# 'Report This Post' Button Deprecated **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 10, 2006, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862 "2006-02-10T14:41:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/101 "2006-02-11T19:35:07Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > So please restate for me in such a way that makes sense to you, Miller. Don’t mean to intrude or nothin’, but my take is that you have a binary view of the notion of “being informed”: you watch the movie and you’re informed, or you don’t and aren’t. **cthiax** , on the other hand, seems to be arguing a spectrum. The absolute best is watching the movie, but there are other ways to become informed. If you have that spectrum view, then even if you haven’t watched the movie, you could still possibly be informed enough to let loose a few opinions, but as soon as you start talking with people who’ve seen it and who disagree with you, it’s time to shut your trap. ---
**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:** [February 11, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/102 "2006-02-11T19:43:09Z")
> [@Stricker van Gogh](#): > > Don’t mean to intrude or nothin’, but my take is that you have a binary view of the notion of “being informed”: you watch the movie and you’re informed, or you don’t and aren’t. **cthiax** , on the other hand, seems to be arguing a spectrum. The absolute best is watching the movie, but there are other ways to become informed. If you have that spectrum view, then even if you haven’t watched the movie, you could still possibly be informed enough to let loose a few opinions, but as soon as you start talking with people who’ve seen it and who disagree with you, it’s time to shut your trap. Well, part of the contradiction is that he’s taking this position to defend CandidGamera, who’s willing to die for his uninformed opinion. Life is spectrums. To argue such a given strikes me as pointless and hollow. If cthiax’s entire point, arrived after much “debate” and discussion and esoteric examples is simply that “not everything is black and white,” well then color me blinded by the flak. I assumed that since he was putting so much effort into the SHOW of his argument that he had a larger point than that. If all I’m supposed to take from his contradictory scenarios is that we’re talking about a spectrum which (duh) includes contradictory scenarios, then boy is my face red, for being tricked into putting so much energy into this maelstrom of obviousness. What’s next, a 9-page defense of the thesis “there’s an exception to every rule”? Again, Duh. I understand that CG exists at an extreme end of the informed-uninformed opinion spectrum. To argue, as strenuously as you have, cthiax, to make no larger point than “there’s uninformed, and there’s _uninformed_,” well . . . again I invoke the clicking of your keyboard. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/103 "2006-02-11T19:52:05Z")
Okay, I’ll give it a shot. Correct me if I’m mistating anything, **cthiax**. It seems to me that **cthiax** is creating a hierarchy of informed opinions. At the top is having actually seen the movie, but underneath it are various other levels of “informed” of diminishing relevance. Towards the bottom would be seeing a commercial for a movie like the new _Pink Panther_ and forming the opinion that you aren’t interested in seeing that movie. All of these opinions are valid, in their proper context. Seeing a commercial for a movie may be enough information to decide not to see the movie, but it’s not enough information to engage in an academic debate about it. Having studied scripts, director interviews, critical commentary, shot-by-shot analysis, and certain specific scenes can be enough to engage in such a debate, but still places the debator at a disadvantage to someone who has actually seen the film first-hand. And, of course, the most important part (which I think is also missing from **CG** ’s opinion) is the willingness to adapt your opinion in the face of new evidence. _The Pink Panther_ looks stupid from the commercials, but if it gets nominated for an Oscar, I assume **cthiax** would re-evaluate her (?) opinion in the light of that evidence. I’m not sure where you’re seeing a contradiction there, so I don’t know if I’ve addressed your problem with her post at all. Hope it helps, though. On preview: > [@lissener](#): > > Well, part of the contradiction is that he’s taking this position to defend CandidGamera, who’s willing to die for his uninformed opinion. Hmm, that might be where the problem is. I don’t think **cthiax** is defending **CandidGamera** , but rather the general idea that it is possible to have an informed opinion without seeing the movie, even though that’s not what **CG** has done in the other thread. > [@](#): > > Life is spectrums. To argue such a given strikes me as pointless and hollow. If cthiax’s entire point, arrived after much “debate” and discussion and esoteric examples is simply that “not everything is black and white,” well then color me blinded by the flak. I assumed that since he was putting so much effort into the SHOW of his argument that he had a larger point than that. If all I’m supposed to take from his contradictory scenarios is that we’re talking about a spectrum which (duh) includes contradictory scenarios, then boy is my face red, for being tricked into putting so much energy into this maelstrom of obviousness. > > What’s next, a 9-page defense of the thesis “there’s an exception to every rule”? > > Again, Duh. I understand that CG exists at an extreme end of the informed-uninformed opinion spectrum. To argue, as strenuously as you have, cthiax, to make no larger point than “there’s uninformed, and there’s uninformed,” well . . . again I invoke the clicking of your keyboard. Well, my original position was pretty black-and-white, so it’s not like **cthiax** ’s argument was a total waste of time. I enjoyed the exchange, anyway. ---
