67 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >
 |
| 47. |
Re: Bowl O Drama |
Apr 22, 2003, 13:20 |
Equinoux |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 46. |
Re: Bowl O Drama |
Apr 22, 2003, 12:59 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
There was also a commment earlier to the effect of many stabbings occuring in Britain, as to support the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" position. The thing is though, guns have no other purpose than to kill (perhaps not people, but if not people then animals). That is the relevent dissimilarity between guns, and say knives.
Of course. That's precisely why guns are so effective for self-defense. We are responsible for defending ourselves here in the US. Nobody else is willing to take on that responsibility, nor would they have the capability even if they wanted to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 45. |
Re: Bowl O Drama |
Apr 22, 2003, 12:40 |
Pedle Zelnip |
|
|
Well, to start I'll begin by saying I haven't yet seen bowling, or any of Moore's other films, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. 
In regards to the Forbes piece:
The comment that the kids didn't go bowling so the title is flawed completely misses the point. I don't think Moore (or anyone else) truly believed that the kids went nuts because they bowled that morning, but rather Moore's playing with the idea of the post hoc fallacy that just because something happens before something, it follows that the prior event was the cause of something. For example:
"I ate bacon & eggs before I got that A on the test, so therefore the bacon & eggs were what caused me to get the A"
Obviously this is ridiculous, but the mass media sure seemed to be hopping on a lot of equally ridiculous causes for Columbine (such as playing DOOM, listening to Marilyn Manson, etc). And I think the title "Bowling for Columbine" is a parody of this silliness of the mass media.
The welfare story is a valid criticism, and seems to be one that is echoed a lot by not only Moore critics, but (oddly enough) even many Moore supporters. The criticism being that Moore distorts or leaves out facts to make stories fit his point-of-view. However, I think this criticism can be leveled not only at Moore, but the vast majority of journalists as well. I'm not saying this is an excuse for Moore's actions, I'm just saying distorting/leaving out facts is more commonplace than I think a lot of people would like to believe.
The talk about the bank & the gun completely misses the point. I don't care if the bank did a background check or not, using guns as a promotional tool is truly bizarre and twisted.
There was also a commment earlier to the effect of many stabbings occuring in Britain, as to support the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" position. The thing is though, guns have no other purpose than to kill (perhaps not people, but if not people then animals). That is the relevent dissimilarity between guns, and say knives.
Anyways, sorry for the length of this post. I have a cold, and needed something to do.
PZ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 44. |
Re: Bowl O Drama |
Apr 22, 2003, 08:04 |
Schnapple |
|
|
Forbes shows how Moore is full of crap
Forbes shows the same old four points:
TITLE: No, Moore titled the movie that way because it was *thought* that the kids went bowling. It was also *thought* that the kids played DOOM and listened to Marilyn Manson. Both of those became immediate targets - why didn't bowling?
MISSLES: Moore did go off on a tangent here - but no sane individual would think thst Colmbine happened because of Lockheed Martin
WELFARE: Agreed. The Welfare-to-Work segment of BfC was stupid and should have been left out.
BANK: See, here's the funny thing. The bank has changed their story many times since the movie came out. In all liklihood the bank does do a background check and hand out the guns in the bank, just not on the same day. It was a staged scene. If they have you go to a gun shop, then why did an officer of the bank state that the bank has 500 guns in their safe? For that matter, why in the hell did the bank - whose reputation would be tarnished - go along with the "same day" stunt at all? I think the bank has changed their policies in response to movie criticism. Of course the movie took three years to make - it may have been changed for some time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 43. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 22, 2003, 05:40 |
Von Helmet |
|
|
Jesus is one of the best historically documented characters. I've read that there's more evidence for his existence (note - I'm not saying more evidence that he was the son of God) than that of Julius Caesar and... I think it's Plato.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 22, 2003, 03:10 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
and while i think you're example was slightly more extreem than what I intended, sure... taken any words you can make me say anything.
Their examples were certainly no more extreme than what Moore did. He managed to completely change the meaning, or spirit if you like, of what was said.
what about gun crime in general?
Well, you're more than 6 times more likely to die from the flu than by a gun, and as Hardy's website pointed out, your lifestyle has a lot to do with your odds in that area. If you're a crack dealer, the odds go WAY up (duh  ), while if you're an average suburbanite, the odds are much lower.
