Zoost Posted July 10, 2004 Arioch said:So in other words you don't care if his facts were true or not Off course. All statements must be based on facts. I dont think you have a problem with the (non)facts, but with the way some events are presented to you. But I think this is the basis of all story telling. And Moore is telling you a story. A story of a country run by people who represent corporate america (the filty rich part). And goes to war to defend the interests of those filty rich. And not perse to defend the US people. That is his point. And i don't see that point discussed. That is my point. Arioch tell me, have you seen the movie? 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted July 10, 2004 Arioch said:Nobody else's view has any legitimacy than the one of the O' Great Moore, right? Not at all, I think you have a very understandable, legitimate point. You're arguing in a cohesive determained manner than I can respect, and wish more people on Doomworld would adopt. I just see things in a different way, am presenting that different way, and disagree with you.Arioch said:And also despite the fact that they planned everything out including building pipe bombs which I note distinctly do not count as "guns". Or were you (or Moore) going to argue that it's because America has a certain attitude towards all explosives? You know, despite the fact that they're nearly completely banned?The movie was regarding guns, therefore your point is mute. We can argue it when he comes out with a film against bomb use heh heh. Or the fact that Moore pulled random numbers out of random dates with more or less random specifications in order to make his case that America has a certain amount more gun deaths than "many other countries"? Pulling the wool over so many eyes so much that when people quote statistics for gun deaths, they quote Bowling for Columbine which cannot then be traced to any cohesive or comprehensive statistical analysis?What are the correct statistics then? Please enlighten us. 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 10, 2004 Scabbed Angel said:What are the correct statistics then? Please enlighten us. Why don't you ask his vaunted and much-ballyhooed fact-checkers to enlighten us? 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted July 10, 2004 Give me their numbers and I will. I am fighting on the more side here, you against, therefore if you are to make such a claim, I would assume you have something to back it up? Somewhere you researched and read it? Or are you just repeating bullshit claims from other anit-moore fanatics, therefore letting the wool being pulled over your own eyes? 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 10, 2004 He had a dozen laywers and fact researchers comb through the film before it's release. You brought them up first. Your burden of proof. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted July 10, 2004 Well on this (mis)logic, next time I watch the movie, I'll let you know what the fact checkers thought as they must have agreed with the presented statistics if they made it into the film. EDIT:Arioch said:Or the fact that Moore pulled random numbers out of random dates with more or less random specifications in order to make his case that America has a certain amount more gun deaths than "many other countries"? Pulling the wool over so many eyes so much that when people quote statistics for gun deaths, they quote Bowling for Columbine which cannot then be traced to any cohesive or comprehensive statistical analysis?You brought it up first anyway. 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 10, 2004 Scabbed Angel said:EDIT: You brought it up first anyway. http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko/lawsuits.htm and http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko/gunstats.htm should illuminate his usual tactics. Counter-Salvo: Disprove these claims. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted July 10, 2004 Arioch said:So in other words you don't care if his facts were true or not [/b]and[b] ...Or the fact that Moore pulled random numbers out of random dates Your articles only prove that his statistics are correct. As he is not a journalist, but a debator, isn't it just expected that the facts will be listed in such a way that will prove a point? They're related, he didn't lie. What's "random" about any of this. 0 Share this post Link to post
Linguica Posted July 10, 2004 How can certain people think that it's all right for Moore to distort and misinterpet the facts in order to point to a conclusion that they agree with? Oh wait, never mind. 0 Share this post Link to post
Zoost Posted July 10, 2004 Linguica said:How can certain people think that it's all right for Moore to distort and misinterpet the facts in order to point to a conclusion that they agree with? Oh wait, never mind. So what do you think his conclusion is? And why don't you agree on that? 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted July 10, 2004 Arioch said:Counter-Salvo: Disprove these claims. Here's one... the article makes a statement that Moore uses the facts about gun deaths incorrectly... should be by pop. Okay. Given this would suggest that his POINT is therefore incorrect, let us see shall we? Based off of the 2000 population for each of the courties listed (minus Japan, cause I could only find a 2004 pop and that would be inconsitent) here are the numbers. Keep in mind I've been arguing for the sake of the overall point of the movie... in this case that america has a love affair with guns and the violence that results. America .0000039% of people were killed by guns Germany .00000046% Great Britain .00000011% Austrailia .00000032% Canada .000000056% Now kiddies, since we took away that unfair, meanie Michael Moore's evil manipulations, here's what it all means: America had 8.4 times the guns deaths as Germany in that year. America had 35.4 times the guns deaths as Great Britain in that year. America had 12 times the guns deaths as Austrailia in that year. And who boy! America had 69 times the guns deaths as Canada in that year. Hmmn, Michael Moore is a misleading Bastard, but oddly enough, his point remains the same! 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 10, 2004 Scabbed Angel said:Hmmn, Michael Moore is a misleading Bastard, but oddly enough, his point remains the same! Now prove all those numbers of gun deaths were from 2000. Without referring to numbers on sources that refer back to Bowling. For bonus points, also add in total number of all killings, without regard to whether or it is in self-defense or not, whether it was with a gun or not. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted July 11, 2004 Arioch said:Now prove all those numbers of gun deaths were from 2000. Without referring to numbers on sources that refer back to Bowling. Your very own article said:"Great to know he didn't completely make the numbers up" and "And once again - I haven't seen any claim against Moore 'making statistics up' anywhere, and I would submit to you that neither has he." If you believed enough in your article to use it against my argument, here's your proof.Arioch said:For bonus points, also add in total number of all killings, without regard to whether or it is in self-defense or not, whether it was with a gun or not. As the movie was specifically about gun violence, to do so would be irrelevent to the argument, don't you agree? 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 11, 2004 Scabbed Angel said:If you believed enough in your article to use it against my argument, here's your proof. It was clearly a sarcastic reply to Moore 's claim which is so obviously above reproach, which was then followed by a request for citing those sources. Which our esteemed Moore did not provide. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted July 11, 2004 Michael Moore said:The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology. Uhh.. he didn't cite his sources? 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 11, 2004 Scabbed Angel said:Uhh.. he didn't cite his sources? Not good enough for the research world. Hell, not good enough for middle school english class. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted July 11, 2004 You're the one whose arguing against it; you prove it wrong. Counter-Salvo, Arioch. EDIT: Oops, I appear to have gotten my math a little wrong, here's the corrected stats with Japan and France as well using Moore's stats: http://students.washington.edu/mitsuo/gunDeathStats.html 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 11, 2004 http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html item #6 with actual quote from FBI's PDF report. Which is more than any Moore-statistics supporter can claim. And here's a far better, more comprehensive look at murder rates overall, because when someone kills someone else, it matters little what the weapon used was, whether a gun or a fork: Actually, international comparisons lead to some interesting points. Here's a webpage which gives worldwide homicide rates. The U.S. comes in at 23rd place. It only made the list by edging out Armenia and Bulgaria. Its former rival as a superpower, the states of the former Soviet Union, absolutely flatten it in this competition. Russia has four times the US rate. Ukraine and Estonia have twice its rate. Even Poland ranks higher. South Africa's showing is ten times the US rate! Hmm-- another point from a different section of that site. In rape rates per 1000 population, the US ranks ninth, at .32, just ahead of Iceland and Papua New Guinea. Canada is fifth, at .75, over double the US rate, and Australia is third with .80. Believe it or not. Not, most likely. 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted July 11, 2004 Moore may be on the extreme of the left, but America is a society that eats up extreme journalism. There are certainly much more accurate, objective, and fair criticisms of the US, but such documentaries aren't popular because they don't get emotions riled up. Canadian media is far better in that it represents every side as fairly as possible. You will see the feelings of the rednecks, the hippies, the urbanites, the evangelical Christians, the immigrants, the corporations, and the philosophers in a half-hour documentary every weeknight. (You won't see all of these on every little story, but as an example, each of these groups gets their own half-hour when a relevant issue arises.) The problem is that you see nothing but the most extreme, polarized, ridiculous opinions plastered on the papers. This is nothing but entertainment and it contributes nothing to the good of society. 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 11, 2004 AndrewB said:This is nothing but entertainment and it contributes nothing to the good of society. I agree. 0 Share this post Link to post
Captain Red Posted July 11, 2004 AndrewB said: Moore may be on the extreme of the left, but America is a society that eats up extreme journalism. oddly, that was one of the points Moore raised in bowling for columbine... 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 11, 2004 http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm An interesting read, even if you've all "drank too much of the koolaid," so to speak. These are people who present refutations point by point with far more scruples than Michael Moore and his supporting "facts." 0 Share this post Link to post
Godshatter Posted July 12, 2004 moore is full of shit nuff said http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 12, 2004 Godshatter said:moore is full of shit nuff said http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm I just linked that page in the post right above yours. 0 Share this post Link to post
Bucket Posted July 12, 2004 Having read about a fifth of it so far, I can see a few instances where Kopel takes a line out of context(usually Moore being facetious) to argue that Moore is guilty of taking certain situations out of context to twist their meanings or intentions. It smacks of hypocrisy. Read the part about Bush ignoring warnings of the attacks, if you don't believe me. Also-- the more I read about F911, the more I'm inclined to believe that it isn't exactly a fact-finding documentary, rather, a reflection of an asphyxiated public opinion. 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted July 12, 2004 Captain Red said:oddly, that was one of the points Moore raised in bowling for columbine... Of course, a lot of what the guy says is correct. He scores some baskets here and there, but it's not the trophy of impartial journalism like CBC. 0 Share this post Link to post
Linguica Posted July 12, 2004 AndrewB said:Of course, a lot of what the guy says is correct. He scores some baskets here and there, but it's not the trophy of impartial journalism like CBC. A Canadian says that Canadian news programming is the best there is, amazing! 0 Share this post Link to post
Mogul Posted July 12, 2004 Arioch said:I just linked that page in the post right above yours. hahaha 0 Share this post Link to post
Zoost Posted July 12, 2004 Godshatter said:moore is full of shit nuff said http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm WOW! this is real convincing. Post a link and than end your post with nuff said. heh. Maybe I can do this too! Dave Koppel is full of shit. http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ nuff said 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted July 12, 2004 Zoost said:Dave Koppel is full of shit. http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ nuff said So basically I can now expect that you have no further defense of Michael Moore besides lamely linking to his rebuttal page which has already been rebutted? 0 Share this post Link to post