Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads 1417
13.7BillionYears writes "The Sunday Herald reports that Michael Moore has expressed his approval of Fahrenheit 9/11 being downloaded through networks like BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning. Quentin Tarantino's earlier support for such practices is also mentioned. Meanwhile, Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the only way to do that in the US. A documentary must be very shocking for people to care about. This doesn't work like that in Europ.
This decision from Michael Moore is not surprising as he has always said that his goal is to touch as many people as possible. I think he simply doesn't care about the money.
Besides that, I think the documentary raises some points while I think Michael Moore goes too far in some others. But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.
Please, go there, watch it. Give it a chance.
Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.
Makes sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
because he's got control of his movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't make expensive movies that suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," he said.
"I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."
Very few people download movies to make a profit off of them. We download the movies because it is convienient to do so (ala iTunes). We also download the movies because the theatres charge entirely too much money (anywhere from $8 to $11 from what I have seen) to watch it.
Let's stop making movies with tons of computer generated special effects, bad acting, and boring plots and then blaming the pirates when it doesn't do well.
Let's make a movie that is powerful, moving, and gets people into the theatres that didn't cost $200 million to make.
It's all about money (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem lies in the millionaries companies that produce the movies. Distributing it for free through the network isn't really interesting (profitable) for them. How long it will take to Warner to distribute a expensive movie in this way ? A long time IMHO.
Um...what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, its ILLEGAL (Score:3, Insightful)
So hes giving people permission to download _his_ film and this is illegal how? I havnt seen it yet its either out already or comming soon to the UK but im definately gonna grab a copy, being a student and spending my entire 1st year supporting the MPAA i have to watch the budget so im probably not going to see it in the cinema unless i really really like it, but i bought his book so there! People have argued some of his facts and im sure those gun-death figures were wrong but he still gets a +point for this.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that why F9-11 was the number 1 movie in the US for the past week?
Oh, and nobody cares where you're from unless you're also ethnocentric.
Au contraire, mon ami, the poster was no doubt referring to the fact that there is sustained, mindless France-bashing from many Americans that even extends to quite a number of discussions here on slashdot. I have time and time again seen people refer to how the US 'saved' the 'cowardly frogs' in both world wars and attempting to contrast recent opposition in Europe to the Iraq war with the American intervention in the Second World War. This is so staggeringly disrespectful to the many, many French who died in those wars that it doesn't even deserve to be debated; however, the poster is quite right to imply that the word 'French' is an absolute magnet for idiot posters and moderators on
It's still illegal, dude (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael Moore doesn't own the rights to the movie, Harvey and Bob Weinstein do. Even if Michael Moore doesn't care if his movie is pirated, I'm pretty sure the distributors do. At best, this can put your conscience at rest but it definitely doesn't mean you can start hosting the illegal copy in your website and expect not to get a cease and desist.
Yeah, I know, torrents are different, and slashdot isn't responsible for what we post. You, however, seem to be thinking that it's now legal to download F911 when saying, "I am quite pleased by Moore's decision to broaden his audience by allowing free downloads of the film." He's not really allowing them, he's just saying he doesn't morally disagree with the practice.
Marketing (Score:2, Insightful)
Second, this is a movie people want to see in a theater, and a movie people probably want to have a decent copy of to show friends. Although this is a movie one might see to be in with a peer group, that is not the only reason.
And so I think, politics aside, this is the way movies should be made. The buzz should be consistant with the movie, and should create a community of viewers that will propel the product. It would also be nice if studios would make the theater more of a partnet, so that the theaters once more cared about the viewing experience, instead of how much popcorn they can sell, or how many viewing they can fit in a day.
If Michael Moore wants it this way... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of liberal capitalists. We think that making money is fine as long as you're not destroying people's lives and ruining the environment in the process.
-B
Re:Not a documentary (Score:2, Insightful)
Good answer. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting. (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah. That's a "deceit". The real deceit here is the idea that the only two choices available are to sit there retardedly reading My Pet Goat, making an entire elementary school of kids targets, or to jump up and scream "Holy bejeezers kids! We're ALL GONNA DIEE!!!!"
He could've calmly told the kids that he had to go do some of the things that Presidents do, thanked them, and left.
Bush shouldn't even have gone into that school that day. He was told the first plane hit the WTC *before* he went in. The WTC had already been hit by terrorist attack in 1996, and he'd already been briefed that al Qaeda were planning on hijacking airplanes. This is 1 + 1 kind of thinking, especially if you're the man charged with protecting the United States.
The sheer bizarreness of a loaded jetliner crashing into the WTC ought to have been enough to get him to delay his photo op and wait for more information. He didn't.
Face it, he was asleep at the wheel that day. If you supposedly value honesty so much, at least be honest with yourself.
Re:Non, merci (Score:4, Insightful)
"These heretics do not believe in the lethal AIDS virus called HIV. They claim that the virus is indeed harmless. Most of them think AIDS is also not sexually transmitted; it probably has toxic causes. People die because they are poisoned to death by toxic antiviral drugs."
Yes, genius, tens of millions of Africans are being poisoned by the antiviral drugs they're not taking.
If Moore's film were actually full of shit, like you say, then people would just ignore it like hundreds of other documentaries. Since it has millions of Republican's panties in a bunch, it must be doing something right. People only get this defensive when they know deep down inside that they're wrong.
-B
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Extreme left?
You sure have a knack for exaggeration. I have yet to see either of those two people promote forced collectivisation, the compulsory aquisition of land by the state or an equilisation of wages for everyone.
And a note for future reference: criticising one's government does not make one "anti-" their country. Government requires criticism. If it doesn't get it, it runs unchecked which leads to diminishing democracy. Bearing this in mind, I would argue that Michael Moore is possibily the most patriotic American there is at this present time.
Does Moore Own It? (Score:3, Insightful)
Still Illegal (Score:1, Insightful)
I wonder what financing partners Bob and Harvey Weinstein think of Moore's comments encouraging the 'piracy' of their investment?
Re:Not a documentary (Score:1, Insightful)
Argument by assertion.
If you deny that, you don't know what a documentary is,
Ad hominem.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:1, Insightful)
Argument by assertion.
And your claim that F911 is not a documentary is... what?
Re:Still Illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
so-called deceits just spin (Score:4, Insightful)
Deceit 8:
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush's action: "I don't think anyone could have handled it better." "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"...
She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."
"Sarasota principal defends Bush from 'Fahrenheit 9/11' portrayal," Associated Press, June 24, 2004.
Yeah. That's a "deceit". The real deceit here is the idea that the only two choices available are to sit there retardedly reading My Pet Goat, making an entire elementary school of kids targets, or to jump up and scream "Holy bejeezers kids! We're ALL GONNA DIEE!!!!"
