Have Any Conservatives Actually Seen It?

[MarkDel]

Nym,

I don't think it is unfair or ad hominem to point out that Michael Moore has to resort to lies to support his conclusions, nor do I think it is needless to criticize his movie.  Its a bad movie purely from a cinematic perspective.  His imagery undercuts his conclusions rather than support them, he bounces from one non- sequitor and conspiracy theory to the next, with a near total lack of transitional scenes, and his conclusions are unserious and self contradictory.

The only portion of your criticism I was criticizing as faulty logic was your assertions that Moore would criticize Bush no matter what, therefore it makes his criticism less valid. That's an ad hominem attack, because you are saying Moore is bad, therefore we shouldn't listen to him. You admitted yourself that Bush made, in your view, the wrong choice by talking to the kids rather than actually doing anything about the planes that had been hijacked for 7 minutes. Yet you say Moore would criticize him no matter what. That may be true that Moore would, but how does that make Bush's decision any better or more correct?

I guess my point is that your review is clearly biased, too. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, but obviously your disdain for Moore clouded your assessment of your judgement. Hopefully if Supersoulty is going to publish your review he will at least include a rebuttal of a review from a Democrat, if he cares about fair and balanced journalism.

I know Moore is biased, and the movie is not meant to be objective, but just have enough sense to realize that your assessment of it isn't necessarily any more accurate. You made faulty logical arguments as well in other areas, such as saying that there just must be a criticism of Bush included in the scene where they are fixing their hair, when again, none was explicitly stated, thus you shouldn't assume that, but you do based on your assessment of Moore's character. Not only that, but you go on to speculate as to what the statement Moore is trying to make is (without proof that there even is a particular statement) and of course assume the worst about Moore in that, as well.

Nym90,

Here's the no bullsh*t allowed translation of your comments to John Ford in this thread concerning his review of Michael Moore's movie.

"Boy, that's an awful lot of hard facts you are asking me to digest, and you know how we Democrats feel that "truth is a relative concept" so you really aren't playing fair here. Since you seem to make a series of really good criticisms of Moore, and seem to point out a lot of facts he gets wrong (though I personally would never take the time to look them up and confirm that either you or Moore are right), my only logical way of raining on your parade is to point out the very, very few instances where you editorialize more than you should. YEAH, that'll work for me quite nicely. Instead of focusing on the substance of your argument, which is virtually impossible to defeat on a factual basis, I'll attack your agruments on the flanks by pointing out the very few instances where you show your Republican bias. And as we all know, Democrats are capable of being objective, but Republicans aren't, that's why it's OK that 85% of all people involved in the media and academia are liberal...because WE are capable of being unbiased, unlike you narrow minded, simpleton Republicans who are blinded by your hatred of decent folks like Michael Moore. Yeah, that works. I'll point out that you yourself are every bit as biased as Moore and your motives are just as bad...even if you did stick to the facts for 95% of your argument....oh shoot, I forgot to bring up Rush Limbaugh in my last post to you...I guess I'll hold that back as my secret weapon...when we liberals are about to lose an argument, it's always good to blurt out Rush Limbaugh or Fox News...that immediately puts you guys on the defensive regardless of how meritorious your argument might be."

Nym90, you have made some really strong arguments since I've been on this website, but your attempt to discredit John Ford's review of this movie was definitely not one of your better moments. Why not try this an exercise...go re-read his review and research whether or not his factual observations and criticisms of Moore are correct or not? It's easily done...

MarkDel-

You love to put words in people's mouth, don't you? Why do you assume so much about me when I meant NONE of that at all?

I meant EXACTLY what I said, word for word. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on the specific validity of any of Ford's comments.

However, I was merely pointing out that he used a fallacy of standard logic, by attacking the messenger ad hominem. He said that Moore will criticize Bush no matter what...ok, that may be true. But how does that make his specific criticism any less factually correct? Ford himself even ADMITTED that he felt Bush made the wrong decision, but then he just had to insert that Moore would criticize Bush no matter what, the clear implication being that that makes his criticism completely invalid, even if it may be correct.

I just don't get you sometimes Mark...you seem like a highly intelligent person, but why do you always assume things about people from just a few statements? That's a big difference between us. I assume NOTHING about a person other than what they have specifically said or done. You, on the other hand, seem to often take a few innocent comments and then determine what stereotyped category the person falls into, and then proceed to paint a full picture of that person based on that. At least, that's what I've seen from your posts.

