The definition of irony
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html

I'm sorry, but that's just TOO FUNNY. Kind of reminds me of when it came out that Rosie The Gun-Hater's bodyguard was packing heat. :lol:

Not irony; elitism.

You forget; Victim Disarmament is for "us" not for "Them." For instance:

Diane Feinstein has one of the very, very few CCW permits issued in California.
Rosie O'Donnel's bodygaurd carries a gun.
Ted Kennedy's bodygaurd got busted with an illegal, UNREGISTERED MACHINE GUN a f ew years back.

Their lives are worth defending; ours are not.

You may forget but Moore is also a longs standing member of the NRA and owns guns himself...

I'm speechless.

Yup. The bugger got 200 hours of Community Service after the found an unregistered pistol and an unregistered MP-5S in the trunk of the car.

Just for perspective, and unpapered NFA item would gaurantee 20 years to any Paeon like one of us.

And I could join NOW, but I still wouldn't have tits.

What difference does this make? The point is that this overweight, self-hating jackass is a hypocrite and contradicts himself countless times, by making a lie-filled shitfest of a film (better known as Bowling for Columbine), stating that all guns should be banned, and then having an armed bodyguard. Sounds like a classic case of "do what I say but not as I do"

Possible headlines:

"Unlicensed gun-toting thug found employed by award-winning director of anti-gun movie, Bowling for Columbine."

"Award-winning director of anti-gun movie, Bowling for Columbine, advocates use of gun in protecting own ass."

"Award-winning director of anti-war movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, blasts use of deadly U.S. military force, endorses use of deadly personal bodyguard force."

edit - I just now noticed the comma in your sentence, nevermind

I don't see how it's really ironic. Michael Moore's the guy with the stated opinions on gun violence, not his bodyguard. If he asked the guy to carry the weapon or knew about it and condoned it, that'd be one thing, but if the guy was just carrying then me. Tempest in a teapot, really.

And despite the fact that Michael Moore is an ideologue and a hypocrite (not for this - for other reasons I won't go into here), I don't think that necessarily detracts from the validity of some of the points he makes in his movies.

It does detract from the validity of his points. I never could understand him because I couldnt understand why he believes what he does. Now I do get it, he believes that his live should be protected, and by taking guns from other people (and having them himself) allows for more security on his part.

typical conservative tactics: if you cant destroy the message, slag the messenger.
i dont see the irony in this.
i dont see anything in it beyond stupidity.

and if you want to get into the question of privilege--since it usually follows that those who are militant about their guns also fear "big goverment" and so oppose national health--how about trying on the idea that market driven health care means that the llives of the children of the affluent are worth more than the lives of the children of the poor? if you want to discuss privelege and hypocrisy, start with something meaningful, not this.

thread coup d'etat ended.
act as before.

didn't even mention national healthcare for a foreign nation (iraq), but no national healthcare for the nation providing it (u.s.).

i will act as before! :D

What's typical here is the typical accusation typically used to explain universal typicality.
You're missing the point of the whole situation: Humor. It's funny. Don't you think?
Hah-hah?
;)

I wonder how many people continue to mistakenly think that Moore is anti-gun. And are these the same people that saw Bowling For Columbine and failed to comprehend that BforC was not an anti-gun film? And if so, I wonder why they failed to comprehend that very obvious aspect of the film. I wonder if maybe they went into the film with preconceived notions of what it was about, and were therefore unable to process the information that was presented.

Not seeing the film surely adds to the misconceptions of it.

I'm not seeing how he's hypocritical here. The headline doesn't say that Moore himself was carrying a gun, his bodyguard was. Granted, it is pretty funny but I don't see how Moore ends up with the eggface here.

I agree with Manx here: I was under the impression that Moore wasn't anti-gun, but rather, wanted to draw attention to the "culture of fear" that pervades our society and in the media whit large.

I lked the part where he compared Canada's gun culture with our own. It gave me a lot to think about. As it is, I am constantly having to defend my (our) right to own and carry arms in this country whereas it "seemed" in Canada, a lot of people had them but it wasn't a big deal AND their crime rate was lower.

Which is odd because Moore is slamming the media for supposedly fear mongering when he'a fear-mongerer himself. Was BFC anything more than a gigantic scarepiece about gun crime and american society?

There are plenty of factors that account for that. First off, Canada's population is far smaller than ours, so obviously, their gun homicide numbers are going to be lower. Second off, Canada's population mostly consists of white citizens, while the US's population is made up of just about every race and ethnic group out there, so there's bound to be many race and ethnic related crimes to inflate our gun homicide rates. Third off, Canada isn't the crime free paradise that Moore makes it out to be, sorry.

That is an intresting point: How does one define or differentiate "fear-mongering" from "expose" from "information distribution"?

I think the inherent subjectivity would complicate things:

EX: Weather report - Tomorrow, rain - Oh no fear mongering, there's gonna be rain! OR, ok, it's going to rain tomorrow.

