Originally posted by AMN Inc
I've noticed that Moore omits facts sometimes or structures things in a way that promote his point of view, but the word "deception" and the word "lie" are not interchangable.
Check it out when you have some time. Here are the synonyms for deceive I just found in the dictionary:
Mislead
Trick
Take in (such as being taken in by gratuitous images of civilian suffering, I suppose.)
Betray
Lie to
Swindle
Con
Misinform
Dupe
et al.
Originally posted by bgaarsoe
The very definition of a lie is the intent to deceive.
First I'm gonna respond to this and I might reposnd to your longer post when I have the time. Deception is not defined by lying. That's what I was saying. If I was to only use selection of detail that supported my point without acknowledging the case against my argument, that could be intentional deception by giving people the idea that there are no valid points against me. However, I have not actually said that; that would be lying.
Originally posted by AMN Inc
First I'm gonna respond to this and I might reposnd to your longer post when I have the time. Deception is not defined by lying. That's what I was saying. If I was to only use selection of detail that supported my point without acknowledging the case against my argument, that could be intentional deception by giving people the idea that there are no valid points against me. However, I have not actually said that; that would be lying.
When you get a moment, you might give me a couple more examples, because I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. It's quite clear to me that from a semantical perspective, the words deceive and lie are synonymous, but I suppose we could have some pretty lengthy philosophical discussions about what constitutes a lie. If I am getting the jist of what you are saying--and you can correct me if I'm wrong--you believe that making a series of true statements but intentionally leaving out certain key details for the purpose of misleading people is not a lie, because you have not stated anything that is untrue.
I am actually very familiar with this technique, as I'm sure we all are: When I was in my teens, I used this technique quite a bit to avoid getting into trouble with my folks. Just about every Sunday morning, my folks would ask me what I had done the night before, and I would invariable tell them details that were 100% true. If, for example, I had gone to a movie, I would tell them that. What I wouldn't do, however, is give them the full details about my more dubious activities, like the beer party I went to after the movie had ended, or the questionable pranks my friends and I pulled on people once we were all liquored up.
Back then, I deluded myself into believing I was telling them the truth. The fact is, I wasn't. Although I did not make any inaccurate statements while describing the previous night’s activities, I mislead them by leaving out those key details. The point, of course, was to convince them that my actions had been innocuous, but they hadn’t been, so the details I failed to tell them is what constituted the deception—or the lie.
Of course, the other side of this is, I was also lying to myself. These days, I think I tend to be a little more intellectually honest than I was when I was younger and am now willing to call a lie a lie. In my opinion, anything with the intent to deceive is a lie regardless of how the deception is achieved.
Originally posted by cgtuna21
I quite liked the documentary. It's one of the best of 2004. You can hate Michael Moore all you want but he puts a lot of descriptions in it and I can understand that most of you guys hate him but he's making a point to the audience. He doesn't care if he gets laughed at
I appreciate the fact that this guy is not simply spewing venomous hatred for the Michael Moore detractors in this forum like so many other people have. I think this guy might actually have a little bit of objectivity here. I do want to mention, however, that I don't think any of us here would care too much about being laughed at if we were making millions of dollars off of dishonest, libelous propaganda.
Originally posted by cgtuna21
I quite liked the documentary. It's one of the best of 2004. You can hate Michael Moore all you want but he puts a lot of descriptions in it and I can understand that most of you guys hate him but he's making a point to the audience. He doesn't care if he gets laughed at
I personally struggle with the term documentary: The root of this word means to document. That is, a documentary is supposed to document something objectively, not to proselytise a particular point of view.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Moore made a movie with an admitted bias. He made his point whether you agree with it or not is up to you.But a movie who's soul purpose is to attack a previous documentary is just sad and validates the points of that movie that it is attacking. And anyone who would associate with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly needs a lobotomy.
And the purpose of these lobotomies, of course, would be to put conservatives on equal footing with Michael Moore's liberal lemmings.
Another American using the word liberal in an insulting context. Do you even know what the definition of the word is or do you only care that Sean Hannity, a guy on a "news" channel that claims to be patriotic, seems to?
I suggest you read this article, or you can give it's author a label and ignore it completely.
AMN Inc, I've read the article that you link to. If all of it were true, I'd be very proud to be a liberal. That said, I'd be ashamed if I were stupid enough to believe that kind of crap.
I'm amazed that you ask whether others "even know what the definition of the word [liberal]" when you are so palpably ignorant yourself.
Below are my "clarifications."
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN
"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards."
Water was clean long before minimum water-quality standards. Municipal governments aren't prone to profiteering and have every incentive to provide clean water (they are, after all, accountable to voters).
"With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised."
These medications exist because Republican's opted to make money creating drugs rather than "serve the public" regulating them.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.
This medical program isn't cheap, and Joe pays for it. Moreover, the co-pay for drugs eliminates price competition and drives up the price of the drugs. When drugs (e.g., Claritin) are released over-the-counter, their price drops by more than half — when consumers have to pay out of pocket, they buy more carefully. The only area of medicine where costs are have historically gone down is elective surgery, which is not covered by insurance. Until medical insurance ceases to be a free-medical-service plan and returns to a disaster prevention plan, the price of everything it covers will continue to skyrocket. Remember the capitalist mantra: If prices are too high, bring in competition.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
That girly-man's name is Teddy Roosevelt, and he was a Republican.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Fat lot of good the ingredient listing on a bottle of shampoo does Joe. (And for the record, the "amount in total content" of an ingredient is not listed for shampoo.)
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
Actually, Richard Nixon (a Republican) invented the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that safeguards the environment. And last time I checked, he wasn't some environmentalist whacko liberal. (But maybe you know something about Richard Nixon that I don't.)
He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
As opposed to (say) walking on government subsidized sidewalks or driving on government subsidized roads or using government subsidized airports or sailing out of government subsidized ports? All real transportation is government subsidized. In what universe do conservatives oppose government subsidy of transportation? Liberals hate roads because they don't like poor people to have easy ways to get around. Al Gore and John Kerry want the masses to ride bicycles while they motor around in Cadillacs and SUVs.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
Actually, Joe's employer pays these benefits because pro-business conservatives have built an economy so strong that employers must compete for labor. But since when have Republicans had a qualm with union members?
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Actually, Richard Nixon (a Republican) created the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) to make sure that Joe is safe and that his employer will be held accountable when he's not. Also, state unemployment insurance and workers compensation insurance are not subsidized. They are genuine insurance programs that the corporations pay premiums for.
Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Actually, it was the FDIC that was invented during the FDR administration, and it only applies to Banks. The FSLIC was created during the Reagan administration to extend the FDIC's benefits to Savings and Loans (which until then weren't covered). While some in the media may be prone to call Reagan "godless" and distort his record, nobody believes that he was a fancy pants liberal.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Actually, these programs were introduced for non-veterans during the Eisenhower Administration (Eisenhower was a Republican).
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.
Actually, American cars are the safest in the world because (a) they're the biggest because we don't overtax gasoline, and (b) Americans are rich enough to be choosy about these kinds of things. The Federal automobile safety standards are quite poor.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
In reality, such farms don't go three generations, because America hating liberals used to collect taxes on the deceased farmers estate (a practice eliminated by Republicans), requiring most capital and real property to be sold to pay taxes on it. Moreover, Republicans do not oppose farm programs: the farm states and rural areas are among the strongest Republican areas of the country.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
What do union pensions have to do with elitist liberals?
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good.
This is AWESOME.
He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
This is utterly false. This author is either ignorant or dishonest.
Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
And I say, "Good for you, Joe."