[Cerek the Barbaric]

Geez...I hope you don't get too light-headed while riding that high horse of yours.

I never attacked Moore for using unaltered facts to back up his position. I attacked him for omitting or "skewing" certain information presented in his films.

I gave one example from BFC, where Moore "chastised" the NRA for holding their annual convention in Denver just one month (IIRC) after the Columbine shootings. This was done purely to make the NRA appear like uncaring ogres. But Moore conveniently omits the fact that the annual convention is scheduled a year in advance and that the logistics prevent it from being moved to a brand new location with just one months notice (all the people planning to attend would have to cancel reservations made in Denver and try to book rooms at whatever new venue is chosen).

In his own rebuttal to Disney, he says that "6 million dollars of Disney's money was poured into the film". Technically, that is true - but it is a blantant misrepresentation of the facts. Moore is trying to imply that Disney actually supported the film for a year and then pulled the plug at the last minute. However, the facts as presented in the OP present a different account. "Disney" didn't pour a dime into the movie - Miramax did - and they did so against the express wishes of the parent company and Disney's CEO. So Moore is trying to make it appear that Disney actually supported the film with their own money when that is not the case. Again, it is just a subtle twisting of the actual facts. What Moore says is technically accurate, but the it gives a very false implication. And Moore deliberately omits or "turns" the facts to promote a certain viewpoint.

So when you ask your dad about presenting facts in a debate, make sure to ask him whether it's OK to omit certain relevant bits of information that may change what the facts support - or should the person actually present the facts in their entirety and adjust thier strategy accordingly.

The question of violence in America is a topic worthy of discussion, but there is no reason for Moore to go out of his way to cast the NRA in a bad light other than the fact that he doesn't like the NRA. He attacked the NRA in regards to their annual convention and also in the infamous "interview" with Charlton Heston (in which he used some creative editing from more than one interview to make it appear as if he soundly defeated all of Heston's points supporting the NRA).

Would the question of violence in America be weakened by NOT attacking the NRA in such a manner?

That is why I have a problem with Michael Moore, because it simply isn't possible to tell what is actual fact and what is being "skewed" to support his personal agenda.