Michael Moores' F 9/11... will you see it?

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 3, 2004 20:30
VIEWED: 28912
PAGE 8 of 14

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

HEB

Friday, June 25, 2004 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think to end this off, I'll bring up the one point that everyone has mentioned in pass but not actually address.

Q: Is that pack of cells a baby?
A: The answer to this is an *opinion*. *Nobody* knows. So, if someone has irrefutable evidence then I'd certainly like to see it.

Unless I misunderstood I think me and JCOBB had actually come to a final understanding regarding that point:

Me:

Quote:

I guess the whole argument really rests on whether the foetus is considered a baby or not. I can see for people who consider it a baby that abortion would be equivalent to murder but I really don't think that it is.

JCOBB:

Quote:
.
Oh, and Heb, sounds great, and I agree with you on most of it. It does come down to your beliefs, and I just happen to believe a baby is a baby, regardless. I understand not everybody does.

So I think all three of us have basically come to an agreement of some fashion.

And in a way that kind of is on topic for the issue of Michael Moore and political debates...

Can you believe I have to wait until like the 6th of July to see the movie over here. I'd better not have to wait that long for Serenity after the U.S. ...two weeks wait would kill me.

keep flyin' both of you.
heb

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

ARAWAEN

Friday, June 25, 2004 7:25 PM

Quote:
SigmaNunki wrote:
Friday, June 25, 2004 05:22
I think to end this off, I'll bring up the one point that everyone has mentioned in pass but not actually address.

Q: Is that pack of cells a baby?
A: The answer to this is an *opinion*. *Nobody* knows. So, if someone has irrefutable evidence then I'd certainly like to see it.

Pretty much all life on earth can be described as a pack of cells (except single-celled critters), even those of us 'persons' walking and talking. There has been debate throughout the ages who does and does not get the classification of 'person', irrefutable proof lacking in all cases.

Some people mark personhood as beginning at conception, others at birth. Some choose several days after birth and others several years. Some people believe it is inalienable, others think that accident, disease or age can strip a person of it. Some still consider gender, race or ethnicity an obstacle to it.

I can see many sides to the argument, some I understand and some I find detestable, but the one that strikes me as horribly wrong is the suggestion that my (or any other person's) desire for or against someone or the subject's convenience or lack thereof can have any bearing on whether they are or are not a person.

IMO: I find it preferable to be as inclusive as possible. Not only so that I will not find myself left out, but because if I call a thing a person and treat it as a person, no harm done; but if I call a person a thing and treat him (or her) as a thing, it strikes me that much harm has been done.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, June 25, 2004 8:05 PM

Jasonzzz:
You didn't address the question. The fact remains that the issue brought up is still an issue. ie no-one knows.

The only "proof" that any of us can pose that anything is wrong is that people and there respective religions have deemed certain things wrong and there isn't any question about it. ie stealing is universally accepted as wrong. On the other hand abortion has never been universally accepted as wrong, maybe officially, but *never* practically.

I never bashed religion, merely stated a fact. If you read that into what I typed then that's all it is. What I was trying to state - being half awake as I was - was that in a multicultural society you can't take what one religion says as law. You must consider all of them or none. So, since we have separation of church and state, we'll have to go with the latter.

JCobb:
Never said that you stated that anybody knew that that pack of cells was a baby. I was only re-iterating the fundamental issue of the discussion that should be addressed first.

I am just finishing up course on Magic of ancient Greece and Rome (~500 BCE - ~500 CE) and this of course came up as there were "magic" abortive spells/drugs (there really wasn't a distinction of the two back then). Basically, it is that the official stance was that it was illegal. *But*, these laws where made by the ruling elite and by no means did they ask the people what they wanted. Clearly the people wanted the choice as these spells/drugs where around and used.

I brought up religion because most use it as a reason for being against abortion and as such there should be a law against it as well. I was merely attempting head those people off at the pass before this went there. I also think that by saying "anyone" it wasn't necessarily directed at you but to the general audience. ie Just because you get the message that I responded to your post doesn't mean I directed it (all or part) to you. It just means that yours was the last I read.

I can "get off" calling it a work of fiction because I've read a history book. The bible was *not* written by god, it *was written by man*, period. History *will* back me up on this one. That being said I will state that it *is* a wonderful book to learn values life lessons, *but*, one must take the prejudices out as there are many in there. But, that is another issue. I will refer you to "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" by Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Heb:
I just saw a commercial for F 9/11 (Canada) and it said playing in theaters now and all theaters July 2. Where are you?

