Hyoukinmono
Real Man
Almost none and far too many.Yngvai X said:
The only news I believe is Sportscenter. Even that's got too much spin, though.
Off Topic: American guys: What are your opinions about "Bowling for Columbine"
- Thread starter Luis
- Start date
The only news I believe is Sportscenter. Even that's got too much spin, though.
Hyoukinmono
Real Man
I just remembered a t-shirt I saw that read, "Guns don't kill people. I kill people." From the looks of the guy that was wearing it, I don't think it was a joke...urinalcakemix said:
Gonfeldurok
Slayer of the n00bs
Thought that movie was pretty funny.
The cartoon segment was great.
I don't understand why some people were so offended.... they need to seriously lighten up.
Funny site for people like that... although a bit old.
The cartoon segment was great.
I don't understand why some people were so offended.... they need to seriously lighten up.
Funny site for people like that... although a bit old.
Hyoukinmono
Real Man
That guy too, but I actually saw a guy in real life wearing one. And he made the guy in Happy Gilmore look like a pretty-boy.OfSinsAndShred said:
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
I skimmed through this movie; but I gotta tell ya- it is overflowing with a lot of ad hominem bullshit and socialist revisionism. This smarmy, fat and pathetic loser is geared toward a certain audience. Those being far leftists, pot-smoking "progressives", and green party voters. If that's your thing, hey; whatever floats your fuck. He may be an NRA card-carrying "member"; but he has done NOTHING to show the prevailing amount of good that just the meer presence of guns have wrought in everyday communities. That in all states which have adopted conceal-carry gun laws, crime has dropped dramatically. Or that in Las Vegas, which has the least amount of gun control laws on the books (everybody's packin'), violent crime is the lowest in the nation. Or more importantly the staggering amount of lives that have been saved just by someone brandishing a gun in the face of a would-be attacker.
All he has done is further hinder the innocent civilian's means of defense and stomp the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights into the mud even further by popularizing this poppycock.
I find this unconscionable lout mildly amusing; but this gushy little bastard shouldn't have fashioned his calling around making movies. He should have either been an ivy league professor, a writer for the New York Times, or a welfare recipient.
I wouldn't trust this amoral asshole as far as I could throw him; which would be about......
Well alrighty then.
All he has done is further hinder the innocent civilian's means of defense and stomp the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights into the mud even further by popularizing this poppycock.
I find this unconscionable lout mildly amusing; but this gushy little bastard shouldn't have fashioned his calling around making movies. He should have either been an ivy league professor, a writer for the New York Times, or a welfare recipient.
I wouldn't trust this amoral asshole as far as I could throw him; which would be about......
Well alrighty then.
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
perhaps I just missed the whole point of the movie, but what I got out of it was not completely anti gun. What I got out of it was that america is as violent as it is because of media generated fear. Remember, he showed that Canada has MORE guns than us, but LESS murders. I think many of you are just glossing over the real message of the movie because you're very right minded or maybe just have a personal problem with Michael Moore 
I often wonder how people who are drawn to such 'intelligent' music can be swayed so easily by nonsense. If you take that guy seriously then I feel sorry for you. Michael Moore is the Fred Durst of pop culture, and im trying to be nice.
Mr. Shred-ididle
Its Chinese-Tilt ya' head
- Jan 25, 2003
- 1,701
- 6
- 38
- 35
Michael Moore DOES sensationalise his movie/books, no doubt...but the message isn't entirely made up like some of you think. Read some FACTS in the first chapter of the Stupid White Men book, for a less opinionated statments. But the main message i got from the movie was how the media pump fear into our hearts, not only about guns and crime, but also about black people... like Yngvai said.
Wow... that's pretty scary! This dude must be a total powerhouse (and pretty ugly, too).Hyoukinmono said:
I did like the media-generated fear part of the movie, but there was a strong anti-gun message. He tried to make it look like he was cool with guns, but I got a lot of "gun control will save us all" out of it.
Sigh, for those that take the time and trouble this is so easy to do:RobbM said:
http://www.moorelies.com/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9104
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.mooreexposed.com/
Those links took me less than a minute and there are much Moore of those.
yeet_SAY_jama
Gobble Jo0 fetus!
i think the he is trying to be a hero. Everyone knows that all heroes wail and shred super mega hard on guitars. This guy prolly cant even play a cheezy van-halen solo.
SilentRealm
Member
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
Hawk said:
To be honest, Im not suprised if Moore lies a little or stretches the truth in much of what he says. But seriously, is ANYONE in politics completely unbiased and 100% truthful? The answer is no. If everyone talking politics was 100% truthful, they wouldn't be able to pursuade some of us to listen to them. People in power lie to you and use propaganda all the time to get you to support them, and someone like say, Bush for example, is no more innocent than Moore is in terms of this.
The point is...amidst the lies, there can be some real meat in there. The real meat in BFC was the whole issue on fear. If you refuse to listen to Moore because he might lie or stretch the truth sometimes, then don't listen to any politician or political commentator ever again.
SilentRealm
Member
but that sounds like youre saying its ok for Moore to lie and stretch the truth to sway his interests because politicians do it. Frankly I dont think anyone really likes or listens to politicians, we only vote who who we hope will turn out to be the lesser of evils. But I've not seen BFC so I have no real comment as to the movie itself.
