Michael Moore and his bullshit (Bowling for Columbine)

Started by Thecowgoooesmooo, December 03, 2003, 01:52:58 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: aclockworkjjyou critize and point out his lack of content, but yet really don't add anything else there.  

if he is so wrong, show or discuss why,  it's easy to question his arguement, but you guys are doing the same shit.

He's trying to invalidate "Bowling for Columbine." It only makes sense that if I invalidate his invalidations, the argument is done. Do you want me to restate the movie? Or perhaps you should actually see the movie so you can tell if I've done so.

Quote from: aclockworkjjPersonally i think it's clear that the Moo  Cow is a racist (you know that's where you were going), and he likes to shoot things, and he probably hates fat people too.

I never said that or implied it... just that his use of personal attacks is the wrong way to use this board, let alone try to conduct a reasonable debate. I don't see how "Blackie" would have any racial meaning anyway, since he's African-American and I'm not.

Quote from: aclockworkjjReally, how do you expect the guy to have a decent discussion when he has 6 people simply telling him, "You're a fuckin' idiot."

How does he expect to have a decent discussion when he has to concoct condescending nicknames to support his argument? What, you think we tainted his pristine thread or something by calling him on it?

Raikus

Quote from: godardian
Quote from: RaikusJust to give you all an outsider's view on this thread.

Cow's been kicking all your asses by displaying fact and responding to each point in a reasonable way. Everyone else seems to be "copping out" with posts attacking him and not his evidence while the others pat them on the back and say "good one."

That's sort of true, except for the reasonable part and the part about people not rebutting his "facts" with other "facts." It was revealing that JB and RK pointed out that many of those articles had the same very biased sources. So much for trashing Moore's supposed biases with supposed "objectivity."
Actually the argument here is a biased source vs. a biased source. If everyone can't agree that Moore was biased when he started filming Bowling with preconceived notions then they are being naive. A Documentarian will submit a thesis as to what they think the documentary will show before they begin. They then shoot it and see what the result is. In my opinion, that's not what happened here. So if yours and JB's and RK's argument is that you can't believe the evidence provided by a NRA lawyer, then your argument must adversely mean you can't believe evidence provided by Moore. But, as logically failing as it seems, that's not the case.

QuoteCowgoesmooooooo is not reasonable. He's obviously enjoying the fight, and would find some other issue to start one over if Michael Moore wasn't his target. Unless he's actually that hung up on Michael Moore, which would be part pathetic and part scary.
From what I've seen Cow isn't fighting, he's debating. There's a large difference. However, everyone else seems to be fighting, not debating. That's one of the many problems about this site. People don't know how to debate by point/counter-point and instead counter with insults against the individual. Cow has been the strictest adherer to debate in this thread so that would also make him reasonable.

QuoteIf it's really hypocrisy and lying that's getting you down, why not start rampaging against Bush/Cheney/Halliburton and their lies, which are so much more detrimental to all of us than anything incorrect Moore might have claimed, even if you could prove that? Michael Moore only has the power to annoy you if you don't like him- the others have real power.
True, but that's another subject and has nothing to do with this thread. Cow was talking about Moore. It seems another argument is only brought up when the previous one is lost. Debate the Moore topic. If you'd like to talk about Bush/Cheney/Halliburton I'd propose starting a topic on them.
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free, silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands, with all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves, let me forget about today until tomorrow.

Pubrick

Quote from: RaikusJust to give you all an outsider's view on this thread.

Cow's been kicking all your asses by displaying fact and responding to each point in a reasonable way. Everyone else seems to be "copping out" with posts attacking him and not his evidence while the others pat them on the back and say "good one."

At least, that's how it looks from here.
from here it looks like u just patted cow on the back.
under the paving stones.

Raikus

Quote from: P
Quote from: RaikusJust to give you all an outsider's view on this thread.

Cow's been kicking all your asses by displaying fact and responding to each point in a reasonable way. Everyone else seems to be "copping out" with posts attacking him and not his evidence while the others pat them on the back and say "good one."

At least, that's how it looks from here.
from here it looks like u just patted cow on the back.
I should hope so. That was my intention.
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free, silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands, with all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves, let me forget about today until tomorrow.

Pubrick

under the paving stones.

godardian

Quote from: Raikus
Actually the argument here is a biased source vs. a biased source. If everyone can't agree that Moore was biased when he started filming Bowling with preconceived notions then they are being naive.

I think everyone knows that, actually. All arguments are a biased source vs. a biased source, and no documentary could ever be completely objective. Cowgoesmoooooo didn't exactly come up with trenchant, ass-kicking arguments, though, which is what you wrongly claimed; his arguments and sources are as biased and full of holes, if not more so, than anyone else's. His triumphant stance of "objectivity" and revelation were sheeer b.s.

You're also wrong that he's just reasonably "debating." His tone is vituperative and spiteful. It's painfully clear that he's picking a fight. Q.E.D.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

aclockworkjj

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmancalling him on it?
maybe you ment disagree?

MacGuffin

Quote from: RaikusFrom what I've seen Cow isn't fighting, he's debating. There's a large difference. However, everyone else seems to be fighting, not debating. That's one of the many problems about this site. People don't know how to debate by point/counter-point and instead counter with insults against the individual. Cow has been the strictest adherer to debate in this thread so that would also make him reasonable.

Raikus, I give you his strict adherence. You don't find these few sample quotes as insults?

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooWell Pete, you got me here, this statement is so stupid, that I can't even possibly understand it. Thank you for making me dumber.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooJesus christ man... Was your abusive father a republican or somthin?