In the Moore example, I suppose one could cite his method of distributing information as being insightful and enciteful. For me personally, I didn't interpret it as fear mongering. However, on the nighty news, "Killer Bees attack LA" is certainly fear mongering to me or at the very least, sensationalist. Fear mongering would be if Moore was shouting "Oh my God, guns kill people! We must ban all guns before our children all die" or something like that.

I dunno, BFC didn't make me scared about gun crime. In fact, I felt it was backing us gun proponents. The question is one of culture not legality. at least that is how I saw it. It pointed out that legal guns weren't the problem, which is exactly what anti-gun people are always trying to do: restrict legal gun rights.

Was moore even with his body guard? If he wasn't then i fail to see how this really has anything to do with moore at all. Even if the bodyguard was with moore, how is it ironic that a bodyguard would pack heat? I think some of the people here are under the impression that if someone happens to support any form of gun control, than it logically follows that they don't want anyone to have guns. This actually doesn't make sense in any sort of reality based context. Even if i were to go out on a limb and pretend that moore was in favor of the most stringent of gun control; i have yet to hear anyone i know who favors gun control -aside from the occasional anarchist-express a desire to remove guns from people who have a legitimate employment based need to use them i.e the police or the army or body guards or security guards.

Would it be ironic for moore to call 911 because the cops that may respond to his call will be carrying guns? Nope. Just like it isn't really that ironic that moore can make movies critical of america's gun culture while living in a country whose interests are protected by soldiers who use guns.

This might be ironic if moore was carrying the gun himself, but other than that, i just see mm detractors stretching to talk shit.

I've often wondered the same thing. I suppose it's a knee-jerk reaction to some of the movie. I saw it as more an exposé on the culture of fear in the States. Did Moore actually say that guns should be banned?


You would compare rates per-capita, not overall numbers.

Huh? Have you been to Canada?

Maybe not crime free, but there isn't the culture of fear in Canada like in the US.

:confused: I've run across practically every ethnic group you can imagine while travelling through Canada.

2nd: I wasn't aware that there are crimes specifically relegated to certain races and ethnicities. Crime has always seemed to be an equal opportunity category from my viewpoint, or are you saying that certain crimes are only committed by certain races/ethnic groups?

ananas,

crime is an equal opportunity category, but there are segments of the population who choose to take the opportunity more than others... at times those delineations are statistically linked to racial identities. so, in a way... there are crimes that are more likely to be committed by certain ethnic groups. also, it's no secret that societies that have homogeneous ethnic compositions are often very low in crime (japan, switzerland, norway). it isn't always the case, but not having societal lines able to be draw along ethnic boundaries seems to be a factor in the reduction of crime.

i don't think it's exactly the definition of irony... because i don't think moore (as much as i detest the guy's work) ever promoted the abolition of ALL firearms. it is probably something he wished would've been kept under wraps, the good lord knows he has enough stuff to smudge over without worrying about giving the public one more reason to side with his detractors. i think there are enough examples of the "animal farm" mentality among elitists without having to point to this one.

Not for nothing, but he does support the banning of all handguns (which is what his bodyguard was caught with). See the following excerpt from his appearance on the Donohue Show....

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread...nahue-20021028

No, there are better films on cesspools than "Bowling for Columbine," but THIS is the classic case:

Carl Rowan, one of the country's foremost gun control advocates, stated in his syndicated column that "If you have a gun you should go to jail- period."

One night, Rowan heard people trespassing on his property. He produced an unregistered .22 pistol, fired a warning shot in their direction, and hit one of them in the wrist. Rowan was not convicted or jailed for possessing a gun despite Washington DC's strict gun laws.

The trespassers, if memory serves, turned out to be young people who'd decided to sneak into his pool for a swim.

Rowan tried to avoid responsibility by claiming the gun belonged to his son, an FBI agent.

ahh... i had not understood that he was against banning all handguns. well, i suppose that does qualify as a clear example of hypocrisy. given that information, i'll get a quiet chuckle at anyone who tries to defend him.

"If it were up to me, I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in -- turn them all in."

Dianne Feinstein, to Lesley Stahl during an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" on Feb. 24, 1995.

" The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated."

Hon. Major R. Owens (Rep. NY, Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993, Extension of Remarks - September 23, 1993. Congressional Record, 103rd Congress, 1993-1994)

"Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun . There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year."

Senator John H. Chafee, Rhode Island (June 11, 1992, Congressional Record, 102nd Congress, 1991-1992)

While this "thinking" may not be universal, it's certainly widespread. There are thousand of documented statements like this from constitution-haters at various levels. Someone should explain how this isn't "fear-mongering." Oh, that's right--that's only done by Republicans.


I take it you consider insignificant those people who have a legitimate defense-based need to use them?

You accidentally slipped an accuracy in here. When you call the cops, they MAY show up. They're not required to.

