2
   

Jon Voight castigates Moore

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2004 10:30 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
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.


Who are "they?"

Did you really mean to use "feign?"

Do you really think that the people who are expressing anger over Moore's film are faking it?

When Clinton was president I have a solid recollection of the outrage expressed over criticism of him. Was this outrage an attempt to stifle dissent? Were those outraged over Newt Gingrich's criticism of Clinton pretending? Is there such a thing as conservative dissent or this a strictly liberal noun?

Somehow I feel I am to be included in your "they" group, and if I am right, I want to assure you that I am not pretending to be repulsed by Moore's pandering to the European Left at the expense of his fellow Americans, I do not, at all, understand (or believe) that he was merely referencing Americans who uncritically accept Bush, and I very much believe that his remarks to his European audiences were intended to curry favor with a group of people whom Moore, pathetically, believes to be the moral and intellectual superiors of Americans (including himself).

On the other hand, I don't believe that Moore's conviction that W and his administration are bad guys, is not a very significant motivation for his "stalking" behavior.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2004 10:41 pm
All these posts are only "opinions" aren't they?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2004 11:33 pm
You have a right to blind yourself to what Moore is doing, Finn. It's not my place in the scheme of things to stop you. As for Clinton, I don't give a rat's ass about who claimed to be outraged by him. I voted third party.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 08:19 am
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:
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?


Not at all. I used to like Moore until he became an ultra-liberal. I really enjoyed Roger & Me and I also thought Canadian Bacon was a really good movie. I even watched TV Nation. However, I didn't like Bowling for Columbine and think that he has come to rely too much on stretching the truth to reach his point. This new film continues Moores path down the wrong road. He is split between his opinions and his need for a good movie. I have not seen it, but will when it is available on DVD, (I have seen spider man 2, and the last movie before that was ROTK. Before that was The Two Towers and then Fellowship of the Ring. I don't have time to see movies in theaters)

However, I have read reviews from all sides and listened to pundits and the people that I find myself agreeing with on most topics have given their two cents on Moores latest travesty.

My statement at the top of this page is my opinion. Moore thinks I am an idiot, I think he is a lying jackass.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 08:50 am
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.

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.

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.

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.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 08:55 am
McGentrix,

If it matters, I agree with you that Bowling crosses the intellectual line at times to become foolish. The interview with poor Heston, for example, was tasteless and intellectually void. I must admit I still found it immensly entertaining.

F9/11 is a better film intellectually speaking. Moore makes cogent points and, with the possible exception of one character breaking down in DC, doesn't cross the line into excess.

I don't hide my bias, but I imagine that even you would agree that this is a better film that makes a stronger argument than Columbine.

As far as who is an idiot or a lying jackass, I don't agree with either one of you.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 09:06 am
I was just astounded that Heston didn't know who Moore was or at least didn't find out. Reminded me of the apparantly clueless subjects on The Daily Show interviews. Therefore, whatever occurred was a human comedy with Moore baiting Heston and his swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Poor Heston, indeed (it hadn't been revealed as of that interview whether Heston's Alzheimer's was onsetting). His response that he really didn't need loaded weapons in the house was very telling. As to whether or not it was on a high plane of intellect. Nope. Politics is most often on a emotionally charged plane. That emotion is, unfortunately, more anger than anything else.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 01:39 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
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.


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.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 02:14 pm
I just spoke with my oldest son, who has hated Moore since "Columbine" (my son likes his guns!) He saw the movie and loved it.
McG, TV Nation was hilarious! That was before he started picking on your guys, though! I understand.
Smile
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 04:24 pm
After reading through this thread, I vote for the blood oath theory. That's the only possible explanation.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 08:10 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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."

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.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.")

I'm quite content with the level of subjectivity that you stress, but I don't understand why this subjectivity is somehow obscured or disguised by one's failure to acknowledge it openly. People offer opinions all the time without the slightest warning; are they to be scolded for their vehemence?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You only need to consider your personal reaction to a statements with and without the "In my opinion" qualifier.

