Still wanna defend him?

Quote:

That you have not seen this film excludes you, IMNSHO, from contributing anything of value to any discussion of the film. I have noted that you often post to threads where you have little or no knowledge. That is why I find it useful to ask you what your knowledge base is. In this case, it is nothing.

Nice call, Beth.

0 Replies

Since you've asked me directly, nimh, I'll tell you. I don't really think anybody should be posting about things they don't know about - haven't experienced in most cases.

That's one of the reasons I've only made a few comments about the Democratic convention, for example. I've commented only on what I heard or saw myself. Transcripts just don't cut it for me. Without the context, it's meaningless to me.

0 Replies

ehBeth, i put a great deal of store in education, confidence in people I trust, and logic/reason/experience to draw conclusions on many things of which I do not actually experience. If we can only have an opinion on something we have actually experienced, we would have an extremely narrow view of the world.

I presume however, since you have seen the film and pronounce it accurate, you have personally checked out the facts and discovered Michael Moore was presenting them accurately and fairly?

0 Replies

ehBeth, that could quite possibly be the most retarded concept I have heard in awhile. People shouldn't have an opinion on something they haven't done or seen?

Let me ask you, have you had an abortion? Are you an expert on foriegn policy? Have you ever met George W. Bush? Do you have an opinion on these topics? Why?

0 Replies

I pronounced it accurate?
You'll have to find a quote on that, Foxfyre.
Given that you've indicated a journalism education elsewhere on the board, that bit of fact-checking should not be a problem for you.

0 Replies

Quote:

Let me ask you, have you had an abortion? Are you an expert on foriegn policy? Have you ever met George W. Bush? Do you have an opinion on these topics? Why?

That's pretty damn weak, McGentrix.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

ehBeth, that could quite possibly be the most retarded concept I have heard in awhile. People shouldn't have an opinion on something they haven't done or seen?

Let me ask you, have you had an abortion? Are you an expert on foriegn policy? Have you ever met George W. Bush? Do you have an opinion on these topics? Why?

Have I spoken to the issue of abortion at A2K, McG? My meetings with George Bush? Have I indicated somewhere that I'm an expert on foreign policy?

My big problem is not with holding opinions but with people who present those opinions as fact - and who do not make that clear until you question them directly. That type of dishonesty infuriates me.

0 Replies

It was posed as a question ehBeth, not a statement of fact. Let me rephrase it. You say you have seen the movie. Have you checked the facts in the movie to verify their veracity and fairness? If not, on what basis are you comfortable with it and feel you can criticize my opinion of it?

0 Replies

eheth is a liberal and we know ALL liberals are the same juyst as we know ALL coservatives are neo-nazi's.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Since you've asked me directly, nimh, I'll tell you. I don't really think anybody should be posting about things they don't know about - haven't experienced in most cases.

I disagree - about your definition of when "one doesn't know" about something I mean. I haven't actually read the full 9/11 Commission report or the Senate report, and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you haven't either. But we both have read lots about what's in these reports; what they said about who and what; which questions they did and didnt answer; we might have read excerpts from them. In fact, I'm going to guess the same goes for 95% of the posters here. So are we therefore not to discuss the value and impact of these reports?

Even before I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, I read a lot about it - from serious reviews to blog entries. Some of them were clearly partisan, but still had a good point or two; others were neutral but meaningless; and vice versa. They pointed out a host of things, both good and bad, that I wouldnt ever all have retrieved from the movie myself, lacking enough detailed and expert opinion to do so. So in short: even now that I saw the movie myself I can say that I have learned many things from what I read about it that I wouldnt have been able to "see for myself". Someone who has read all kinds of stuff (if he hasnt strictly selected only articles that confirm a certain POV) thus knows stuff - is "able2know" stuff - that posters who haven't read it all don't, even if they did see the movie.

The same goes for pretty much everything. How many times did O'Bill not reject critical deconstructions of the toppling of the Saddam statue - because he'd "seen it with his own eyes" on TV? Our eyes are just two. We can learn much from reading what others saw - and from deconstructions of what you just saw yourself. And when one O'Bill posts what he "saw with his own eyes", another poster who didn't see it at all, but can tell something about the story behind those images, has something very useful to add.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The Chris Hitchins piece is good. You have to give Chris an "A" for intellectual honesty. He is about as liberal as they come, but he won't be dishonest just to support his ideology. As he writes:

Quote:
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

As he writes. I believe that this suggests agreement with the facts about F-9/11 as presented by Mr. Hitchens. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't say that I agree with someone unless I've seen/heard/read the item in question.

It's also interesting that Foxfyre describes Mr. Hitchens as a liberal, when a bit of fact-checking would find that a number of left/liberal mags/blogs etc (I subscribe to too many of each side, including GOPUSA) feature articles such as How Many Lies Can Christopher Hitchens Tell?, and tend to refer to him as a neocon. Are neocons liberals now? I suspect not.

0 Replies

Well, if Chris Hitchens is a neocon, I'll eat my hat. Smile

0 Replies

The thing is, nimh, I'm not going to comment on reports without having read them. I was just reading another thread about a report I have no intention of ever reading. I won't post to that thread. Just won't. I am not going to post based on someone else's review or summary.

That, to me, is like saying "I love X's hair", without ever seeing it, or having any intention of seeing it.

As trivial as the hair point is - that's as trivial as I see anyone's posts on something they don't know about. And I'll stick with my definition.