He could've calmly told the kids that he had to go do some of the things that Presidents do, thanked them, and left.
Bush shouldn't even have gone into that school that day. He was told the first plane hit the WTC *before* he went in. The WTC had already been hit by terrorist attack in 1996, and he'd already been briefed that al Qaeda were planning on hijacking airplanes. This is 1 + 1 kind of thinking, especially if you're the man charged with protecting the United States.
The sheer bizarreness of a loaded jetliner crashing into the WTC ought to have been enough to get him to delay his photo op and wait for more information. He didn't.
Face it, he was asleep at the wheel that day. If you supposedly value honesty so much, at least be honest with yourself.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, you should also keep in mind that films do not need to be documentaries to show you the truth, or at least a given version of truth. That is what art is all about.
Re:It's still illegal, dude (Score:2, Insightful)
But, but surely the distributors don't care? I mean, whenever they're telling us why we shouldn't pirate movies, it all comes down to the poor artists not getting rewarded for their work. They never complain about how it hurts the middleman, it's always the artists we're meant to feel sorry for.
Oops, now the artist is saying he doesn't mind. Dearie me, that doesn't leave the middlemen with much to stand on, really, does it?
Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i saw it... (Score:3, Insightful)
This flick is supposed to make people think. About something they haven't been exposed to. All you have done is spent the last week coming up with HA HA donut references.
Do I need a movie to tell me that Bush is a prick, and shouldn't be running the country, much less a goddamn lemonade stand? NO.
Bush and his pals have done more to ruin this country than any terrorists. You can read about many of the results here on /. everyday. Sadly, there's plenty of people who have their head in their ass and actually think that George Bush CARES ABOUT THEM.
I feel for you that this movie didn't appeal to your heightened sense of art, like Highlander 12: Back in the Habit did.
You are a fine example of the brainwashed - rejecting out of hand anything that can't be reconciled with your little mass-media worldviews. Congrats.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Moore is smart enough to realize that he can't prevent people from downloading his movie, and bitching and moaning about it would make him look like a hypocrite. Instead, he states that he doesn't mind letting people do the same thing that they would do regardless, and in the process improves his public image tremendously.
If Moore is serious about getting the message out, he should put his money where his mouth is and release a DVD rip on the P2P networks.
Re:Serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to say that the IMDB poll on this movie is likely useless infomation because there will be some Democrats giving the movie a "10" and some Republicans giving the movie a "1" despite neither group having ever actually seen the film.
Since it's impossible to sort out those biases from people who really saw the movie, it's impossible to correct the number.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
-B
Re:"Think for yourself" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you *can't* know all the claims he made in the movie unless you've seen the movie, or at least read the script. If you're going by what other people are saying about it, then you're getting a second-hand version - they're not going to present all the points, only the ones they picked up on, and they're not going to present them how Moore presented them, they're going to present their own take on them.
For example, reading a critique of the movie isn't good enough, even if you go away and check all the points the critic made and make sure that he's right and the things he claims the movie got wrong are wrong - because you only have his word for it that that's what the movie said, and he'll probably have left out things the movie got right.
And reading a positive review isn't good enough, even if you go away and check all the points the reviewer made, and make sure that all the things he claims the movie got right are right - because you only have his word for it that that's what the movie said, and he'll probably have left out things the movie got wrong.
And even if you read both, you still can't be sure that you have the full story.
Primary sources, Loundry, primary sources. You can't fact-check other people's reports of something - you have to go back to the primary source if you want to know whether what it's saying is true or not.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:because he's got control of his movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess what I don't understand is why, if they're going to approve it, why they don't provide a method for buying it online and downloading it. I would gladly pay to download a real copy for a reasonable price.
Re:Moore and the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
He also says on the Afghan pipeline-issue:
After Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban, the new Afghanistan government did sign a plan to build an oil pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the new pipeline (which has not yet been built) has nothing to do with Unocal.
In that whole 'deceit' section he does NOT mention the Afghani president Hamid Karzai. Who is Hamid Karzai? Presdeint of Afghanistan! And what past does Hamid Karzai have? He used to work for Unical! Michael Moore says this in his movie, and this is a reversed situation where Kopel is being a hypocrite because he leaves this information out!
Re:The movie is factual (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to see what qualifies as "ruining people's lives" rent the film Roger & Me.
Why am I bothering to debate someone who doesn't believe that AIDS exists? You're a fucking idiot.
-B
Without France, the US might never have existed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without French naval assistance at the battle of Yorktown, General Cornwallis would have escaped, and the Americans would not have inflicted a crushing blow against the Brittish occupation of the colonies. Indeed, the Brittish themselves would probably have slaughtered American resistance long before without money, arms, and supplies from king Louis VI.
While the U.S. has oftentimes been at odds with French policy, we must remember that the U.S. exists mostly due to the efforts of France.
So as my country celebrates the Star Spangled Banner today, perhaps we should spend a few moments listening to the Marseillaise as well.
Re:Inaccuracies In Farenheit 9/11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello! I'm your friendly pseudophilosophy bullshit meter. I rate my parent post at a 9.8 out of a possible 10!
Grandparent was initiating his response with a statement of contrary belief. It's not an argument. Not only is it okay, its the correct way to begin a critique.
Again, this clause is not an argument, nor does it attempt to unjustifiably make fun of you. He is stating, by his argument, that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary, then you do not understand what it is to be a documentary. It's the same as saying "If you do not think the world revolving around the sun is heliocentricity, then you do not know what heliocentricity means."
Now, if you read the rest of his post, you'd find his argument. His argument is that the movies cited are widely accepted as being documentaries, and since Fahrenheit 9/11 displays more characteristics of a documentary than these movies, a fortiori, it is a documentary.
If you want to attack his argument, that's it. Throwing around incorrect uses of informal fallacies isn't going to help you much.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the problem is that documentary means "facts" and "objective" not 'opinion'. The thing may very well be one particular person's interpretation of the facts, but that doesn't make it a documentary. I would think the facts would have to be independently researched, verified, and agreed upon by most people in order to really call it a documentary.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course he does - and he is going to get a ton of it - whatever happens to the pirate copies he is still making $$$ hand over fist on this thing. He will also no doubt get a lot of "soft" money from other anti-bush hollywood folks in the form of thank yous and future contract stuff.
Moore is not a caring guy, if he was he woudln't be making any $$$ here. What IS happening is that he is smart enough to make some PR hay out of something he knows he can't prevent.
Oh, and he has such a rabidly anti-bush agenda that in this case it is more important to him than the few >extraMoorewatch article...
Will show you the initial threats. I think it is also worth pointing out that Moorewatch made a call on the legal implications of Moore running his mouth.
THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY! (Score:1, Insightful)
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore himself called Farenheit 9/11 a movie.
Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say strip mining for coal or logging without replacing trees is a good example of ruining the environment.
If you are looking for someone to define a line as to what is "too far" in either circumstance, you'll be disappointed to find that the world is not a black and white place and that each case must be looked at individually to find out.
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:5, Insightful)
Patriotism: Love of and devotion to one's country.
Now, where does Moore say he doesn't like his country?
I can only see him objecting to his country's government. Maybe he go as far as to make documentaries about it because he cares so much for his country and that it's properly run?
Moore doesn't want a president that's in a school browsing a book when USA is attacked by Al-Qaida. That's what this is all about.
Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you "be specific" and not give examples? Apparently you want to make it impossible to answer your question. I'll do it anyway but I can't see a way around breaking your rules.
Outsourcing, it's easy to measure, just count the jobs that have gone overseas that could have easily been done here. Low minimum wage, below the poverty level is unacceptable. Unsafe work conditions, exposure to harmful materials and dangerous equipment should be closely regulated. This means that if you are working with something than can kill you, you should be properly protected and notified of the possible harm.
What qualifies and quantifies "ruining the environment"? Be specific. Don't give examples. I want to know how you measure it.
That's easy. Just look at the blatant disregard for the envrionment that anyone who drives an H2 has. Those trucks should not even be legal to produce. Dumping harmful chemicals into into drinking water or the ocean. This isn't something you have to quantify. It just shouldn't be done for obvious reasons. This is not an emotional response, it is a scientific one.
i'm lovin' it (Score:4, Insightful)
Although I can't agree with some of his conclusions. I like the way he leads us, especially Americans themselves, to remember and think about some very important issues. Going thru numerous points of why the "war-president" is wrong. Moore, at the end, finds a wonderful quote* on what may be the true reason:
"It does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous."
"A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society in tact" *...George Orwell's 1984
Re:Serious? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to advocate downloading a movie, at least have a decent telesync online first!
Re:Not surprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
Close. This decision is not surprising as the movie is propaganda, which Moore readily admits. The goal of propaganda is not to make money, but to spread a particular political message to as many people as possible. The impending election makes that goal all the more urgent. However, I'm sure he doesn't mind the fact that it is making bucketloads of money.
Similar thing with Gibson and The Passion (not the part about propaganda, but the part about how he didn't make it just to make money, but I'm sure he doesn't mind the money).
Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.
Oh, you must be new here. Insulting the Bush administration, or supporting those that do it for you, with facts no matter how shoddy, is the best way on Slashdot to get modded up and perhaps even worshipped as deity.
Belloc
Re:French Bashing (Score:2, Insightful)
The animosity towards Quebecois has nothing to do with the French. They're totally different; different culture, different language (well, dialect). The hatred of the Quebecois isn't all that strong. It's mainly joking around, just like we do with the Newfies (People from Newfoundland). And in the great nation to the north, we tend to make fun of everyone from different parts of the country.
We are a nation that can laugh at ourselves and make friendly ribbings.
Re:Without the world, France might not exist today (Score:1, Insightful)
And they helped your ass once (see elsewhere in this thread for details). And I'm sure they'd do it again, if YOUR HOME COUNTRY WAS INVADED. But they're not going to get their feet wet in some shitty Arab country that means nothing to most people, except of course GW Bush and his oil frenzied cronies.
Re:Inaccuracies In Farenheit 9/11 (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does everyone think it was ONLY Bush that thought he had them?
Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
He owns the copyright.
He can give permission to copy and distribute to whomever he damn well pleases, and nobody else that he has given such license to (eg, the distributors you mention) can do a thing about it unless there had already been an exclusivity contract between Michael and these distributors, which considering Mr Moore just gave his approval for downloading the movie isn't likely, since his making this statement on the record like this would set him up for an absolutely _massive_ lawsuit (and Michael Moore is no idiot, which is why I dismiss it as improbable)
Re:What an arrogant sonofabitch (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's about getting John Kerry elected. This is a pretty blatant violation of campaign finance laws hiding under the blanket of being a "documentary". I'm sure Moore is getting quite the kickback from Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and her husband to bring this movie out right now. The funny thing is that most people have already forgotten about F-9/11 and are going to see Spider-Man 2 instead. Only the most die-hard liberals and/or America-haters even bother to see this mockumentary.
Unfortunately you won't see this comment since the moderators will kill it in a few minutes, but I kind of expect that with the liberal slant here. The truth needs to get out though.
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:5, Insightful)
In a country in which more than 40% of the voters have been so disenfranchised that they don't even bother to vote anymore, and a significant portion of the rest feel trapped into voting for the "lesser of two evils" in election after election, I would think questioning and challenging such a system that is supposed to be "Of, By and For the People" and is plainly NOT would be considered quite patriotic.
But then, I guess any level of discussion of our government in negative terms is only ok if it involves a democratic president getting a blowjob, right? Certainly we have no room to be negative when we're at war, even if we can't generate one solid reason as to why we are at war and what good we are actually doing in a country that never threatened us directly, while giving up on and letting run free a terrorist that has attacked us several times including the largest foreign attack on our soil ever, who happens to be related to the business partners of our president.
Obviously our priorities are out of whack for questioning that. What ARE we thinking?
Republican strangeness (Score:2, Insightful)
Circa late 90s the Republican party spear heads a big campaign to impeach to Bill Clinton based upon the fact that he scored a BJ from a Intern and lied about it.
Flash forward to now:
The United States goes to war with a country that has been under some form of embargo/watch for over 10 years based upon the premise that they have nukes (which turns out later to be false). People in power who are blatant supporters of the military action (Bush, Powell, Rice...etc) are televised several times prior to the war stating that Iraq has no weapons of significance (WOMD) and suddenly tell us the exact opposite of what we were told before. This can't be disputed.
Now, had this been a Democrat in office of any kind, you can bet your ass the Republican part would be trying to get a impeachment right about now. There would have been a ton of huge investigations where they broke out a microscope and shoved it up whatever Democrats ass they could find to dig up as much dirt as possible.
What is happening in the US today makes ZERO sense. For example, under primarily a Republican led government:
1. We are establishing ties with one of the Worlds most well documented terrorists...Kadaffi.
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=276
2. Under the guise of cracking down on terrorism, we attack a country that obviously has nothing and is just a bunch of poor people who have suffered enough abuse. And in this, we ignore well documented terrorist hot beds such as Egypt. It is a well known fact that many terrorist groups have ties to Egypt. In fact, the Islamic Jihad was founded in Egypt. What about Pakistan? Why was so little done in Afghanistan? This was supposed to be about terrorism right? It's obviously not. But under Republican rule, this sort of deception appears to be acceptable practice. We can send people off to die under false pretenses and nobody is held accountable for this. And we continue to send people over and nobody really is clear for what. If that had been a Democrat, you can bet there would have been a motion to impeach.
