Pooinyourmouth wrote:So how am I a fool for disliking Moore and his tactics? Please elaborate without getting all childish like, like magnethead did.
Do you feel like I'm a fool for not being a Moore fan and sharing my opinion about it?
I don't have any issue with you disliking moore, or anyone for that matter. That is of course your perogotive.
However:
Pooinyourmouth wrote:Bush and Moore are both a couple of idiots. I think I hate Moore more than Bush though since he's using Bush's stupidity for fame and fortune, while acting like he really cares.
Foo wrote:you hate the stupid guy who makes films over the stupid guy running the most powerful nation in the world.
The issue isn't that you dislike moore, it's that you world view is so fucked up you think his film-making is more worthy of your hate than Bush's position/actions.
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
[xeno]Julios wrote:
I don't have an argument - i'm critiquing yours.
You can't critique an argument by comparing apples to oranges, (or in this case Moore to a professor). Sounds to me like you are backing out of your original argument.
Some professors and Moore share the property of making money off the misfortunes of others (let's take jewish historians who write books on the holocaust).
According to the primary thrust of your arguments in this thread, this is the essential property that you are invoking to justify your attitude toward Michael Moore.
The absurdity of hating a professor or jewish historian simply because she makes money off her books shows your argument to be absurd.
It is utterly unsophisticated and if taken seriously would mean that to be consistent we would need to despise a great many people who in both our opinions are unworthy of such judgement.
Your response is that Moore makes more money than even highly paid profs.
Moore has been making documentaries way before 9/11 and was not always this financially fortunate.
Do you hate Spielberg for profiting off Schindler's list? What about the actors in that film?
Pooinyourmouth wrote:So how am I a fool for disliking Moore and his tactics? Please elaborate without getting all childish like, like magnethead did.
Do you feel like I'm a fool for not being a Moore fan and sharing my opinion about it?
I don't have any issue with you disliking moore, or anyone for that matter. That is of course your perogotive.
However:
Pooinyourmouth wrote:Bush and Moore are both a couple of idiots. I think I hate Moore more than Bush though since he's using Bush's stupidity for fame and fortune, while acting like he really cares.
Foo wrote:you hate the stupid guy who makes films over the stupid guy running the most powerful nation in the world.
The issue isn't that you dislike moore, it's that you world view is so fucked up you think his film-making is more worthy of your hate than Bush's position/actions.
Well that first bit I posted that "I think I hate Moore more" isn't set in stone. You should have read it like I was toying around with the idea. You took it a little to literal. The only reason I did that was because it was a Moore thread, and I know it gets his followers panties in a bunch.
Pooinyourmouth wrote:Well that first bit I posted that "I think I hate Moore more" isn't set in stone. You should have read it like I was toying around with the idea. You took it a little to literal. The only reason I did that was because it was a Moore thread, and I know it gets his followers panties in a bunch.
That makes sense. Sorry I made a big deal of it.
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
[xeno]Julios wrote:now there may indeed be good reasons to despite Moore, though I personally haven't researched him or his arguments fully enough to believe so.
My guess is that your despisal for him is a misplaced despisal for his fans.
Now hold on here. You have self admittedly said you haven't researched this scumbags writings ,as Poo seems to have to me, yet you call his opinion idiotic. It sounds more like you have been hanging around Moore fans, and have a misplaced love for him , as a result.
If you think Poo really just has a problem with Moores fans then why do you say his only arguement as to why he hates Moore is because he is making money from all this?
[xeno]Julios wrote:now there may indeed be good reasons to despite Moore, though I personally haven't researched him or his arguments fully enough to believe so.
My guess is that your despisal for him is a misplaced despisal for his fans.
Now hold on here. You have self admittedly said you haven't researched this scumbags writings ,as Poo seems to have to me, yet you call his opinion idiotic. It sounds more like you have been hanging around Moore fans, and have a misplaced love for him , as a result.
No - read carefully! I am claiming that Poo's reason for Moore is insufficient. I said "there may indeed be [valid] reasons for hating him", but the reasons that Poo have given are insufficient.
If you think Poo really just has a problem with Moores fans then why do you say his only arguement as to why he hates Moore is because he is making money from all this?
Because that has been the only argument he has put forth, until the third post on the second page!!!
[xeno]Julios wrote:
Some professors and Moore share the property of making money off the misfortunes of others (let's take jewish historians who write books on the holocaust).
According to the primary thrust of your arguments in this thread, this is the essential property that you are invoking to justify your attitude toward Michael Moore.
The absurdity of hating a professor or jewish historian simply because she makes money off her books shows your argument to be absurd.
It is utterly unsophisticated and if taken seriously would mean that to be consistent we would need to despise a great many people who in both our opinions are unworthy of such judgement.
Your response is that Moore makes more money than even highly paid profs.
Moore has been making documentaries way before 9/11 and was not always this financially fortunate.
Do you hate Spielberg for profiting off Schindler's list? What about the actors in that film?
A professor doesn't normaly try and sell his view to hollywood.
As for the Spielberg thought, I think it would make me angry if he tried to sell it off as a an unbiased documentary, but again it's a bad comparison. What spielberg does is an art form, and makes no attemt to sell itself any other way.
It would be the money he makes of his biased opinion on messed up subject matter. Like this kid in the wheel chair in bowling for columbine. He basically used his missfortune to get attention on himself for his film, and ultimatly a huge sum of money in the end. Of this money I'm sure that boy got about .01% of it. Also I love how he tricks Charlton Hestons into letting him into his home so he can try and make an argument with a man suffering from alzheimers.
Ok fair enough - now you've actually provided reasonable arguments - as i've said before, I haven't researched him fully enough to disagree with you at this point.
tnf wrote:he doesn't exaggerate like the director of FEMA did during this whole ordeal...his comments were unbelievable..
You can learn all you want about the history of the upstanding, responsible guy whom Bush appointed to head FEMA. Here are just a couple quick examples:
Pooinyourmouth wrote:It would be the money he makes of his biased opinion on messed up subject matter. Like this kid in the wheel chair in bowling for columbine. He basically used his missfortune to get attention on himself for his film, and ultimatly a huge sum of money in the end. Of this money I'm sure that boy got about .01% of it. Also I love how he tricks Charlton Hestons into letting him into his home so he can try and make an argument with a man suffering from alzheimers.
So you consider his movies (which are accurate as far as facts) more harmful then Bush’s propaganda about weapons of master destruction and the eventual war on Iraq?
To me it sounds like you think he's obnoxious, and you’re trying to prove to us there is an actual argument behind it. :icon6:
Pooinyourmouth wrote:It would be the money he makes of his biased opinion on messed up subject matter. Like this kid in the wheel chair in bowling for columbine. He basically used his missfortune to get attention on himself for his film, and ultimatly a huge sum of money in the end. Of this money I'm sure that boy got about .01% of it. Also I love how he tricks Charlton Hestons into letting him into his home so he can try and make an argument with a man suffering from alzheimers.
funny how heston's alzheimers clears right up when he makes a speech to the NRA
frankly mate i think you're digging a hole to nowhere. if you don't like moore's politics just say so. there must be a zillion examples where people have interviewed people suffering and put it in their film/documentary/whatever to make a point. john pilger for instance has made films about the deported people of diego garcia and also his doc 'palestine is still the issue' in which he interviews suffering people. is he 'exploiting' their suffering for his own ends? because from where i was sitting it looked like he was trying to bring it to our attention.
R00k wrote:
You can learn all you want about the history of the upstanding, responsible guy whom Bush appointed to head FEMA. Here are just a couple quick examples:
