Celcius 411

[TerraFrost]

a counter to Fahrenheit 9/11:

http://www.citizensunited-interactive.org/c41.11/

[shahmask]

hmmm, what was the point? didn't seem like a counter at all. michael moore's film didn't say anything that this film could possibly counter through the trailer.

[TerraFrost]

i think their chief amunition was a (probably out of context) quote from michael moore saying that there is no risk of terrorism, or something like that.

of course, the trailer for fahrenheit 9/11 packed a much bigger punch (the trailer, itself, attacked bush from a multitude of standpoints).

[nikoloslvy11]

i'd love to hear how there is no terrorist threat in context. wtf?

[TerraFrost]

okay...

"there is no terrorist threat. atleast to isolationist countries"
"there is no terrorist threat. atleast none from canada"
"there is no terrorist threat. atleast none that can justify the use of nuclear weapons"

anyway, i will grant that michael moore could also be refering to the US's present situation, in which case, he'd even be contradicting things that those of like-mind have said - ie. that we're at an increased risk of terrorist attacks due to our invasion of Iraq.

also, that said, do realize that anyone who is trying to persuade someone else of something shouldn't be taken at face value. employers don't do it when they accept resumes (which are supposed to attempt to persuade employers to hire people), so why should we take anything michael moore or the people behind celcius 411 say at face value? why shouldn't we require references, just as employers do?

of course, references, alone, don't prevent someone from omitting critical bits of information (which is why michael moore's film still shouldn't be taken at face value, even though he has provided references for it).

[nikoloslvy11]

also, that said, do realize that anyone who is trying to persuade someone else of something shouldn't be taken at face value.

this takes away the purpse of debate and the free exchange of ideas and opinions.why should one continue in political disscourse if he dosent belive he can change minds(look at me acting all smart aleky and using big words.i should be hung)

why should we take anything michael moore or the people behind celcius 411 say at face value? why shouldn't we require references,
do you not think the film dosent have any "refrences"? do you think they just plucked facts out of thin air?
i could link you to sites dedicated to dissputing the moore movie but im sure you know how to use google and if you havent by now i suspect you dont want to.again google.

[TerraFrost]

this takes away the purpse of debate and the free exchange of ideas and opinions.why should one continue in political disscourse if he dosent belive he can change minds(look at me acting all smart aleky and using big words.i should be hung)

nothing i have said applies soley to "political discourse" - it applies to any persuasive argument. consider my resume example. skeptism doesn't prevent the employer from being persuaded by a resume. it only mandates that they do a background check, and contact the references, after they've chosen that resume, out of a handfull of others.

do you not think the film dosent have any "refrences"? do you think they just plucked facts out of thin air?

what's to prevent them from doing so if we don't require their references? likewise, what's to prevent a prospective employee to just pluck credintials "out of thin air" if their references aren't required?

also, and as i said before, references, alone, don't mean the argument is valid - critical ommissions can still be made.

i could link you to sites dedicated to dissputing the moore movie but im sure you know how to use google and if you havent by now i suspect you dont want to.again google.

i do hope you realize that fahrenheit 9/11 is a lot more famous / infamous than celcius 411. as such, it is going to be a whole lot easier to find sites disputing fahrenheit 9/11's claims than it is to find sites disputing celcius 411's claims. the fact that this thread comes up first when doing a search for celcius 411 is testament to that fact.

so, just because more sites exist that undermine fahrenheit 9/11 than ones that undermine celcius 411 doen't mean that celcius 411 is more truthful than fahrenheit 9/11. i mean, it may well be more truthful, but you simply cannot determine that from the number of websites that exist about it.

finally, although i suppose it's up to you, i think it'd make your replies more readable if you put them in quote tags, as described here.

[nikoloslvy11]

this takes away the purpse of debate and the free exchange of ideas and opinions.why should one continue in political disscourse if he dosent belive he can change minds(look at me acting all smart aleky and using big words.i should be hung)

nothing i have said applies soley to "political discourse" - it applies to any persuasive argument. consider my resume example. skeptism doesn't prevent the employer from being persuaded by a resume. it only mandates that they do a background check, and contact the references, after they've chosen that resume, out of a handfull of others.

do you not think the film dosent have any "refrences"? do you think they just plucked facts out of thin air?

what's to prevent them from doing so if we don't require their references? likewise, what's to prevent a prospective employee to just pluck credintials "out of thin air" if their references aren't required?

do you think they have no refrencs and pulled facts out of thin air?

also, and as i said before, references, alone, don't mean the argument is valid - critical ommissions can still be made.

do you think thats the case in this movie?

i could link you to sites dedicated to dissputing the moore movie but im sure you know how to use google and if you havent by now i suspect you dont want to.again google.

i do hope you realize that fahrenheit 9/11 is a lot more famous / infamous than celcius 411. as such, it is going to be a whole lot easier to find sites disputing fahrenheit 9/11's claims than it is to find sites disputing celcius 411's claims. the fact that this thread comes up first when doing a search for celcius 411 is testament to that fact.

do you buy the moore movie? have you read the sites dissputing his claims(since there so easy to find)? what do YOU think.

so, just because more sites exist that undermine fahrenheit 9/11 than ones that undermine celcius 411 doen't mean that celcius 411 is more truthful than fahrenheit 9/11. i mean, it may well be more truthful, but you simply cannot determine that from the number of websites that exist about it.

no s. lets talk about boobies.

finally, although i suppose it's up to you, i think it'd make your replies more readable if you put them in quote tags, as described here.

