the new war in the gulf

[Delance]

Originally posted by Quarto
After all, I didn't say the cartoonist should be shot for drawing that cartoon, I merely said that it was a stupid cartoon. Which it is.

You can disagree with it, but that doesn't make it stupid.

On a sidenote, I don't think Moore's film is even remotely propaganda-like.

Well, normally this would indicate that either:

a) It's a very good propaganda
b) You agree with it

Similarly, I don't see what the big deal about his Academy speech is. He is, after all, merely stating the obvious

The speech all but implied a coup and that Bush is not a legitimate president, that he usurped the position by fabricating the electoral results. That’s what a “fictional election” is, a travesty, like the elections on Iraq or Cuba. Moore also said that the reasons behind the war are fictional, i.e., Bush has fabricated evidence and Saddam is not dictator.

He's performing his duty as an American citizen, to fight for the preservation of American democracy.

Oh, come on. Not even you can be so naive.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Delance
Well, normally this would indicate that either:

a) It's a very good propaganda
b) You agree with it

Or, of course, that you're wrong.

I must say, however, that I, personally, take anything Michael Moore says with a number of grains of salt... even though I find him entertaining in a way. He's more willing than most to twist information to fit what he's trying to argue.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

If I remember correctly, Moore's films such as Bowling for Columbine, being passed off as docuementaries. If so, then he should not stretch or twist the truth at all. That goes for debates as well. I fully expect to have people try and convince me of their views. But I strive to be truthful and to back up what I say.

Re: the Acadamy Awards, I don't think that hijacking something like the Acadamy Awards is right. If Michael Moore wanted to protest he is more than welcome to. That's what makes countries like America and Australia so great. People have a right to protest. But what was to stop Michael Moore to have a peaceful rally and march like most of the other anti war protesters take part in? Instead he had to ruin the evening for everyone who attended and watched the awards to forget about the war with his comments. If he wants to focus on the war 24\7, then there is nothing stopping him from doing this as well. But regardless of whether or not he has the right to, he should not have the people attending and watching the awards focus on it.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Re: the Acadamy Awards, I don't think that hijacking something like the Acadamy Awards is right. If Michael Moore wanted to protest he is more than welcome to. That's what makes countries like America and Australia so great. People have a right to protest. But what was to stop Michael Moore to have a peaceful rally and march like most of the other anti war protesters take part in? Instead he had to ruin the evening for everyone who attended and watched the awards to forget about the war with his comments. If he wants to focus on the war 24\7, then there is nothing stopping him from doing this as well. But regardless of whether or not he has the right to, he should not have the people attending and watching the awards focus on it.

It was made clear that award winners could make comments that related to the political situation and the war. If you have any real problem, raise it with the producer of the Oscars.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Thank you TC. I might raise it with them. But Michael Moore aside, I must say that I am pleased that the other celebraties had the common sense to not bring up the war.

 

[Delance]

The problem was not of subject, but of content.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Delance
You can disagree with it, but that doesn't make it stupid.

Certainly. But the fact that you don't disagree with it doesn't mean it's not stupid .

The speech all but implied a coup and that Bush is not a legitimate president, that he usurped the position by fabricating the electoral results. That’s what a “fictional election” is, a travesty, like the elections on Iraq or Cuba. Moore also said that the reasons behind the war are fictional, i.e., Bush has fabricated evidence and Saddam is not dictator.

I don't recall anything about Saddam not being a dictator. You're quite right about him implying the other charges, though. I will not go into the reasoning behind these here, because I don't feel like debating for the next week and a half about whether Bush was elected properly or not . However, it does go without saying that if Moore feels his charges are valid, the history and constitution of America practically demand that he make as much noise about them as possible.

Oh, come on. Not even you can be so naive.

