Ben Stien "Expelled"

[STINNETT]

Regardless, a person could still make a pro-evolution propaganda film that contains heaps of untruths. Propaganda isn't about truth, it's about persuasion.

I know what you're saying, but what untruths would they have to rely on to defend evolution?
That's why evolution does not have to rely on propoganda in order to succeed as a theory. ID cannot stand on its own without the propoganda.

 

[TravisW]

I know what you're saying, but what untruths would they have to rely on to defend evolution?
That's why evolution does not have to rely on propoganda in order to succeed as a theory. ID cannot stand on its own without the propoganda.

I'd say that one doesn't need to rely on any untruths to present any reasonable argument. However, people do it all the time regardless of whether or not they actually need to. It's not about proving that you're right, it's about convincing people that you're right. Untruths can be as simple as taking an interview quote out of context (common in these "documentary" films) in order to make an interviewee either say something they didn't mean or to simply look stupid. Once the context is removed, the information itself is skewed beyond the point of truthfulness.

 

[STINNETT]

I'd say that one doesn't need to rely on any untruths to present any reasonable argument. However, people do it all the time regardless of whether or not they actually need to. It's not about proving that you're right, it's about convincing people that you're right. Untruths can be as simple as taking an interview quote out of context (common in these "documentary" films) in order to make an interviewee either say something they didn't mean or to simply look stupid. Once the context is removed, the information itself is skewed beyond the point of truthfulness.

Yeah, I realize that this is the standard approach to documentary film making, but what exactly are you getting at?
I just wanted to make the point that dishonest propoganda is really the only thing that ID has going for it in terms of it being "science".

 

[TravisW]

To be honest, I think we're talking past each other. Happens all the time on teh intrawebz.

 

[abyssofdreams]

I don't have an issue with the movie and like any Michael Moore (although Mike is a bigger jackass) ....

Can you elaborate on the "Michael Moore is a bigger jackass" part?

 

[STINNETT]

Can you elaborate on the "Michael Moore is a bigger jackass" part?

He has substantially more mass than Ben Stein, is that it?

 

[abyssofdreams]

damn you

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

Can you elaborate on the "Michael Moore is a bigger jackass" part?

Well he has more mass. There is something about him that makes me want to kick his ass as well. Bowling for Columbine was good, never saw 911, and sicko although omitting some information was pretty entertaining as well. I just think the guy is a huge fat jackass.

Anyhow back on topic: Why would you tell someone they are being interviewed for a specific purpose? I mean in religiulous (sp) was everyone interviewed told they were being filmed for a satire film basically bashing religion (I mean common that is the point of the movie right)? A lot of the other stuff that Jame's articles stated is fucked (especially the first guy never working for Smithsonian) but lying to someone to get them to speak their mind without being influenced on what the means to the end is, is done all the time.

That's why cops don't tell suspects what they are suspected of till they ask a few questions first.

BTW: James those articles don't exist anymore.