[nikoloslvy11]

dah i screwd up the quote things.

[TerraFrost]

do you think thats the case in this movie?

i do not believe anyone can be as evil / hateful / whatever as i expect this movie to make michael moore out to be. as such, i would not be surprised, at all, if this movie omitted critical bits of information.

also, i think it was shameful that moore's movie spent so much time focusing on the mother who had lost her son. i thought that those scenes tried to use emotions to circumvent logic.

i think the same is true of the scenes shown in the trailer of saddam torturing people. if celcius 411 wanted to establish the fact that a lot of people have died or been tortured under saddam, they could just say it. to show videos of people being tortured is entirely different. it, effectively, turns us into victims (although not on the same caliber as those tortured by saddam). this, taking in stride with the basic idea that victims are not the best judges, suggests that celcius 411 (along with moore's movie) would seek to turn us into victims - to make us make decissions based upon our emotions and not our logic.

do you buy the moore movie? have you read the sites dissputing his claims(since there so easy to find)? what do YOU think.

no, i don't take everything moore's movie says at face value, and yes, i have read criticisms. as for what i think - why does it matter what i think about moore's movie? this thread is only about moore's movie in-so-much as celcius 411 seems to be a counter to it. that said, i will say (again) that i don't take everything in moore's movie at face value. indeed, i don't think it effected my opinion on a single issue.

anyway, i think wikipedia provides the best and most unbiased discussion of it's credibility.

dah i screwd up the quote things.

quotes nested within other quotes is, unfortunately, somewhat problamatic for this board

[nikoloslvy11]

quote
__________________________________________________________
think the same is true of the scenes shown in the trailer of saddam torturing people. if celcius 411 wanted to establish the fact that a lot of people have died or been tortured under saddam, they could just say it. to show videos of people being tortured is entirely different. it, effectively, turns us into victims (although not on the same caliber as those tortured by saddam). this, taking in stride with the basic idea that victims are not the best judges, suggests that celcius 411 (along with moore's movie) would seek to turn us into victims - to make us make decissions based upon our emotions and not our logic.
__________________________________________________________
ya thiink they should have just talked about the torture and not shown it? this is a movie not a childrens book get over it. i dont know about you but i watch all the beheadings and clips of the towers.a littel emotion never hurt anyone and my logic is fine.i want to logicly kill the animals.stop being afraid of the truth.for you to say that a film that claims sadam tortured people and not show it is a bit silly.its a movie what would you have them do "interview people" blank screen with a narroator? wake up. if after watching that and youre still iffy about micheal moores view of pre "iraqi freedom" iraq youre drinking some heavy koolaid there my freind.

[nikoloslvy11]

quote
__________________________________________________________
i do not believe anyone can be as evil / hateful / whatever as i expect this movie to make michael moore out to be. as such, i would not be surprised, at all, if this movie omitted critical bits of information.
__________________________________________________________
you dont belive people can be hatefull/evil? based on moore cant be hatefull youre going to assume that the movie leavs out critical info?

[TerraFrost]

ya thiink they should have just talked about the torture and not shown it?

yeah - i mean, michael moore did it in his movie. he talked about soldiers dying in iraq, but didn't show it. do you think US soldiers dying in iraq is any more pretty looking than iraqi citizens dying under saddam?

this is a movie not a childrens book get over it. i dont know about you but i watch all the beheadings and clips of the towers.a littel emotion never hurt anyone and my logic is fine.

alright - consider this. europe is a continent that has been ravaged by war. they've seen many of their cities destroyed, and many more of their lives lost than we have seen of our lives. if a little emotion never hurt anyone, then they should actually have more insight on whether or not war is a good thing than we do. yet we didn't listen to europe, at all, when the vast majority of it said we shouldn't go to iraq (not counting england which, itself, is kinda seperated from the rest of europe by the, iirc, bering straight).

so if being swayed by powerful memories doesn't lend any credence to their position, why should it lend any credence to this movie?

for you to say that a film that claims sadam tortured people and not show it is a bit silly.its a movie what would you have them do "interview people" blank screen with a narroator? wake up. if after watching that and youre still iffy about micheal moores view of pre "iraqi freedom" iraq youre drinking some heavy koolaid there my freind.

you said, earlier, that after seeing the pictures, your logic wasn't effected, yet here, you say that anyone who saw this movie (as opposed to heard it) would be convinced. as such, it sounds to me like a movie that's influencing logic, quite a bit. i mean, an argument is made right - logic isn't made sound - because pictures are flashed on the screen. if the words, alone, aren't logically convincing, then the images shouldn't be, either.

