LOLCat Bible

Pick-up Trucks???

 

Frequently wrong and knowingly deceptive?

(I like Moore, but he's a lying bastard sometimes.)

 

I dislike Moore. He doesn't tell the truth, and when there is truth in what he says, he stretches it so far to an extreme that the point seems unrealistic and exaggerated. Hell, I hate Al Gore for the same reason. Plus the fact he uses more electricity in a month than your average American does in a year.

 

I take it you hate the Capitalist system that allows for advertisements that do the same thing, only for products, too?

Because as I can see, Moore and Al Gore are employing the only viable tactic to get the attention of the American common folk to important matters.

 

Padding those 'important matters' with lies, inaccuracies and innuendoes doesn’t accomplish anything, but to garner support based on misinformation. This is wrong and not to be respected.

 

Yet your whole economic system relies on the same thing to sell products. (best example - ShamWow)

I'm not saying I agree with the methods, I'm saying there's no other way to gain support from Americans. Maybe not from you, but from the general American populace.

 

Using, as papa_dog_1999 put it, lies, inaccuracies, and innuendoes to bring attention to any situation or scenario that may be considered important defeats the purpose and in the end doesn't bring attention to the importance of the matter itself but instead causes little more than bickering about the techniques used to bring the matter to attention. It serves more to throw focus off the importance of any particular matter.

 

How do you propose getting the attention of the average Americans then?

They certainly won't listen to real scientific reason, as you can see from how widely evolution is accepted.

 

What the hell does evolution have to do with it?
You're not trying to spin this into yet another creationist vs evolutionist debate thread are you?

 

No, I'm just saying that logical, scientific reasoning doesn't go well with the public.

And I'm not trying to make a debate out of it, because there is none. Evolution is a theory based on overwhelming scientific evidence and a century of biology innovation. Creation is something only written on some old Holy Books, and has no scientific support. Intelligent Design does nothing but say "There will be a point where the complexity becomes irreducible", but offers no evidence of a design process. Creation and Intelligent Design might be accepted by groups of people, but that doesn't make it science.

Oh, and the foil of creation is not evolution, but abiogenesis. Even Intelligent Design supporters accept species can differentiate into new species with evolution.

 

Personally, I don't think Moore is the most scholarly person, but he is beneficial to Americans from a left-wing perspective. While what he's saying tends to be false much of the time, the ideas behind what he's saying are things that I, at least, agree with. I think Mesteut might be right in that bold faced lying and half-truths are the only way to entertain Americans long enough to pay attention to left wing politics. There's nobody else who has ever even attempted to simultaneously entertain viewers and produce credible journalism that, while unashamedly biased, is composed of actual facts. Can nobody stand up for what they believe in while maintaining integrity?

 

Most people do listen to reason when it's presented in a reasonable way.
:lol: Yeah, I crack myself up sometimes.

I'm pretty sure I misunderstand this completely, but if what comes out of his mouth is largely false, how can the ideas behind them be anything else?
I must confess I've never watched anything of Moore. I lack any interest in left-wing, right-wing, or buffalo wing political agendas. The most political I get is when I watch George Carlin.

 

"4th dood say "Come and lookz!" Lo behold a pale horsez with a dood sitin on it, his naym wuz Deaths, an liek Hadez an stuff followd himz. Him had enuf skillz to be in ur base killin lots ur doodz"

Revalations 6:8

I'm not sure how much this amuses me, but I like that bit and the "I can has lite?"

 

You'd probably understand more what I mean if you actually watched him, then (it's not that hard, he's on youTube). Take, for example, Roger & Me. The movie feels really sleazy when you find out that Moore had two interviews with Roger that he neglected to use so he could say "I never got my meeting" in the film. However, him presenting everything with falsehoods isn't a good reason for us to say "What a liar. I totally support destroying the economy of Flint, Michigan so GM can outsource to Mexico". Flint, Michigan actually did go under because of their reliance on the auto industry, and they still haven't made a come back. I recall somebody buying a house a few miles outside of the city for $20 a year or two ago.

Moore is well-meaning, but he has the intellectual integrity of a homeless doom-crier. Even though we know that Cuba's health care system is not, in fact, better than the USA's (Even though it probably would be, if they had the resources to keep it afloat), it is still true that privatized health care creates a class system wherein only the elite can afford the best care, while the poor have to just die to make sure their families aren't in debt.

I think the major problem is that Moore presents problems, but very rarely presents solutions. Bowling for Columbine was, in my view, the best work he's done, but it is marred by

A) Him ignoring philanthropic work Charlton Heston did during his life and savagely attacking him on his political views.

B) Him consistently attacking gun control laws and saying Americans need to tighten up restrictions, while simultaneously saying that countries with equal or lower gun control law have only a fraction of the gun violence, without ever looking for a reasoning. He asks the question "Why is gun violence so much more prevalent in America?" without ever attempting to answer it.

and C) Connecting current NRA members (of the time), including Charlton Heston, an active supporter of the Civil Rights Movement, to racism and hate mongering. It was the cheapest attack I've ever seen in my life. Yep, revolvers really were invented by Colt to kill more Injuns, weren't they? Oops, two minutes of research reveals that flintlock revolvers were being designed as early as the 16th century. Interesting that Colt designed his revolver in 1836, and that the American army didn't use it to fight against the Mexicans until 1847, eleven years earlier. Colt was good at biding his time. He knew that eventually, his gun would be used to kill more Injuns. He wasn't thinking about how vulnerable people were while reloading their weapon at all.

Those are the major problems with the film. In the same film, however, he also joins with two victims of Columbine, one in a wheelchair, and shows up at K-Mart's headquarters to ask them why they sell bullets, specifically the ones still inside his new acquaintances. It gave a powerful message, especially when the wheelchair bound victim had to be carried up the stairs because K-Mart lacked a wheelchair ramp (garnering the attention of everybody around them), but was not forced to resort to false statistics to do so.

 

I am somewhat near Moore politically, but I don't like the way he does things. While I am an American, and proud to be one, I hate the American way of life in many many ways. I am actively hoping that credit card companies will start dying. Our method of 'live off credit' is a fucking terrible idea. I think we need to nix credit cards, and restrict loans to solely large purchases (ie: a recreation vehicle, car, boat, house, land). I think that Moore just kind of embodies (to me, at least) what's wrong with how America works. We don't care about facts or logic. We need entertainment. We truly are the ADD kid of the world.


Also: a fun fact that hasn't gained notice is that the people who did some of the original research saying that certain chemicals were harming the ozone came out about 2 years ago and admitted there was a major flaw in their research. It showed up in one scientific magazine, and nearly nobody heard about it. We're still in a Global Warming Crisis, and nobody seems to be in agreeance that what we're doing is even the right course of action. I personally maintain that while we do have an effect on the environment, we're far better off putting money/time/energy into building infrastructure in third world countries that will reduce their environmentally damaging output, since they all pollute a good deal more than your average first world country.

 

I think you might be mistaken if you think that a country filled with starving people living in a field pollute more than 150 million cars putting around the US every day.

 

I think you've never been to Africa.

The country I was in (Uganda) had power in about 50-60% of the country. The problem is, it's all coal and diesel powered. There's also the HORDES of ancient vehicles driving on the road, leaving great black &or blue clouds behind them. We may have more vehicles, but most of the daily drivers are 20 years old, or less. They also are built to standards dictated by our country. This isn't true in Uganda. They take what's shipped to them. A lot of the newer vehicles there have little to no emissions-restricting/filtering devices, so they pollute more than your average American vehicle, which is laden with smog-reducing devices.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _emissions
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... f-co2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/d ... ntry-world

Uganda is quite not comparable to U.S. in that matter.

You're free to look up at more statistics.

 

If we convince everybody else not to pollute, though, we fix about 60% of the carbon emissions.

 

Well, it would appear I am somewhere between mislead and mistaken. I guess the real solution is to just nuke China.