Bowling for Columbine

[Oblivion437]

Sorry about the Air Force mistake. My little error. Bit of bad information from the subject I'd read, or maybe I made an assumption, the piece on the subject I'd read I read 3 years ago...

Anyway, Night Stalker, we speak to a brick wall. You've got Wellard's style, condescension, arrogance and ad hominem (build the wall high) the repeat disassembly of Moore's responses, the board's responses, and attempted defenses elsewhere falling on deaf ears (build that wall THICK! Those cannon balls hurt and are shot with a LOT of powder behind them!) and finally, the stonewallery of not actually arguing our arguments, like Moore himself, this I analogize to making the wall stretch forever (if they can't get around, they can't get through!)...

We can't make people listen to reason. We can't make soundness spread. That sort of thing is only built into authoritarian systems, which fall apart quite thankfully. I believe that certain liberties enhance security as a whole. The second ammendment, stringently applied, creates a system where individuals are not directly dependant upon others for security, and are thus secure themselves. Together, well-minded citizens are armed. They can do good together as needed. A good neighborhood system.

[Night Stalker]

Well, Oblivion .... Wellard, Dav, Barry, Groj, and Yorick (and Djinn and Heirophant too)are decent chaps. Don't be too hard on them. Some of them can be downright bullheadded sometimes, but so can I. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

They just happen to be clinging to their guru (as are we) for fear that if their guru is wrong, then they might be as well (and we are doing the same in a sense). It is strongly embedded into Western culture the need to be right.

So while we find it frustrating that they can't see the obvious deceptions that Mr Moore is laying, they feel the same that we can't recognize the obvious bias and viscious lies that the likes of Mr Harding put forthe.

Sorry guys to talk about you in the 3rd person. EDIT: I wanted to add that I am not trivializing your points of view by stating that you are clining to a guru, it's just an extended metaphore for demonstration purposes only. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Cheers all [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[ 03-02-2004, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Faceman: It was in the 20ies when offensive war was outlawed for the first time in history and Clausewitz' quote "War is continuation of politics with different means" became invalid.

But Herr von Clausewitz' military theories are not invalidated.

Examples of the extension of politics through other means ....

Korean "Conflict" 50-54
Five Army Attempted Invasion of Israel 67'
Israel's annexation of Gaza and the West Bank
Vietnam 62-72
Iran/Iraq War 80-90
China's invasion of Tibet
Chechnia
Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
Subsequent World Smackdown of Iraq
Iraq take II (I refuse to call it part II as it is just a continuation of a prior action ....... 12 years later [img]tongue.gif[/img] )
France's friskyness in Vietnam (they were there before we were!)
France's firskiness in Congo
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
US smackdown of the Taliban
al Qaida's current jihad with all of Western Civilization
PLO actions in Israel
Israeli responses to PLO actions
IRA mischief in Ireland
Sudan
South and Central American InterCartel warfare
US "War on Drugs" aka Central and South America
Brits in the Faulklins
Pol Pot in Laos
The current Haitian uprising
The almost quarterly South American Coups
The Cold War

Do I really need to go on? They may not be the style of warfare as that that ravaged Europe in the earlier part of last century, but it still is war extending politics.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Well, Oblivion .... Wellard, Dav, Barry, Groj, and Yorick (and Djinn and Heirophant too)are decent chaps. Don't be too hard on them. Some of them can be downright bullheadded sometimes, but so can I. [img]tongue.gif[/img] They just happen to be clinging to their guru (as are we) for fear that if their guru is wrong, then they might be as well (and we are doing the same in a sense). It is strongly embedded into Western culture the need to be right. So while we find it frustrating that they can't see the obvious deceptions that Mr Moore is laying, they feel the same that we can't recognize the obvious bias and viscious lies that the likes of Mr Harding put forthe. Sorry guys to talk about you in the 3rd person. Cheers all [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

Thanks NS for maintaining the spirit of debating decorum that your erstwhile current partner could not. What I tried in my last post to do was to elevate the discussion to the bigger picture rather than enmesh them in the nitpicks. I'll have another bash at this circular agenda if I may [img]smile.gif[/img] .

The points I would like to see your replies on NS are these :

1) Is this so called potential for popular revolution that the 2nd amendment provides truly keeping the "goverment honest" in your opinion? Do you honestly envision circumstances in todays advanced democracy (ie government is by the people for the people) that could precipitate said revolution?

2) If it were remotely possible for a dictator to seize power from the 2 party system, presumably with the backing of the US military, how effective a revolution could be staged?

3) Do your answers for the first 2 questions support that the 2nd amendment is both functional and relevant in todays 2 party democracy? If not, then what other argument can you mount for its retention (purpose please, and try to steer clear of the "cold dead hands" rhetoric)

3) What do you think of the contention that day to day fear of others and external potentials for violence have escalated in America? Has that happened to a greater extent in the US than in any countries that you may have visited (please be prepared to discuss with examples from civilised democracies - Haiti and Burma etc would not be relevant comparisons)?