A couple of girls who became rape victims in their apartment established the above in a court case. Seems they were held captive for 12 hours. The police never responded to their emergency call.

at least it's not like that song about irony, and it talks about rain and weddings and stuff. It was ironic that the song had nothing to do with irony

irateplatypus,

What crimes would more likely be committed by certain ethnic groups? Do Blacks commit more murders? Whites commit more rapes?

Your example of Japan, Switzerland, Norway does not preclude any of those homogeneous ethnic groups from committing any crime; e.g., murders are committed in those countries, albeit at a much lower rate than one would find in the US. My confusion about the original poster's comments was not about the numbers of crimes committed, but his rather generalized statement about crimes and ethnic groups.

Ananas, I didn't mean to come off as racist with my comment but crime tends to be higher among minorities. Granted, this isn't always the case but it tends to be the case. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Oh boy, here we go...

where are we going???? I don't get it. This whole irony thing is really ironic in the sense that...... darn i lost my train of thought. I was heading somewhere but that stupid baby genuis superbabies commercial came on and it made me mad.

Interestingly, the homogenous countries mentioned have a lower rate of poverty, by far. Maybe that has to do with their lower rate of crime. At least violent crime. Now corporate crime.....

Anyways, "fear-mongering" most certainly NOT the sole bastion of Republicans. It is used widely by people of all persuasions. C'mon Sob, you know that.

EX: Global warming is going to get us!!

And besides, a lot of fear-mongering is apolitical - it's just there for entertainment value. Like: Shark attack!! Beaches closed for the summer!!

It reminds me of that Simpsons episode where a bear wanders into Springfield and everyone panics and freaks out. The town then proceed to enact a series of ridiculous laws and set up a "Bear Patrol" that consists of a B-2 stealth bomber. Hilarity ensues...

-=-=-=-=-

Game Over

Not surprised its a Fox link at all.

A security guard having a weapon is like a librarian having a book. Im surprised he hasnt been shot already, judging by the amount of white hot fury that is felt about him in the states. And yes, he is fat and he does have tits. I think this has been established.

Hell, how many companies and individuals would like to see this guy go away? permanently? SmithGlaxoKline is already preparing "Michael Moore emergency" drills.... Moore's blasted everything he doesnt believe in. The guy has probably received so many death threats he probably takes them seriously.

Please.

I am fully aware of this argument, but to say that Moore is not anti-gun is to ignore the total effect of all his work on the subject, including BFC.

What is the total effect of BFC? Is he responsible for misinterpretation by others?

I usually don't bother with long winded replies in "Politics" these days, as many others are willing to take up the slack, but I will allow myself to be so moved now.

It is blatant hypocisy of the first degree to decree that America is full of "Stupid White Men" and that we have a gun culture that is propagated and perpetuated by the media and THEN hire ARMED body guards who don't even bother to know and follow the gun laws.

It is hypocrisy to complain that there are lax gun laws then hire body guards that don't bother to know and follow said gun laws.

It is hypocisy to claim to be a documentarian (documentaries by DEFINITION being things that deal with FACTS) and then create "documentaries" that twist facts, present out and out falsehoods, and character assassinate people and organizations by use of clever editing. That MM does so using an "aw shucks, I'm just an average Joe" persona only adds insult.

It is hypocisy that MM decries multimillion dollar coporations while he himself lives in a multimillion dollar NYC loft in an exclusive building.

It is hypocrisy that MM demands accountability from the president, saying that Bush lied to the American people to advance his agenda while ignoring the critics and the overwhelming evidence that MM himself has done just that himself.

And it is unfathomable to me that there are people that support this man when there are better spokespersons for their causes to be had.

Have you seen Bowling For Columbine? The movie doesnt have an anti-gun message at all. At all. Its not in the movie. Thats not what its about. I really dont like MM or think his material is particularly intelligent or even factual.. but BFC was not an anti-gun movie... theres nothing ironic in the article that i can see..

You are still arguing that MM is pro-gun even after that link above to his own website where he admits in his Donohue interview that he is in favor of banning all hand guns?

And will you still argue that it is not hypocritical to then hire a bodyguard, an armed gunman, a mercenary for his personal protection?

(I use the word mercenary as those on the left insisted that the armed guards that were murdered in Iraq were indeed mercinaries, which seemed to imply that they were legimate targets.)

Which portion of the reply you quoted is an argument that Michael Moore is pro-gun? All I see are two questions, both of which are specific to BfC. Are you going to answer those two questions?

Of course it is not hypocritical. You can, in fact, be anti-gun while owning a gun without being even remotely hypocritical. A gun can be used for protection from people with guns. To be anti-gun does not mean one must remove a primary form of protection from that which you oppose. For someone who is anti-gun, the ideal world is one in which there are no guns and therefore one of the primary reasons for having a gun is removed. But we do not live in any ideal world, so there remains a primary reason for having a gun even while one is opposed to the ability to possess a gun.

this was a tabloid-style story from a tabloid-style "news" outlet framed to generate precisely this kind of one-dimensional response.
what is obviously the crux is that some folk simply do not like michael moore, nothing more, nothing less.
at this point, after thread after thread on f911 and probably an equal if not greater number on bfc, i am not sure why continued demonstration of the fact that some folk do not llike michael moore continues to be interesting.

