Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
My central issue all along has been the attacks on the film and on Moore which are presented as undeniable irrefutable logical and rational fact, when indeed I have found most of the critisms posed this way to be speculative opinion. ( I promised not to use conjecture any more!)
|
To be perfectly honost, Chewbacca, it is your stance that the criticisms against Moore are "speculative opinion" that has led to you be characterized as his stalwart defender.
There are multiple sites listing numerous discrepencies, misrepresentations, or whatever label you prefer regarding the information presented by Moore in BfC, and especially the manner in which is was presented.
You classify all of it unilaterally as "speculative opinion" or "conjecture" and dismiss much of it due to the source. That has been your standard answer to every criticism against Moore and his film, and while it may be your opinion, I hope you can understand how that automatic response makes it appear that you are unwilling to consider any evidence regarding the actions taken by Moore. I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs, Chewbacca. I'm merely trying to point out that some of the evidence presented against Moore does qualify as more than mere "speculative opinion". You're welcome to believe that it doesn't, but that also explains why some have claimed you agree with Moore's politics and would defend him no matter what.
Quote:
Originally quoted by Chewbacca:
Another contention I have is the attacks on BFC take away from the question invoked in the film and the attakers never seem willing to even mention this premise, much less explore it. I wonder if they are afraid of the answers a thoughtful exploration of the issue may uncover. Indeed they attack the questioner, but I think the questioner is irrelevant as the question posed stands on its own merits.
|
I highlighted that particular statement because I consider that to be a rather cheap shot. By that logic, one could also question whether you are afraid to thoughtfully explore that the criticisms against Moore are correct or not. But I'm not trying to create a confrontation or get into a pissing contest. I actually agree with you and Grojlach both that Michael Moore DOES present some very thought-provoking questions about serious issues that are well worth discussing. I also agree that in BfC and F 9/11 both, the questions raised DO stand on their own merit. But that is part of why I dislike Moore so much. Because he is not willing to let the questions stand on their own merit and provoke "thoughtful exploration". Instead, he uses his "creative editing" to forcefully spoonfeed HIS opinion on the viewer . If anybody appears afraid of honost "thoughtful exploration", I would say it is Michael Moore - because he seems completely unwilling to take a chance that some viewers would give the issue "thoughtful exploration" and still disagree with his opinions and conclusions. So he presents disconnected images and information, but puts them together to imply there is a connection to them (such as claiming Heston held a big gun rally in Flint shortly after yet another shooting tragedy). This is done to indicate that the NRA and Heston have a habit of showing up right after a tragedy to shout down any protesters who might be calling for more gun control. In fact, we now know that the the "rally" Heston attended was a voter's rally and occured several months after the Flint shooting, instead of just a week or two as Moore tries to imply.
Roger Ebert echoed my own sentiments when he said that such "editing" actually weakens Moore's credibility (and thus his arguments as well) and that is very unfortunate - because these issues he addresses ARE important and should be discussed thoroughly. And the evidence, information, and data supporting Moore's view are more than strong enough to stand on their own merit without any "tampering" from Moore - but he has proven time and again he is unwilling to take that chance of just letting the facts speak for themselves.
Again, I hope that my first set of comments isn't taken as an attack on you or your viewpoint. I was just trying to offer an honost explanation of how your statements have appeared to other side at times and I hope it is taken as that and nothing else.
Cheers to you too, my friend. 
[/QUOTE]Cerek,
I read the critisms of the film and formed my veiwpoints on my own. Much of the film's critisms are spectulation and opinion- thats is, was and continues to be my stance. They do not convince me and and much of the factual support they claim is actually weak and unsubstantiated.
I dont care if anyone disagrees and I will be amused if anyone thinks I am a fact ignoring Moore worshiper becasue of it.
Also my alleged cheap shot was not aimed at anyone in particular- It was a rhetorical question wondering why critics of the movie never seem to want to discuss what the movie is really about.
I, on the otherhand, have discussed the critisms head-on and offered a different take on several of them. I had no problem researching or discussing them, but seeing as how the discussion about those critisms has become a circular rehash of 1/2 dozen other threads on this topic just like the one we are having now- "Its a fact" vs "No, It an opinion". I simply would rather agree to disagree than repeat the same response and make the same points over and over.
Take Care,