**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:** [February 11, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/104 "2006-02-11T19:57:49Z")
All of my subsequent reading’s of cthiax’s apparent sophistries was as support for his original thesis: “But it certainly is possible to know everything you need to know about a movie without watching it.” This seems to me to suggest–and none of his subesquent hairsplitting and moebius arguments seem to contradict it–_that it is possible to know everything you need to know about a movie without watching it._ ---
**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:** [February 11, 2006, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/105 "2006-02-11T20:03:10Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > All of my subsequent reading’s of cthiax’s apparent sophistries was as support for his original thesis: “But it certainly is possible to know everything you need to know about a movie without watching it.” > > This seems to me to suggest–and none of his subesquent hairsplitting and moebius arguments seem to contradict it–_that it is possible to know everything you need to know about a movie without watching it._ Well, I mean, they \*DO \*contradict it, which has been my point. But he never refutes it or acknowledges that his take on that statement has changed. If your perceptions have changed over this discussion, cthiax, there’s no shame in saying so. To keep reaching and overexplaining in an attempt cram the contradictory positions of your later arguments into “But it certainly is possible to know everything you need to know about a movie without watching it” without reassessing or restating, is called _backpedalling_, not _progress_. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/106 "2006-02-11T20:47:17Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > All of my subsequent reading’s of cthiax’s apparent sophistries was as support for his original thesis: “But it certainly is possible to know everything you need to know about a movie without watching it.” > > This seems to me to suggest–and none of his subesquent hairsplitting and moebius arguments seem to contradict it–_that it is possible to know everything you need to know about a movie without watching it._ You must have missed this part: > [@cthiax](#): > > That’s why I’ve said, over and over, that one cannot completely grasp a movie without seeing it. She’s not saying that you can perfect knowledge without seeing the film, only that you can have _sufficient_ knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/107 "2006-02-11T20:50:56Z")
It also depends on the definition of “sufficient knowledge” about a movie. Can a preview give you sufficient knowledge to … a) decide that the film is probably not for you, and that – absent some future evidence (e.g. good reviews by people whose opinion you respect, an interview with one of the crew/actors that intrigues you, etc.) – you don’t want to see it? b) decide against seeing a film, period? c) claim that you “hate” the film? d) discuss the film in detail? I think option “a” is a valid point. For example, I’m about 99% certain that despite my general appreciation of some of Steve Martin’s films, _The Pink Panther_ isn’t ever gonna be on my list of movies to see, because Martin’s performance looks embarrassing, because I think revisiting a character so beloved and so tightly connected with another actor is usually pointless unless the performance is stellar, and because in general the style of humor displayed in the preview seems dumb as all get-out. That said, I’m sure if enough people whom I respect returned from the film in absolute ecstasies over it, I just might change my mind. “B” would be fairly understandable to me if, I dunno, the subject matter displayed in a preview is extraordinarily offensive to you, or perhaps the creator/producer is someone whose pockets you do not wish to fill with your money. (Those are probably pretty rare instances, though.) “C,” on the other hand, seems spurious at best. I’d say that _nothing_ short of actually seeing the film is enough reason to “hate” that movie – unless in some bizarre concatenation of events, the movie’s very existence results in something that affects you in some way. Otherwise, I wouldn’t say it’s possible to “hate” the movie itself. To bring up the example of _The Pink Panther_ again: I could hate the idea of it, or indeed the unoriginality that appears to surround Hollywood within its dark yet banal miasma. But _hating_ the movie would be impossible, not to mention over-the-top. And “D”? One can discuss what others have said about the movie, but acting as if one’s own opinion is anything other than generally uninformed – especially in a discussion with many others who’ve actually _seen_ the freakin’ thing – is too toolish for words. So CG should have just shut the fuck up. (BTW, like **lissener** , my mind boggles at the pointlessness of someone hypothetically spending hours reading articles and reviews, studying a shot-by-shot analysis, and viewing clips … but refusing to just see the damn movie for yourself. Jesus! That’s something I’d expect from Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, or other religious asshats bent on boycotting shit for political/religious reasons.) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/108 "2006-02-11T21:02:05Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > All of my subsequent reading’s of cthiax’s apparent sophistries was as support for his original thesis: “But it certainly is possible to know everything you need to know about a movie without watching it.” > > This seems to me to suggest–and none of his subesquent hairsplitting and moebius arguments seem to contradict it–_that it is possible to know everything you need to know about a movie without watching it._ If this exact point has been made, I apologize. If a movie stars Pauley Shore, and the sight of him makes me puke, isn’t it possible for me to know everything I need to know about the movie by looking at the cast list? ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/109 "2006-02-11T21:06:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It seems to me that **cthiax** is creating a hierarchy of informed opinions… Yes, you got it. > [@](#): > > _The Pink Panther_ looks stupid from the commercials, but if it gets nominated for an Oscar, I assume **cthiax** would re-evaluate her (?) opinion in the light of that evidence. You can use any pronoun you want to for me, but that’s not the one I’d use. 😉 > [@](#): > > Hmm, that might be where the problem is. I don’t think **cthiax** is defending **CandidGamera** , but rather the general idea that it is possible to have an informed opinion without seeing the movie, even though that’s not what **CG** has done in the other thread. Right. I’ve been pretty explicit about my non-support of CG from the beginning. > [@](#): > > Well, my original position was pretty black-and-white, so it’s not like **cthiax** ’s argument was a total waste of time. I enjoyed the exchange, anyway. My position wasn’t exactly that everything is not black and white, but I’m glad you enjoyed it. I did too, and I don’t really understand why l **lissener** seems to feel I’ve been tedious and disingenuous. The idea that no one can have any kind of a valid opinion about any film was being held up pretty seriously and deserved a serious response, I thought. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/110 "2006-02-11T21:08:42Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Mostly it’s his repeated mantra of “Why does fast food taste so good? To get you to eat more!” that bugs me. > > McDonald’s (and all fast food) is a business. They are in the business of making food. > > If that food does not taste good then they will go out of business. Oh no! > > It’s not a question of morality, obesity or caloric intent. It’s a dumb question that can be answered with a little Economics 101. Sure, this is obvious. It’s clearly not something that’s obvious to everyone, though. More and more people are making very poor decisions for their day-to-day diet. _Supersize Me_ is aimed that the lowest common denominator. It’s presented in a way that’s meant to appeal to the unwarshed masses, and it spells out things that _ought_ to be obvious to everyone, but isn’t. “It’s harmful to eat high-fat, high-sugar meals every day” may be a no-brainer to you. There are a lot of people out there who don’t get it though – and they’re not about to crack open a book on nutrition. Hell, when I was in grade school, a McDonald’s meal was offered up by our health teacher as an exemplar of a balanced meal. I’m not kidding. “All the four food groups are there. The bun for grains and cereals; the patty for meat; cheese for dairy; tomato, potato, lettuce and pickle and a hot apple pie for fruits and vegetable.” Food is food, right? The difference between wholesome foods and those that are processed so much that they’re basically a substrate for the delivery of refined sugar, saturated fat, and taste-bud-tingling sodium was not raised at all. The point of spelling out the (obvious) mechanics of the fast food industry isn’t to condemn it – it’s just to say, “They have no motivation to make sure you get adequate nutrition. They offer some that’s cheap and provides instant gratification. It’s up to _you_ to look to your own health.” This doesn’t mean that McDonald’s or their competitors are eeeeeevil, they’re just doing what comes naturally. But people need to be educated enough to know that these kinds of foods shouldn’t be overrepresented in our daily diet. * * * As far as the remote evaluation of films is concerned, I think **Miller** is the very voice of reason and should consider a post at the United Nations. I think that documentary films are in a separate class from films that are meant as pure art or entertainment, though. Naturally, if you’ve got a comprehensive account of the content of a documentary film, it’s easier to assess its quality than it would be if you’re looking at the script for a dramatic production, where the greater part of what determines the quality of the picture isn’t in the text, but in the way that many other elements come together to form a gestalt. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2006, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/111 "2006-02-12T01:47:03Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > It’s not just about movies, either. He’s the same guy who starts a thread (or hijacks someone else’s) every six months or so to assert that modern non-representational art is empty and meaningless. He doesn’t really have an argument, either; his posts are a repetitive parade of “I admit I don’t know a lot about this, but I think it’s stupid.” Occasionally he will switch gears: “I admit I don’t know a lot about this, and while I think it’s stupid, I’d like to hear arguments from the other side. …I reject that argument. …I reject that argument. …I reject that argument. Anyone else?” > > I don’t bother responding to his posts, or his threads, or basically interacting with him at all, because he’s either congenitally stupid or he’s a world-class chain-yanker. > > And my SDMB experience is measurably better for it. Wow. Never figured you for a liar, Cervaise. Or perhaps you’re just misremembering. I’ve commented on non-representational art twice - once in a thread I started to ask a specific question about it, and once in a Pit Thread about a little girls’ supposed knack for the abstract, where my comments were very much not a hijack. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2006, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/112 "2006-02-12T01:50:29Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > If only you could actually cite these 50,000 people, and not just those two dickheads you happen to work with. Never mind. You’re just making stuff up now since you seem to have completely lost sight of the facts. > [@](#): > > Would it be cruel of me to point out that just about everyone here thinks you’re a dickhead for being so astoundingly belligerent about a film you’ve not seen? And that by your own logic, you should really pay attention and, y’know, reassess your _cough_ “opinion”? After all, an _awful_ lot of people seem to think the same thing. And therefore, they must be right. Right? **Lissener** attacked, I responded with a defense of my position. This is how it works in Turtle-town. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/113 "2006-02-12T01:58:36Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > **CG** , do you think it’s remotely possible that your pre-conceived belief that the movie is going to suck might influence your subsequent enjoyment of the movie when you actually watch it? Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy? Oh, I have no doubt that it’s an influence. In most cases, though - these “pre-assessments” are based on things that say something to the effect of “This movie contains event X.” I find myself annoyed by the idea of a movie with event X in it, so I ponder - can I possibly like a movie that contains event X? In Serenity’s case, I couldn’t. But I saw it anyway. In Bowling for Columbine’s case, I couldn’t. But I saw it anyway. > [@](#): > > I just don’t think you can use the fact that you’ve agreed with yourself three times as proof that your pre-judgements are accurate. Maybe you should loosen up and go see some movies that you haven’t already analyzed from afar. Or, if you don’t want to waste the money on movies you think you might not like (which is a perfectly valid reason to try to screen out crappy films), get Netflix or cable and watch them at home, or go to more matinees. It seems like you’re making an awful lot of effort to avoid bad movies, so much that you might be tricking yourself into not enjoying things. It’s a bit silly, really. I’ve agreed with myself a lot more than three times, it’s just that it’s only come up on the board three times. I have Netflix. I have Greencine. I’m constantly watching movies. I just don’t have the time for tripe. > [@](#): > > On several notable occasions, I have not expected to enjoy a movie due to assumptions made from trailers and reviwers, and found myself pleasantly surprised. It doesn’t happen terribly often, but it is possible. I think it’s a more reliable predictor to see movies by directors and writers that I like regardless of what other people say. Think about how many times you thought a movie was going to be great and it sucked-- it’s certainly possible for it to go the other way. Sure, and that can happen for me, too - Frex, the Fantastic Four movie. Now, unlike Serenity, I wasn’t faced with some unacceptable event that I became aware of. The initial reports I read about Fantastic Four filled me with a mild foreboding. I expected I probably wouldn’t like it. I was pleasantly surprised. However, sometimes, one is certain what one’s reaction to a movie will be. Like Serenity. cthiax’s Deuce Bigalow, European Gigalo example. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2006, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/114 "2006-02-12T02:21:18Z")
And though cthiax isn’t taking up my defense, I’d like to thank him/her for expressing, cleanly, the idea of a “spectrum” of “informedness”. I would like to respectfully disagree on the point of being able to hate a movie without seeing it - of course. As a hypothetical, I offer “Movie X”. I have not seen “Movie X”. I read a review of “Movie X” by a film critic. This critic dissects “Movie X”, objectively describing the actual events on-screen for twelve different scenes of the film, and asserting the opinion based on those scenes that the movie glorifies racism. Now, as a reasonable person, I assume the critic isn’t just making stuff up. It’s too easily falsified. So I look at the description of the scenes - his collection of evidence. I conclude that I agree with his assertion that the movie glorifies racism. I can now decide, rationally, validly, supercalifragilisticexpialadociously… that I hate the film. Is it possible that he’s misrepresented the evidence by accident or design? Sure. Is it possible my own internal biases make me too quick to jump to the conclusion that the scene description