Bowling for Columbine

[Oblivion437]

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.

The use of a gun as an interest backing is a traditional thing. They used to do it as one of the only security measures against a bank suddenly closing, which used to happen fairly often. His point is invalid if it is construed on inaccurate evidence.

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.

I never disputed who was using them. That's not the point. If they're satellites, and the kids would likely know what was being manufactured there if their fathers worked there, then his argument about this mass destruction or that mass destruction is flatter than a buckwheat pancake. Also, his paranoid thinking about big business is irrelevant, as it's based on a flawed principle. All countries have defense industries, or used to, until we started paying their way for them. If we stopped doing that, there wouldn't be a problem. Expenditures for militaries would shrink to nothing and the military/industrial complex would lose nearly everything it ever had.

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.

Moore turns Heston's actual Denver speech into a taunt at the people there. He also dries the "Cold dead hands" note of its actual context (you'd have to know the historical origins of the statement to understand that it was more a tribute to the past than a taunt) and turns it into something like the mad ravings of someone suffering from dimentia. He takes notes, brings them into different contexts, and thusly creates the necessary ingredients for a viewer to draw a false conclusion.

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...

Well, if he has to break Canadian law to make a point about Canadian law, on the pretense that his illegal act is in fact legal, that the culture is *that* open, when in fact it isn't, it's an invalid point. I don't think he gives a damn about what he does, and it isn't like he's not wealthy enough to buy a whole court off if anything were to circulate about this. Plus, his points about how 'ghettos' look and about Canada's racial diversity are also false. I don't have the numbers, but by percentage and raw numbers, there are far more black people in the US than in Canada.

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 Willie Horton ad gives the impression that Bush and Quayle ran an ad showing a black man... The point of the scene is that the Bush campaign ran the ad, which Moore uses as a point of contention that the "White America" will always fear the "Black Man." It's a cheap shot considering the basis of the actual Bush ad is one of revolving doors, similar in purpose and composition to another ad, the one Moore splices it to, and that ad is the one showing Horton. The Bush ad does no such thing. Hardy explains it well enough. The subtitle isn't important, it's what happens before that, and after that. The subtitle is in fact utterly insignificant. Moore apologizes for the subtitle, without admitting he's carefully edited different footage together to generate a false impression. Careful strawman tactics.

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.

I've already told you, and I'll tell you again, Moore lies in a fashion which makes it difficult to call him a liar directly. Hardy goes ahead and does it, which is perhaps going too far, but let's face it, the truth is used for deceptive purposes. What's more, no one has actually called Hardy out on a lie he's supposedly made, except to show Moore's strawman grasping counter. If Hardy is lying, I want someone who isn't misdirecting when countering a said lie. What Moore is doing, and what he does in response, could constitute perjury if he were under oath to tell the truth.

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.

It isn't just those words dammit! It's the words from the actual Denver speech! Watch the scenes very carefully, his suit changes color, or rather, it's film from two different meetings. What's more, truly American ideals aren't what were embraced by a couple of screwed up children. I didn't take them as such. I got Hardy's impression that it was to look like one solid speech. Heston was a polite person, and he quoted Theodore Roosevelt (one of history's Gun Nuts) in a different context, what he's saying is that he not only stands up for our rights to keep and bear arms, but he's making that reference to a famous historical figure, in a context of celebratory atmosphere. In a context of post-trauma, Heston, who cut the festivities at Denver as far to the bone as he could get away with, was as diplomatic and fair as a person can be. He extended his sympathies. That's about as much as can be said.

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.

I wouldn't call Moore trustworthy when he inserts a subtitle saying he put the gun to his head. The cameraman isn't in the room, so we don't know. There is no footage showing him doing so. All we hear is him cocking the revolver and saying, "Don't worry man, the safety's on, it's all right." I can't quote him word for word. It could very well be that Moore made the very common over-reaction to such a situation, and the guy was just trying to talk him down. My calling him a fruitcake was a sly reference to another individual claiming to debunk BfC, Richard Bushnell, who merely re-circulates other arguments. The guy came off as passionate, intellectually charged indeed, but not really insane. I don't know the circumstances of the lawsuit or whatever the boys from Columbine have going, but it can't be good for Moore.

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:

They can't attack the film directly, I've explained that already. Remember, just because he doesn't get sued, doesn't mean he isn't lying or misleading you. The film is deceptive, and creatively so.

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.

I put the words together more appropriately in another post I believe. He doesn't ACTUALLY lie. He puts together truthful information, cuts things out of their native context, hodgepodges bits and pieces, and when assembled, the pieces are true, but the whole thing is a lie. Taken together, through logical thought process, lies are glued together out of truthful information. It's brilliant as it can't directly be attacked. You have to break it down bit by bit, and a brilliant liar like Moore will just confuse the point or conjure a strawman from your question, and answer that.

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.

It's not the conclusions he's come to, it's that the conclusions he tries to bring out of the audience require careful misdirection. I suppose lying is the improper word, misdirection then. He carefully misdirects the audience into concluding something. All you have to do is tell the truth the right way, and what is happening can be the exact reverse of what you've been led to believe is happening. Joseph Goebbels did the same thing. Propaganda artists have been doing it for thousands of years. But did those guys ever get awards attesting to their honesty? I don't think so.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Davros: 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 .

Dav .... I know where you were going in that previous post. As I said, I thought it was cute! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I don't really have the time right now to go into all of your questions, as they are all really LONG disertations! I will edit this reply as available over the next few days.

*EVERYONE* Please do not try to rebut any ideas in this post until I complete it as it will be a work in progress!!! -Thank you

Suffice it to say .... the short answer to all of your questions is .... yes! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

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.

well dispite any and all paranoia and fear that may or maynot exist on IW, I believe the death count is pretty low from guns on IW. So lurking on IW wouldn't do a damn thing to promote his agenda.

[Yorick]

What I'd like to know is:

Why didn't Moore address the death penalty?

Canada, Germany, England and Japan do not have the death penalty!! How could he have missed that substancial cultural difference??

It's a governmental advocacy of murder.

[Timber Loftis]

It's a governmental advocacy of murder.

This would be the third time I explained how this is false and is a clever attempt to frame the issue in an incorrect way. It would be the third time you in particular and others in general would have to admit the argument does not logically apply, but that you were nevertheless against the death penalty. This would be the third time.... if I were to bother. However, I won't, because everyone conveniently forgets losing the argument before and lets their brains slide back into these simple (but incorrect) little phrases that help them mentally box the world into compartments in their mind.

It is, however, a strong testament to the power of prejudice and already-held beliefs to remain in place even when confronted with overwhelming evidence/logic to the contrary.

Note that I'm not saying I can beat you on a death penalty argument overall. I simply point out that I have roundly trounced this "state-sponsored murder" argument time and time again, and if you can't learn from previous lessons, you won't learn this time.

It does hurt your credibility in my eyes, though.

[ 03-02-2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Lanesra]

Originally posted by Yorick: What I'd like to know is: Why didn't Moore address the death penalty? Canada, Germany, England and Japan do not have the death penalty!! How could he have missed that substancial cultural difference?? It's a governmental advocacy of murder.

Don't wanna be picky, but Japan does have the death penalty.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Lanesra: Don't wanna be picky, but Japan does have the death penalty.

That's right, they just sentenced Shoko Asahara to death by hanging a few days ago.

[Masklinn]

Hey guys, I m back. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sooo...always the same debates around here ? Good, lets not loose old habits. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I don't need a gun to create mass destruction. I could use a car (I know, you are against them too), I can use GARDEN SUPPLIES!!! Do we need to out law farming and gardening? Should landscaping be a trade practiced only by vile terrorists?

Hello Night Stalker [img]smile.gif[/img]
Long time no see. So, always the same thing eh ? Garden supplies...hell yes, a good shovel...hmmm.
Now, walking into a highschool with a shovel will get you noticed somehow. Haha. Erm...Well...ok lets be serious.
Of course you can kill with anything you want, with your bare hands even if needed. But problem with guns is that they made the whole process so easy and so fast, that it's just unfair for the mass_murderer_wannabe and his shovel.

Yes, that's it, guns are unfair, really.

[Night Stalker]

Bon soir, amis. Com se vous?

I was talking about other things than shovels or saws or rakes. But as I don't want to provide instructional lessons on Guerrilla Warfare for the Home Gardener, I was refraining from any details. As I said in a previous post, 600 dead in Oaklahoma from garden supplies, not guns.

I've got alot more coming in response to Davros, that you will probably disagree with though ... [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

We probably would have a lot fewer murders if everyone had to get up close-and-personal with a melee weapon to kill someone else. Now, if we can just figure out how to keep criminals from getting guns. Hmmmm... don't criminals have guns in countries where guns are illegal?

Who here thinks we should ban ALL guns?

Who is just for responsible gun control? (we can fight about what kind another day)

And who is for no gun control?