Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Farenheit 9/11

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

How can you possibly claim that a film is bad without actually watching it?

How can you possibly claim that Australia exists without actually going there and seeing it for yourself?

Not everything requires your own first hand observation for you to know something about it, which in any case would be impossible. I've not been to the former WTC site, but I believe it's an absolute certainty that the WTC no longer exists.

I suppose it's possible that even it's supporters - who acknowledge it is blatantly slanted propaganda - might even be wrong about it. But how likely is that? I suppose it's possible that the dozens of reports about it, which include factual descriptions of its content, might all be false. If that were the case, I wonder then why even Moore and his supporters don't deny them.

This btw is the best review of it I've read, the best epistemologically, i.e. the one that most fundamentally names what is wrong with the illogical way that Moore thinks - and, I might add, much of the left these days. Not surprisingly it was written by Mark Steyn:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn04.html

Fred Weiss

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is it just me or did [Moore] just draw a parallel between those who fought under the noble and intellectually cultured pretences of individual freedom with the brutally barbaric mysticism of Iraqi terrorists? Is this truly the character and mechanics of his political resolve?

Yes! :confused: But then Michael Moore and his fans live in an alternate universe.

Its as if Moore has successfully skewed the perspectives of hundreds of thousands if not millions (I hope for the latter) of people in such a manner that they have acquired a total disregard for the character and intellect of our nations founding fathers and the philosophical pretences of the freedoms they take for granted every second of every day of their lives.

The perspectives of people who believe Michael Moore were already skewed up and screwed up long before they saw his movie and he just took them farther from reality. He didn't persuade people with any common sense which, thankfully, are most Americans.

I think this will backfire on the Left. If Moore is associated with Kerry, it will kill Kerry with the more sensible Democrats. If Moore is associated with Nader or the Greens, it will draw the crazy Lefties away from Kerry. The only thing Moore can do to hurt Bush now is to become a Republican. :yarr:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this will backfire on the Left.  If Moore is associated with Kerry, it will kill Kerry with the more sensible Democrats.  If Moore is associated with Nader or the Greens, it will draw the crazy Lefties away from Kerry.  The only thing Moore can do to hurt Bush now is to become a Republican. :lol:

I think you may be right on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw the movie today. It is a politically based movie and is thus biased. But to what extent did Moore's political views distort the facts? I thought it wasnt a horrible smear tactic like some think. It was overly emotional, it portrayed Bush in a poor manner, and it used violence to grab the watchers sympathy. But it had some truth to it. Bush did the things that were portrayed in the movies. The people who spoke poorly of Bush in interviews did so because that was their OPINION. Moore didnt script their responses. Moore is entitled to make any movie he chooses. And if people see it, then he has the money and the financial backing to make another one later. Thats capitalism. I am not a Bush fan, so I am not horribly offended by it. It doesnt make Republicans look bad, only Bush. It wasnt a fair movie, but how many movies portray things as they actually happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just saw the movie today. It is a politically based movie and is thus biased. But to what extent did Moore's political views distort the facts? I thought it wasnt a horrible smear tactic like some think. It was overly emotional, it portrayed Bush in a poor manner, and it used violence to grab the watchers sympathy. But it had some truth to it. Bush did the things that were portrayed in the movies. The people who spoke poorly of Bush in interviews did so because that was their OPINION. Moore didnt script their responses. Moore  is entitled to make any movie he chooses. And if people see it, then he has the money and the financial backing to make another one later. Thats capitalism. I am not a Bush fan, so I am not horribly offended by it. It doesnt make Republicans look bad, only Bush. It wasnt a fair movie, but how many movies portray things as they actually happen?

Why are you so defensive there? It's not like anyone here is advocating the banning of that movie by law, or that the government should stop him from making another.

No one in here is "Bush fan". It's not the portrayal of Bush that irks people in here--it's the lies that permeat the movie.

BTW, the movie is a distortion and a smear. You don't seem to have read any of the intelligent, coherent reviews that point them out, have you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, the movie is a distortion and a smear.  You don't seem to have read any of the intelligent, coherent reviews that point them out, have you?

How is it different from any other movie? I dont know too many factual movies. I watched it for recreation, not for political purposes. Anyone who lets a 2 hour movie dictate their political views is just plain weird. I just think that a "review" of the movie, is giving it too much credit. I dont read the reviews for movies like Spiderman 2 or the Terminal and i dont plan on doing so with Moore's movie either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's different because it claims to be a documentary, i.e. journalism, i.e. a report of the truth. But Moore's films are notorious for their misrepresentation of fact. A google search will turn up oodles of pages dedicated to showing how Moore twists things, using quotes out of context, making mountains out of molehills, and using a bunch of disintegrated facts to create conspiracy theories by coy implication. When backed into a corner, he has claimed that his movies don't have to tell the truth consistently because they're "comedy"; and yet, he was more than willing to accept an award for best documentary of the year for Bowling for Columbine.