"Not even you"? I wouldn't advise you to go in that direction, buddy. Insulting a moderator is hardly what I'd call a sensible policy.
That having been said, what exactly is so naive about believing that, for a democracy to remain a democracy, its citizens must continue to make use of their democratic rights to quash undemocratic practices? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Thank you TC. I might raise it with them. But Michael Moore aside, I must say that I am pleased that the other celebraties had the common sense to not bring up the war.

Right, the way Adrien Brody and Nicole Kidman and a whole bunch of others whose names I don't remember, stayed silent about the war . Let's face it, it's not the bringing up of the war that bothers you, it's the fact that his view of the war doesn't agree with yours.



I believe it was Voltaire that said (and I'm probably misquoting), "I'll disagree with everything you say but I'll die for your right to say it." That's sound advice, and the only sensible foundation a democracy can be built on. And that's why the people who voice their disgust with Moore's speech make me sick. If you guys hate democracy so much, why do you all live in it?

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

I only heard about Michael Moore really. But let's face it, if I really was so shallow to have problems with people who had views that don't agree with mine, not only would I be one misrable bastard, I'd find you and break your jaw because there have been a few times that your views did not agree with mine. But I haven't. I'd really have to be pitiful to do that, and I feel sorry for those who are that sad that they have to pick fights with people who don't agree with them.

As an Australian, I am proud to be an Australian, I am proud to live in Australia, and I am proud that we live in the lucky country where we have freedom of speech and expression. Michael Moore is certainly entitled to say what he thinks about the war on Iraq. It is his right. We have a right to say what we think of his comments as well. Whether we agree with him or say it was distasteful or that he shouldn't have said it, that is our freedom. I have not, to the best of my knowledge, said he should not have the right to speak his opinion. I think it was distasteful, certainly, I think he shouldn't have brought it up, definetly. But I did not say he should not be allowed to do it. He was free to do it, and as much as I feel he shouldn't have said it, I will not say that his right to say it should be taken from him. That's why our soldiers have gone to fight. For freedom of speech and freedom of action. And that's what they're doing for the people of Iraq right now.

 

[LeHah]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
I must say that I am pleased that the other celebraties had the common sense to not bring up the war.

Well, shit, no one had to. It was everywhere. No red carpet, no pre-oscar glitz.

I don't completely agree with Moore, but man, I was rolling on the floor laughing when he was up there, cheering him on. He's one smart SOB and I completely respect his views. If there's anyone on earth who could convince me I'm wrong, he's it.

And LOAF.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Quarto

[I believe it was Voltaire that said (and I'm probably misquoting), "I'll disagree with everything you say but I'll die for your right to say it." That's sound advice, and the only sensible foundation a democracy can be built on. And that's why the people who voice their disgust with Moore's speech make me sick. If you guys hate democracy so much, why do you all live in it? [/B]

It's amazing how contradictory you are being right now. You are pissed that people VOICE their opinions, and then you quote Voltaire about free speech.

But the truth is that when someone VOICES an opinion you like, you say he's a martyr of democracy. When someone VOICES an opinion you dislike, it makes you sick.

"Not even you"? I wouldn't advise you to go in that direction, buddy. Insulting a moderator is hardly what I'd call a sensible policy.

You have just said about Moore that:

He's performing his duty as an American citizen, to fight for the preservation of American democracy.

To say that you were being "Naive" about this isn't an insult, it's a complement. It's a figure of speech too.

Originally posted by LeHah
He's one smart SOB and I completely respect his views.

This is more of an instult than a complement, however.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

 

[Delance]

Finally, a post we can all agree upon. Congratulations, LOAF.

 

[ChrisReid]

Originally posted by Quarto
I believe it was Voltaire that said (and I'm probably misquoting), "I'll disagree with everything you say but I'll die for your right to say it." That's sound advice, and the only sensible foundation a democracy can be built on. And that's why the people who voice their disgust with Moore's speech make me sick. If you guys hate democracy so much, why do you all live in it?