Manx, I mean no disrespect here, but I actually laughed out loud at that statement.

I was formulating my response when I ran into the above comment and frankly, I don't have a response to it.

Yes, I read your qualifying statements, but I don't see that they help.

If you truly think this, then I give up, you win.

None taken. Whether you find it humorous or disagree with it does not change that fact that it is accurate.
Good idea, I know.

This one I'd disagree with. I don't know of any MM propoganda that says having money is itself bad -- from what I can tell, MM says "getting money in bad ways is bad".

I've seen a number of responses by MM to such attacks. So, "ignore" doesn't seem to be the right verb here. Discount maybe?

Personally, I view him as a light-weight "Fox News" on the left. He does "Documentaries" and Fox is "Fair and Balanced". Although, given the respective budgets, possibly comparing him to the mooney-funded Washington Times propoganda source.

Against such admittedly low standards, he shows up as much shinier!

The only responses I've seen of his are on his "Whacko Attacko" page, where the responses don't actually seem to address the criticisms.

The one I remember is his response to the charge that the Lockheed Martin Waterton plant doesn't make WMD's. His response was something like, well, they do make rockets that launch satellites that the military uses... which of course aren't WMD's He made some more comments to explain himself, which of course, never addresses the fact that he LIED when he said the plant made WMD's. It seems that to his logic, it sorta makes WMD's, because the military uses satelites that may be launched on it's rockets and because LM is a major military contractor.

And I wouldn't have a problem with how he lives either if he didn't pretend to be a champion for the little guy while running down the corporations who are also out for a buck.

Some are pretty good. Others are pretty weak.

Here it is:
In addition to the arguements you listed, the factory also made ICBM's and ICBM parts from the 50s through to the 80s.

Do you have the original quote from BFC?

Remember, I'm just saying that 'ignore' is the wrong verb. If you want to get silly about it, I could accuse you of 'lieing' because you claimed he ignored the attacks. This would make you a hypocrit for accusing someone of being a hypocrit about lieing with a lie!

But, like I said, that would be silly. =p~

wrong, try again here's an actual quote, are you sure you read this?

edit:
damn, yakk you beat me in calling bullshit first!

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.)

So to distill, he still doesn't say that the plant he says are making (present tense) WMDs is in fact not.

The last missle produced at that plant was in the mid 80's and as I recall, before Kliebold and Harris was even born.

So what do we have? We have a larger philosophical argument, that LM as a company makes weapons systems (they never made the actual bombs, but they did make rockets), vs what MM actually says.

Is this just 'artistic liscense'? I don't beleive so, because MM is trying to get the viewer to believe some connection between that particular plant and the massacre at Columbine. I say this because he NEVER tries to correct or explain himself. Instead, he continues this same obfusication again in Colorado Springs when he deliberately lies about what a plaque under a B52 says and again, when he deliberately edits several Heston speeches to make the view believe that Heston gave a speech that he never in reality gave.

This is not the marks of a documentary or of journalistic integrity, they are are the marks of propaganda.

How can one argue with such nonsense?
Get a pair of fucking 200lb mastiffs if your worried about burglars with guns. Get a taser gun. Get pepper spray. Get a baseball bat for christ sake.

Manx, you argue just to watch yourself type.

you can be anti-gun and own a gun...fucking brilliant. :crazy:

It isn't universal, and even in the quotes you provided, there isn't any context. There is no way to tell whether they want to ban civilians from handgun ownership or whether they want to ban everyone from using handguns.

Show me proof that all citizens have a "legitimate" defense-based need for packing heat.


I know, i've had to call the cops on drunks before.

Look, i'm not for gun control in general. I do think this article about mm's bodyguard is silly, because it hasn't been established the the body guard was even with moore at the time of his arrest.

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the logic of my argument, regardless of how vehmently you may disagree or find it confusing.

I am anti-money, but I own money because society requires it and it is my (idealistic) goal to eliminate the need for money within society. There is nothing hypocritical about my use of money. I am anti-gas guzzling cars but I still own one because it is far more beneficial to achieve my agenda of non-oil based cars if I am able to travel quickly across distances. Again, there is nothing hypocritical about that position.

It would be hypocritical to be anti-gun and take pleasure in target practice, but for the protection from guns that a gun will provide, there is no hypocrisy.

The difference is that there are alternatives to owning a gun for protection, while there are no viable alternatives to using money.

I would also add that there are alternatives to owning a gas guzzler.

I mean, what would you say to a fundamentalist Christian who argues,

"You can be anti-abortion and still have an abortion..."