If Moore were merely on the level of Al Franken, who makes it fairly clear when he's bullshitting his reader, I don't think he'd be criticized as harshly on here as he has been. But he doesn't; he's duplicitous. So he deserves every insult which has been thrown at him and then some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Betsy would agree that Moore has fulfilled his stated intent in producing the movie: influencing the election.  Betsy?

That may have been an unintended consequence. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two H's in Fahrenheit.

I saw the movie with my conservative family; they wanted to poke holes in its arguments, so I tagged along. It occasionally makes a good point - including drawing attention to the Bush administration's pathetic attempt at war in Afghanistan, which didn't ruthlessly eliminate the Taliban and local al-Queda, but instead pussyfooted around and allowed many of our enemies to escape - then botches that point, by making a contradictory statement - in this case, suggesting that Bush failed in Afghanistan because all he cared about was building a gas pipeline, not fighting al-Queda, and that the attack was immoral. The movie has no integrated thesis or argument, it's just "everything Bush has done is bad, including things that contradict each other." I'm no Bush fan, but I can't understand Moore's irrational hatred for the man. Why must he endeavour to prove that the man's every action is evil, when that clearly is not the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

*breathes a huge sigh of relief*

It's nice to know there are still sane people in this world. There are a couple other forums I visit and I enjoy arguing with them to an extent but it loses it's fun after a while and becomes frustrating (they can't see a proof when you explain it 10 different ways). It's nice to come here and see that some people actually know how to live.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some on the board who say that Michael Moore is a Toohey. I disagree. Moore doesn't have the brains to be a Toohey. I think he is closer to Bertram Scudder, a character from Atlas. He is the hack who wrote "The Octopus," a tirade against business in general, using Rearden as his justification for the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

QUOTE:

"[Readen] saw the article, "The Octopus," by Bertram Scudder, which was not an expression of ideas, but a bucket of slime emptied in public -- an article that did not contain a single fact, not even an invented one, but poured a stream of sneers and adjectivies in which nothing was clear except the filthy malice of denouncing without considering proof necessary."

(PB edition of Atlas Shrugged, p. 139)

UNQUOTE

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some on the board who say that Michael Moore is a Toohey.  I disagree.  Moore doesn't have the brains to be a Toohey.  I think he is closer to Bertram Scudder, a character from Atlas.  He is the hack who wrote "The Octopus," a tirade against business in general, using Rearden as his justification for the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

QUOTE:

"[Readen] saw the article, "The Octopus," by Bertram Scudder, which was not an expression of ideas, but a bucket of slime emptied in public -- an article that did not contain a single fact, not even an invented one, but poured a stream of sneers and adjectivies in which nothing was clear except the filthy malice of denouncing without considering proof necessary."

(PB edition of Atlas Shrugged, p. 139)

UNQUOTE

You've pinned the tails on the donkey Oldsalt! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you havn't seen the movie then you cannot in all honesty give opinions about it.

Whyever not?

I've never seen that table (the one to which you are referring, in this hypothetical example), but by virtue of knowing that it is a table, I know that it has a flat, level surface and that it also has support(s) of some form.

Ah ... the power of abstraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moore was a third-generation auto-plant worker until he quit that gig for "broader" horizons. What can one gather from a family that spent two entire generations working at an auto-plant--where if one loses focus, the repetitive nature of the job can easily make it a mindless affair with little hope for promotion--except that the family is unwilling to pursue the value of wealth? He is a man that refuses to trim down from a reported 320lbs--what can one gather except that he is unwilling to pursue the value of health? Essentially, Michael Moore is unwilling to achieve the value of self-esteem. The unwillingness to achieve self-esteem comes from the unwillingness to value reason, thus the unwillingness to practice the basic virtue of rationality, where all the other virtues come from.

All too often the combination of low self-esteem and unreason leads to the dark, subhuman emotion of envy. Envy is the hatred of the good for being the good, or the hatred of those who achieve the values one is unwilling to pursue. With Moore, his hatred of man is two-fold: primarily he hates any man with the ability to use his mind to acquire fantastic wealth (fanned by the closure of the GM plant--where his dad and granddad worked--by wealthy CEOs) and to a lesser extent he hates the ability of anyone who wishes to look at themselves in the mirror with pride (fanned by his extreme grotesqueness). This hatred of the good can only breed the advocacy of altruism (since the advocacy of altruism is equivalent to the advocacy of the destruction of values).