I believe it was John Stuart Mill who said "Citizens of a democracy should have the right to free speech, so long as it does not infringe upon the freedoms of other citizens." That's reasonable advice, and the best way to practically implement a democracy.

And I believe it was Kant who said "Citizens of a democracy should have the right to free speech, as long as such speech is reasonable discussion and free of dogma."

I spent the last three months being bombarded with differing conceptions of democracy. There's by no means just one or five or ten conceptions of it, and there's no democracy that is based off just a couple or three conceptions. That being said, Mill's concept seems to be the most common sense and prevalent.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Back onto the actual topic, whats this about Syria (SP) sending troops to Iraq to assist the current gov't? I missed the details... (Missed the whole story, actualy.)

 

[Lynx]

Never heard of that. You sure this is authentic?

 

[Manic]

I've heard of it. But there's a flaw in the reasoning. By following that theory, which the US clearly does, people grow accustomed to, and then attempt to expand thier own personal freedoms, by limiting others' freedoms. It all balances out, but continually spirals inward. Take, for instance, gun control. First step, Felons can't own them. Perfectly reasonable, and logical. Second step, honest citizens are not permitted to buy the higher-quality guns(those that would make... oh say... defending your nation from invading chineese forces(yeah right) possible). Then comes the further restriction, no guns at all. This limits one's ability to defend themself from even a simple burglary, and leaves more lives in jepaordy than it saves.

Anywho... I'm sure there are many other examples of this, but I'm tired, lazy, and have better things to do.

 

[Lynx]

It is more likely that you hurt yourself or someone else by accident than to 'protect' yourself against something. The right to own weapons should be restricted to military and police personnel.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Well in regard to gun control, I know a little about firearms and such. To the best of my knowledge, you can still buy rifles for hunting, or automatics such as a Glock or Sig Sauer. These would probably be sold with the intention of them being used for sport like shooting competitions. But certainly they would sometimes be bought for self defence, or a less defenceable purpose. Looking on the internet, it seems you can even buy shotguns and sniper rifles. I saw a Black Shadow shotgun and a AW50 sniper rifle for sale. And I'm not sure, but considering it's called a Personal Defence Weapon, you may be able to buy a variation of the Heckler and Koch MP5, the same weapon used by SWAT, SEALS, SAS and is generally the weapon of choice for counterterrorists. But realistically, who needs a weapon like, say, a SAW? It's impractical, nay nearly impossible to carry and conceal, and for it to be used to defend against one person is overkill.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Lynx
It is more likely that you hurt yourself or someone else by accident than to 'protect' yourself against something. The right to own weapons should be restricted to military and police personnel.

I can understand the reasoning behind this. However, how is one meant to defend themselves if they are attacked? A lot of people don't have the time to attend martial arts classes, and even if they did, are they going to be taught how to defend against a specific attack that might be used? For example, in Taekwondo, we were taught four basic blocks. But these can be exploited by sweep attacks and the like. So there is nothing wrong in my book with having a weapon for a bona fida self defence purpose. A gun, some sort of spray. I don't recommend the knife though, because it's too dangerous to your own person. Hell, one technique that works well, even in the day, is to carry a small, high powered torch. Shone in an attackers eyes, they cannot see to do a thing, you are able to defend yourself or flee, and no one can be blamed for assault.

 

[t.c.cgi]

I own several firearms, and the problem everyone has is they don't know a bit of gun safety. A gun is a tool just like anything else, and should be treated with respect (you don't play with a hack saw like a toy, do you?) and responsibly (just as driving drunk is a no-no, a gun should receive the same consideration). Personally, I feel that the "10 Commandments of Firearm Safety" should be a mandatory lesson, rather than simply banning guns (one way or another, weapons will be around).

And yes, there are certain personalities which shouldn't be allowed to even see a weapon. I've had plenty of 1st had with that. However, I've seen even more destructive behaviour with cars. I think it realy comes down to general irresponsibility.