There are alternatives to everything, but practicality is key. It is not practical to hire a bunch of guard dogs to walk around with you all day (nor would they be very effective anyway). It is not practical to defend yourself from an attacker armed with a gun by using a baseball bat. It is practical to hire an armed body guard. It is not practical to live a life without gasoline thereby removing your ability to travel great distances in a timely manner if your goal is to promote change in a wide area.

I'd say right on, but I expect I will never run into a fundamentalist Christian who would make that argument. But to your point, if you could demonstrate a specific scenario where there is a practical need for an abortion, then I would certainly state that there is no hypocrisy in an anti-abortionist having an abortion.

So then, since I can't afford the practical measure of hiring a body guard, but I can afford to buy a pistol and get a concealed weapons permit, I take it from your arguments that you would support me in this?

If you were anti-gun. But you're not. So I don't.

Then again, I'm not anti-gun either, so when we consider that, I do support you.

Wait, what? The justification for an anti-gunner to own a firearm is to deal practically with a world in which firearms are pervasive, right?

Why can't a pro-gunner use that justification as well? If those against guns see a need for them (presently), why wouldn't others see the need as well?

Because no one is accusing a pro-gunner who owns a gun of being a hypocrite, so there is nothing to justify.

Uh, yes there is. I'm talking about justifying possession of a firearm.

Anti-gunner: I need a gun to protect me from the dangers of a gun-infested world.
Pro-gunner: I need a gun to protect me from the dangers of a gun-infested world.

If you were that anti-gunner, would you support the pro-gunner's ability to own a firearm as well (assuming all other things equal)?

or perhaps...

anti-gunner: i need a gun to protect me from the dangers of a gun infested world, and i also support efforts to decrease the amount of guns in the world.

Ahhhhh, hypocrisy. By human nature, we are all hypocrits. Is it hypocritical of me to tell my kids not to smoke, when I smoke a pack a day? Yes. Is it hypocritical of me to tell my kids never to drive after they have been drinking, when I have gotten behind the wheel of a car after one too many drinks? Yes. I think that this may have been what Manx has been trying to say (but without acknowledging that this is, by definition, hypocrisy - correct me if I've read you wrong). Except for those who lead a spot free lifestyle (and I can't think of anyone off hand who does), there is a little bit of hypocrisy in us all. The one major difference is that most of us don't become multi-millionaire's on a platform of standards that we reject in our own lives (cue Michael Moore). It's just funny that some people seem to have difficulty callling a spade a spade, and are using the old "smoke and mirrors" technique in an attempt to defend this prime example.

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?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, so i can't argue on behalf of all anti-gunners. I was just saying that a gun owner can be pro-gun control and not be a hypocrite.

Speaking of finding things on the internet, the quote from the original movie:
Oh, of course Moore documentaries contain propoganda. Has he ever claimed otherwise?

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?

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.

So game theory does have a use outside the classroom. So what's that, like, 2 nash equilibrims? That was fun, but next time draw out the matirx so it is easier to picture.

But some people will never admit to hypocrisy if they don't even know what it is

This is a prime example of the difference in the worlds between a liberal's world and the real world, where up is down and down is up, nothing in the previous statement makes a lick of sense. For example, it was stated that,
"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."

Can someone please help me make sense out of that statement, or is it me?

LOL Another Michael Moore regurgitation fest. If i had to try and mentally process the amount of seethingly spiteful posts directed towards him, my head would explode. And, if he had half an ounce of intelligence he would hire armed security guards because of it.
Michael Moore's films are terrific propoganda. He acknowledges it. He tries to deliver a message with his films. He shoots, interviews and edits toward this end. If you want to start questioning the integrity of the man, maybe you want to have a look at the american media. Wasnt it Bill Clinton who declared that the hardest questions ever posed to him in office were by college students? The US media took all of the administrations falsehoods hook line and sinker when invading Iraq. They reported it all at face value, never asking the glaringly obvious questions because of some absurd code of 'unity'. Where was their integrity? And still we hardly see the true images of what is going on over there (but its ok when a Tsunami strikes to gratuitously splash blackened dead babies on the news).
And now that there isnt any WMDs, 100,000 lives lost, shit loads injured and an american public which still oddly insists (well a large percentage) that Saddam was somehow accountable for 9/11, who is gonna start asking the questions? If not Moore, than who?

Seriously YaK, what the hell are you trying to say?

What I got from your post, particularly this last paragraph: it's a difficult choice for anti-gunners. I didn't get a sense that:

anti-gunners who owned guns for a given reason and wished to deny pro-gunners (who invoked the same reason) the guns they desire

aren't being inconsistent. All I saw was that they were in a conundrum that could easily lead to that inconsistency. They should realize that trying to get from city C to city D involves denying many people the protection that they themselves are unwilling to give up. That is a a problem of inconsistency, one that could be resolved by being an example to others first.

Unless they can come up with a reason why they should have guns, but a given other person should not. Possible, but city D becomes much less likely when anti-gunners don't seek to deprive every average citizen of guns. And city C goes from highly improbable to certifiably impossible.

edited for grammar

Yakk,

My use of "several" is correct.

The "Cold, dead hands" snippit comes from a different speech that occurred a year later in Charlotte, NC. Heston NEVER said it in his Denver speech.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html


But hey, if it sells the movie, what's a little "creative editing", right?

And thanks for the quote, since it illustrates exactly the lie Moore tries to sell in this instance.

After Bowling for Columbine, you now have to view Moore's objectives as questionable. Where does he stand?

Comedian Sabrina Matthews said it well: The definition of Irony is not a black fly in your chardonnay...it's naming the airport after the President of the United States who fired all of pilots who worked at that airport.

"I don't know of any MM propoganda that says having money is itself bad -- from what I can tell, MM says "getting money in bad ways is bad"."

HAHAHAHHA MOTHER FUCKING HA.

You do realize that Michael Moore's target is the younger generation - the only people that will swallow his BS as truth - and this is "getting money in a good way." At least you characters recognize it as BS, you just have a million and one reasons to justify it.

"If i had to try and mentally process the amount of seethingly spiteful posts directed towards him, my head would explode."

Try being a Bush supporter.

I look to Moore for his slant on American politics and American society.
He is a filter of the slices of current events that he chooses to hold up
to the light of his camera.

I look to the President of the United States to lead. It outrages me when
I see the President mislead, and then fail to admit it, when the result is avoidable war of aggression that causes the deaths and maiming of
many young American troops and countless innocent Iraqis and other
foreigners.

I see Michael Moore as someone who shares my outrage. Michael Moore
has projected a message that is misleading at times. Moore has not
caused avoidable death and destruction on a very large scale.

You seem much more disturbed by Michael Moore's deception, even though
it is harmless compared to the deception of George Bush and his political
appointees. You seem to give Bush a pass for changing the reasons numerous times for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and for his record of never
taking personal responsibility for the numerous miscalculations and
poor decisions he has made regarding Iraq, or for not holding officials such
as Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, Tenent, Gonzales, or General Myers accountable for their failures of administration or judgment in the performance of their
respective national security functions. Rumsfeld ignored advice from
State Dept. planners and some senior generals, resulting in the botched
post invasion Iraqi occupation, and is responsible for the Abu Grhaib torture
mess, and the avoidable casualties caused by lack of adequate body and
vehicle armor. Rumsfeld is one of only a few cabinet members asked by
Bush to stay on. Rice is promoted after presiding over pre and post 9/11
intelligence failures. She and Bush blame Tenent's CIA for faulty intelligence,
while both claim that they made no misleading statements to make the
case for Iraq invasion. Recently, Bush awarded Tenent the highest award
bestowed on a civilian for exemplary national service. Myers' competence
or lack thereof was made painfully clear in post 9/11 congressional
questioning concerning air defense readiness and response on 9/11.

Gonzales is promoted to AG after writing the brilliant legal opinions that
fronted for Bush's plan to act above and outside U.S. and international
law and the Geneva convention. Neither Bush nor Gonzales admit any
misstep in seeking to justify unprecedented harsh and arbitrary treatment of
those captured in Bush's war on terror, despite what has been uncovered
concerning the Bush sanctioned torture of prisoners held in "off shore"
locations, at the hands of U.S. military and intelligence sub-contractors and
by surrogates in foreign intelligence services and locations.

Lebell, I'm at least as bothered by many of Moore's critics apparent lack of concern regarding the issues I described here related to Bush and his appointees, and the resultant consequences, <br>unfolded and unfolding, disclosed and to be disclosed, as many of Moore's critics are concerning the productions, deeds, and statements of Michael Moore.

The points you have made on this thread have influenced me to take a
closer and more critical look at Moore and his BFC production. I'll also
continue to offer linked info from mainstream sources related to Bushco
deficiencies in judgment and execution:

I have found that doing explicit math in a public forum leads to ... lack of understanding. =)

Tossing out a matrix, and saying "this demonstrates how pro-gun control and wanting to own a gun are consistent" would result in even fewer people understanding my point, I suspect!

Look at case C.
Your chance of dieing from being shot is doubled if you don't have a gun.

So, each person should think "I should buy a gun to make myself safer!

Now, look at case D:

By case D, this is no longer the case: buying a gun is foolish.

In this hypothetical city, buying a gun makes sense if more than a certain percentage of the population has guns. This continues, possibly, until everyone owns a gun.

If less than a certain percentage of the population has guns, buying a gun doesn't make sense. This logic continues, possibly, until nobody owns a gun.

This is a case of two 'locally optimal points'. Everyone has a gun, or nobody has a gun.

Looking at the two points (A and B)
You will notice that fewer people die in case B than in case A, at least from gunshots.

This isn't a proof that gun control makes sense: it is just an attempt to illustrate how gun ownership and pro-gun restriction can be consistent.

Shit man, did you even read my post?

