Thanks, Libertarian; you continue to pound nails into your own coffin, credibilitywise.
Brilliant illustration of the folly of an ad hominem attack (though I fear that was the opposite of your intent), with a little Amos’nAndy racism thrown in for good measure.
Was there an incorrect fact? A lie to be found anywhere? That’s quite a double standard you have there, Kimo Sabe. If Moore had written it, your slobber would be all over his ass. Incidentally, I might point out to you that some of those things outside your window there that are moving around are called “other people”. Your backhanded attempt at disrespecting me by refusing to use my correct username deprives new people of knowing whom you were addressing. Not that you care about them, but still.
Just to clarify: the ad hominems I’m addressing in the OP and in my last post above are the ones that can be paraphrased, roughly: “Michael Moore/MLKjr/[Whoever] once said or did [X], so Idon’t have to engage with the substance of ANYTHING he EVER says, EVER again: we take this as permission to make the entire discussion about the MESSENGER and completely ignore the MESSAGE.”
Freely given does not equal a scam. I’ve bought them lunches too, at other restaurants. I’m pretty sure it evens out. And in Airman’s case, he’s bright. Whether he comes out of the movie pro or anti, his views on it will be worth reading, and they will then be his views. Worth it to me. YMMV
That particular sort of ad hominem is called “poisoned well”.
Just when I thought my jaw couldn’t drop any lower. So you take the facts, and spin them to support an emotionally informed opinion, in order to attack Moore for doing the same thing? Hypocritical fuck.
And this goes to prove that YOU’RE the one posting from a vacuum, Libertarian. I’ve made it abundantly clear, in previous posts, that I have a pretty clear-eyed view of Moore’s strengths AND his weaknesses. I have called him a propagandist and a polemicist. But I have also said that this does not invalidate the truth, such truth as there is, to be found in his stuff.
I am using your correct username, Altria. Your shameful attempt to shed the baggage of your own history is reprehensible and dishonest, and I won’t support it. I use your real name specifically with new Dopers in mind, so they know what a dishonest fuck you are.
Lib -
Brilliant. Absolutely fucking brilliant.
Regards,
Shodan
Idiot. I was illustrating what he does. Have someone read the post’s first line to you.
I reckon that dishonest is as dishonest does. One of us is using the other’s registered username. One of us is not.
Correct me if I’m wrong, as I haven’t seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but isn’t a substantial portion of it an ad hominem attack on Dubya?
And then there’s the hatchet job on Heston from Bowling for Columbine.
Of course, one man’s ad hominem is another man’s “Telling it like it is, man!”
I, for one, enjoyed your deftly contructed parody, Liberal.
Thank you, Shodan and Candid. An honor.
This is why if it’s not a scam, it’s a copout: your money is going where you don’t want it to go, just indirectly. So you trade cash depending on the restaurant. What do they care? The bottom line is the same.
Please read the thread before you post. I’ve acknowledged that Moore is a propagandist and a polemicist. I don’t, however, use that as an excuse to ignore everything he says–baby, bathwater, and all.
In the first place.
In the second place, Moore’s an entertainer; Bush is the “elected” leader of the free world. An examination of Bush as a person is certainly more relevant in that context, if you ask me. Moore is not making *decisions * that decide the life or death of millions of people; he’s just a standup comic with a political POV and a camera.
Yup, I bet that’s the name on his birth certificate! Oh wait, could it be a username? :smack: My bad.
God save us all if lissener isn’t around to inform all new Dopers on who’s who over the history of the SDMB. Thank you for keeping us up to date, december.
Huh? (hang on, I’m getting a call here, you can all listen in)
What the hell do you mean I can’t attribute a name to lissener? Oh, fine, he pulls out an old username, gives it to someone that publicly changed his name, and won’t let it go. Even goes so far as to quote a current post under a retired name. Fine, I’ll retract the december remark. But I won’t stop thinking it!"
OK, the call is over, back to the thread. Hope it wasn’t too loud, I hate to stir up shit. :rolleyes:
Oh and** Liberal**, you’re pissing me off with all the agreeing I’m doing here. Dick. 
They don’t care; I do. Whether you believe I am compromising my moral purity or not is pretty much irrelevant. It’s a compromise I can live with.
Oh, I did.
His was a work of parody to illustrate one of the problems with Moore’s style. It’s sort of strange for you to take issue with Airman’s ad hominem and Liberal’s (parody) ad hominem and not Moore’s ad hominem. Seems inconsistent. Maybe it isn’t, in your mind.
And the problem with your second comment is while Moore is a standup comic with a camera and a political POV, there’s a portion of the population salivating for the next chapter of the Gospel of Saint Moore, and that’s dangerous.
I view President Bush as dishonest and irresponsible… but two wrong’s don’t make a right, and I’m not going to give Moore a pass on the same stuff.
When someone distorts the truth consistently and repeatedly it only makes sense to begin to doubt everything they say, unless supported by outside sources.
In my opinion, that has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with being cheap. Same thing with AD.
Hm. If that’s the case, then I was rather thoroughly whooshed. I thought he was suggesting that an ad hominem approach to an issue is perfectly valid; that we should judge King’s words with his past actions in mind, and thereby find them lacking.
So . . . you’re attacking Moore because the *public * is retarded?
(sorry for the fragmented responses; at work)
Moore’s work doesn’t distort the truth any more than any other editorialist. He forms an opinion based on certain facts, and he then turns around and presents those facts in such a way as to illustrate his opinion. He leaves out facts that aren’t part of his argument, but that’s certainly standard for a making a “persuasive”-style argument. He IS trying to make a point, he is NOT trying to shed an objective light on the subject at hand. He sees things that outrage him, and he’s sharing that outrage. Live with it or get over it.
Well, if you are suggesting that much of Moore’s core audience is retarded, perhaps Moore needs to be more careful with his facts.
A lot of people don’t know that Moore plays fast and loose with his accusations. Lots of Moore fans don’t care, and therefore aren’t likely to call Moore when he tells a whopper. Conservatives and/or those with a commitment to truth-telling, do care, and have therefore pointed out many instances in the past where Moore has been dishonest.
Being dishonest is wrong. Those who don’t know when it is happening, and those who don’t care when it is happening because it gores somebody’s else’s ox, aren’t going to correct the wrong. That leaves it up to the rest of us.
If you don’t know that Moore is dishonest, that’s one thing. If you do know, and don’t care, that is quite another.
Regards,
Shodan