are effective evidence of racism? Sure. Doesn’t matter what else is in the film, so long as those scenes are there, as the critic described them. I can hate the movie from afar. (Well, I could do that anyway, it’s a free country, but under these conditions I can rationally do so.) As for Super Size Me - it’s possible the stuff I read overstates the importance of the stunt. It may take up less than five minutes of the screen time. But it’s there. And it’s dumb. And it’s gimmicky. I can rationally decide I hate the movie because I don’t like dumb, gimmicky stunts. As for “debating” it - my opinion isn’t debatable. It wasn’t presented for debate. I even offered the disclaimer that I hadn’t seen the film because I know some of the folks on the boards got their panties in a bunch about this same issue with me before. I added the comment I hadn’t seen it so they could elect not to respond. As for identifying the central theme of the movie - some have agreed with my summary, some have disagreed. My hatred of the movie doesn’t depend on the stated theme being the central one of the movie, it just has to be there. That I thought it was the central one, based on what I read, is incidental. Perhaps it isn’t. There seems to be some doubt on that score, though. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/115 "2006-02-12T02:39:19Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > And though cthiax isn’t taking up my defense, I’d like to thank him/her for expressing, cleanly, the idea of a “spectrum” of “informedness”. I would like to respectfully disagree on the point of being able to hate a movie without seeing it - of course. > > As a hypothetical, I offer “Movie X”. I have not seen “Movie X”. I read a review of “Movie X” by a film critic. This critic dissects “Movie X”, objectively describing the actual events on-screen for twelve different scenes of the film, and asserting the opinion based on those scenes that the movie glorifies racism. > > Now, as a reasonable person, I assume the critic isn’t just making stuff up. It’s too easily falsified. So I look at the description of the scenes - his collection of evidence. I conclude that I agree with his assertion that the movie glorifies racism. > > I can now decide, rationally, validly, supercalifragilisticexpialadociously… that I hate the film. Is it possible that he’s misrepresented the evidence by accident or design? Sure. Is it possible my own internal biases make me too quick to jump to the conclusion that the scene description are effective evidence of racism? Sure. Plenty of ignorant people condemn _Huckleberry Finn_ because they think it glorifies racism. They are wrong. If you take their interpretation as true, then YOU are wrong. So . . . you seem to be admitting that it’s possible that your opinion is wrong. You’re saying that it’s still “possible” to hate a movie, and be wrong, based on wrong information. THis is honestly what I’m getting from your explanation. As if . . . as if the objection to your opinion was “No, CG, look deep within your heart, you don’t really hate this movie! You only think you do!” Dude, no one doubts that you actually hate this movie, we’re only saying you’re a tool for defending such an opinion without having actually seen the movie. Many people hate \*The Last Temptation of Christ \*without having seen it. Many people hate _Brokeback Mountain_ without having seen it. Many people are tools. If you had said, “everything I’ve heard about that movie makes me think I’d hate it,” or “makes me think I wouldn’t want to see it” or even “I hate everything I’ve heard about that movie,” you might have gotten some discussion, but you wouldn’t have gotten as much grief. But to continue to defend your hatred OF THE MOVIE, as opposed to your hatred of YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHAT THE MOVIE IS PROBABLY ABOUT, based on your ASSUMPTIONS of its premise from your LIMITED third party understanding of what that premise is (about which you are largely wrong) makes you at least a big a tool. I can have a kind of pitying empathy for someone who thinks a movie will challenge their religious beliefs, or throw open an inner closet door, but I have nothing but disdain for a person whose only investment is in hardheaded ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/116 "2006-02-12T02:55:23Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > **Lissener** attacked, I responded with a defense of my position. This is how it works in Turtle-town. Turtles defend by pulling their sensory organs into a hard shell and waiting for whatever’s out there to go away, right? ---
**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:** [February 12, 2006, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/117 "2006-02-12T02:59:15Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Plenty of ignorant people condemn _Huckleberry Finn_ because they think it glorifies racism. They are wrong. If you take their interpretation as true, then YOU are wrong. Eye of the beholder, dude. > [@](#): > > So . . . you seem to be admitting that it’s possible that your opinion is wrong. You’re saying that it’s still “possible” to hate a movie, and be wrong, based on wrong information. THis is honestly what I’m getting from your explanation. Of course it’s possible to hate something based on inaccurate information! It’s even rational to do so if one has no reason to doubt the information. People do this all the time. What do you hate? Do you know everything there is to know about it? You can’t. “I hate that guy! He’s a child