Has anyone seen this yet? I'd perfer to discuss with people who havent been brainwashed by Michael Moore. (but then again, maybe it would be fun to shake up their world.)
I thought that the movie was completely biased and nonsensical. Moore just bullies his way into making people who disagree with him look bad. The kind of opposing views he gets come from the people who are so dumb they agree to speak to him - so of course they look foolish. He also takes them by surprise, so they have no time to reason an argument to present (a lot of pressure with a camera in your face). He also takes one or two people and presents them as representative of a community or nation, when there is no justification to do so.
The Best Documentary prize ought to go to something that is done in the spirit of spreading knowledge, and something unbiased, not a propaganda film.
How come he doesnt include Russia in his tally of national murders?
What does earning a living have to do with gun deaths? What does military action have to do with gun deaths? What does Lockheed-Martin have to do with the Columbine Massacre? He needs to get his cause and effects straight.
Does he expect us to believe that all Canadians leave their doors unlocked?
So maybe I didnt bring any counter-points to his points but the above mentioned stuff bothered me.
The first is irrelevant. The second, third and fourth is because he uses the gun control issue as a starting point for delving into American culture and hence American foreign policy, which is where the film becomes more subjective than analytical but the cause and effect chain is fine.
The fifth I was not aware was an impression he had made. What he cartainly had made was that the only practical explanation for the gun rate difference in American as compared to Canada is cultural.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
KMC Community Forums
Oct 29th, 2002 12:42 AM