And with that being said, nobody is doing anything about this. Nobody is doing anything to stop this madness. Everybody is just in a waiting mode to see when it will end. What people don't realize is the US is now in the last stages of it's available military personnel. It will start doing a draft next.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/draf-
And for what? Why is the US even at war? Nobody knows. And the majority of America doesn't even realize the seriousness of what is happening here. People need to wake up and they need to do so now.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Without France, the US might never have existed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
There, there mon ami. We're not all Republicans.
Without France, there would be no United States. And vice-versa. American-French relations will survive the little man from Crawford.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Make money (the movie is already profitable)
and
2) Make people hate the current administration.
Now, whether you like him or not, you have to admit, this is pretty genius. He's already made plenty of bank on this film, and now, he's going to be able to spread it to people who are either too cheap to go see it in the theatre, or perhaps, politically opposed to himself.
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:3, Insightful)
It is only strange if believe the republicans' redefinition of patriotism to mean 'support for the Bush administration'.
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
...but Quisling was the leader of the Norwegian "Nasjonal Samling" party, a Norwegian party that agreed with Hitler's ideals. That'd make him right wing. Extreme ring wing.
Actually, don't correct me. I know I'm correct already.
ABB -Anyone But Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush polarises people. Some people really think that he is great, sorting out the economy and liberating countries. Many think that he is spending too much money giving his friends tax cuts and totally failing to understand that how national credibility depends on doing the right things for the right reasons. Being against Bush doesn't mean you are a democrat. You could be Osama bin Laden, but at the same time you could be Warren Buffett or George Soros.
Re:THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY! (Score:2, Insightful)
Your definition is wrong on pretty much every level. It's sad that it is modded up so high. But i guess it is a common misconception, as I've heard this argument a lot lately. It is wrong factually; and it is wrong in relation to the common usage of the term.
As for the facts, here is what Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] says:
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing [documentary evidence]
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE [a documentary film of the war]
Do not be distracted by the "broad" synonyms. The definition states clearly "employing documentation in literature or art". This is what Michael Moore did; and did it with a surprising level of self control and artistry, to boot.
Some other dictionaries define things (of course) slightly differently, but there is no substantial difference which negates the above definition.
On a personal note: I went into the movie fairly certain that I'd see nothing new. I already knew all of the "facts" Moore played upon. And this was true to a large extent (though there were a couple of things I'd missed in the news, and a few more which I'd almost forgotten). But despite "knowing" most of the material, I found the "movie" profoundly disturbing and moving in ways I had not felt before. The presentation was incredible.
For example, the absolutely breathtaking intro during the credits... just scene after scene of the elite white house staff being prepared for a press conference, with music over top of it. The slow motion looks. The makeup and hair dressers milling around. The waiting. Was this "deceptive"? We all know that probably all politicians of that level of all parties do the same menial things to prepare: but then these images are not just put in to make the president look ridiculous, but are brought back later and we realise what exact press conference all that was leading up to... breathtaking. It is truly something to think about in regards to how "facts" are presented to us from the Oval Office... not much different than Moore's film. And in this particular case, much more in danger of being realistically convicted of deception and lies especially... and if there were justice: legally.
One of the many subtle and artistic observances of Moore which actually apply to our society and the way government works as a whole, not just the current regime: it's just that the current regime is a particularly gross and hypocritical offender, in the views of many people.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The lies of Michael Moore (Score:2, Insightful)
Does Moore ever argue that the Saudis "run US policy"? No. Is there any amount of influence less than running policy and greater than zero? Yes. So, Hitchens' first actual disagreement (twelve! paragraphs in) is nonsensical - it is indeed possible for the Saudis to have undue influence on the US without controlling it.
It would be idiotic for anyone to say that the Neocons are lapdogs of the Saudis - Saudi Arabia was viewed as one of the countries that would straighten up and fly right after the democratic beacon of Iraq started shining in the Mideast. So, we have yet again a distortion of what Moore says.
(Granted, it's easy to distort what Moore means, because he tends to present facts and comments without forcing a narrative. Know anyone else who did that?)
The second criticism is both stupid and inaccurate. It would be possible to argue: 1) that we should not go into Afghanistan and 2) if we do go, we should send enough troops to do the job right and not make the problem worse. How do I know the argument could be made? Because many people made it about Iraq!
Strangely, that's not what Moore says - what he says about Afghanistan is that it was two months after the invasion that US special forces were sent to the part of Afghanistan where OBL was.
The rest of this article is no better than this. There are problems with Moore's movie (check out the daily howler), but the mainstream media can't seem to focus on them.
Re:Inaccuracies In Farenheit 9/11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ahistorical and ungratefull (Score:4, Insightful)
A nation is composed of a multitude of people. They aren't all the same. One problem that France had in WWII is that their brave defense in WWI had essentially cost them a generation of young men. When WWII came, they were thus unprepared. They could have done better with what they had, but the Germans surprised everyone at the time with their approach, so it's really unfair to blame the French for being the first to learn the new tactics the hard way.
I may praise Lafayette for his support of the proto-US, but I won't praise Louis...for him it was pure power politics. And it might as easily have favored our opponents (as it did during the "French and Indian war").
Re:The movie is factual (Score:4, Insightful)
The implication becomes stronger when Moore also presents the history of the gas pipeline prior to the invasion, which includes the Bush family, the officer who's name was blacked out by the White House when it released Bush's military records simply because he was Bush's business partner in oil, and the Saudis, and that the former Unocal adviser is now the president of Afghanistan. In a business sense, it's simply one hand helping the other, something most people can understand. In a humanitarian sense ( a dirty word to conservatives ) it's a disaster. Families have died due to these business dealings. When it happens on your block, you expect the criminals to be prosecuted. When it happens half a world away, its too abstract to accept, and that gives the neo-conservatives power over the rest of us.
An opposite opinion on the implications would sound rather ludricrous as they would claim these were all "coincidences". However, still expect a lot of handwaving, and misdirection.
= 9J =
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:4, Insightful)
Nationalism is the beleif that your nation is right above all others, patriotism is the love for your country expressed.
Moore expresses the love for his country in a very meaninfull way. He created a documentary which describes what he thinks is wrong with the government in an effort to change that.
You can find very few people, you included, who have gone to the efforts that Micheal Moore has to bring what he beleives is injustice to light.
In fact, that by definition makes Micheal Moore one of the most patriotic people in America.
What you beleive is Nationalism, which is patriotism expressed as "My nation is right."
Unfortunately many people have been fooled into thinking that our President and his political party represent America, so your Nationalism is represented by your support of these groups with your patriotism.