molester!” “Actually, they did convict him, but new evidence recently revealed he didn’t do it.” “Oh.” > [@](#): > > As if . . . as if the objection to your opinion was “No, CG, look deep within your heart, you don’t really hate this movie! You only think you do!” Perhaps I should’ve taken your comment about not having the balls to say you hated a movie without seeing it more literally, then. I read it as an attack on my right to the opinion or to it’s validity. > [@](#): > > Dude, no one doubts that you actually hate this movie, we’re only saying you’re a tool for defending such an opinion without having actually seen the movie. It’s a rational, valid opinion. I will defend that point tirelessly. Though cthiax does it better. You thinking I’m a tool for having a rational, valid opinion that differs from yours says more about you than it does me. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2006, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/118 "2006-02-12T03:00:39Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > Turtles defend by pulling their sensory organs into a hard shell and waiting for whatever’s out there to go away, right? The normal-sized ones do. The large kaiju variety breathes atomic fire, only retracting to think about how best to counterattack. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/119 "2006-02-12T03:22:39Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Eye of the beholder, dude. Or, eye of the cousin of the guy who married the piano teacher of the chick who overheard the beholder talking about a movie on the subway. > [@CandidGamera](#): > > Of course it’s possible to hate something based on inaccurate information! It’s even rational to do so if one has no reason to doubt the information. People do this all the time. What do you hate? Do you know everything there is to know about it? You can’t. > > “I hate that guy! He’s a child molester!” > “Actually, they did convict him, but new evidence recently revealed he didn’t do it.” > [del]“Oh.”[/del] You accidentally left in that last part that shows you being receptive to further information. You left in the part about jumping to conclusions based on faulty information though. > [@CandidGamera](#): > > Perhaps I should’ve taken your comment about not having the balls to say you hated a movie without seeing it more literally, then. I read it as an attack on my right to the opinion or to it’s validity. If by “valid” you mean “retarded,” then, sure, OK. > [@CandidGamera](#): > > It’s a rational, valid opinion. I will defend that point tirelessly. Though cthiax does it better. You thinking I’m a tool for having a rational, valid opinion that differs from yours says more about you than it does me. If by “rational and valid” you mean “fiercely ignorant and boneheadedly stubborn,” then we’re cool. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862/120 "2006-02-12T04:18:15Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > It’s a rational, valid opinion. I will defend that point tirelessly. The particular opinion you’re advancing is neither rational or valid, as it’s based on a mistaken premise. [/quote] > [@CandidGamera](#): > > “I hate that guy! He’s a child molester!” > "Actually, they did convict him, but new evidence recently revealed he didn’t do it. > “Oh.” Still waiting for an “Oh” from you, here. What’s the basis of your hatred for _Supersize Me_? That it’s a waste of film because it advances an idea that’s so obvious that there’s no need at all for it to be articulated, analogous to a film demonstrating that you’ll get an unpleasant surprise if you stick a fork in a light socket. A valid comparison, if there was an epidemic health crisis due to people jamming eating utensils into their household electrics. Instead, the idea of the film is that many, many people make very poor decisions about their personal nutrition. It explores (with considerable depth) the various factors that contribute to this problem. It notes the growing phenomenon of people calling for corporate interests to modify their operations to benefit the general public. It illustrates why fast food corporations will not (and indeed can not) remodel themselves in such a way that places the interests of the consumer ahead of their own, and asks the viewer to consider that and decide whether it makes more sense to place the responsibility for their personal health on these corporations or to accept the responsibility themselves and get in the habit of making intelligent dietary choices themselves. You object to the use of a “gimmick?” Sure, he could easily have made a serious-as-cancer film on the same subject, with a po-faced presenter interviewing a representative sample of the nutritionally-illiterate, intercut with a dry recitation of the pertinent facts and statistics. _Why Are We So Fat? Examining Trends in Consumer Nutrition with a View to the Future_. Many such films have been made. Of course, nobody watches them, nobody talks about them, they are totally absent from theatre screens and video store shelves everywhere, the garner no awards, and, you can be sure, they have very little chance of actually affecting the thinking of a substantial number of people who might benefit from the information that they relate. He found a way to personalize the subject and inject enough humour into it that people were inclined to, you know, watch it and _like it._ A documentary about _nutrition._ Damn him! Damn him to _heck!_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/report-this-post-button-deprecated/343862.md?page=7)