For what it’s worth, I’ve got no problem with **Airman Doors’** position vis a vis paying his money to go see the movie. Not to equate Moore with Sean Hannity, but I wouldn’t give that stupid fuck (Hannity) a nickel of my money. If you gave me his book, however, I would be happy to tear the shit out of it, logically and factually speaking. Again, not that Moore and Hannity are in any way equivalent. I’m interested in **AD’s** reaction to the movie. Given that it is in the theaters, a copy cannot be loaned to him. I still like the suggestion someone else made about buying a ticket to see _Shrek 2_ and finding your way to _Fahrenheit 911_. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/122 "2004-07-01T12:42:08Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Now a question. **TYM** , you’re in CO from what I remember. **Airman** is in PA. How is this working out? Or am I behind on recent moves? Also **Airman** , will Robin be joining you on this excursion? Or is she set on seeing it without you cluttering her mind with facts? 😃 I’ve mailed him a check. I’m kind of surprised at all the nit-pickers about this. First you’re all over **Airman** because he won’t go see the movie, then he and I work out an arrangement that compromises neither my principles nor his, and you’re all over that! I was going to see it this weekend. If I don’t go, then Moore gets no extra money, only the price of one ticket that he would have gotten anyway. Would that make y’all happy? Sheesh. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2004, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/123 "2004-07-01T12:52:50Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Classifying words according to your _own_ usage other than how, say, the dictionary does. (My electronic dictionary - Microsoft’s Bookshelf, classifies “retarded” as _offensive adjective_ - makes no quibbles about it.) Or the very population that is likely to be offended by the manner in which you use the word. What’s next? We bring back “nigger,” or “kike?” Those words have gone out of popular usage, too. Should we just label them “archaic” and get on with re-introducing 'em to our common grammar? > > That’d be . . . gay. > > And all this applies eqaully to you, Mr. Gamera, lest you think I’m letting you off the hook. What you do by parroting offensive speech does nothing but shows you to be an unthinking marionette. As well as a fine way to perpetuate prejudice. Each of which is anathema to this website. > > You guys are assholes. [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) - retarded, adj. (selected from the Merriam-Webster result portion, the only one that mentions offensive) 1. _Often Offensive_. Affected with mental retardation. 2. Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed. Well, this tells me by implication that it’s not always offensive… that’s good. I’d hate to think that the dictionaries of the world had bought into the PC era so completely that they wanted to say, with authority, which words were supposed to be offensive. The use of the word ‘retarded’ in a slang sense as a substitute for ‘stupid’ is a long-standing tradition amongst my people (we, the few, the proud, the twenty-something) - the use of it is insensitive, I’ll grant you, to any mentally-challenged folks who may be listening. And one would never apply it to a person who was actually developmentally disabled. In fact, I don’t find myself using it all that often anymore. We have a good variety of words that mean ‘stupid’ - but when I see this pile of flaming invective directed at me and lissener because we failed to pre-scrub our speech to make it bland and palatable to every single person in the entire universe - well, it just makes me laugh. “It won a Humanitas award.” “What’s that?” “An award for shows that don’t use words like ‘retarded’.” “That’s retarded. And queer.” - Clerks, The Animated Series. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/124 "2004-07-01T13:28:43Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > _In the style of Michael Moore:_ > > […Fade In, Martin Luther King, Jr. giving his famous “I have a dream speech”…] > … > […head shot of David J. Garrow, a leftist academic…] > > Interviewer: In “The Journal of American History”, June 1991, you wrote about King’s academic reputation. What did you say? > > Garrow: “King’s academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions… and comparisons of other’s writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King’s professors did not expect more.” > > […camera close-up of King’s doctoral dissertation, “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman” side-by-side with “The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich’s Concept of God”, the doctoral dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer…] > > Voiceover: There are, in fact, more than 50 complete sentences in the two compositions that are identical. > … So, if the above facts are true, what’s wrong with the above “documentary”? It may leave out important facts about MLK, but it would be very informative for people who did not know this side of MLK. I don’t see what you wrote as too misleading. Same with Moore’s movie. If the facts are true, and if they are impotant facts that many people might not know about, what’s wrong with it? Who says every documentary has to present “the whole truth” for it to be useful or important? For example, for people who think Bush is “a regular guy”, and people who hate Kerry because he is part of the “elite”, there is a scene in the trailer where he tells a room full of “elite”: “Others call you the elite, I call you my base”. Surely, this is important for people who view him “a regular guy” to be able to see this side of him. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/125 "2004-07-01T14:22:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > . . . I have no interest in making any crucial judgment of the film. . . . All this crap about . . . the disgruntled soldiers tricked [_sic_] into saying things. . . . Now . . . were he to make a film entirely about . . . [my tunnel-visioned one-note obsessive pet subject] . . . then I would be the first in line. . . . What a tinyminded hypocritical fuck. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/126 "2004-07-01T16:49:16Z")
> [@CandidGamera\[/quote](#): > > Well, this tells me by implication that it’s not always offensive… that’s good. I’d hate to think that the dictionaries of the world had bought into the PC era so completely that they wanted to say, with authority, which words were supposed to be offensive. Perhaps. But the manner in which you used it here was most certainly intended to be offensive. Since this is the case, your defense is nothing but a strawman and a self-justification for your insensitivity. Sensibility for the uncontrollable medical conditions of your fellow humans has not a goddamn thing to do with “political correctness.” ---
**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:** [July 1, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/127 "2004-07-01T17:03:28Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Perhaps. But the manner in which you used it here was most certainly intended to be offensive. Since this is the case, your defense is nothing but a strawman and a self-justification for your insensitivity. Sensibility for the uncontrollable medical conditions of your fellow humans has not a goddamn thing to do with “political correctness.” Actually, it wasn’t intended to offend. But you’re welcome to jump to whatever conclusions are close at hand. “Witch” has long been used as a slang word for an ill-tempered woman. If I were to call someone a witch, and one of my Wiccan friends said “Hey, you can’t use that word that way, it offends me!” I’d have to laugh, and tell them that while they’re welcome to be offended, no offense was meant, and I intend to continue to use the word as I see fit, as it doesn’t belong to them. Likewise with “retarded.” You’re welcome to be offended, but don’t expect that to bother me, as I had no intention of offense. **Your** linguistic hang-ups are not **my** problem. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/128 "2004-07-01T17:18:50Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > So, if the above facts are true, what’s wrong with the above “documentary”? > It may leave out important facts about MLK, but it would be very informative for people who did not know this side of MLK. I don’t see what you wrote as too misleading. > > Same with Moore’s movie. If the facts are true, and if they are impotant facts that many people might not know about, what’s wrong with it? Who says every documentary has to present “the whole truth” for it to be useful or important? > > For example, for people who think Bush is “a regular guy”, and people who hate Kerry because he is part of the “elite”, there is a scene in the trailer where he tells a room full of “elite”: “Others call you the elite, I call you my base”. > > Surely, this is important for people who view him “a regular guy” to be able to see this side of him. There are a lot of things wrong with it. Number 1, the sins of a man’s past do not necessarily project his current character. Number 2, there is no reason to believe that the SCLC is lying even if King were a liar. Number 3, there is nothing stated about his school’s policies with respect to copying work, and since he got good grades it could be assumed that he did nothing against their policies. Number 4, the whole bit about plagiarism is a red herring anyway (as are the communist ties) because the great things Martin Luther King, Jr did far outweigh such piddly shit. Number 5, the sources could in fact have been wrong, since all I checked was that I quoted them correctly. And on and on. It is a grossly misleading piece about one of America’s greatest 20th century leaders. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/129 "2004-07-01T17:21:29Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > What a … fuck. Glad you enjoyed it. Incidentaly your “sic” is mistaken: > [@](#): > > Lauer: “Do you think that the soldiers thought they were talking to a film crew that was working with –” > > Moore: “Some of them did and some of them didn’t.” I guess that makes you a sic fuck. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/130 "2004-07-01T17:24:07Z")
**Re: "sic fuck"** Drag him out and shoot him. I’ll swear out the warrant later. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/131 "2004-07-01T17:56:56Z")
So . . . the soldiers who (in a film you haven’t seen) gave an honest answer to a direct question were “tricked” because–you apparently assume–if they’d known their interviewer was a liberal (or whatever; your unlinked “cite” is oddly truncated), they’d have had a chance to, what, make something up? So \*tricked \* = not given adequate opportunity to lie. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/132 "2004-07-01T18:14:02Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Now, as much as I despise Moore generally, were he to make a film entirely about Bush’s tyranny, his mugging of the populace to pay for his bloated government, his trampling of our civil liberties through his fascist Attorney General, and his abuse of power for the purpose of political expedience, then I would be the first in line, and I would buy tickets for ten of my friends. Since **Fahrenheit 9/11** _does_ touch on John Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, and the shredding of our civil liberties for a fair portion of the film (look out for those Fresno peaceniks!), does that mean you’ll end up buy a matinee ticket? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/133 "2004-07-01T18:34:33Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It is a grossly misleading piece about one of America’s greatest 20th century leaders. I’m not sure if you know about this, but Cecil himself [addressed this issue](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030502.html) He concluded > [@](#): > > As every reasonable observer has commented, neither King’s sexual wanderings nor his scholarly misdeeds detract from his core achievement. By continually publicizing black grievances while putting a palatable, nonviolent face on resistance to jim crow, King paved the way for the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s and a major turnaround in public attitudes about race. But there’s no getting around the fact that he was a complex and deeply flawed man. Was he a great American? No argument here. Was he a fraud and a hypocrite? He was that, too. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/134 "2004-07-01T18:58:48Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I’m not sure if you know about this, but Cecil himself [addressed this issue](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030502.html) > He concluded I’m glad you found that. It helps make my point. The parody post insinuated nothing but the fraud and hypocrite part. What is there in F9/11, if you have seen it, that acknowledges Bush’s leadership (which more than 80% of Americans recognized) in the period shortly after 9/11? Did the film indicate, for example, that his reaction in front of the school children was appropriate so that they did not become alarmed and hysterical? Or did it represent the moment solely as Bush being indecisive and his staff not knowing what to do? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/135 "2004-07-01T19:00:42Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Since **Fahrenheit 9/11** _does_ touch on John Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, and the shredding of our civil liberties for a fair portion of the film (look out for those Fresno peaceniks!), does that mean you’ll end up buy a matinee ticket? No, but I hope it means that you’ll look up the word “entirely”. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/136 "2004-07-01T19:13:36Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m glad you found that. It helps make my point. The parody post insinuated nothing but the fraud and hypocrite part. What is there in F9/11, if you have seen it, that acknowledges Bush’s leadership (which more than 80% of Americans recognized) in the period shortly after 9/11? Did the film indicate, for example, that his reaction in front of the school children was appropriate so that they did not become alarmed and hysterical? Or did it represent the moment solely as Bush being indecisive and his staff not knowing what to do? Well, you’ll never know the answer to your own questions because you’ll never see the movie. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/137 "2004-07-01T19:14:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, but I hope it means that you’ll look up the word “entirely”. Man, what an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/138 "2004-07-01T19:42:59Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, but I hope it means that you’ll look up the word “entirely”. [roadmap] Pssst…he was suggesting, since the movie is not 100% about the things you mentioned but does touch on them in a significant degree, you could buy a ticket that costs less than full price. [/roadmap] ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/139 "2004-07-01T20:29:42Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Well, you’ll never know the answer to your own questions because you’ll never see the movie. I’ll trust Polerius’ answer. I’ll even trust yours. What is it? > [@](#): > > Man, what an asshole. I know you are, but what am I? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792/140 "2004-07-01T20:32:38Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > [roadmap] > Pssst…he was suggesting, since the movie is not 100% about the things you mentioned but does touch on them in a significant degree, you could buy a ticket that costs less than full price. > [/roadmap] [signpost] And I was suggesting that I’m not interested in something half-assed. Haven’t you seen _Cuckoo’s Nest_? A broken cigarette is not two nickels. [/signpost] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pin-the-ad-on-the-hominem/252792.md?page=8)