Many people tend to forget that the most patriotic men, the founders of our country, railed heartily against our government for many of the same reasons. The only difference between their actions and the actions of Micheal Moore, is that M.Moore exists in a system where the Govt. can be altered to his point of view if he can convince enough people. The great thing about America is that we do not need revolutions for this kind of thing.
So, saying that Micheal Moore is a patriot, and that he loves America is a patently true statement, by any logical definition. Though you would be right if you argued that Micheal Moore is not a Nationalist, so, if you beleive Nationalism = Patriotism, then you would be correct. But the definitions of each would put error to your belief.
Annendum:
I use the main definition of patriotism which is the expression of love for ones country.
And a common second definition of Nationalism which is the beleif that your country is right above all others. Also to clarify, I also beleive some feel that our President and his party are the "country" and those that disagree with them disagree with the "country"
Buzz_Litebeer, Extreme Moderate.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
He owns the copyright.
I honestly don't know if he owns the copyright or not, but "writing, directing and producing" doesn't mean he owns the film, unless he did everything as a one-man operation. Most likely the production company (or companies) who fronted the money to make it owns the rights, at least partially (these deals get very complicated.) Moore certainly wouldn't have had the problems with Disney that he had if he owned the film free and clear.
By the numbers. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
Paragraph #1. Personal reminiscing. No facts to contradict f9/11.
#2. Still no facts.
#3. Still no facts.
#4. Still no facts. Speaks of a previous debate.
#5. Still no facts.
#6. Stating a premise of the movie is NOT stating a fact against that movie.
#7. See #6
#8. See #7
#9. See #8
#10. I'm not sure what he's saying here.
#11. His opinion of what the movie seems to be saying.
#12. Sets up false dichotomies ("Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not.") that do not seem to be stated in the film.
#13. Complains about Moore ("In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11.").
#14. This one is cute. "A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims."
Yet he has not managed to identify the "big lie" yet.
#15. Another cute one. "The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive." But it is factual and caught on tape.
#16. Another cute one. "In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed." But it seems to be actual footage of actual Iraqis before the war.
#17. "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American." I'm going to need to verify that Moore said that. This may be one actual discrepency.
#18. "Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem."
Well I believe that he was not a problem. He was contained and his country was collapsing around him. He couldn't even travel without body doubles.
#19. "From being accused of overlooking too many warnings--not exactly an original point--the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many."
And that is a factual error how?
#20. "Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"?"
Not even complete speculation. This does not count as a factual counter.
#21. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore picks on Bush.
#22. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore plays to racial inequality.
#23. No facts. "Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning." So? Attack the movie. If you can.
#24. "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point."
He ADMITS that he doesn't have any facts to counter the movie with. Did you even READ this far into it? Fact-checking would be the FIRST thing to do to show how "flat-out phony" the movie was.
#25. Still, no facts to counter the movie.
#26. See #25.
#27. See #26.
#28. See #27.
#29. No facts. Just attacks on Moore.
Yet you claim
Perhaps someone could point them out? I've already gone through each paragraph, by the numbers. It can't be that difficult, can it?
What is Michael Moore's True Motive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NOT a documentary (Score:4, Insightful)
You may not like it, and you don't have to agree with him. But why people think they are somehow impugning his credibility with the cry that this is not a documentary is beyond me. It just makes you sound silly.
Re:THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure where you got this definition (oh, the dictionary. I see), but you left out one of the definitions:
n. pl. documentaries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
Here is a discussion about what film people consider a documentary, rather than us couch potatoes (hint - it's not as simple as you state):
http://www.realityfilm.com/study/definition.htm
http://www.documentorseminars.com/pages/main_wh
No one says that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is saying that?
I'm sure that they also both believed in Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy at one time in their lives.
But Clinton did not invade. Bush did.
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
>2. He owns the copyright.
You seem to believe that 2 follows from 1. You are mistaken. I don't know the details of whether Mr. Moore actually holds the copyright, but writing, directing, and producing a thing does not imply ownership of the thing. Usually, either through contract or employment terms, the copyright holder is the source of funding. For example, just look at what David Bowie had to do to buy back the rights to his works. [billboard.com] A very expensive deal for something you might assume was his to begin with.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
1. opponent is stupid (ad hominem)
2. opponent is uneducated (ad hominem)
3. opponent chose to believe false information (ad hominem)
I see. So if I say I disagree with you, it's an ad hominem attack because it implies you are stupid, uneducated, or believe false information?
You seem to mistakenly believe (and attempt to prove by a baseless assertion, since we're so fond of meta-talk here) that an ad hominem attack is any argument which implicitly insults an opponent, when in fact it is merely an argument which attempts to prove its correctness solely through insulting the opponent. In other words, if I tell you you are wrong about the definition of ad hominem, but back it up with, say, a definition [reference.com], while I have implied that you are stupid or uneducated, I have not conducted an ad hominem, because that implication was not the main thrust of my argument.
"Widely accepted"? This is ad numeram or perhaps even ad verecundiam, depending on who is doing the "accepting".
Once again, we've somehow managed to retain our knowledge of Latin terms, but not their proper usage. You see, if you were arguing over some factual point such as whether or not Iraq had WMDs, or whether AIDS is a contagious virus, and his argument was, ``well, a lot of people seem to believe it, so it's probably accurate'', then your critique would be correct and justified. But in this instance, you are arguing over the meaning of a word--whether this film can rightfully be called a documentary--and so to make his case, it is perfectly legitimate to present what the majority opinion is on the meaning of that word (assuming we both accept that language is determined by the practitioners and not by the dictionary publishers; feel free to dispute with the parent as desired).
See? Isn't debating fun?
Want Supporting Material? (Score:2, Insightful)
Two other movies and 35 recently published books support everything Michael Moore says in Fahrenheit 9/11 about U.S. government corruption, and much, much more:
Supporting Material: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org]. Slashdotted? Try http://www.hevanet.com/peace/usgovcorruption.htm
There were several books published before and during the Clinton administration about former U.S. President Bill Clinton. However, the situation with Clinton and previous presidents was not even remotely comparable. There are many more books discussing the Bush administration, and the negative issues are far, far more serious.
There are links to reviews of all the movies and books in the article linked above, but no BitTorrent links yet. For those, try again later.
Even Kerry Hates the French (Score:1, Insightful)
I despise the French but know enough about their ways to have a similarly detached attitude to them. One thing everyone should understand- the recent wave of Franco-phobia in the U.S. has been so visible precisely because the average American- in their good-hearted ignorance- was genuinely shocked and hurt by the way the French turned against us. In their minds Franco-American relations are defined by LaFayette, the Statue of Liberty, and the Normandy landings, not DeGaulle, de Villepin, and amoral, a-ideological back-stabbing.
