drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
Anyway moore is a very bias reporter as are many that's why you should do the research yourself and formulate your opinion on your own.
Here's a flaw with that argument, Ape. Moore isn't a journalist. He is intentionally trying to persuade others to his view. Bias does not matter, because he's arguing an opinion, not reporting on an event.
To be honest, if people weren't so violent and retarded we wouldn't need so much government and as many laws. But that's all a fantasy world and that would never happen. And I do not consider myself a communist but whatever.
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
Point still stands. Do your own research instead of basing the opinions of one persons belief on a documentary
Well, now you're changing your point. So he's not a primary source of information, so what? What's available to us as citizens is limited, and his as a famous filmmaker is less limited.
he still holds an obligation wine to report on a somewhat fair plain. making a completely one sided view movie on an issue to me is irresponsible because so many people are going to see it and take it as thats just the facts and therefore the only point of view.
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
he still holds an obligation wine to report on a somewhat fair plain. making a completely one sided view movie on an issue to me is irresponsible because so many people are going to see it and take it as thats just the facts and therefore the only point of view.
Hmmm...I strongly disagree. Not only do I believe that Moore does a great job of establishing the opposing view (later dismantling it completely), but I don't believe he has the same obligations a journalist has, because he's not a journalist. Do you think that satirical or critical movies need to have two points of view as well? For instance, should A Few Good Men have argued for both sides of the violence in Army bases?
a few good men is not a documentary. a believe a documentary holds a little more of a responsibility to the watcher than a drama to explain the entire story. i understand he is trying to motivate change so he has to get peoples attention but his points are very skewed to his favor. for example, in bowling for columbine he visits the canadian side of detroit and says something like "look they have black people, and they seem ahppy and not in gangs, so why cant this happen in the usa?" keep in mind he was at a fair where people are happy and gang violence is minimal and showing a black family at a fair doesnt mean canada has as many black people as the us. show statistics if you want to say something like that to back your point. but he doesnt do that because i dont think it would go with his point
What makes you think we don't do our own research anyway? Are we supposed to just not watch his shit and just research what he says and is trying to get across? I don't get what you're trying to get across by just saying "do your own research".
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
edited December 2010
Lol that made for a great 5000th post.
Anyway moore is a very bias reporter as are many that's why you should do the research yourself and formulate your opinion on your own.
I interpreted this statement to mean that biased reporting and journalism is the reason why you should find primary sources yourself.
Point still stands. Do your own research instead of basing the opinions of one persons belief on a documentary
I interpreted this statement to mean that the inherit flaws of emulating one person's point of view is the reason why you should find primary sources yourself.
I assume one of those interpretations is incorrect.
Instead of watching biased movies search out all the info on your own instead of believing what one guy has done. I don't know what is hard to understand about that.
You tryin to be a hero fool? You wanna see badass mother fucker?! I'll show ya a badass!!!
Comments
I assume one of those interpretations is incorrect.