Arawaen:
Thank you, you bring up very good points about the non-triviality of this issue. Though I don't exactly agree with the implication that you make you bring the issues of contention up well.

*wipes sweat from brow from typing just a damn long post*
Hopefully we can put this to bed soon

To be On Topic for a moment. Can't wait for July 2nd

EDIT: I find it fascinating that a discussion about abortion attracts only a few people, but, bring up religion and within hours I get 6 responses in my inbox.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

HEB

Friday, June 25, 2004 8:23 PM

Quote:
Heb:
I just saw a commercial for F 9/11 (Canada) and it said playing in theaters now and all theaters July 2. Where are you?

Thanks but no such luck. I'm in the UK. We have to wait ages for everything but not as long as some places thankfully. Still thinking of selling my soul for a simultaneous release date for Serenity (or a return plane ticket).

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

ARAWAEN

Friday, June 25, 2004 8:37 PM

Like both JCobb and SignyM I didn't vote for Gore or Bush and it can be assured I will not be voting 'republicrat' in the coming election either.

Quote:
People don't "have" rights. Rights are granted to them by the government and by the set of laws that we agree to live by.

Going to have to disagree with SignyM on this one. Rights are inherent, not granted by men or governments. They can be protected or violated by those individuals, but not given or taken away.

I cannot remember the exact quote from "A Man for All Seasons," but paraphrasing, Sir Thomas Moore says that some men say the world is round, and some men say the world is flat. But if it is round can an act of parliament make it flat? And if it is flat can an act of parliament make it round?

Likewise a government can say a 'negro' or 'indian' is not a person and can then later reverse itself and say they are, but it doesn't change the truth of the situation. The government's recognition of rights does not bring them into existance but affirms its position to protect those rights.

Quote:
I love the hatred of the "faceless" corporation. Damn those bastards! Damn the ones that seek to achieve something with their lives, to reach out and grab that American Dream! Damn them from employing Americans, for giving them work, for giving them benefits! Those bastards!

Company's are made up of individuals. Individuals have rights.

I have to disagree with JCobb on this one. Aristotle noted two kinds of business: 1) Earning a living, which is noble and honorable, as all people have needs to sustain themselves. 2) Earning a profit, of which there is nothing honorable to it, as it seeks to satisfy an insatiable appetite.

Corporations may be made up of individuals but they are not individuals. The interests of most of a corporations' members are denied a voice and they are reduced to the status of tools, a 'human resource' that is little more than a cog in the machine. The compensation that will no doubt be trumpeted as making this arrangment justifiable is not unlike the compensation given slaves who must trust in their masters to make decisions on their behalf. Workers have the right to vote and hence have a voice you say, true, but the corporate voice is so much louder (and made so by the very sweat of the workers). The worker makes the corporation powerful just as the slave made the plantation productive in return for the basic necessities of life and a few amenities.

Before I am accused of being a communist, let me say that I am a strong supporter of private property and small business. A man should be able to better himself with his own effort. I don't like corporations because I see a small group of people (and don't even get me started on the investors) profiting from the work of others. I believe freedom is diminished when the means of production is consolidated into the hands of a few.

The current (or eternal) trend of 'one dollar, one vote' which drives our special interest political travesty highlights what is so wrong with large corporations, they have assets to speak with a large voice for a minority of people. [bold] Corporations being an example of special interest, not the totality of it.[/bold]

I am probably rambling by now and if so I apologize. I just wanted to respond to things that bothered me in the above posts.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

JASONZZZ

Friday, June 25, 2004 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Xithor:
I saw it last night at a midnight show here in Portland.

I won't get into the Moore:good/Moore:evil debate, but I will say that it very effectivly stirs up the coals for those of us that were aginst the war and Gee-Dubbia's Asinine international policy for corperate profit from the get go.

Everyone should go see it; those of us on the left get to have our fire stoked up (and perhaps pluck at our guilt a bit), and those on the right might find it an interesting view from the other side - and maybe change your mind on some things.

Additional note to all Teenagers: go see it now! Sneak in, get your weird Uncle Steve to go with you, or just walk up and buy tickets (- they oh so rarely check). Pay special attention to the scenes where they follow a pair of unscrupulous Marine recruiters, vist US soldiers who have had their limbs blown off, and show the greif of a mother of a US Soldier killed in action.