So long as he keeps collecting souls, he'll continue with his slanderous tactics. His hatred for Bush is merely a wrinkle of his dark, evil soul. Moore needs to be exposed ideologically, and that means asserting rational egoism as the only good, indeed the only practical, system of ethics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this on the internet. This will probably interest all of you.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

By Dave Kopel

This is a preliminary version of an article that will be published on National Review Online. This report was first posted on the web on the morning of July 1. Since then, I've revised several sections in response to reader requests for clarifications, and have added additional deceits which have been pointed out by readers or journalists. As result, the number of listed deceits has been raised from 56 to 59.

Thanks to the readers who have written to point out additional deceits or to point out items which need clarification. Also thanks to the readers who have written in defense of Moore. Most such readers have been rational and civil. Moore's reasonable defenders have made two main points:

First, notwithstanding the specific falsehoods, isn't the film as a whole filled with many important truths?

Not really. We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shorter part involves domestic issues and the Patriot Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false.

Second, say the Moore supporters, what about the Bush lies?

Well there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone. For example, the Bush administration suppressed data from its own Department of Health and Human Services which showed that the cost of the new Prescription Drug Benefit would be much larger than the administration claimed. This lie was critical to passage of the Bush drug benefit bill. Similarly, Bush's characterization of his immigration proposal as not granting "amnesty" to illegal aliens is quite misleading; although the Bush proposal does not formally grant amnesty, the net result is the same as widespread amnesty. As one immigration reform group put it, "Any program that allows millions of illegal aliens to receive legal status in this country is an amnesty."

But two wrongs don't make a right, and the right response to Presidential lies is not more lies from his political opponents. Moreover, regarding the issues presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, the evidence of Bush lies is extremely thin. Moore shows Bush claiming that a particular day at the ranch in Crawford, Texas, was a working vacation, but Bush appears to be dissembling. Later, after Osama bin Laden was driven into hiding but was not captured, Bush unconvincingly claims not to spend much time thinking about bin Laden. Within Fahrenheit 9/11, most of rest of alleged Bush administration lies actually involve Moore's fabrications to create the appearance of a lie--such as when Moore chops a Condoleezza Rice quote to make her say something when she actually said the opposite.

The one significant Bush administration lie exposed in the film involves the so-called Patriot Act; as Fahrenheit accurately claims, at least some of the material in the Patriot Act had nothing to do with 9/11, and instead involved long-sought items on the FBI agenda which had previously been unable to pass Congress, but which were enacted by Congress under Bush administration assurances that they were essential to fighting terrorism.

If you look up the noun "deceit" in the dictionary, you will find that the definitions point you to the verb "deceive." According to Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary, the main (non-archaic or obsolete) definition of "deceive" is "to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid." Although the evidence in this report demonstrates dozens of plain deceits by Moore, there are at least a few "deceits" in this report regarding which reasonable people may disagree. So if you find me unpersuasive on, for example, three alleged deceits, consider this article to have identified "Fifty-six Deceits" rather than fifty-nine. Whether or not you agree with me on every single item, I think you will agree that the evidence is undeniable that Fahrenheit 9/11 is filled with deceit.

___________________________________________________________________

More in link...

Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it Stan Lee that's an Objectivist?

No, they're talking about Steve Ditko, co-creator (creator, depending on who you ask) of Spiderman. The first article is just informative, the second is an interview with Blake Bell webmaster of Ditko.comics.org

http://spiderman.ugo.com/characters/creators/steve-ditko/

http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts..._spiderman.html

BOB GARFIELD: So Steve Ditko created or co-created this-- [bOTH SPEAK AT ONCE]

BLAKE BELL: Yes.

BOB GARFIELD: -- phenomenal comic book character, and then after a short while he just up and left. Why?

BLAKE BELL: Well he'd gotten into Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism -- value for value is a very important issue -- credit for what you had done was certainly an important issue, and receiving financial compensation for that was an important issue. And on I guess a financial and an artistic level he felt he was being asked to compromise, and so he pulled a John Galt and said you're not going to get out of me what you want; I'm going to do this on my own time, and I will just do what I have to do to get by and survive -- and disappeared.

BOB GARFIELD: Just for clarity -- John Galt the protagonist of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

BLAKE BELL: Yes. He was the one who disappeared and then tried to take all of the, the great minds of the world with him to, to show the world that, you know, we are the creators and we deserve a little respect.

BOB GARFIELD: Was Peter Parker or Spider-Man an objectivist?

BLAKE BELL: He grew to be one by the end. As Ditko's philosophy became more entrenched, you can see Peter Parker becoming much more of a confident individual, much more like a Howard Roarke, the protagonist of The Fountainhead where no longer is he concerned like he was in the first story of Amazing Fantasy 15 -- Spider-Man's first appearance -- no longer is he concerned as much what the, the mainstream crowd thinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...