I imagine that my reaction would be the same, regardless of the qualifier.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

It is relevant to your initial post, in which you criticized Moore for failing to indicate that he was offering an opinion. Now that you've decided that what you really were talking about was disparate levels of vehemence, it is of less relevance.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
In my opinion, that's complete nonsense.

It might be helpful if you explained why.

Short answer: because you are, in my opinion, a poopy-head.

Long answer: because I do not discern any appreciable difference between an opinion that is preceded by the acknowledgment "in my opinion" and one that is not. And anyone who disagrees with me is a poopy-head.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

Hogwash.

Or, rather, in my opinion that's hogwash.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

I find it deliciously ironic when someone introduces a point and then, when questioned on it, declares that it "isn't really important." If your point regarding Moore's failure to utter the magic words "in my opinion" has very little to do with the main issue, then why did you bring it up in the first place?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 08:17 pm
amen.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jul, 2004 09:43 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

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.


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 quite content with the level of subjectivity that you stress, but I don't understand why this subjectivity is somehow obscured or disguised by one's failure to acknowledge it openly. People offer opinions all the time without the slightest warning; are they to be scolded for their vehemence?

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.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You only need to consider your personal reaction to a statements with and without the "In my opinion" qualifier.


I imagine that my reaction would be the same, regardless of the qualifier.

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.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.


It is relevant to your initial post, in which you criticized Moore for failing to indicate that he was offering an opinion. Now that you've decided that what you really were talking about was disparate levels of vehemence, it is of less relevance.

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.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
In my opinion, that's complete nonsense.

It might be helpful if you explained why.

Short answer: because you are, in my opinion, a poopy-head.

Long answer: because I do not discern any appreciable difference between an opinion that is preceded by the acknowledgment "in my opinion" and one that is not. And anyone who disagrees with me is a poopy-head.

How can I argue with this logic?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

Hogwash.

Or, rather, in my opinion that's hogwash.

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.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.


I find it deliciously ironic when someone introduces a point and then, when questioned on it, declares that it "isn't really important." If your point regarding Moore's failure to utter the magic words "in my opinion" has very little to do with the main issue, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

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.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 08:41 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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!

It is always gratifying to receive encouragement from someone who has already bravely faced his own struggle with disabilities.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

Indeed, that's much preferable to actually explaining your position.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

I'm sure you'll be more careful in the future.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

Well, the entire notion of "vehemence disparity" popped up only later, when you were vainly attempting to re-interpret your initial post. There was no mention of "tone" in your initial post, although there was a fair amount of criticism directed at Moore for failing to produce evidence to support his views.



Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

It is hogwash because your recent attempts to re-cast your initial post as one involving "vehemence disparity" is at odds with the initial post itself.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

Nor am I. The only irrelevant posts I'm interested in at this time are yours.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

Which leaves me wondering how long you will continue to engage in it.

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.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 08:50 am
swolf wrote:
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.


tsk tsk swolf, now you know the mind of God? Umm Ummm Ummmm...that's a big sin you know....presuming to know the mind of God......10 Hail Mary's, 5 Our Fathers and.......try to say at least one nice thing today if it's not too much of a stretch.....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 09:04 am
edgarblythe wrote:
...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....

I hope that you're not saying that anyone on the other side of the political spectrum from you is dumb and ignorant. The liberal vs conservative thing is a difference of opinion. It doesn't imply either low intelligence or ignorance. Personally, whatever my original opinion of someone, I would think less of him for calling my country dumb and ignorant.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 09:34 am
"Possibly the dumbest people on the planet" has morphed into so many semantically manipulated versions by now that the original unverified statement taken out of context has lost its meaning. It's obvious to me that too many people are dumb about politics and ignorant of the issues. They still vote, however, and one side doesn't have any corner on the market for lack of knowledge and/or being dumb about politics. Are the half of us that don't vote just totally disinterested, expressing their disgust by not voting or actually dumb about politics?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 08:10 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

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.


And on and on and on......
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 08:14 pm
You can be a conservative and have valuable opinions, Brandon. I just happen to believe Bush is not one of them.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 09:58 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
You can be a conservative and have valuable opinions, Brandon. I just happen to believe Bush is not one of them.

Alright, Edgar. Fair enough.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 09:30:12