Moore should ensure one of the networks airs his movie Octob

Harper wrote:

So what did Moore lie about? Nothing. BTW all of those Dave Kopel claims have been refuted. I am waiting for a single person to point out a lie based on what they saw in the movie not based on what some right-wing NRA lawyer or some other lying liar who lies claims.

Well, I'm a liberal who thinks Bush is the worst president of my lifetime and I also think Moore is an intellectually dishonest populist.

Thing is, you are doing what a lot of conservatives here do when they challenge people to find a "Bush lie". The pedantry comes out en masse and when falsehoods are illustrated they segue to challenging the basis of intent for it to be considered a lie.

Anywho, I'm sure you would respond in similar fashion, Moore's prevarications would have to be explicit, or you'd dismiss them. This may be convenient for your bold challenge but it excludes a lot of Moore's intellectual deceit.

Note: please look up the term intellectual dishonesty if you are unfamiliar with it, as its meaning is different from traditional definitions of dishonesty and its meaning is something I think Moore is not only guilty of but almost incessantly employs.

So, I guess I have to be pedantic too, and bring a simple falsehood to the table.

It's not a particularly important one, but it is a lie (see the bold below for what is a lie).

I chose it because it's unambiguously false, and because it was the first example that popped into my head that was actually from Moore's mouth (because prevarication in the film through presentation etc would likely be dismissed).

Transcript:

Quote:

PRESIDENT BUSH: When I say we will lead a Coalition of the Willing to disarm him if he chooses not to disarm, I mean it.

REPORTER: Who is in that Coalition of the Willing?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You will find out who is in the Coalition of the Willing.

(words "Coalition of the Willing" appear over a globe)

VOICEOVER: The Coalition of the Willing roll call: the Republic of Palau. The Republic of Costa Rica. The Republic of Iceland.

MOORE: Of course none of these countries has an army or, for that matter, weapons.

That is a lie.

0 Replies

Craven, you are dancing on a head of a pin.

0 Replies

Perhaps, but you can no longer claim you are still waiting for a lie.

Perhaps it may be pedantic, I said as much. It was a response to pedantic criteria you'd set up.

BTW, when you bring up that Bush is the President as an example of a truth are you dancing on the head of a pin?

0 Replies

Craven, just about the entire Moore is direct quotes, statements, and interviews made by other people, many of whom are renowned political figures and several prominent members of the republican party. Most of the remainder are documents, newspapers etc from other prominent sources.

None of these people were coarsed or misled into saying what they said. Their statements weren't taken out of context.

So how can any of these (with the exception of that one article and we still haven't heard Moore's side yet, maybe it wasn't doctored, maybe it was a genuine article) be considered lies or even half truths?

If you only take just these parts from the movie, they make up the vast vast majority of it, and they make the point perfectly clearly.

Now getting back to point, anyone have any idea how I can contact Moore with this idea? Getting this movie aired on network tv prior to the election is perhaps the best way to ensure a Bush defeat in 2004

0 Replies

THe show will continue in theaters for now:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=127

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

None of these people were coarsed or misled into saying what they said. Their statements weren't taken out of context.

So how can any of these (with the exception of that one article and we still haven't heard Moore's side yet, maybe it wasn't doctored, maybe it was a genuine article) be considered lies or even half truths?

Are you saying that for intellectual dishonesty to be in the film coerced testimony has to be?

That's simply not a true maxim.

0 Replies

I heard this past week that it won't be on TV because it would negate it's nomination for a Grammy or some such award. Any movie nominated cannot be aired on TV for 9 months following it's theater debute. That was where Cuba came in, and since it was bootlegged, it did not prevent possible nomination.

0 Replies

I think that Moore cares about defeating Bush than winning a grammy or making a little more money than the millions the movie has already made him. Well, atleast he should.

I also don't think there is anything techincally wrong or immoral about airing the movie on network tv. Candidates are allowed to air biased, misleading ads attacking the other guy in October, where's the harm in airing an independent film that does the same. It's not like people don't know what Moore agenda is or who he supports and is trying to get elected.

0 Replies

Craven, since you are so fastidious in demanding what is expected of others, I am going to demand the same standard of you. Your posts claiming F911 is deceitful are off-topic.

0 Replies

Centrole - I agree. That was just the reason I heard being stated for why it was a possible problem for the Cuba airing. I hope Moore would care less about another award and more about the good of our country.

