Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebell
To you both, yes I read it and yes, it says exactly what I said it says.
(But no, I couldn't find it again easily.)
|
Speaking of finding things on the internet, the quote from the original movie:
Quote:
"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Gee, you know, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction.' What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebell
This is not the marks of a documentary or of journalistic integrity, they are are the marks of propaganda.
|
Oh, of course Moore documentaries contain propoganda. Has he ever claimed otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebell
when he deliberately edits several Heston speeches to make the view believe that Heston gave a speech that he never in reality gave.
|
By no measure did Moore edit together "several" speeches.
Before Moore introduced the event, Moore showed Heston repeating a standard motto of the NRA: "From my Cold Dead Hands".
He then introduced the NRA having a meeting near Columbine, and every other clip is from the same speach. I believe the rest of the quotes are all in sequence as well.
Moore did cut out most of Heston's speech.
several(a): (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many; "several letters came in the mail"; "several people were injured in the accident"
The second exagerration you've made while attacking Moore.
Remember, I'm disagreeing with you on technical grounds. First, you used 'ignore', when Moore did respond to the attacks -- possibly insufficiently, but he's not ignoring them.
Does this make your posts propoganda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
The question: if such anti-gunners see reason (the reason being the dangers of a gun infested world) to own a gun, why wouldn't they see the same reason for pro-gunners to own a gun?
Or would they?
|
Ok, here goes. There is a thing in economics called 'negative externalities'.
There can be things that, individually, make your life better, but collectively make the community worse off.
One could argue that making guns harder to get, or even banning them, might fall under this category.
So, for each person, getting a gun, given that there are lots of guns out there, might be a good thing.
At the same time, for the society as a whole, making guns harder to get might benefit everyone.
Thus, one could be anti-gun, in that one wants guns to be harder to get, in order to benefit everyone. At the same time, one might believe that until guns are harder to get, it is useful to have a gun.
Alternatively, you could be in a situation with multiple optimal points.
Imagine four cities:
A> In one, everyone has a gun. 1,000 people die from gunshots every day.
B> In another, nobody has a gun. Nobody dies from gunshots.
C> In the third, half the people have a gun. 500 people with guns die from gunshots. 1000 people without guns die from gunshots.
D> In the forth, 1% of the population has a gun. 30 people with guns die from gunshots, and 100 people without guns die from gunshots.
Notice that B is the safest city (no guns). But, everyone having a gun is safer than half the population having a gun. And, if half the population has a gun, buying a gun is the easiest way to reduce your death rate from guns.
If someone made guns harder to get, and you moved to situation D, you would have a 10 fold drop in gun deaths.
Now, this is a hypothetical situation, but it does demonstrate how you could have two different points that are locally optimal. Getting from one to the other can't be done easily, without lots of effort.