[nikoloslvy11]

qoute
__________________________________________________________
yeah - i mean, michael moore did it in his movie. he talked about soldiers dying in iraq, but didn't show it. do you think US soldiers dying in iraq is any more pretty looking than iraqi citizens dying under saddam
__________________________________________________________
who cares what micheal moore did.this isnt a pretty movie its a movie about serious matters.be a man for gods sake.

quote_____________________________________________________
alright - consider this. europe is a continent that has been ravaged by war. they've seen many of their cities destroyed, and many more of their lives lost than we have seen of our lives. if a little emotion never hurt anyone, then they should actually have more insight on whether or not war is a good thing than we do. yet we didn't listen to europe, at all, when the vast majority of it said we shouldn't go to iraq (not counting england which, itself, is kinda seperated from the rest of europe by the, iirc, bering straight).

so if being swayed by powerful memories doesn't lend any credence to their position, why should it lend any credence to this movie?
__________________________________________________________
by wurope do you mean russia? france? germany? gimmey a break. of course you dont include england their on our side why should they be included in "europe"
that is preety inane you gotta admit.film of touture and rape and mutolation wont do anything look at europe.huh? no im not affectd at finger choping look at russia.their not affectd why should i be.bahhhh!!

quote____________________________________________________
you said, earlier, that after seeing the pictures, your logic wasn't effected, yet here, you say that anyone who saw this movie (as opposed to heard it) would be convinced. as such, it sounds to me like a movie that's influencing logic, quite a bit. i mean, an argument is made right - logic isn't made sound - because pictures are flashed on the screen. if the words, alone, aren't logically convincing, then the images shouldn't be, either.
__________________________________________________________
my logic is fine.im going logicly blow the shit out of them.hows that for logic.i diddnt say they diddnt convince me i said it was fine.again im guessing you think film of the towers are used to get people emotional.yeah nothing makes an argument like video.actul proof.lemmy see do i want video or an interview? im undecided. people dont lie.interview beter then video since when and youve got to be s ing me.

[TerraFrost]

who cares what micheal moore did.

obviously the people behind celcius 411 did

this isnt a pretty movie its a movie about serious matters.be a man for gods sake.

if being a man requires one act impulsively, then i want no part of it.

by wurope do you mean russia? france? germany? gimmey a break. of course you dont include england their on our side why should they be included in "europe"

by europe i mean every country on the europian continant that isn't a member of the coalition of the willing. of course, i will grant that that's a stretch, as most countries are just token members. besides, the invasion was opposed by the europenian union, when they drafted a resolution stating that "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region."

film of touture and rape and mutolation wont do anything look at europe.huh? no im not affectd at finger choping look at russia.their not affectd why should i be.bahhhh!!

i think you need to reread my post. i said that europe IS effected by powerful memories, and that their powerful memories have biased them to conclude, for the most part, that the war in iraq is a bad thing. in other words, they are not using logic when they conclude war with iraq is a bad thing so much as they are using emotions.

the powerful images in celcius 411 do the same thing. they bias us, albeit to the contrary. and although that which it biases us towards may be just and right (or it may not be - that's not what i'm trying to argue in my posts), the fact that it tries to bias us at all should be noted.

my logic is fine.im going logicly blow the shit out of them.hows that for logic.

and just who, exactly, are you going to blow the "shit" out of? you do realize that saddam has been captured, that the ba'ath party has crumbled, and that, as bush, himself said, "major operations are over in iraq."

also, just because you throw the word logic into some sentance doesn't mean that you are using logic to come to your decissions.

again im guessing you think film of the towers are used to get people emotional.yeah nothing makes an argument like video.actul proof.

people still need proof to believe that sept. 11 happened? if seeing it once wasn't proof enough, i don't see what seeing it multiple times is gonna accomplish. if seeing it once was proof enough, then the only thing seeing it multiple times will accomplish is that it'll make you relive the horror and to renew the anger.

tell me - when you watch video clips of sept. 11, do you get angry at bin Ladin? do you get angry enough to hit things around you, because of how helpless you are or were? you should. of course, in hitting those things, you demonstrate that logic is not guiding you. i mean, a table has nothing to do with sept. 11, and it sure didn't do anything to you. as such, there's no logical reason to hit it, yet if it was around, you should have hit it, anyway. assuming, of course, that you're a real man. i mean, "real" men do get angry, ya know.