And no, I know that Democrats are just as non-objective and partisan as Republicans. But I think both sides are equally bad in that regard. Please don't assume anything about my views unless you know that. You claimed that you had the non-bullsh**t translation of what I said, but I already had the non-bullsh**t translation posted, in the original itself. I'm straightforward and blunt about my views and comments; I mean exactly what I say, no more, no less.

I wasn't attempting to discredit the entire review. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on the other 95% of the review. It might be dead right, or dead wrong, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know. I was merely pointing out ONE error in logic in his reasoning.

Nym90,

Sorry...I make my living out of "reading people" and I am very, very rarely wrong in my interpretation of someone's true intent. As John Ford has pointed out, he did not make a series of ad hominem attacks on Moore, he merely pointed out the bias inherent in Moore's views to further substantiate his claims that Moore was being "loose with the facts"

You would see the distinction if...well...remember a few weeks back when they had that thread about the most partisan Democrat?

[Akno21]

Actually, the full quote is "Liberals hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11)."  You see, liberals hated muslims before hating muslims put them on the same side as America.

Let's put aside the driver's license thing aside (when you grow up and start to like girls , too, you'll learn that a woman is never lying about her age).

You claim that it is a lie that Ann Coulter said Evan Thomas is the son of Norman Thomas.  And you are right that she is wrong.  He is actuall the grandson of Norman Thomas.  Here is a line from Evan Thomas' official bio page from msnbc.com, "Thomas joined Newsweek from Time magazine, where he had been a correspondent, writer, and editor for nine years. The father of two daughters, Thomas is married to Oscie Thomas, a lawyer with AT&T. He grew up in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, the son of publisher Evan Thomas II, and the grandson of Socialist leader Norman Thomas."  Is this a lie by Coulter, or a typographical error?  I shall let the reader decide.

I can neither confirm nor deny the issue about the death of Dale Earnhardt, because NYT makes people pay to read their online paper (the WaPo, a superior paper, is free by the way).

Even so, I hardly think that being mistaken about whether the NYT reported on Dale Earhardt's death or whether Evan Thomas is the son or the grandson of Norman Thomas rises to the level of lying about America's reason for war in Afghanistan.

Lets put aside the drivers liscense thing? Lying to a boyfriend about your age is one thing, lying to authorities is another. Ironically, she can be jailed for that under the Patriot Act.

[Nym90]

Nym,

I don't think it is unfair or ad hominem to point out that Michael Moore has to resort to lies to support his conclusions, nor do I think it is needless to criticize his movie.  Its a bad movie purely from a cinematic perspective.  His imagery undercuts his conclusions rather than support them, he bounces from one non- sequitor and conspiracy theory to the next, with a near total lack of transitional scenes, and his conclusions are unserious and self contradictory.

The only portion of your criticism I was criticizing as faulty logic was your assertions that Moore would criticize Bush no matter what, therefore it makes his criticism less valid. That's an ad hominem attack, because you are saying Moore is bad, therefore we shouldn't listen to him. You admitted yourself that Bush made, in your view, the wrong choice by talking to the kids rather than actually doing anything about the planes that had been hijacked for 7 minutes. Yet you say Moore would criticize him no matter what. That may be true that Moore would, but how does that make Bush's decision any better or more correct?

I guess my point is that your review is clearly biased, too. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, but obviously your disdain for Moore clouded your assessment of your judgement. Hopefully if Supersoulty is going to publish your review he will at least include a rebuttal of a review from a Democrat, if he cares about fair and balanced journalism.

I know Moore is biased, and the movie is not meant to be objective, but just have enough sense to realize that your assessment of it isn't necessarily any more accurate. You made faulty logical arguments as well in other areas, such as saying that there just must be a criticism of Bush included in the scene where they are fixing their hair, when again, none was explicitly stated, thus you shouldn't assume that, but you do based on your assessment of Moore's character. Not only that, but you go on to speculate as to what the statement Moore is trying to make is (without proof that there even is a particular statement) and of course assume the worst about Moore in that, as well.

Nym90,

Here's the no bullsh*t allowed translation of your comments to John Ford in this thread concerning his review of Michael Moore's movie.