It may be fallout of my education and work - but facts, and fact-checking, matter to me.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

It may be fallout of my education and work - but facts, and fact-checking, matter to me.

And you defend Moore? Laughing

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

It's also interesting that Foxfyre describes Mr. Hitchens as a liberal, when a bit of fact-checking would find that a number of left/liberal mags/blogs etc (I subscribe to too many of each side, including GOPUSA) feature articles such as How Many Lies Can Christopher Hitchens Tell?, and tend to refer to him as a neocon. Are neocons liberals now? I suspect not.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Christopher Hitchens (born April 26, 1949) is an English journalist, author, and self-proclaimed political gadfly. He currently lives in Washington, DC in the United States. Over the years he has written for a variety of different publications, including Vanity Fair, The Nation, and Harper's.

Hitchens is well-known for his ruffled and hard-drinking persona, as well as his difficult to predict political views. A prolific writer, he has written many books and articles over the years on a variety of very controversial subjects. One book condemned Mother Teresa as a self-serving egotist. Another, No One Left To Lie To, was a fierce denunciation of Bill Clinton. A more recent tome put Henry Kissinger "on trial" as a world-class war criminal. He has also written a book length appreciation of George Orwell.

Though once regarded as a stalwart member of the Anglo-American left, Hitchens has recently made ferocious attacks on those leftists whom he regards as "unrepentant Stalinists". He has also been taking aim at leading radicals, such as Noam Chomsky, whom he accuses of being soft on what he calls "Islamofascism". His support of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq led to a cutting of ties to the radical left and to his resignation from his post as a long-time columnist for the left-wing magazine The Nation. Hitchens now says he identifies strongly with much of the American neoconservative movement, although he does not prefer to label himself so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

0 Replies

Hmmm darn. Well, will ketchup make my hat taste better? I was thinking of so many articles over the years in which Hitchins took on and condemned conservative issues and his really gutsy condemnation of Mother Teresa. He is pro choice, pro gay marriage, and was anti-tax cuts.....

But if he identifies with conservatism, I'm not gonna turn him down. He is one of the best writers out there.

0 Replies

Since I'm not clear on the latest definition of neo-con --- it seems to be a moving target --- let's just do a quick Google and see what we get

...

Quote:

Neo-Con Christopher Hitchens Rebels Against Bush

Quote:

Hitchens stays true to his curmudgeonly essence even as he continues to evolve into a neo-con

Quote:

Rupert Murdochs pet and Neo-con warmonger and active Trotskyist, Christopher Hitchens

Quote:

Didn't neo-cons used to be called neo-liberals? Or is Hitchens a neo-con and Corn a neo-liberal?

my personal favourite, I think

Quote:

Hitchens, the latest neo-con convert, attacked any commitment to "preserve the Iraq state."

Quote:

Christopher Hitchens's review in Slate has been widely cited, and thus deserves a lengthy reply. He and other appoplectic neo-con critics

and on and on

I used to read Mr. Hitchens opinion pieces/articles in Vanity Fair. An interesting writer. Maybe a neo-con, maybe not, but a lot of people seem to think he is.

How's the fedora, Foxfyre?

from the opinion piece that the last quote ^^^ came from

Quote:

Any movie that can provoke this much outrage and debate is worth seeing.

link

I'm not sure if anyone here read when I posted about going to see the film. I was with some right of centre colleagues, in the financial district. Not a lot of 'lefties' to be found round there.

0 Replies

I followed your link and didn't see that.

Christopher Hitchens (born April 26, 1949) is an English journalist, author, and self-proclaimed political gadfly. He currently lives in Washington, DC in the United States. Over the years he has written for a variety of different publications, including Vanity Fair, The Nation, and Harper's.

Hitchens is well-known for his ruffled and hard-drinking persona, as well as his difficult to predict political views. A prolific writer, he has written many books and articles over the years on a variety of very controversial subjects. One book condemned Mother Teresa as a self-serving egotist. Another, No One Left To Lie To, was a fierce denunciation of Bill Clinton. A more recent tome put Henry Kissinger "on trial" as a world-class war criminal. He has also written a book length appreciation of George Orwell.

Though once regarded as a stalwart member of the Anglo-American left, Hitchens has recently made ferocious attacks on those leftists whom he regards as "unrepentant Stalinists". He has also been taking aim at leading radicals, such as Noam Chomsky, whom he accuses of being soft on what he calls "Islamofascism". His support of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq led to a cutting of ties to the radical left and to his resignation from his post as a long-time columnist for the left-wing magazine The Nation. Hitchens has been linked to the American "Neoconservative" movement by radical Democrats who see Hitchens work as a danger to their party.

0 Replies

Hitchins also writes for Vanity Fair, not exactly the last bastion for neoconservatism. Of course I'm not quite sure how to define neoconservatism or how it differs from plain old conservatism.

At any rate, see my post directly above yours ehBeth. I will accept proper humbling on the issue of Christopher Hitchins.

0 Replies

McG - this is what I said.

ehBeth wrote:

I've seen the film.
I'm comfortable with my feelings about it.
No quibbles.

That lack of quibbles is about my feelings.
I'm not defending Moore.
I'm trying to defend the right to discuss the film with other people who've seen the film - not with people who've only read opinion pieces. Which is why I ask people if they've seen it.

0 Replies

Still wanna defend him?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know