4) You have mentioned that you don't feel safer with "all dem guns" - what would make you feel safer? More locks? More guns? Compulsory NRA membership? No Micheal Moore? The $1000 bullet? Feel free to add your own thoughts on what would make you feel safer.

Oh - btw - that was one huge goddam missile in that lobby .

[Donut]

From my understanding the central tenet of Bowling for Columbine is that one of the causes of the incredibly high level of deaths caused by guns in the US is the pervading climate of paranoia and fear.

What I don't understand is why Moore felt the need to investigate it through a documentary. Why not just lurk on IW for a couple of weeks.

[Oblivion437]

I'm not sure he even knows about this place Donut...

And Night Stalker, I'll be hard on anyone who has the nerve to call me a liar when they know damn well I'm not. Such a cornershot in a debate of this sort is unacceptable.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Donut: From my understanding the central tenet of Bowling for Columbine is that one of the causes of the incredibly high level of deaths caused by guns in the US is the pervading climate of paranoia and fear. What I don't understand is why Moore felt the need to investigate it through a documentary. Why not just lurk on IW for a couple of weeks.

Hey - welcome back D1 - you have been sorely pissed - uh, I mean mussed - or missed even [img]smile.gif[/img] . Great to see the boys scoring some early goals this week - real calming for the nerves that is [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: I'm not sure he even knows about this place Donut...

To you Irony is just "something to do with Iron" isn't it?

[Donut]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: To you Irony is just "something to do with Iron" isn't it?

TLADOFMOR!!!!