I think all you 17 years olds should take your video cameras and see if Moore will actually make good on his word on taking you-all into the movie himself (After the MPAA passed an R rating on the film, he said that he would take every 17 year old into the film himself)... Whether he does or not is irrelevant. The next thing you ought to do is heavily edit the footage of your encounter with him and make him look like as much of an ass as possible. One good turn deserves another.

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:12 AM

Jasonzz- have you seen the movie? If not, don't pass judgement. There are ways of making people look awkward, clumsy, stupid and backward. If that's what this film does to George, then I wouldn't much care for it. It would be a mean-spirited but trivial put-down. But if it makes SIGNIFICANT points by showing revealing and extended quotes then it's a meaningful observation. The only thing showing in your post is YOUR mean-spiritedness. Go see the film, then come back and tell us about it.

JASONZZZ

Saturday, June 26, 2004 1:22 AM

Ur, I would just assume that I can pass judgement
on this very same movie from having seen most of
the previous ones that he had put out. MM has
only one way of putting his work together, thru
quick edits of his interviews. I've to admit
that his stuff is funny and entertaining. He has
a good way of putting people in his particular
perspective and making them look like baffoons - that is no matter how they've tried to be honest. I am not passing judgement on how honest or dis-honest (in absolute terms that is; IMHO, only Mother Teresa and Gandhi are absolutely bleached sheets white honest, everyone else are certain shades of grey and filthy dirt as measured and compared on) the people he interviewed is.

And just taking your cue, how can it be *mean-spirited* when it's the truth? That's been MM's modus operanti and it's quite apparent that it hasn't changed. So, it's the truth and I stated it for what it is.

I'm just saying that using the techniques that MM uses, one can make the Dalai Lama look like he ate a dog and then lied about it knowing full well that he didn't. And having read the reviews, this movie would be about the same sort of treatment. It might be entertaining, but he isn't saying anything new. The stuff that he is "documenting" has been out in the news in the past - the stuff with Bin Laden and the Saudi family were out within months post September 2001.

I will prolly see it when I have an late evening with a spare $0.97 that isn't quite doing anything else and neither am I. Maybe when I am just completely bored out of my mind and sorely need an external source of entertainment, but that likely won't be until sometime at the end of the year.
The rental counters will prolly have it out in the cheap bin by then.

What do you think of MM's other works? Is his technique a good way to deliver the truth? Or is it just an entertaining way to mock and deliver satire?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jasonzz- have you seen the movie? If not, don't pass judgement. There are ways of making people look awkward, clumsy, stupid and backward. If that's what this film does to George, then I wouldn't much care for it. It would be a mean-spirited but trivial put-down. But if it makes SIGNIFICANT points by showing revealing and extended quotes then it's a meaningful observation. The only thing showing in your post is YOUR mean-spiritedness. Go see the film, then come back and tell us about it.

JASONZZZ

Saturday, June 26, 2004 1:34 AM

I'm more than certain you can find it
streaming in the web somewhere. If you
feel guilty about it, you can go to the
theatre and pay for some other random
Miramax movie and just chuck the ticket.

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Quote:
Heb:
I just saw a commercial for F 9/11 (Canada) and it said playing in theaters now and all theaters July 2. Where are you?

Thanks but no such luck. I'm in the UK. We have to wait ages for everything but not as long as some places thankfully. Still thinking of selling my soul for a simultaneous release date for Serenity (or a return plane ticket).

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

RUE

Saturday, June 26, 2004 3:47 AM

I believe in personal accountability. When she had sex, (its PROCREATION FOR PETE'S SAKE) there was always the chance of her getting pregnant. When she did, she still has rights, ** but so does the unborn child within her **

It's your OPINION that pregnancy = legal personhood, but that doesn't make it so. Others can have strict personal accountability and the highest standards, just not yours.

There was a lot of personal mud-slinging between the religious framers of the Constitution and the atheists, but generally they tried to create a social framework based on the 'Natural Rights of Man' (according to Western thinking of the time). They wanted to avoid theocracy. At the time I'm sure they weren't considering how Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Rastafarians, Confucians etc might fit. But there was so much European bloodshed over the centuries between different New Testament followers, that the framers avoided religious government. They created a civil one.

For centuries nobility was always concerned with offspring and parentage. It wouldn't do to have a queen (whose job was to bear sons) sneaking off to the local herbalist when she was pregnant. So nobility was governed by one set of rules. But for commoners succession wasn't an issue (so to speak), and they were governed by the 'common law'.

British common law was adopted as American common law. 'Quickening' became the American standard.

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE