Jon Voight castigates Moore

When they fein anger over Moore's film, it's just another tool for stifling dissent. When they pretend outrage over his remark about stupid Americans, they understand he was referencing those who accept the Bush administration uncritically, as do the European audiences. He is not there simply for applause and they know it. Moore is stalking the administration because he feels genuine outrage over the stupid policy that is creating more terrorists than it kills.

It seems that most of the people deeply critical of him, his movies or his books have never seen or read any of them, but rather judge based on what they hear from others who share their politics.
Does that apply to you as well, mcG?

"You are an ass."

OR

"In my opinion you are an ass."

In both instances, it is fairly obvious, to anyone reading them, that it would be my opinion that you are an ass, and yet both statements, while derogatory, are quite different in the level of their vehemence.

The first expression suggests a visceral response and an absolute declaration; the second acknowledges subjectivity and, at least, the possibility of error.

In any case, the point of my referring to opinion was that Suzy attempted to cast Moore's and Voight's comments as the same simple matter of opinion. It seems clear to me that they were not. Moore chose "You are an ass," while Voight chose "In my opinion, you are an ass," and, given their attendant implications, these choices are of significance.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

"You are an ass."

OR

"In my opinion you are an ass."

In both instances, it is fairly obvious, to anyone reading them, that it would be my opinion that you are an ass, and yet both statements, while derogatory, are quite different in the level of their vehemence.

That may be, although it's difficult to gauge one's "level of vehemence" in print.

Not at all. "Moore's a lying jackass." and "It seems to me that Moore is a lying jackass." have clearly different levels of vehemence. I know you have already expressed your opinion that this is nonsense, but you have done it in a way that is less vehement that "That is nonsense."

It is similar to the use of "The point is..." vs "My point is..." Anyone hearing or seeing someone using the former realizes that The point is actually the speaker's point but there is an unpleasant arrogance associated with use of "the" in this context.

Using a qualifier like "It seems to me.." or "In my opinion.." very definitely introduces to a statement the acknowledgement that it is not an indisputable fact. If this element of subjectivity still escapes you I don't think I can persuade you otherwise. (Which, by the way, is quite different in tone to "If this element of subjectivity still escapes you, you can't be persuaded otherwise.")

You only need to consider your personal reaction to a statements with and without the "In my opinion" qualifier.

But context is always crucial. For instance, take McGentrix's statement: "Moore's a lying jackass." Now, if McG said "you're a lying jackass," we would interpret that statement differently depending upon whether he was addressing Michael Moore or a supine male donkey. The former would be an opinion, the second an assertion of fact.

I don't see how this has any relevance to the discussion. It can easily be asserted as a fact that Moore is a liar. Whether or not that fact is true, is immaterial. I suspect McGentrix believes it is a fact that Moore is a liar. You and I might recognize this as opinion, unless MCGentrix responds with positive proof of Moore's lying, but McGentrix's statement makes no concession to the possibility that he is expressing opinion rather than fact. furthermore, even if he acknowledges that it is merely his opinion that Moore is a liar, his choice of the words used clearly implies a greater disdain for the man than would otherwise have been conveyed.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The first expression suggests a visceral response and an absolute declaration; the second acknowledges subjectivity and, at least, the possibility of error.

In my opinion, that's complete nonsense.

It might be helpful if you explained why.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

In any case, the point of my referring to opinion was that Suzy attempted to cast Moore's and Voight's comments as the same simple matter of opinion. It seems clear to me that they were not. Moore chose "You are an ass," while Voight chose "In my opinion, you are an ass," and, given their attendant implications, these choices are of significance.

To paraphrase a recent president, "that's revisionist history." You criticized Moore for failing to add "in my opinion" to his statements, saying:

If you'd take the time to read Voight's comments you would see that he was remarkably careful to characterize his comments as opinion. Moore announced to an audience of Europeans that Americans were dumb and ignorant. He didn't say that in his opinion they were dumb and ignorant and he offered nothing in the way of supporting the contention as a fact or an opinion.

Clearly, you were not criticizing Moore for his elevated "level of vehemence," you were criticizing him for failing to characterize his statements as opinions.

Not at all. "Moore's a lying jackass." and "It seems to me that Moore is a lying jackass." have clearly different levels of vehemence. I know you have already expressed your opinion that this is nonsense, but you have done it in a way that is less vehement that "That is nonsense."

Using a qualifier like "It seems to me.." or "In my opinion.." very definitely introduces to a statement the acknowledgement that it is not an indisputable fact. If this element of subjectivity still escapes you I don't think I can persuade you otherwise. (Which, by the way, is quite different in tone to "If this element of subjectivity still escapes you, you can't be persuaded otherwise.")

You only need to consider your personal reaction to a statements with and without the "In my opinion" qualifier.

I don't see how this has any relevance to the discussion. It can easily be asserted as a fact that Moore is a liar. Whether or not that fact is true, is immaterial. I suspect McGentrix believes it is a fact that Moore is a liar. You and I might recognize this as opinion, unless MCGentrix responds with positive proof of Moore's lying, but McGentrix's statement makes no concession to the possibility that he is expressing opinion rather than fact. furthermore, even if he acknowledges that it is merely his opinion that Moore is a liar, his choice of the words used clearly implies a greater disdain for the man than would otherwise have been conveyed.

joefromchicago wrote:

In my opinion, that's complete nonsense.

It might be helpful if you explained why.

Yes I was criticizing Moore for failing to characterize his statement as opinion, because to do so would have at least tempered them with an acknowledgement of subjectivity. My criticism of Moore is both for failing to characterize his statement as opinion, and his elevated level of vehemence, because they are essentially the same point. I have never suggested that he was misrepresenting himself as an anthropological scholar reciting scientifically supported conclusions, and, by failing to qualify his statement as opinion he was misleading his audience.

This entire debate on the use of opinion has very little to do with the main issue. Even if he did qualify his statement by characterizing it as opinion I would still find the stunt objectionable. That he didn't, makes it that much more reprehensible.

Perhaps I am not as attuned as you are to changes in levels of vehemence, for I can see no difference. Perhaps that's something like a dog's ability to hear high-pitched sounds: it's an inborn talent.

You only need to consider your personal reaction to a statements with and without the "In my opinion" qualifier.

I don't see how this has any relevance to the discussion. It can easily be asserted as a fact that Moore is a liar. Whether or not that fact is true, is immaterial. I suspect McGentrix believes it is a fact that Moore is a liar. You and I might recognize this as opinion, unless MCGentrix responds with positive proof of Moore's lying, but McGentrix's statement makes no concession to the possibility that he is expressing opinion rather than fact. furthermore, even if he acknowledges that it is merely his opinion that Moore is a liar, his choice of the words used clearly implies a greater disdain for the man than would otherwise have been conveyed.

joefromchicago wrote:

In my opinion, that's complete nonsense.

It might be helpful if you explained why.

Yes I was criticizing Moore for failing to characterize his statement as opinion, because to do so would have at least tempered them with an acknowledgement of subjectivity. My criticism of Moore is both for failing to characterize his statement as opinion, and his elevated level of vehemence, because they are essentially the same point. I have never suggested that he was misrepresenting himself as an anthropological scholar reciting scientifically supported conclusions, and, by failing to qualify his statement as opinion he was misleading his audience.

This entire debate on the use of opinion has very little to do with the main issue. Even if he did qualify his statement by characterizing it as opinion I would still find the stunt objectionable. That he didn't, makes it that much more reprehensible.

Far be it from me to exploit your disability. You may lack the ability to detect variances in tone, but that doesn't make you any less of a valued member of society Joe. Hang in their kid!

I'm reluctant to reinstruct you on this issue for fear of being charged with discernabiltyism, so I will leave it be. I've made my point, you don't get it, so let's move on.

And a blind person perceives no difference between a room with the light on and a room in the dark. Oops, I'm being insensitive again.

We've covered this, but still you persist. If I was not objecting to Moore's failure to qualify his statement as opinion because of tone, my only alternative objective could be that he was trying to present his statement that Americans are dumb and ignorant as somehow empirically proven fact. The latter was not the basis of my objection despite your personal conviction that it was, and the proof of this is the comparison I made between Moore's criticism of Americans and Voight's criticism of Moore.

You might at least attempt to offer some logical proof of your assertion, but if "hogwash" is how you want to go, so be it.

As you have admitted, you are nuance challenged and so I will attempt to be sensitive to your disability. I have engaged in a rather fruitless exchange with you on this issue and so its hardly accurate to charge me with dodging it. I, and others, have made any number of different statements in this thread. Some are precisely on point and some are less so. We can, if you like, go through them all and find the ones that, by your logic, should never be have been uttered, but I'm not interested in so purist an exercise.

In any case, and here forgive me if I am being condescendingly repetitive, the level of vehemence in Moore's comments is only important in terms of the level of my objection to it. With the qualifier, his comments stink; without it they stink more. The main argument is that he is an ass for making the comments, how much of an ass he is is a secondary consideration. My point doesn't have very little to do with the main issue, this pointless debate does.

If you continue to find this somehow deliciously ironic then I can only say that your sense of taste is in the same sad state as your sense of hearing.

I did not say anything about punishing Moore for his rancid bullshit in this world. What he implied was that he would be punished in the next world.
Take your stupid lecture and complaints to God and see what he has to say about it.

...Yet, when he calls Americans dumb and ignorant, I think right away of the fact that half of the voting public supports G W Bush for re-election....

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If you continue to find this somehow deliciously ironic then I can only say that your sense of taste is in the same sad state as your sense of hearing.

And yet somehow I manage to go on.

You can be a conservative and have valuable opinions, Brandon. I just happen to believe Bush is not one of them.