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: He linked Moore's response, which I responded to. It's nothing more than a pile of ad hominem attacks, hyperbole, and misdirection. Even if you show me video of someone handing him the rifle, it's irrelevant. The bank is a licensed firearms dealer. This means they carry an FFL. However, as a bank, they're sure to do redundant checks to redundantly back up the secondary checks on anyone even opening the account. Over a period of months the thing was set up, and it may very well be that what he's signing in the scene is infact an FFL transfer. We can't actually read the document. In none of the cuts of the film I've seen can there be demonstrated that what's being signed is the CD itself. His point is that America is so obsessed with guns that you can even get one when opening a bank account. He's not trying to say that its unsafe as such, although it allows a very funny line for the film. Remember he is a comedian and a political pundit. I see no reason in your above paragraph to think of that sequence as any less important, even if (and I'm not saying it is true as I don't know the laws myself) it took him longer to get hold of the gun in one day. The point of that sequence, and the film as a whole, is that America is obsessed to the point that guns are an inextricable part of the culture. Moore doesn't DIRECTLY lie. He brings together half truths that need to be constructed into lies. Lockheed Martin's Columbine plant doesn't manufacture weapons. They manufacture rockets, Titan IV class missiles, and Moore concludes that because they have the US Air Force logo stamped on them, they're for use as NBC payload delivery. Since when were the Air Force in charge of our Missile Command program? So once again the fact that Moore claims those rockets are for Military use is not in dispute? Hardy disputes it. Hardy is lying. They are for military use, whether they be actual weapons or not, and Moore has proved that. Once again his point here is not that the presence of explosives nearby somehow made the kids go mad and start shooting people, but that violence and weaponry are part of the culture. His point when bringing in Lockheed Martin is to show you who's benefitting from a culture of violence (same with Walmart) - big business. Moore doesn't use multiple speeches, doesn't use cuts from the speech, that when run right together reverse the tone of Heston's actual Denver speech? Does Moore mention that Heston cut the Denver rally to the bone, that he only even held the damn thing because he was legally obligated? No, he doesn't. But it isn't that Moore is biased, it's that Moore is trying to deceive us. Moore is not trying to deceive you, or anyone else. The Heston speech is not made worse by cutting it up. You tell me whats wrong with juxtaposing Heston saying "From my cold dead hands" with the consequences of a culture of violence? That statement, in any context, cannot be made any worse or better than it sounds in Bowling and thats the real problem. I challenge you to tell me exactly how Moore misuses Heston's speech, because all you've done so far is throw accusations about it without saying exactly what you're unhappy about. a little more clarity please. I also note that Moore was cute enough to not answer about the Canada sequence, where he committed an illegal practice of buying ammunition. Moore hasn't answered that, but as shown in the film Moore is now a criminal. You can't just walk into any store in Canada and buy ammunition without so much as presenting identification. You can't even do that here! That I know nothing about, but how exactly does it change what he's trying to say? The point is not access to guns but the violence in the culture and the absolute obsession with them. The Canadians view guns as a sort of unfortunate and messy fact of life, not some unalienable right. I fail to see how this point attacks Moore in the slightest. If you're calling him a criminal just because you think he should be ashamed of his criminality then I doubt he will be! I strongly doubt Moore has never been arrested for politcal protests before now... The outtake of the bank scene is actually meaningless. 'See, here's me getting the gun!' It doesn't mean a thing that he got it there, if they used the powers granted under their FFL to transfer it to him. When he's handed the rifle, police officers are present. Yes, the Willie Horton thing, which is still a doctored ad. Doctored to make an impression that's false. What false impression does the Willie Horton add give? Moore added subtitles so that people knew what the hell it was about. I'd certainly never heard of Willie Horton before. He does not change the fact that election campaigns were run on the basis of America's fear of the black man, he highlights it. The mistake of saying Horton killed twiced instead of killed once and raped once was just that - a mistake. But as Moore's deadpan quip on the debunking site points out that really makes very little difference to the impact of the film, or even that segment. The bank manager did publicly state that Moore manipulated the scene to make them look like a bunch of idiots... He never, nor did anyone on screen, come out and lie about the production of the weapons, it was entirely inferred, alluded to and other little angular tricks one uses in Journalism to avoid the lawsuit. Hardy claims he lies. Please admit Hardy himself is lying when he does so. You have just admitted that Moore does not lie. Lets repeat that once again shall we - Moore does not lie. I thank you for your time. He didn't actually doctor Heston's speech. He uses three Heston speeches in the film. The first used is from a rally in North Carolina. An out of context quote, if you will. If you could sue for being quoted out of context, believe me, Frank Rosenthal would have. He filed lawsuits against anybody who tried screwing around with him in Vegas, but it did him no good. Even still, he'd have filed suit when the interviews he gave were manipulated and had him making statements he never made. Next he uses a segment from the actual NRA rally in Denver. He then intersperses cuts, and altogether assembles a whole chunk out of pieces of a speech. He doesn't relate the whole speech at once. If he did, and he told the whole truth about the NRA's business in Denver, he'd have a hard time indicting them as callous individuals. Now the third speech is from a Get Out and Vote rally. He was there as a public figure, not as a member of the NRA, and he also was there not to encourage particulars, but just to get the damn slackers voting. Honorable goal. Foolhardy, but honorable. I've already discussed this. Moore couldn't make Heston's words come off better in this film if he tried. I can't think of a single context in which "From my cold dead hands" comes off well. So its cut together with the aftermath of violence - thats the point! He's showing the logical conclusion of that philosophy. Thats not twisting the words in my opinion. Heston's comments are meant as soundsbytes and are taken as such. The problem is not the way Moore cuts them but the stuff Heston says in the first place. Also, a lawsuit is pending on him from that fruitcake brother of the Oklahoma bomber. Then there's the issue of the two kids who they got to stop K-Mart selling bullets, well they are a little bit steamed over the issue. They're portrayed misleadingly in the film too. They said as much. The fact that he hasn't been sued doesn't rule out the possibility of him being a precise and efficient liar. I really wonder though, if he truly believed in the things he spouts, would he actually lie like this. I know nothing about any of this. Why are the kids upset? If you tell me why then maybe I can argue on it, but as it stands I have no way to even understand this point, let alone counter it. As for the Oklahoma brother you said it best - the mans a fruitcake. Even by your standards you've got to admit Moore is the more trustworthy of the two. Any kind of lawsuit one would try to bring against Moore would be hard to win. He's that good at what he does. He's lied so perfectly, he's told the truth in such a way that people receive lies. Try proving that he actually lied. You have to prove a lie that exists between two truths told in such a fashion a lie is construed, and that's difficult. Libel and slander cases most often get thrown out. I think if the NRA had had even the slightest chance to slam this film publicly then they would've. I love a statement of yours in that above paragraph, it comes so close to absurdity I think I might just isolate it below to illustrate my point for me: He's lied so perfectly, he's told the truth in such a way that people are receiving lies. Now, make your mind up. If he told the truth but you don't like his conclusions then I'm afraid he isn't lying. What you've done in the above sentence is claim, within the space of a few words, that Moore is both lying and telling the truth. He can't be doing both. I think you've won some kind of record for quickest self-invalidated statement there. Bottom line as far as I can tell - Moore has not lied. He's told the truth and come to radical conclusions, but thats the way the truth is I'm afraid. Just because it doesn't fit with your conservative conclusions doesn't mean that he is twisting the truth, just that maybe you need to take a step back and re-appraise the facts. It sounds to me like you're a bit confused about whether Moore is actually lying. Its quite a serious allegation so can we just clear something up - if he's lying then stand by your claim. If he is not actually stating as fact things which are not fact then please do not call him a liar, because its quite a specific definition and its annoying to have to argue somenone using a specific word in a vague context.

Sorry thats not very clear, I'm no good with this whole HTML thing.

And Donut, I'm afraid I can't take the credit - that ones a Pratchett joke shamelessly lifted. But its a classic nonetheless...

[ 03-01-2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]