But since at least DeGaulle France has consistently betrayed the Western Alliance, caring more about "national honor" and grandeur than ideals or decency. I've heard French moans lately about why the President can't be more like FDR, and laugh when I remember that in the latter's time DeGaulle was a constant prick and thorn in the side of Allies, always caring more about France not looking little than winning the war.
French foreign policy has followed this course for the last 50 years, sadly. Automatic opposition to the United States to make itself feel important and relevant; convenient alliances with anti-American states (no matter how repugnant) to have more influence. Do people forget who built Saddam's nuclear reactor at Osirak? Or who gave arms to their Rwandan Hutu clients during their campaign of genocide?
But what makes this truly sad and despicable is that it is done for no larger purpose than self-aggrandizement. German opposition to the Iraq war was at least honorable because it was based on ideals; Joschka Fischer turned to Jurgen Habermas and his neo-Kantian ideal of foreign relations. France, on the other hand, had Napeoloen-worshipping [tnr.com] Dominique de Villepen, and it wouldn't have mattered if the government was Socialist, National Front, or Communist- the outcome and selfish, short-sighted reasons for it would have been the same.
France- you were humiliated in WWII and have been trying to regain your national honor ever since. Hint- the way to do it is not through grand-standing, self-involved, perverse behavior on the international stage. Stop being the bitch-nation of Europe.
Re:Yes, its ILLEGAL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You wanna know lies? Why it's not a documentary (Score:1, Insightful)
That is not what he said...Which makes you a liar.. actually it just makes you someone who knows how to cut and paste from newsmax.
Anyway he said the Iraq Nation had never attacked the us, threatened to attack the us or killed a american civilian.
It is a stretch to make a point.. it should also be noted that Saddam did not kill any of the hostages in GW 1 and that we gave him an initial go ahead to attack Kuwait. Also Kuwait was drilling into Iraq land for oil which is one of the things that lead up to the attack.
Ironically somthing the RW does not like to bring up about the hostages was that the guy that orchestrated their freedom is the one tha blue the whistle on the Uraniam/Niger lie. His wife was then outed (CIA Spy) in the typical if you can't attack the msg attack the msger tactic or the right.
But please don't let these things get in the way of your 'patriotism' for the President.
oil-frenzied cronies & France (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the idea that France (or, say, Russia) is above "feet wet in some shitty Arab country that means nothing to most people, except of course GW Bush and his oil frenzied cronies" does not match the facts. Russia (in the form of the USSR) certain got its feet wet (and often blown off) in Afghanistan, where the U.S. strangely enough trained or flowed money to a lot of people (the Mujihideen, spelling loose
A few tidbits about France's involvement in the export of Iraqi oil can be found here (globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm [globalpolicy.org])
(And more on French involvement in Iraqi trade [heritage.org].)
The high-level U.S. motives in Iraq I consider partly cynical, though they're mixed with some good ones. Are they *mostly* cynical, and the good ones are only in there as window dressing, or is it a matter of inextricably linked attributes? That's not a rhetorical question.
[Note: I think the U.S. should stay out of this sort of adventure unless truly necessary, but even though it sounds definitive, "truly necessary" is a tough standard to agree on. A lot of people consider WWII to have been obvious (U.S. involvement, that is), but it sure wasn't at the time. The UN had found it necessary to place a series of arms-inspection teams (by most accounts ineffective due to manpower constraints as well as their acceptance of rather bizarre rules) into Iraq, and the uncooperation those teams faced is one thing that goaded the U.S., with greater support than it now enjoys for it, into war; this has always struck me as one of the most bizarre aspects of the whole thing.]
timothy
Re:Without France, the US might never have existed (Score:1, Insightful)
The founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor even when the struggle was in deadly earnest and the outcome was in doubt. They did not wait for the French to storm the beaches.
This is not a slam at France (which was a monarchy at the time, and is now on their fifth republic while we are still on our first). It's just pointing out that there is a difference between accepting help for a difficult struggle and letting someone else do most of the fighting.
B5 "Illusions of Truth" and Orwell (Score:3, Insightful)
F911 - deceitful truth
END EXAMPLE [moorewatch.com] showing Mike Moore being truthful albeit in a deceitful manner
Babylon 5 - deceitful truth ... remember that Dan Randall (the b5 ISN
news reporter) was very truthful... he just strung the facts together in an
unethically truthful way just like Mike Moore [moorewatch.com]
If you are still a wee-bit confused about how Mike Moore [moorewatch.com] editing works then you can check out the Babylon 5 episode "Illusion of Truth" which taught me that "truth" might not always be ethical truth and that "truth" might actually be a deceitful truth
Orwell
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism [george-orwell.org]:
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:3, Insightful)
Moore is against things, rather than for things. That's the main problem I have with him. He's a bomb thrower, not a provider of solutions.
Instead, he should have made a movie about what a wonderful president Kerry will make? Moore has been there when people in positions of power have strayed far from doing what is good for society. Sometimes people in power need to be told to stop doing something, just like a little kid doing something naughty needs to be told, "No, thats bad." Moore prefers to stay outside of politics - I think we can all relate to not wanting to get our hands dirty there. To stay true to one's self seems near impossible when you're a politician. Also, Moore does have his goals - vote bush out. Hell, if Kerry would be as bad as bush, i would expect to hear Moore speaking out against him as well.
If you look into the facts, Moore stays much closer to them than Limbaugh does. Moore states that F9/11 is an op/ed piece, but he'll also defend every fact he states in that movie. Limbaugh on the other hand, is someone who speak out for family values while getting three divorces himself. Someone who claims to tell the truth despite having an elaborate drug addiction.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Without France, the US might never have existed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's patriotic about creating a movie with a some truth, a few lies, and some deliberate deception? Why not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Wouldn't that make him the most patriotic person?
Of course, no one ever bothers with the whole truth - it doesn't help their argument enough.
Take it up with Teddy (Score:5, Insightful)
- President Theodore Roosevelt
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
And while we're at it, let's ask President Jefferson too...
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
- President Thomas Jefferson
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-Moore web sites rush to revise themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that they didn't already, but now it will be more obvious.
One can only think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a documentary (Score:1, Insightful)
You are right, it is the content that makes it false, as noted in the Christopher Hitchens (a man with solid leftist credentials, but apparently lacking the impulse for mass suicide) piece from which I've provided an excerpt below, and others [blogspot.com].
Re:French Bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, though I think that's more a slashdot thing.
I'm American, and am pretty disgusted at the state of the U.S. these days -- having gone so far as to spend 10 of the last 14 years living outside the U.S. -- but even so, I find a lot of the America bashing on
However reasonable their basic complaint, people do not seem to think very critically about what they say, and despite the huge number of valid criticisms end up spewing bile almost randomly. It's as if people somehow believe that they won't be taken seriously in their complaints unless they're entirely against everything American.