I don't see how you can applaud what he does at all. What he does is twist the facts to give people a very distorted view of reality. How is that worthy of applause?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 22, 2003, 02:39 |
alnya |
|
|
>You might not believe a "journalist" would cut something up as bad as I just did...
believe it? Hell, I'd expect it. You ever see someone in real life being interviewed on camera. They're all "err, um" all the time - bad TV. They prune all that out to get the "spirit" of what they were trying to say. Sometimes whole sentences are "pruned". I know what your saying (i think i may have implied as such) and while i think you're example was slightly more extreem than what I intended, sure... taken any words you can make me say anything.
However, if you break from the spirit of my argument, thats when you end up in courts with a hefty lawsuit on your ass and one of those quarter column inch retractions hidden by the liposuction commercials.
anyways, some folks don`t like the film, some do - and theres lots of reasons on both sides. id be surprised if an issue like gun control didnt provoke this reaction to be honest. I'm pretty sure though that we can all get behind the idea that columbine was a tragic event, and something we could well do with remembering....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
Re: Who needs proof. |
Apr 22, 2003, 02:32 |
Nyarlathotep |
|
|
[SPZ]SPANKER:
Correction: The book of John was written while he(John) was still alive, which wouldn't be decades after. Just had to point out that ID10T ERROR.
--------------------------------------
Correction: John the desciple and John the evangelist are two diffrent people. Just had to point out that ID10T ERROR.
-------
Calling Cthulhu webmaster
http://cthulhu.orphus.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Bowl O Drama |
Apr 22, 2003, 00:35 |
Equinoux |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 21, 2003, 20:13 |
WarPig |
|
|
alnya, even though I haven't seen Bowling For Columbine and have no idea what Heston said or meant, I feel I have to point out how bad misquoting someone can get. I'm referring to your statement:
he just didn`t necissarily say them in the context of which they were presented. he still said them. That was my point. The film still dealt with documented footage. Footage which was edited to present an argument, but real footage none the less.
So, taking some quotes from your post:
I don't think Saddam is a bad man. I appluad that he does do the things he does.
Total lies and garbage, right? Yet you did post these words - just not in that context. You might not believe a "journalist" would cut something up as bad as I just did but they can and they do. I'm not saying Moore did this, I'm just saying when someone complains about being misquoted, don't automatically discount the claim.
Edit: Looks like Dantastic beat me to the punch.
-----------------------------------------
Of course I could be wrong... but really, what are the chances of that happening twice?
This comment was edited on Apr 21, 20:15. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________
GO SEAHAWKS! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 21, 2003, 20:08 |
Captain Beatdown |
|
|
I hear Britain has one of the highest stabbing crime rates in the world. Maybe that means that a person with violent intentions will commit violent acts with whatever tool is available to them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 21, 2003, 20:04 |
ExcessDan |
|
|
here's my splice quote from what alnya said
I don't think Saddam is a bad man, two thirds of Americans don't. I applaud that he does do the things he does, not necissarily how he does them.
And for anyone to challenge these things....(add dramatic pause in speech) the fact of the matter is that if I wanted to lay my hands on a hand gun I'd only have to break one law. I'm anti war and anti bush. These are scary times, and for anyone to challenge these things is a good thing.
Sounds like someone is going in for a Bush assassination attempt to me.
Alnya did say this. He just didn`t "necissarily" say them in the context of which they were presented. He still said them
I'm going to be an awesome documentary director!
"The" Dan
Intel 486SX, Trident video, 8MB RAM, 14" Generic Monitor, 100 MB HDD, Windows 3.11
Postal 2 sucks LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOL
This comment was edited on Apr 21, 20:08. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 35. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 21, 2003, 19:28 |
Schnapple |
|
|
so he did say them. he just didn`t necissarily say them in the context of which they were presented. he still said them The "don't come here?" line is still arrogant, no matter what context he said it in. Think about it. Also, the "From my cold, dead hands!" remark is asinine, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 34. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 21, 2003, 19:14 |
alnya |
|
|
>do you know how many laws they broke to get those weapons and commit that terrible crime?
They obviously wern't being enforced that well if they could break 19 laws and not get caught. The fact of the matter is that if I wanted to lay my hands on a handgun I have absolutely no idea where I could. Its not a matter of breaking laws, its about availability. I`d only have to break one law to be in possession of a handgun. its what that law IS thats important, not how many i have to break..
>You're still more than 3 times as likely to be killed by lightning as you are by school violence.
what about gun crime in general?