"Boy, that's an awful lot of hard facts you are asking me to digest, and you know how we Democrats feel that "truth is a relative concept" so you really aren't playing fair here. Since you seem to make a series of really good criticisms of Moore, and seem to point out a lot of facts he gets wrong (though I personally would never take the time to look them up and confirm that either you or Moore are right), my only logical way of raining on your parade is to point out the very, very few instances where you editorialize more than you should. YEAH, that'll work for me quite nicely. Instead of focusing on the substance of your argument, which is virtually impossible to defeat on a factual basis, I'll attack your agruments on the flanks by pointing out the very few instances where you show your Republican bias. And as we all know, Democrats are capable of being objective, but Republicans aren't, that's why it's OK that 85% of all people involved in the media and academia are liberal...because WE are capable of being unbiased, unlike you narrow minded, simpleton Republicans who are blinded by your hatred of decent folks like Michael Moore. Yeah, that works. I'll point out that you yourself are every bit as biased as Moore and your motives are just as bad...even if you did stick to the facts for 95% of your argument....oh shoot, I forgot to bring up Rush Limbaugh in my last post to you...I guess I'll hold that back as my secret weapon...when we liberals are about to lose an argument, it's always good to blurt out Rush Limbaugh or Fox News...that immediately puts you guys on the defensive regardless of how meritorious your argument might be."

Nym90, you have made some really strong arguments since I've been on this website, but your attempt to discredit John Ford's review of this movie was definitely not one of your better moments. Why not try this an exercise...go re-read his review and research whether or not his factual observations and criticisms of Moore are correct or not? It's easily done...

MarkDel-

You love to put words in people's mouth, don't you? Why do you assume so much about me when I meant NONE of that at all?

I meant EXACTLY what I said, word for word. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on the specific validity of any of Ford's comments.

However, I was merely pointing out that he used a fallacy of standard logic, by attacking the messenger ad hominem. He said that Moore will criticize Bush no matter what...ok, that may be true. But how does that make his specific criticism any less factually correct? Ford himself even ADMITTED that he felt Bush made the wrong decision, but then he just had to insert that Moore would criticize Bush no matter what, the clear implication being that that makes his criticism completely invalid, even if it may be correct.

I just don't get you sometimes Mark...you seem like a highly intelligent person, but why do you always assume things about people from just a few statements? That's a big difference between us. I assume NOTHING about a person other than what they have specifically said or done. You, on the other hand, seem to often take a few innocent comments and then determine what stereotyped category the person falls into, and then proceed to paint a full picture of that person based on that. At least, that's what I've seen from your posts.

And no, I know that Democrats are just as non-objective and partisan as Republicans. But I think both sides are equally bad in that regard. Please don't assume anything about my views unless you know that. You claimed that you had the non-bullsh**t translation of what I said, but I already had the non-bullsh**t translation posted, in the original itself. I'm straightforward and blunt about my views and comments; I mean exactly what I say, no more, no less.

I wasn't attempting to discredit the entire review. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on the other 95% of the review. It might be dead right, or dead wrong, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know. I was merely pointing out ONE error in logic in his reasoning.

Nym90,

Sorry...I make my living out of "reading people" and I am very, very rarely wrong in my interpretation of someone's true intent. As John Ford has pointed out, he did not make a series of ad hominem attacks on Moore, he merely pointed out the bias inherent in Moore's views to further substantiate his claims that Moore was being "loose with the facts"

You would see the distinction if...well...remember a few weeks back when they had that thread about the most partisan Democrat?

It's ok MarkDel, I apologize too, sometimes I can get a little mean, it was just getting annoying is all. No harm, no foul.

Yes, I know I'm partisan, I freely admit that I'm not objective.

[MarkDel]

Nym90,

I probably should have just let this go, but I think you misinterpreted my last post. I was apologizing that I might have offended you with my comments, but I was not apologizing for any inaccuracy in my comments. I still stand by them 100%...I said I was sorry to mean that I was sorry if you were offended, but I still believe that my "reading between the lines" of your comments to John Ford was entirely accurate even if you don't realize that this was what you were actually saying. Objectively, Ford's review of that movie was extremely intelligent, coherent and logically based, and any ad hominem (if there truly were any) comments were not in any way, shape or form critical to his overall analysis.

[Nym90]

Well, I know what I meant. There was no hidden agenda or message behind my statements. I was merely pointing out a fallacy of logic that had absolutely nothing to do with partisanship.

I know I'm very partisan. Maybe, thus, I wouldn't have pointed out a similar logical fallacy in an argument by a liberal. I'd like to think I would, as fallacies of logic have nothing to do with party.

But that doesn't make my criticism of Ford's argument any less correct. There was no hidden meaning behind what I said. I know this, because I said it.

Like I've said, I didn't see the movie, so I can't comment on the rest of Ford's review. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about who is more partisan, he or I or you or Michael Moore, or whatever. We're all partisan hacks, let's face it. We're all also intelligent people though, and thus we know when we are being partisan. I'll just leave it at this: I never said that either I or Michael Moore are objective. But you SEEM to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that I'm more partisan and thus less objective than either you or Ford.

BTW, in what line of work are you? Just curious.