That's something refreshing about Moore: though he sometimes succumbs to the temptation to rant, he avoids just attaching himself to simplistic labels -- he isn't "anti-American", "anti-gun", or whatever, he's just "anti-bad-stuff".
Re:Rar's ISO's is pretty standard... (Score:5, Insightful)
VCD/SVCD/??VCD all suck and should be consigned to history along with VHS and audio cassette tapes.
Here is a public service announcement:
Attention warez scene d00dz! Here are the correct encoding setting for movies and TV shows.
XVid at 900-1300Kbps 720x480 (do not scale it down! for god's sake. why?)(actually, the height depends on the specific widescreen format used...it's often 330-340 pixels) Audio should be 5 channel AC3 or vbr stereo mp3.
p.s. Do not under any circumstances trade-off encode quality to fit a file on a CD! If your hdd is too small, buy a freaking DVD burner for christ sake. they're only $100 CDN.
thank you. that is all.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Income
2) Moderation
If I'm a busy person and have only a limited number of time to spend visiting special events, I'll set the price at the point where the demand (for that price point) will not exceed the time I have available for that activity.
This is similar to computer geeks charging people to go fix their computers once they have a real job. It's not to make more money, it's so you don't spend every single hour of your free time fixing other people's computer, and only the people that REALLY needs your help will take your time.
If Michael Moore only charged 1000$ to go and do those events, he would be booked every single day out of the year, and that would keep him from doing what he really wants to do.
Re:Anti-Moore web sites rush to revise themselves (Score:1, Insightful)
They will still think they are being believed.
Look at Rush Limbaugh for example. A hypocritical 2-faced Drug abuser.
He has rallied for years to make drug abusers suffer the worst the law can throw at them, yet now that he's been caught and exposed as a drug abuser, he suddenly thinks compassion is the order of the day.
You americans (in general, not the parent in particular) have to open your eyes to the fact that most of your problems, you have created yourself! You created Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, You gave chemical weapons technology to Hussien to fight Iran.
If you wouldnt trounce around the world like a bull in a china shop, with no respect for the lives and cultures of anyone else, maybe there wouldn't be so many of us out here that want to see you knocked down a few notches!
Bush himself, before he was elected, said that what the US needs is another Pearl Harbour to get things moving.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:2, Insightful)
But in all seriousness, the whole idea of pointing out a fallacy is to show that simply, the conclusion given does not follow from the premises given or implied. It's a small mind who thinks that an argument can be refuted by invoking a fallacy, and I believe the fallacy of an argument from ignorance fits this scenario nicely: an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.
It provides a false dilemna: the invoker immediately assumes that there are only two possible outcomes: 1) that the target of the invocation has a sound argument, and his conclusion is true, and 2) that the target of the invocation doesn't have a sound argument, and thus, his conclusion is false.
He is neglecting several other outcomes, one of which is that the target of the invocation may in fact have an unsound argument, but nevertheless the conclusion he presents is still true.
There is a word for someone who practices this kind of doubletalk in argumentation: sophist. The sophist and orator care not about what's correct, but winning the argument. He invokes rules of argumentation like they are tools in a belt, rather than actively seeking out the truth. It's quite sad.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:2, Insightful)
We owe a great deal of respect and gratitude for our parents because they have provided us with many goods and have protected us when we could not, thus, a fortiori, we owe an even greater deal of respect and gratitude for the state because they have provided us with even more goods and have protected us moreseo than our parents.
The idea is that the argument for showing respect for our parents is implicit: everyone is assumed to know that this is a sound or accepted argument. Where the grand parent is having problems is seeing that this is not the argument being presented. The argument being presented is that the state of Athens is of the same type as parents, and thus, the argument still holds.
To go back to the original argument, the movies cited are of the same kind as Fahrenheit 9/11, and if they are to be considered documentative works, a fortiori so should Fahrenheit 9/11. He makes no explicit argument about the cited movies, and assumes that we can all agree that they are indeed documentative works.
I think the grandparent really needs to go back and read all of the responses, as I don't think he is truly grasping what was originally said.
Orwell Might Agree ... [Re:Not surprising...] (Score:3, Insightful)
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism [george-orwell.org]:
One last thing ... I triple double dare slashdotters to watch the Iraq torture
video clip [aei.org]
Re:oil-frenzied cronies & France (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, by most accounts TODAY, the UN teams were remarkably effective in forcing Saddam to destroy or stop working on virtually everything he had as far as "WMDs" go.
And had the US allowed the inspections to continue, it was expected that Iraq would be cleared of WMDs. What most people forget, and the UN officials constantly reiterate, is that after the UN cleared Iraq of WMDs, there would be a monitoring program put in place which would have made it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for Iraq to develop nuclear weapons at all without being detected. He might have been able to conceal a few biowar labs somewhere, but they would have been mostly irrelevant as far as regional - let alone international - threats were concerned. Nuclear weapons development would have been impossible to develop secretly given UN monitoring directly on site.
Bush's war undermined all of that.
And of course, the idea that Bush and his crowd were simply "misled" by "bad intelligence" from Chalabi and his group is simply nonsense. They KNEW what they were saying was horseshit. It was KNOWN to be horseshit by everybody else (except media scabs like Judith Miller of the NY Times) including the UN and numerous intelligence agencies.
Cheney is STILL going around claiming stuff which is KNOWN to be horseshit. There's no excuse now. It's pure unadulterated lies and should be by itself grounds for immediate impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. And that doesn't even bring up Cheney's illegal involvement with Halliburton.
The motivations for all this are equally well-known. The neocons trumpeted this stuff for years before 9/11.
There were NO good high-level motives for the war - except getting rid of Saddam. Which, however, is totally irrelevant since there are plenty of bad people in the world who should be gotten rid of - the question is how? Do you spend two or three hundred billion dollars (the estimate if we stay in Iraq another couple years), thousands of civilian lives, hundreds (and potentially thousands) of US military casualties just to get rid of a dictator you don't like? When there are dozens more waiting to take his place (like Allawi whom WE have now put in power?)
You could have paid me one billion dollars and I'd have gotten rid of Saddam within ninety days - and made a 900 million dollar profit to boot! The country would have saved over 5,000 wounded and 800+ dead troops, and a couple hundred billion dollars, and twenty thousand Iraqi lives. Such a deal I offer you!
Re:Stop pinning this on Bush. (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, it was stupid to sit there for 7 minutes after the second plane hit, ANY way you look at it.
Re:Non, merci (Score:1, Insightful)
There is no way that malnutrition will magically cause someone to have antibodies to the HIV virus, unless they have actually been exposed to the HIV virus.