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooI'll educate you Pete. Once your done reading these next few sentences Pete, you will no longer have to attend the Sylvan Learning Center.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

aclockworkjj

haha...jeez, he is talking shit.  Seems as if he recieved some too.  Holy crap...sensative, sensative.  
Quote from: Pi'm sure other ppl here hav other reasons to hate u.
Quote from: petethis thread is started by some insecure and admittingly generic young republican to make him feel better about the shit he reads in the national review aka the new republic for grownups.
Quote from: ©bradcan't u just go back to ur usually one meaningless post a month routine? i liked that a lot better.

i mean...if we wanna play the quote game.

Raikus

Well, admittedly I was championing his cause a bit to heartily, but those quotes you posted were in response to someone berating him previously. That's not an excuse, mind you, but Cow's classification of his arguments have far exceeded those opposing him.

And while I agree with some of the things Godardian said, Cow still seems to be the one keeping a semblance of debate going, while others are actually trying to fight.

Basically this whole debate is a seesaw of opinions. Both weighing nearly nothing because neither source can be validated, or, more importantly for both sides, neither side feels the need to accept any type of validation coming from the other. What I saw when I started browsing this thread days ago was a playground argument, with both sides already closed minded and with the same biased preconceived ideas, but with all the kids backing the side that seemed to be putting forth the least debate. So my "ass kicking" comment may have been a bit generalized, but I still stand by what I said regarding Cow's intention of "debate" opposed to the others intention of "fighting."
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free, silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands, with all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves, let me forget about today until tomorrow.

Thecowgoooesmooo

QuoteThecowgoooesmooo wrote:
So what's your point Mr. Blackman? Do you discredit his information and facts just because he is apart of the NRA?

Yes. I think it's reasonable to say that lawyers for the NRA have a tendency to manipulate things in the NRA's favor, especially if they're being paid to do so.

Hey Blackman, I just don't understand you man. Facts are facts. The only thing you have told me is that they may have the tendency to manipulate things in the NRA's favor. Your just accusing, and so far, you have not brought one fact into this arguement.

There has been over 300 independent researchers who have found faults with Moore, and its not a conspiracy contrived largely from the NRA. It's fact. Seriously, It's interesting to see you ignore the facts and accuse instead of bringing "actually factual evidence" from say, the NRA stretching the truth or lieing about Moore's film.


chris

RegularKarate

The whole point here was this:

CGMoo came here screaming and yelling and wanting a fight, saying what had been discussed many times over in other threads.
He even said that he didn't want to go to the other threads.  This tells me he either wants this to be about him or really wants to fight.

Some of us point out that we've already discussed this and that Moore is not the first one to be slightly manipulative with his doc and that it's actually IMPOSSIBLE to be truly objective while making a documentary (though I'll admit Moore went a little further than most do).

If you want us to go fact by fact, we can... I believe we already have... here's a sample:

-The websites that are all the same say: "Those guys dropped out of thier Bowling Class, Michael Moore's a liar!"

-we say "who fucking cares if they dropped out of thier bowling class... it was reported that they went bowling before the shooting, that's all... it's part of his point."

-The websites that are all the same say: "They didn't let that lady at the bank answer Michael Moore's question.  Michael Moore is a liar!"

-we say "you obviously don't get it.  His point is that a promotion where you get a free gun at a bank sends the wrong message to people.  We're not stupid enough to think that the bank wouldn't do any kind of background check or check ID.  That doesn't need to be shown"

anyway... the point is that we've been through all of this... he just wants a fight.

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: aclockworkjjmaybe you ment disagree?

If only he could just disagree.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooHey Blackman, I just don't understand you man. Facts are facts. The only thing you have told me is that they may have the tendency to manipulate things in the NRA's favor. Your just accusing, and so far, you have not brought one fact into this arguement.

I'll try to say this again. Bowling for Columbine has facts in it. The NRA lawyer disputed those facts. I'm saying I don't trust the NRA lawyer... I'm not "simply ignoring the facts" by being skeptical of the NRA lawyer. Many of the things he complains about in BFC are very minor manipulations in cinematic technique and context, not flat-out lies... like RK just said. And we have gone over all of this before.

Also, Michael Moore has responded to all of this point by point on his website. You should check that out.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooThere has been over 300 independent researchers who have found faults with Moore

By independent researchers you mean people who copied the NRA lawyer's webpage?

Of course people find faults with Moore. He's outspoken and aggressive, and he's made a lot of enemies.

©brad

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooThere has been over 300 independent researchers who have found faults with Moore

oh who cares? it means nothing. i bet they're 300 independent reaserches who could find a ton of faults in the textbook for my history 4000 class: Staging Growth: Modernization, Development, and the Global Cold War.

oliver stone has shared many of the same criticisms that moore has. what pisses me off is that ppl don't even care to recognize that these two men are filmmakers, and they are working in a medium that is not conducive to presenting every single solitary detail. steven ambrose can write a 500-paged book w/ an exorbitant amount of 'stuff.' stone and moore don't have that luxury. they have a 2 hour window in which they must convey what a historian can easily do in several hundred pages. so of course there is going to be composite characters and some dramatic licensing, but the truth is there in a dramatic form.

i guess my big beef is w/ ppl always assuming that history movies or documentaries are 'phony,' and the real 'truth' is in the text. history as a whole, be it in a film or in a book, is conjecture.

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: ©bradsteven ambrose can write a 500-paged book w/ an exorbitant amount of 'stuff.' stone and moore don't have that luxury. they have a 2 hour window in which they must convey what a historian can easily do in several hundred pages. so of course there is going to be composite characters and some dramatic licensing, but the truth is there in a dramatic form.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. End of thread.

Read Michael Moore's books. They're stuffed with facts, far more than his movies and TV shows.