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
SilentRealm said:
Im not saying its necessarily ok, Im just saying that many people who slag moore and support other political people (Im thinking right wing here) seem to think its so horrible when he lies yet politicians they support lie to them all the time. And I've yet to see ONE anti Moore person here comment on the whole media induced fear thing (besides Hyokumuno, dunno if I spelled that right, too lazy to check the thread, and even he agreed about that much), which like I said, was the real meat of BFC. Its very hard to dispute what he said about that. So I can only come to the conclusion that some people would probably rather stick a rabid ferret down their pants than admit that someone so against their beliefs (read: gun control laws in this case) might actually have some weight and intelligence to what he says.
ShredManWalking
Hit man for the Order
Think about this, Michael Moore is doing basically what editorialists are doing in newspapers. I am the Opinions Editor for our school newspaper, The Voice, and I have studied the concept of editorials for a few years. A good editorial expresses a point of view, acknowledges the other points of view, and gives specific information to back it up. Moore does this in his film. I don't understand why people are accusing him of lying; it's his point of view. However, to get the truth, one must take into consideration these other points of view. After watching "Bowling for Columbine," it would be good to watch some pro-NRA films. Then, watch an objective news piece, and decide for yourself. That way, there are no liars, no false information, only your own judgement.
Hyoukinmono
Real Man
The problem with Moore, though, is that he takes something that is CLEARLY fictionalized, piecing together elements (selected portions of statements, for example) that don't go together, taking things out of context, or creating imaginary contexts for things, and tries to pass it off as a documentary. If I cited material of the type that Moore creates in any of my own research, I would become the laughing stock of the scholarly world. Looking at various points of view is very important, of course, but the only thing that Moore does in his fictional documentaries is misrepresent views.
Moore's movies are on the scholarly level of something like the National Enquirer (a trashy gossip magazine--aliens, two-headed people, Saddam and Osama getting married, and stuff like that, for those of you not familiar with the lesser elements of American society). It can be amusing, but only because of how ridiculously ludicrous it all is, and it's not going to add anything substantive to the debate for either side of the issue. Even a few errors can discredit a source, and Moore's movies are distortions and misrepresentations from beginning to end. Even if he makes a good point here and there, Moore's movies are not the kind of sources that anyone who wants to maintain credibility should be citing.
Unfortunately, Moore chooses to do anything he can to provoke an emotional response. Instead of presenting the reality of the situation (including the things people REALLY said, instead of his hack job editing of it into something completely different) and then giving his interpretation of it, he presents something that is grossly (and very clearly) distorted to support his agenda. Obviously there is going to be some spin in just about any political presentation, and especially in satire, but Moore goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the line at which even normal scholarly ethics would dictate a stop.
Rather than "Bowling for Columbine," it should be called "Straw Man for Columbine." What Moore presents and then attempts to knock down is fictional, a proverbial "straw man." If he's going to oppose something, he should at least oppose its reality, not something that only exists in his fantasy world. Whether he's a liar (misrepresented on purpose), apathetic about the truth (didn't do careful work), or just plain stupid (tried his best but screwed it up anyway), the result is the same, and it doesn't flatter the anti-gun crowd any more than the pro gun rights crowd.
Of course, Moore is nothing even close to being a scholar (professional or amateur), and has no real qualifications and has shown no evidence in his work that he can be trusted to do careful, honest research and present reliable material. I guess I shouldn't expect him to HAVE scholarly ethics, then. He can't do real scholarly work, so he creates propaganda films and tries to pass them off as documentaries. That they have been accepted as such by many in the Academy, etc., is nothing more than a very sad commentary on the state of those organizations.
Moore's movies are on the scholarly level of something like the National Enquirer (a trashy gossip magazine--aliens, two-headed people, Saddam and Osama getting married, and stuff like that, for those of you not familiar with the lesser elements of American society). It can be amusing, but only because of how ridiculously ludicrous it all is, and it's not going to add anything substantive to the debate for either side of the issue. Even a few errors can discredit a source, and Moore's movies are distortions and misrepresentations from beginning to end. Even if he makes a good point here and there, Moore's movies are not the kind of sources that anyone who wants to maintain credibility should be citing.
Unfortunately, Moore chooses to do anything he can to provoke an emotional response. Instead of presenting the reality of the situation (including the things people REALLY said, instead of his hack job editing of it into something completely different) and then giving his interpretation of it, he presents something that is grossly (and very clearly) distorted to support his agenda. Obviously there is going to be some spin in just about any political presentation, and especially in satire, but Moore goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the line at which even normal scholarly ethics would dictate a stop.
Rather than "Bowling for Columbine," it should be called "Straw Man for Columbine." What Moore presents and then attempts to knock down is fictional, a proverbial "straw man." If he's going to oppose something, he should at least oppose its reality, not something that only exists in his fantasy world. Whether he's a liar (misrepresented on purpose), apathetic about the truth (didn't do careful work), or just plain stupid (tried his best but screwed it up anyway), the result is the same, and it doesn't flatter the anti-gun crowd any more than the pro gun rights crowd.
Of course, Moore is nothing even close to being a scholar (professional or amateur), and has no real qualifications and has shown no evidence in his work that he can be trusted to do careful, honest research and present reliable material. I guess I shouldn't expect him to HAVE scholarly ethics, then. He can't do real scholarly work, so he creates propaganda films and tries to pass them off as documentaries. That they have been accepted as such by many in the Academy, etc., is nothing more than a very sad commentary on the state of those organizations.
What Hyoukinmono said. Why that's some big brain you have their. I llove it when I hear logic, reason and good old fashioned facts on boards like these. Makes me feel their might be hope after all.
Similar threads