Have you ever studied any science in your life at all?
As a biochemist, I am used to a lot of ignorance existing out there about science in general, and the scientific procedure, but Jesus Christ! You really need to get away from those weird websites you apparently get all your evidence from, and get down to the Library!
Get some "popular science" books out. You know - the ones for teenagers or kids. Read those... learn a little. When you're ready to start understanding the world you're living in, we can move on to the adult stuff.
(It actually amazes me that you can have that opinion, and yet apparently be bright enough to operate a computer.)
PS. Perhaps if you had said that extreme malnutrition can result in a depressed immune system which mimics some of the effects of HIV in full-blown AIDS (AIDS stands for Acquired Immuno-deficiency Syndrome...now you know) you might have come across as being a little less ignorant...
But there is no way in hell that it can cause false-positives on tests for the existence of HIV in someone.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
People are upset at moore because he is using the same tactics as fox news, rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, george bush, dick cheney etc. Those people have an agenda and work tightly together to distort reality to push their won agenda. Moore has decided to counteract that agenda using they exact same tactics.
Using the whole truth (presuming it's even knowable) would accomplish nothing. It would be waste of money and time. I am glad moore did what he did we really needed an antidote to the right wing hate machine in this country. If that means creating a left wing hate machine I am all for it. As Bush said "we didn't start this war but we will fight it and we will prevail". You cant fight evil with kindness, you can't turn the other cheek, you can't lay down and let the republicans rape you whenever they want. You have to fight back.
Re:By the numbers. (Score:3, Insightful)
And now the truth comes out. This isn't about Moore, it's about Bush. If you don't beleive Michael Moore then you must be one of those Evil Republicans who voted for George "Funny Texan Accent" Bush. How horrible of you!
This is about football team mentality. Pick a team and root for them no matter what. Everything George Bush does is Evil. If he helps an old lady across the street it is Evil. Remember, he was reading stories to children on 9/11! And of course everything Michael Moore says is the God's Gospel Truth! He has never lied once. If he says Bush and Osama were roommates in college, it is the truth!
To attack Michael Moore is to attack every decent hardworking liberal in the nation! To attack George Bush is to strike a blow for liberty!
Re:Not surprising... (Score:1, Insightful)
What you have not grasped yet is that the regulation is always there in any market, capitalism (pure or not) or socialism or feudalism. And the amount of regulation by a player is directly proportional to the amount of control any player has on the market, whether it is the government, people/consumer, or bill gates is a secondary issue. The best case is when no one group of people has too much control. Obviously, in a true democracy, the government is the people's representative. The difference appears in who controls the market. In socialism, its the government (supposed to represent the interests of the people) is the regulating power. In capitalism, the consumers are supposed to have the greatest say but in reality its the biggest shart (capitalist) that ends up killing all the small sharks and then is in a monopoly position and can "rgulate" the market as it wants till the other big player, the government, cuts in.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, perhaps, who is living in a city or a neighborhood where being seen at this movie is bad.
Or, perhaps, who is living in a city where not a single theater has this movie.
Re:oil-frenzied cronies & France (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/html
The Mujahideen (NB: there are a variety of english spellings for the arabic word, as with most arabic words.) btw does not equal the taliban. See the wikipedia entry for Mujahideen [wikipedia.org]. It's a general word. In the afghani case, the taliban were but one faction of the collective resistance movement known as the mujahideen. After the war with the Russians, there was civil war between the Taliban and the other factions, the taliban gaining control of most, but not all, of Afghanistan.
As for motives. Let's be honest, every major power which takes an interest in the middle-east does so because of oil. Additionally, the US has a strong political affiliation with Israel, and has long been very involved in assuring Israeli security. The current administration in particular is quite interested in Israel. See Project for a New American Century (PNAC) [newamericancentury.org], there are papers there dating to before the present administration gained power making the case for taking out Iraq, reasoned by way of taking out a potential threat of WMD proliferation and stabilising the middle-east and gaining security for Israel. So taking out Iraq is something the the people behind the Bush administration have had as a goal since long before 20010911.
1. Elf, Total and the belgian PetroFina have all since merged together into TotalFinaElf. Total bought Petrofina at some point and then TotalFina merged with Elf in 2000.
Re:Without France, the US might never have existed (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, Moore supports it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i'm lovin' it (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you are talking about the "serious consequences" resolution?
By the way, just in 1990 there were 15 Iraq resolutions. In 1991 there were 13... and
1992: 2
1993: 2
1994: 2
1995: 1
1996: 2
1997: 6
1998: 7
1999: 6
2000: 3
2001: 3
2002: 5
2003: 7
I am not making any judgements until you show me what you're talking about.
Re:oil-frenzied cronies & France (Score:2, Insightful)
So we had rules we invented that made war illegal. We made it illegal to invade another country unless they had attacked you, or were about to attack you, or with the consent of the UN.
Yes, yes, other countries didn't play fair, and there was a lot of technicalities about countries other countries already 'possessed', like Tibet and Timor, and there were proxy wars like Vietnam, where we'd start 'supporting' one side and the Soviets another, and it was all okay because it was 'really' a civil war and we were just 'helping'...
But on the whole, and with the fall of the Soviets, we really had a handle on the world...there were Acceptable Behaviours, and Unacceptable Behaviours. There was no actual police force, we were all just people with big sticks, but we had the biggest stick (And half the economy) and we said you can't go around hitting people with your stick to get their lunch money. If they attack, you can hit them, and if we all agree they're Bad, you can hit them. Otherwise, we hit you.
Then, of course, three years ago, we got attacked by someone's trained dog, and we took our stick, and everyone else took their stick, and we beat the crap out of them and their dog. All well and good.
And then two years ago, we took our stick, and made wild accusations about another guy who suspiciously has a lot of lunch money, claiming he was working with the guy who had the dog, and he had illegal sticks, and then after we lost the vote to hit them, we went and beat the crap out of them anyway. And it turns out he didn't really have any of that stuff.
Words can't even express how much Bush fucked up our last half century of peace efforts.
Re:Not even Mel Gibson did this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Hate to break it to you, business and free markets do not, have not, and will never exist. they are great on paper. In the real world, this thing called money can override nearly everything else that should be a factor in a free market, usually to the detraction of the welfare of the people.
See business is inherently organized, and controls large amounts of money. The only way to counterbalance that power is by organizing. government is the de facto organizing of people for their own well-being, at least in the modern pseudo democratic paradigm we live in. It does go too far sometimes. Libertarians and many other right wing people go far too far the other way as well. They pretend the market is self correcting. It is not. It is far more complex than that.
Much like we don't still live in caves and trust nature to meet our needs on her own, and instead engineer and produce improvements to ensure our own well being, likewise a "wild" market is not suitable for a stable society.