>Heston did not say all those things that Moore made it appear that he said. Moore spliced his words together to create completely different statements in some cases.
so he did say them. he just didn`t necissarily say them in the context of which they were presented. he still said them. That was my point. The film still dealt with documented footage. Footage which was edited to present an argument, but real footage none the less. My point was that this is no different from what FOX and CNN have been doing for years now. "libaray" footage gets used a hell of a lot when you`re trying to proove a point.
>Nobody likes a liar.
two thirds of Americans don't, but he's still your president
Look, i`m not anti-american. I'm not pro michael moore. I appluad that he does do the things he does, not necissarily how he does them. but its better that there is a dissenting voice than none at all. Personally, I`m anti gun, anti war and anti bush. But i also live in a country where i have no ability to do anything about those things. I can't own a gun, have never held a gun or could get one if I wanted to. I protested against this war, not becuase I don't think Saddam is a bad man, because the politics of this war are wrong. But i didn`t vote for Bush, I couldn't vote against him becuase I`m not an American - yet he dictates my foriegn policy, since my Prime Minister is too tied up in big business to think for a fraction of a second about domestic issues. These are scary times, and for anyone to challenge these things is a Good Thing. Democracy only works if all voices are aired.
For going WAY off topic I appologise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 33. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 21, 2003, 18:54 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
alnya, do you know how many laws they broke to get those weapons and commit that terrible crime? (I believe the last count I saw was 19 laws broken.) What makes you think a couple more laws would have made any difference? As was pointed out on the Hardy website, school shootings are a rare thing. You're still more than 3 times as likely to be killed by lightning as you are by school violence. And no, Heston did not say all those things that Moore made it appear that he said. Moore spliced his words together to create completely different statements in some cases. I don't think anti-Moore sentiment has anything to do with his stance on any issue. It has everything to do with the fact that he's deceitful and a liar. Nobody likes a liar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 32. |
I love Texas -Re: regarding bowling |
Apr 21, 2003, 18:45 |
[SPZ]SPANKER |
|
|
While driving in Texas I look out of my rear view mirror and catch a view of my fully stocked gun rack. Then I sit back and take a long draft of the cold brew in my hand and go "now this is freedom." Ain't no freak'n gangstas around here, cuz if there were we would do them ranch style.
We should teach people to be more responsible for their action at an early age, instead of trying to "not hurt their feelings". This bring the whole Scott Peterson thing to mind, how the F**K do the parents keep backing their son up? When I screwed up in life, my parents were the first to let me know about it, and I'm thankful for that. What's with everyone always kissing their kids Asses and blaming it on everything but them?
-Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
-Texas kicks ass.
-Michael Moore sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31. |
Re: [bowling for] columbine |
Apr 21, 2003, 18:31 |
alnya |
|
|
Four years ago...wow; doesn't seem like it. I remember sitting on a plane and reading the story in the newspaper. Five pages of a broadsheet it took up, with grainy NTSC photographs, scan lines and all. I also remember that three column inches were devoted to a report of what happened: that two teenagers dressed in trencoats opened fire on their classmates, killing 12 students and one teacher. I remember the rest of the pages were taken up with a whole load of blame - blame the music, blame the computer games, blame their politics, blame their upbrining, blame the NRA, blame gun laws, blame Clinton.... I don't rightly recall if anyone blamed Harris and Klebold, but i`m sure they were mentioned...I know that I was blamed, in some part, when i touched down in my destination and suffered a 30 minute delay in customs because i was wearing a leather trench coat. Or when i was refused service in a nearby store - and when i was called a nazi by serveral complete strangers. I remember sitting in my hotel drafting a letter to the newspaper I had read on the plane after reading a strength of feeling on the internet that all of these targets of blame were bad. These blame targets were wrong.
I understood, in Bowling for Columbine, the point of blaming bowling. I applaud Michael Moore for what he does, especially in this current climate where to question how things are done is to be a traitor. To debate what is, and what is not a documentary is to miss the point I think. The persuit of truth in any time is a fool's errand, where bias and mediation take the place of factual reporting. Editing footage is so comonplace we forget it happens a lot of the time. Did Charlton Heston say these things? Yes, he did. Were the audience, and to some extent, Mr Heston himself, mislead by Moore? Yes, they were. But then, was the audience mislead four years ago when the shooting took places? I'd say yes, we were.