0 Replies

Harper wrote:

Craven, since you are so fastidious in demanding what is expected of others, I am going to demand the same standard of you. Your posts claiming F911 is deceitful are off-topic.

LOL

Though craven, I have no problem discussing with you the factual basis of the movie.

True, the movie may be slightly misleading, but no more than the political ads that both campaigns officially have put up so far. Have any of the reporters called these ads lies? No, they usually mention that some of the facts presented may create an impression that's not entirely accurate, but this doesn't mean that they are lies.

Why should Moore's movie be held to a higher standard than either Bush's or Kerry's ads?

0 Replies

F9/11 DVD scheduled for release the first week in October:

dvdempire.com

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

F9/11 DVD scheduled for release the first week in October:

dvdempire.com

Perfect timing!!! Cool

0 Replies

What you don't get is that Moore uses "suggestions" in his films that aren't true. I don't see how what you posted refuts what is stated as deceits.

0 Replies

If 'suggestions' that aren't true are equal to deciet, than the President is a hell of a deciever... and you don't believe that, now do you Baldimo?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The thought of millions of Americans choosing for whom to vote based upon what they've seen in a movie. And a flawed movie at that. Seems to me a huge amount of money has been wasted by both sides and maybe next time each candidate can just hire a film crew, produce a movie and the one with the most *creativity* wins.

They could donate the proceeds to reduce the deficit LOL.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

Harper wrote:
Craven, since you are so fastidious in demanding what is expected of others, I am going to demand the same standard of you. Your posts claiming F911 is deceitful are off-topic.

LOL

Though craven, I have no problem discussing with you the factual basis of the movie.

True, the movie may be slightly misleading, but no more than the political ads that both campaigns officially have put up so far. Have any of the reporters called these ads lies? No, they usually mention that some of the facts presented may create an impression that's not entirely accurate, but this doesn't mean that they are lies.

Why should Moore's movie be held to a higher standard than either Bush's or Kerry's ads?

Leaving aside the question of whether political ads ought to be able to be misleading as to facts (I suppose nobody dare expect them not to be full of attempts at emotional manipulation???) Moore has not purported to make an advertisement - he has made a documentary. While it is clearly and avowedly a documentary with a definite political line, nonetheless it ought to be attempting to tell the truth.

I am frustrated by its misleadingness in some areas, because I believe it weakens an overall accurate message - that the US invasion of Iraq was based on transparent and evident lies.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Centroles wrote:
Harper wrote:
Craven, since you are so fastidious in demanding what is expected of others, I am going to demand the same standard of you. Your posts claiming F911 is deceitful are off-topic.

LOL

Though craven, I have no problem discussing with you the factual basis of the movie.

True, the movie may be slightly misleading, but no more than the political ads that both campaigns officially have put up so far. Have any of the reporters called these ads lies? No, they usually mention that some of the facts presented may create an impression that's not entirely accurate, but this doesn't mean that they are lies.

Why should Moore's movie be held to a higher standard than either Bush's or Kerry's ads?

Leaving aside the question of whether political ads ought to be able to be misleading as to facts (I suppose nobody dare expect them not to be full of attempts at emotional manipulation???) Moore has not purported to make an advertisement - he has made a documentary. While it is clearly and avowedly a documentary with a definite political line, nonetheless it ought to be attempting to tell the truth.

I am frustrated by its misleadingness in some areas, because I believe it weakens an overall accurate message - that the US invasion of Iraq was based on transparent and evident lies.

I guess the report about faulty intelligence means nothing to you?

0 Replies

Pretty much, yeah.

I think there is good evidence they got lots of intelligence casting doubt on their stupid excuses - and refused to consider it - if they gave a damn.

0 Replies

Harper wrote:

Craven, since you are so fastidious in demanding what is expected of others, I am going to demand the same standard of you. Your posts claiming F911 is deceitful are off-topic.

I'm not big on demanding "on topic" discussion... Confused

<shrugs> Oh well, if this topic is a "no Moore criticism" topic then so be it, I've not much inclinatation or time to get into it.

Thing is, I'll note that your postings on Moore's prevarication seem to have been ok, and that it only became a transgression when your challenge was met.

0 Replies

Moore should ensure one of the networks airs his movie Octob

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know