I gave a definition of 'several'. It means 'more than two or three' in the case of it being used to count nouns.

2 is not more than 2 or 3. Two speeches where used in the movie. And they where not edited together, but placed one after another, with the second speech having an introduction.

At least, that is what I read about the contravercy. Did it happen differently than that?

However, here you are, using lie-filled arguements to attack Moore about lieing. Several is not the correct word to use for the number '2', it's use was a lie.

And yes, that is hyperbole. I don't think you are lieing as much as you are using hyperbole and exagerrative language to argue your point.

EDIT: Deleted some over-the-top hyperbole.

Actually, that quote was the wrong one. It didn't contain a lie -- the language was inclusive enough for it to be talking about America and Americans as a whole, and thus makes Moore's defence consistent. The one with the lie or error has to do with transporting of missiles through the neighbourhood at night.

My error, sorry about that.

Huh? Please clarify.

Michael Moore's response:
Thanks, Michael.....keep up the good work!

and Moore's half-hearted attempts at defending BFC have been crushed here: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowli...ckoattacko.htm

Host and Bodyhammer, we are here to talk to each other. Not to quote external sources without any commentary or personal beliefs/statements or even editing them to actually apply directly.

Yakk, that wouldn't be a problem except I can't copy and paste anything from my link on here, so there isn't much I can do about it.

Yakk, could you please address my reply here? No rudeness intended, I'm just curious.

Well, make them willing. Tax gun owership or make it criminal or make getting a gun liscence harder. Depending on how much cost you add to owning a gun, more people might decide they don't want to own a gun.

I don't demand that people who think that having fewer guns would be a good thing for society to be any more altruistic than anyone else. I don't require activists to be saints.

They could also do a better job at helping gun control if they lived like a begger and donated all their money to the cause.

Also note that this was one of the two examples of ways "I want to own a gun" and "guns should be harder to own" beliefs could be consistent. I don't know what people who think both think, I was just demonstrating consistent ways of thinking about both of them.

It could be that at all points, owning a gun lowers your chance of dieing, while every person owning a gun makes society worse off as a whole. In which case, the "proper" economic response is to make people pay the externalities (the costs that everyone else pays) for owning a gun.

If someone believed that, the only consistent thing they could do is own a gun, and lobby that owning a gun would be harder. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I'd suspect Michael Moore might want find having an armed bodyguard justificable for completely different reasons. As examples:

First, I'd be shocked if he doesn't recieve lots of death threats from gun-nuts.

And, in theory, a bodyguard is a professional, who could be liscenced and regulated pretty heavily. Few people who want to ban handguns want to ban police from owning them.

But, I don't know Moore's mind, or the mind of any pro-gun restriction person who owns guns. All I'm trying to show is there exist consistent, sensible belief systems, for which those two on the surface opposite ideas are consistent.

Another way to look at it could be that:

Maybe some pro-gun people (we're not all nuts either) want certain other people (i.e. - real criminals) from having guns. That could be an example of pro-gun and pro-gun restriction. In other words, lawful gun ownership isn't the problem, but illegal guns are. Something like that anyways.

The point is this:

We ( gun-nuts ) desire to posess firearms for, among others, the purpose of defending ourselves from armed criminals.

Moore, among others, wishes to deprive us of the ability to do this by removing our weapons from our posession.

Therefore, for Moore to demand that he be allowed to posess ( or be gaurded by someone who posesses ) a weapon in order to protect himself from armed criminals, but to demand that the rest of us be denied this when we are at considerably greater risk for such an attack than he is, is elitist and hypocritical.

Where do you draw the line? Do you favor guns for people who've been convicted of using them in a crime? Would it be hypocritical for you to want to deny them guns? Why stop at guns? I know that land mines would be a pretty good deterrant with respect to home robberies. How can you claim to be pro-personal defense and anti-civilian land mine?

I never said I -was- anti-civillian-landmine. If someone gives proper warning of their minefield at its' boundaries and makes a reasonable effort to keep people off of it ( ie a clearly marked fence ) I see no reason to object.

Now, if someone sowed a minefield and did -not- give such proper notice, and it caused an innocent person to be injured or killed, that person should be punished severely, since their willful negligence caused the injury of another person.

However, what one does with ones' property is ones; own buisiness, and that includes who one chooses to defend it. I have no sympathy for the burgaler who steps on a Bouncing-Betty.

If guns where illegal, he most likely wouldn't carry them.

Lets try this again.

Lets say owning a gun reduces your chance of being killed by an armed criminal by 25% during an attack.

And lets say if they made guns illegal, 100% of all "law abiding" people would turn in their guns, and shortly half of all guns in the hands of criminals. And lets say this halves the number of times a gun toting criminal attacks.

Notice that, dispite your higher chance of being killed in any one attack, your chance of being attacked dropped enough that your overall chance of being killed is lower.

If this is the case, where is the hypocracy in both owning a gun and wanting guns to be removed?

