Menu Bar
<< Hitler's War on America
|
LSD >>
Cartoon history of America from Bowling for Columbine.
Fear and violence, violence and fear.
Oh, and guns.
Fear and violence, violence and fear.
Oh, and guns.
Feb 26, 2004 12:27 AM
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
Everyone needs to see Bowling for Columbine, like it or lump it.
By: hypersloth
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
more like this is what folks need to see. shows the ways moore fabricated statistics and scenes.
more like this is what folks need to see. shows the ways moore fabricated statistics and scenes.
By: supermario
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
One of the worst and best things about documentary film, to me, is the creators bias. It is necessary for building motivation just to make the film, but will almost always distort the subject being documented.
Both the film itself, and the 'Truth About Bowling', are subject to this. Thanks for both of these links. :)
Both the film itself, and the 'Truth About Bowling', are subject to this. Thanks for both of these links. :)
By: thegentlesherpa
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
You should have at least glanced at supermario's link before posting sherpa, it is NOT a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.
There is a big difference between distorting the subject being documented, and fabricating untruths to make your point.
Both can be entertaining but one is a Documentary, and one is Propaganda, can you tell which one is which?
There is a big difference between distorting the subject being documented, and fabricating untruths to make your point.
Both can be entertaining but one is a Documentary, and one is Propaganda, can you tell which one is which?
By: mike_box
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
It is funny how a definition can be stretched to its limits, when concerning the pursuit of absolute truth. I did read the link, but I do appreciate your incorrect assumption, as it will help me make my point more clearly. My point is, that just as Moore did in his film, the author of that site uses statements he claims as fact in a clever way to help state his case. He does so with narrative flow, and intentionally evokes emotion, just like Bowling.
The authors (David T. Hardy) claim is clear, he wants to discredit the film, which he believes to be almost entirely ficticious. Yet, how do any of us know he is telling the truth any more than Moore is? What makes his blankly offered claims any more reliable?
The author states supposed facts, then often references other portions of his own website to validate them. Throughout the entire document, it assumes for the reader that certain impressions are gathered by viewing parts of the film, when that, again, is often simply personal bias against Moore.
To be perfectly clear, I grant you the fact that Moore has most certainly distorted the clear truth with his film, to make his point, and at times (though not as many as proposed in said article) he does state absolute fabrications. That being said, he is no more guilty of creating 'propaganda' than any one of the nightly news shows (which really isnt saying much).
I highly appreciate encouraging people to seek truth in all things, I only hope that they would apply the same critical thinking to any other information taken into the mind, be it on film, radio, or even the web, this article in particular.
The authors (David T. Hardy) claim is clear, he wants to discredit the film, which he believes to be almost entirely ficticious. Yet, how do any of us know he is telling the truth any more than Moore is? What makes his blankly offered claims any more reliable?
The author states supposed facts, then often references other portions of his own website to validate them. Throughout the entire document, it assumes for the reader that certain impressions are gathered by viewing parts of the film, when that, again, is often simply personal bias against Moore.
To be perfectly clear, I grant you the fact that Moore has most certainly distorted the clear truth with his film, to make his point, and at times (though not as many as proposed in said article) he does state absolute fabrications. That being said, he is no more guilty of creating 'propaganda' than any one of the nightly news shows (which really isnt saying much).
I highly appreciate encouraging people to seek truth in all things, I only hope that they would apply the same critical thinking to any other information taken into the mind, be it on film, radio, or even the web, this article in particular.
By: thegentlesherpa
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
Phew... 5 paragraphs later we've been running around for a while but haven't gone anywhere.
1. The definition in question (the Academy's own definition) is hardly vague, and calling Moore for violating it is hardly a stretch.
2. I'm glad that we've established that Moore is a documented liar.
3. How can we discern the validity of Mr. Hardy's claims indeed?
Well you can do the research for the facts and stats that he doesn't post evidence directly on his site, or if you can send him an email and he will respond. He did when I emailed him when I had questions. As for how people interpret scenes from bowling that is something that will be personal, however it isn't a stretch to dissect how Moore constructed the scene and then guess what the authors intent was. Especially in Bowling.
Bottom line: It's a pain to research and filter all the news and commentary that we are bombarded with, but it can be done. On a more realistic level, to assign a base value to different commentaries based on vague shades of not absolute truth or that there are other offenders, is ridiculous. Especially when the offender in question has such a clearly documented and glaring problem with truth.
1. The definition in question (the Academy's own definition) is hardly vague, and calling Moore for violating it is hardly a stretch.
2. I'm glad that we've established that Moore is a documented liar.
3. How can we discern the validity of Mr. Hardy's claims indeed?
Well you can do the research for the facts and stats that he doesn't post evidence directly on his site, or if you can send him an email and he will respond. He did when I emailed him when I had questions. As for how people interpret scenes from bowling that is something that will be personal, however it isn't a stretch to dissect how Moore constructed the scene and then guess what the authors intent was. Especially in Bowling.
Bottom line: It's a pain to research and filter all the news and commentary that we are bombarded with, but it can be done. On a more realistic level, to assign a base value to different commentaries based on vague shades of not absolute truth or that there are other offenders, is ridiculous. Especially when the offender in question has such a clearly documented and glaring problem with truth.
By: mike_box
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
I think that anyone who thinks this is true about guns is a hippie and do you know what i dont like hippies .
By: bubba
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
Moore's lying tubby behind aside, Did you know? the higher your education level the more likely you are to own a gun. hmmm...
By: mike_box
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
i guess that makes me an aberration, but i knew that already...
By: deluxe
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
The "poor, uneducated rabble" (that neocons hate for causing crime and living on a steady diet of government cheese) have less guns that people with master's degrees?
By: ByteBaron
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
No, the "poor, uneducated rabble", as you put it, are less likely to own a firearm than their educated brethren, or what you would probably view as hateful "neocons".
"More" or "Less" on the other hand, would be quantified based on the number of people in that group who owned a firearm.
"More" or "Less" on the other hand, would be quantified based on the number of people in that group who owned a firearm.
By: mike_box
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
I think it is pretty sad how people just try to discredit the film. I looked over the so called proof that it is a fake and that data doesn't prove anything.
I mean just read the so called transcript about Heston coming to Denver, I think it is pretty disgusting of Heston and the NRA and they should have called the whole damn event off, but nope, gotta just stick it in the face of everyone.
But hey everyone has a right to their thoughts even if it is wrong.
I mean just read the so called transcript about Heston coming to Denver, I think it is pretty disgusting of Heston and the NRA and they should have called the whole damn event off, but nope, gotta just stick it in the face of everyone.
But hey everyone has a right to their thoughts even if it is wrong.
By: Floweringmind
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
Did you even read any of the site? The NRA DID call "the whole damn event off", except the voters meeting, which they were REQUIRED TO HAVE BY LAW.
I wonder what it's like to have a fat bastard like Moore lead you around by the nose.
But hey, you have the right to think what you want, even if it's not based in factual information.
I wonder what it's like to have a fat bastard like Moore lead you around by the nose.
But hey, you have the right to think what you want, even if it's not based in factual information.
By: JRock
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
If you're going to steal my tag line, at least reference my website. Sheesh. webart.graceland.ca
By: eap1935
Re: A Brief History Of The USA
Funny to notice how people can get pissed off by this point of view about the history of America. Truth is hard to accept especially for people that were wrong. Any country or human being made mistakes during their existence.. and they have to face their responsibilities. Yet some are refusing to do so. At least, Michael Moore's lies (if they are) didn't kill any iraki or american people.
By: NEU-NEU
