Fahrenheit 9/11

heston specifically, maybe not. but did you miss the colorful animated sequence that relates the nra and the kkk?shall we talk about that one? there's quite alot wrong with that. do you really have a reading problem, crash?i'm not writing moore off. i think most of his points are valid and totally correct. the "obvious" truth is that you're making up complete strawmen of your opponents possition, in direct contrast to their statements.did you miss the part where i said i've been a moore fan since "the awful truth"? did you know that i went way out of my way to track down "bowling for columbine" in its very limited theatrical release? did you catch that i had also seen fahrenheit 9/11 in theatres? or where i double-checked something using my own copy of the movie? i own "columbine" too. if i thought he was nothing but a lying crankster, why would i be giving him my money?no, you see, now i'm accusing you of dishonest. i have plainly stated my position repeatedly in this thread and the previous one. and so has modulous. yet you continually misrepresnt us with your "us/them" mentality. continued strawmen and false dichotomies at this point are nothing but intellectual dishonesty on your point. and i suspect rather strongly that this "i don't see that as misrepresentation" thing is too.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

I don't believe that "unintentionally less-than-perfect honesty" constitutes dishonesty.I believe that making false statements with an intent to deceive constitutes dishonesty. Specifically which statements has Moore made that were false and made with the intent to deceive?

In a thread about Fahrenheit 9/11? No, we shant. You've been doing nothing else in characterizing his materials as "agit-prop", Moore as a liar, as a person that substitutes emotional appeals for fact.That's writing him off. Don't roll up in here now and try to tell me that you haven't been dismissing Moore's credibility. I can read, after all. So why the tenuous arguments? If you're such a Moore fan, why try to impeach him with this sophmoric crap? Look, as far as I know, he's a liar or whatever. But if that's true - if it's even close to true - why don't you guys have better examples?

The question remains: Is quote mining dishonest?

I think, if done on purpose, it's disingenuous.But it seems to me that the definition of "quote mining" is fairly subjective. We pick quotes out of evolutionist works all the time; what makes that ok is that we're not, to our knowledge, misrepresenting the position of those that we're quoting.I don't see where Moore has misrepresented the position of Heston or the NRA. He does, after all, allow him almost free reign in the latter part of the movie to express his views, and they don't appear inconsistent in the least with the segments Moore quotes earlier in the movie.

yet you continue to talk about heston and the nra. either talk about it, or don't. if it's off-topic, well, feel free to drop it. no, i said michael moore was intellectually dishonest. and what's wrong with agit-prop? if it'll effect some change for the better, and get this clown in office impeached, i'm all for it. no, apparently you cannot. otherwise, you would not be continuing to misrepresent my position after i have stated it time and time again. i am not dismissing moore. you seem to keep missing the parts where i say that i like moore's films. why are you suddenly a fundamentalist, crash? i guess everybody's a fundy about something. this stuff you're pulling is nothing more than a basic, basic logically fallacy. it's a false dilemma, and that's all it is.if i say i disagree with the accuracy of something stephen jay gould says, am i saying that EVERYTHING he says is garbage, and that evolution is crap? if i disagree with richard dawkins methods, am i suddenly a creationist?it's not an all-or-nothing world, crash. only the fundamentalists believe this, and treat their text this way. they have just as much problems understand my position as you seem to. they wonder how i can question the historical accuracy of the bible, and still find it a worthwhile and important text.we're talking basic reasoning faults here. i'm sad to see you, of all members here, succumb to it. you're usually pretty sharp. not a LIAR, intellectually dishonest. but you're pulling the same kind of apologetics that the fundies pull here. you can't even see misrepresentation of a source, or how editting is used to decieve. pretty basic concepts, really. i wasn't aware the word of moore had to be 100% inerrant and accurate.

---

Then I guess what I don't understand, Arach, is why you would place any credibility in a person you consider to be intellectually dishonest.

Its all about context. Moore says 'Heston did reprehensible act x', and then shows a video clip. Any normal reasonable person would believe that the video clip shown was of Heston doing the reprehensible act x. Thus we get the impression that Heston is holding an NRA meeting in defiance of the Columbine shootings. "My cold, dead hands". Splicing together a video sequence with sentences taken out of order and from different speeches all together with the context ignored and Moore's narration the giving an entirely different context.If you don't think this is misleading and dishonest, then there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise I guess. I trust that you have taken into account your own biases (ie you agree with Moore's point) and that you wouldn't let that blind you to the tactics he might be using to convince others that his point is right.I also hope that you'll take a step back and try to understand why people might consider what Moore does with his cunning editing (trust me, I've done video editing and the stuff in Moore's work took a lot of effort to get right) is dishonest. He's not telling the story objectively and he is omitting things. That is - he's not telling the whole story, which sucks for a documentary to not at least represent the other side fairly.Like how he neglects to show the senator (?) that was more than happy to spread the word re: sending their kids to Iraq - the senator who had a nephew or cousin over there (I forget now).I guess I'll have to watch out for what you do consider dishonest. But one final question: is there anybody you can think of, whose ultimate points you agree with but who you think exagerates, misrepresents or is basically dishonest with how he makes his/her points? If you can't think of anybody, you might want to consider your biases. I can think of a few people in that boat off the top of my head.

Hrm. Well, I don't have an answer for you at this time, but you've definately given me something to think about.

yes, that much is obvious.i like his movies because he makes valid and important points. he doesn't always do it in the most intellectually honest ways (and sometimes, he's just plain sloppy). but you have to expect SOME bias and distortion (by way of omission, editting) in any documentary. and it's not like he's not an outright liar or vicious attack dog like so many on the right. i suspect his motives are good ones.i just think it's downright stupid to not acknowledge that moore, like the rest of us, is an imperfect being who makes mistakes and doesn't always tell the whole truth or support his point in the best ways.Edited by arachnophilia, : grammar

---

If you think I've been arguing that Moore is some kind of superhuman paragon of honesty, then I don't know who you've been talking with, but it certainly hasn't been me.Of course Moore is a human being. But it seems that you've retreated from the assertion that he's fundamentally intellectually dishonest to a position that he's no more dishonest than the rest of us - which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

again, that was never my position.also, my expectation for the honesty of the average person is pretty low. side effect of being here and working in retail for a few years.

---