Thoughts on Bias

[JoeC]

My main problem with Moore is just the obscene lack of logic in his movies. My favorite Moore moment was when he blamed Dick Clark for that one school shooting...but Lila "All families of soldiers hate Bush now" Lipscomb is a close second.

Overall, though, you make a good point. Republicans and Democrats don't even respect each other's sources anymore, so there's no longer any common ground for debate.

[Utah]

I think you raise an interesting point.

I think the problem lies, not in the valid questions, but from the biased basis for that discussion, which severely corrupts the debate. I was trying to make a similiar point with Cyrus on the "20 stories" thread.

When you start a discussion from a biased and tainted starting point you rarely dismiss that starting point out of hand. Unfortunately, this leads to a frenzed battle trying to prove or disproved the provacators facts and conclusion. This is a hoplessly flawed approach.

For example, Moore hasn't been a catalyst for anything. IMHO. There have been discussions about Bowling for Columbine ad nauseam. However, I have yet to hear an interesting discussion about the central question you propose. That is because the discussions all start from Moore's slanted story.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, Moore hasn't been a catalyst for anything. IMHO. There have been discussions about Bowling for Columbine ad nauseam. However, I have yet to hear an interesting discussion about the central question you propose. That is because the discussions all start from Moore's slanted story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. Boring documentaries don't succeed because they are boring and nobody watches them. Documentaries such as Moore's don't succeed (assuming success is measured by affecting a change in either the way we discuss the issue or a policy change) because their slanted style leads people to discuss the film itself, not the content/questions raised.

[Utah]

LOL. Of course. Havent you noticed how screwed up everything is?

In reality, the average person has a really hard time discussing core issues and principles as they relate to real world actions. Frankly, the discussions are too difficult and too complex to grasp. People have an easy time being outraged at killing and people have an easy time being pro or anti gun. However, people have a hard time looking at the softer and harder to grasp core issues.

I run across this is business all the time. People can deal with actionable items. However, they look at you like a deer in headlights when you start talking about vision, identity, branding, etc.

You can have interesting reports/shows on core issues without being slanted. I think John Stossel had excellent segments on such questions as "is greed good?" and "should vices be outlawed". I thought there were balanced and fascinating. I dont know how well they were received by the public though.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Bowling for Columbine --- the central question asked in the movie is Why does America have higher rates of gun violence than other (similarly situated) countries? The answer Moore suggests might be total crap, and the evidence he provides for that answer might be false, but the question itself (in my opinion) is a good one and we can use Moore's biased work to help frame a discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't seen it. Refuse to see it. Won't put any money in his pocket, and also don't want to put myself through two hours of being aggravated...primarily the latter.

But my thoughts on this topic: The amount of gun violence is irrelevant. People that want to commit violent acts will use what is available to them. We have more guns than are available in some other places so that's what is used here.

What should be measured is the amount of violence acts in general. If we have more murders, then the question to ask is why are Americans more violent in general than people other places.

That's my $.02 on that one. And yes i know you weren't trying to start a thread on this particulr topic.

"Blaming murder on guns is like blaming the spoon for Rosie O'Donnell being fat" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
People that want to commit violent acts will use what is available to them. We have more guns than are available in some other places so that's what is used here.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's one of the premises that is discussed in the movie. Long story short is that there are other countries with just as many guns but a lot less gun violence.

[Laughingboy]

[ QUOTE ]

What should be measured is the amount of violence acts in general. If we have more murders, then the question to ask is why are Americans more violent in general than people other places.


[/ QUOTE ]
But that's the whole point of the movie: that the guns themselves don't cause the violence. If anything, it's a strong argument AGAINST gun control (even though Moore's own conclusion is, as usual, muddled). Gun control is just wasted effort that doesn't address the central issue. Kind of like spraying Coca crops in South America. Useless.

[Laughingboy]

By the way, this thread demonstrates one of Elwood's points. Even if Moore's films are biased (a fact he has never denied), the fact that they spark discussions like this one is the important thing.

As for the fallacious ad-hominem attacks that are ruining our political discourse in this country, consider: If Adolf Hitler said, "Putting puppies in microwaves is wrong," would the fact that Adolf said it make it any less true?

[zaxx19]

As for the fallacious ad-hominem attacks that are ruining our political discourse in this country, consider: If Adolf Hitler said, "Putting puppies in microwaves is wrong," would the fact that Adolf said it make it any less true?


EXACTLY.

[BadBoyBenny]

I agree that ideas should be debated indepedent of their source. However, it is reasonable to doubt statistical studies or facts that come from a heavily biased source. Generally they are set up to prove their own assumptions, or they are exagerrated respectively.