I believe that most of the anti michael moore feeling at present has more to do with his stance on the war with Iraq, than his Bowling for Columbine release. It bothers me that a country which prides itself on freedoms and rights is so hell-bent at the moment at eroding those freedoms to replace them with patriotism. To the outside, the USA looks like an insecure country that can't take any criticism. I'm not sure this is true, but reading some stuff on the internet recently, its hard to refute. I've been told that I should "go to iraq and be a human sheild for saddam," simply by expressing my opinions. Anyway, I'm getting off the point.
The question I remember asking myself four years ago was this: if they hadn't have had easy access to firearms, would this tragedy have happened? I don't know the answer. Gun's don't kill people, people do. But I think the gun helps.
In my country, the last school shooting was less than 100 miles away from me at Dunblane primary school, where 15 kids and their teacher, were all gunned down during gym class. This happened in 1996, and brought in new laws making it illegal to buy or possess a handgun. Nothing like it has happened since. I can only hope nothing like it ever happens again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30. |
Who needs proof. |
Apr 21, 2003, 18:18 |
[SPZ]SPANKER |
|
|
Almost all of the little we know of Jesus' life is contained in the four Gospels, written decades after his death by his followers. Non-Christian references to Jesus are so meagre as to be almost non-existent, says John Meier, a Catholic University of America biblical scholar and a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association.
Correction: The book of John was written while he(John) was still alive, which wouldn't be decades after. Just had to point out that ID10T ERROR.
-SPANKER
This comment was edited on Apr 21, 18:22. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 29. |
Re: regarding bowling for columbine... |
Apr 21, 2003, 17:53 |
Schnapple |
|
|
ok, so I'm not the only one who agrees that the film is flawed but still likes it.
I'll even bite - it's not a documentary. It's like an opinion piece. I'll ignore the oscar bit.
And I disagree with things in the film - the entire "welfare to work" bit should have been left on the cutting room floor. The disdainful comments about "rich white people" sound bad coming from a man with a $1.25M apartment and a kid in private school. And it might even be dangerous that some people might not be smart enough to see the opinions as different from the facts.
But I think that it's still got merits as a film. Sometimes I want to cheer Michael Moore and other times I want to kick his ass. But there's a lot of right stuff in this film. Hell, they got bullets out of K-Marts. I'm much more critical of the news media now, and less scared of bullshit now (though I still lock my doors - notice how he didn't go around Canada at night).
But as for the "time frame" of the interview - remember Heston ditched Moore. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28. |
Re: regarding bowling for columbine... |
Apr 21, 2003, 17:36 |
indiv |
|
|
8. Race - I'm sorry, but Heston's comment that we have more violence in this country because of our mixed ethnicity sounds incredibly racist. He simply bonered that comment. If he's playing the "puttering old man" routine now, he shouldn't have given the interview.
I liked Bowling for Columbine. It was made to lead your opinon towards certain conclusions, and it was particularly provocative when your own opinions didn't agree with the film's. I was always under the impressions that documentaries, by definition, were objective, so I do not consider Moore's film a documentary.
As for Charlton Heston's personal interviews, I thought that was an underhanded and very lame tactic. Just watching what Moore put on screen was painful--Heston's obviously just an old man putting out the company line these days. Heston went into the interview thinking that it'd be more of the same from an NRA member, certainly not expecting to be attacked, and I'm sure he wasn't prepared to debate any issues--especially issues he didn't even know about beforehand!
So what we have in the film is an old Charlton Heston who is caught off guard, who clearly is not prepared for any conversation other than delivering the standard NRA speech. On top of that, he's clearly old, and he seems to have trouble thinking fast. Michael Moore uses Heston's slowness and unpreparedness to make Heston seem like a racist fool to anyone who wants to be taken in by Moore's propaganda.
I, on the other hand, took Heston's comment not as a comment from a racist old man, but as a comment concerning inevitabilities stemming from racial inequality of the past. He seemed to be saying that we have violence in this country because of racial hostility. To me, he did not seem to say that people of different ethnicities cannot live together, as I guess other people took his comment. But alas, Heston could not explain himself in Michael Moore's time frame, so we ended up with a racist sound byte.
It's not really fair to say that if Heston is playing the "'puttering old man' routine now, he shouldn't have givent the interview". He gave the interview under false pretenses--and without preparation! That's not fair for anyone, and certainly not for an older Charlton Heston who seems to have trouble thinking on his toes.
Anyway, Soylent Green is people. People!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
67 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