The gun restriction lobby doesn't typically say "owning guns is evil", they are saying "having many guns out there is unwise". They aren't claiming you are a bad person because you own a gun, or because you want to own a gun.

And 89.9 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Half of criminals losing their guns, eh?

Yes, if you could magically remove guns, I would agree that your overall chance of dying of a gun shot would be lessened, but you are taking a few factors and making an argument that statisticians fight over, considering all the variables.

Variables include:

How easy would it be to remove guns?
How hard would it be to get illegal guns?
How many gun deaths are attributable to suicide?
How many to drug/gang activity?
What is the effect of prison sentencing on gun crime?
How many violent gun deaths are there vs defensive uses?


Hell, those were just off the top of my head and I'm not a criminologist.

But I'm sure that 84.5 percent of those who are against guns will blow off my post :D

.........................

Well said.

Do you have sympathy for the illiterate wandering child or the lost dog who may wander onto a land mine?

You aren't anti civilian land mine, but you are for the regulated(proper warnings) usage of civilian land mines? How is that any different that someone being for the regulated use of guns?

An illiterate wandering child isn't gonna climb a fence that's marked "MINEFIELD." Everyone in the neighborhood would know about it;
"Dude, don't cross that fence or you'll get blown up!"

As for dogs, a dog would have to be working pretty hard to cross the kind of fence I have in mind.

As for "regulation," no I am not in favor of regulation ( in the modern sense. ) What I favor is allowing our Tort system to take care of things:

Case 1: A neighbor has a known, but unmarked, minefield. I ( his neighbor ) make it a point to put up signs to this effect. I will also call him a negligent fuckhead at every opportunity, preferably with witnesses. I could perhaps sue him for creating a hazard which lowered my property values, or for the inevitable squirrel-tripped mine which dented mt car, broke my windows, or bruised my Peach orchard.

Case 2: That same neighbors' minefield claims the life of an idiotic teenager who was TPing his house on Halloween Night. Since the minefield was not peoperly marked and fenced, it created conditions of Willful Negligence, and he can be punished: The family of the dead moron sues my neighbor, and he's also arrested, tried, and convicted of Manslaughter 1. Between the gigantic fine and the 15 year jail term, he's gonna get HAMMERED.

Case 3: My neighbor keeps a 4' wood-and-chainlink fence around his minefield, with signs every few yards saying "Warning! Minefield; Do Not Enter!" or some similar thing. A mornic burgaler, ignoring or not seeing the signs, crosses my neighbors yard and is obliterated. Big deal; clean the splatter off the walls and replace the divot.

Case 4: Another moronic teenager, TPing my neighbor from ( 4 ) on Halloween, ignores the signs and the fence, thinking they're a bluff or a prank. He is obliterated. This person obviously didn't need to pass on his genes; if you're gonna go traipsing through a fenced-in yard, clearly marked as containing landmines, you deserve whatever you get.

Okay, i see what you're saying, but i don't see how the tort system should have any concern with what you do with your property. I mean, say a foolish burglar breaks into your house and you shoot him. Do you think it is just for you to be put at the mercy of the civil court system for a seemingly clear cut case of home defense? Do you think it should be a necessity for someone carrying a gun to carry it out in the open, so everyone knows that they have it? What about someone with a gun in their home? Should all gun-toting homeowners be required to advertise their armaments to avoid lawsuits? Maybe you're an exception, but it seems to me that most pro-gunners would scream bloody murder at the idea that shooting a trespasser should subject them to the hassle and possible monetary losses that result from civil cases.

Oh! I see where the miscommunication is. Gotcha.

OK. Basically, I call for a "loser pays" system of Common Law as regards lawsuits. No Lawyers, just the two parties, their witnesses, a Judge and a Jury. It's how things in the US were routinely handled up until the 1840s. This keeps Rich Bitch from being able to steamroll Poor Pedro with 8 lawyers, and keeps things impartial.

Essentially, it comes down to personal responsibility. If I knowingly create a minefield which is a hazard, and it kills someone, my Negligence resulted in an Initiation Of Force when the person in question stepped on my landmine. It could be argued that this does not extend to criminals, under any circumstances; a view which I partially support but which in my opinion leaves far too much room for someone to wiggle out of a Manslaughter case resulting from their improperly-marked bobytrap, tiger-pit, or minefield.

Okay, i see what you're saying.

I'm going to draw a parallel from your opinion on an ideal civil court system to the "hypocrisy" theme of this thread. Do you think it would be hypocritical for you to hire a lawyer if someone was suing you, despite the fact that ideally you envision a country where a lawyer wouldn't be necessary in a civil lawsuit?

No, I don't believe I would. I'm more than competant to represent myself in any such case, and I have a Para-Legal for a father who would be more than able to help me prepare a defense.

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I was under the impression that Moore was in favour of gun control, not of the entire revocation of gun rights?

Or am I wrong?


Mr Mephisto