My very first Post
Hello all....
So, I do not know what all I should say on this "BLOG". If it wasnt made for school purposes, I'm sure I would go on about other fun and crazy stuff... But, I think that this Political Science Critical Thinking class is going to be sooo much fun! I like politics, I like logic (and have a lot of it as well), like to argue.... Thats why I am going to be a lawyer. Anyway.. I cannot wait to talk about Fahrenheit 9/11, because Michael Moore is a moron! Is anyone even reading this thing?
14 Comments:
The question is not whether or not Michael Moore is a moron. Rather, whether or not any spefic argument/s he makes is/are validly supported arguments (some are, some aren't). By the end of the semester, we'll go over how to tell the difference.
Keep in mind, of course, that a person can make a bad argument for a good position. Or a good argument for a bad position. And we'll also learn that an argument must stand on its own legs, not the reputation/intelligence/morality of the person presenting it.
All these things, of course, lawyers know (too) well.
I was wondering, what your basis was for saying that Micheal Moore is a Moron. Sure Farenheit 9/11 sucked, but as was said in class, his earlier films where not. Roger and Me was good, and Bowling for Columbine wasnt that bad.
BLOG ON
I have never bloged (or is it blogged?) before. It seems pretty fun and engaging at my first glance, however. About that temperature movie... I have to admit I never saw it, nor do I regret not spending ten dollars to go see it. Is Michael Moore an idiot? I do not agree with him on almost anything, but I do accept the fact that he is successful at what he does and many, many people raved about how "good" Farenheit was. The only work of his I saw was a large portion of Bowling for Columbine. He seemed to be moore (sorry about the pun) a propagandist than a documentarian.
hm....Here goes, well I am not sure that I think that Michael Moore is a moron or an idiot. I admit that I like most people get frustrated with him at times but I think that what he does is important. In some way he makes you think about issues in a different light than you would normally. For that trait right there I think that Micheal Moore is an important person. I would hope that people these days are getting more into finding out as much information on a topic as they can rather than listening to just one person's point of view. It is very important to listen to both sides of an issue before you descide how you feel about it. Even when you have drawn your conclusion you must still keep an open mind because it is when you limit yourself when you start sounding unsupported.
Ok, so the reason that i said what i said about michael moore is because the entire film he created was only taking the negative sides of Bush! Yes, I know that clearly that is how people make arguments, they don't compliment the opposer, but still. His motives and explanations are ridiculous. He does not agree with Bush, and that is fine, I dont either in many ways. However, he uses examples that the Bush Family had ongoing connections with that of Middle Eatern rulers. Of, course they are going to commmunicate with other countries. That is part of politics! Countries would'nt get anywhere if they kept to only themselves. Yes, in the end, the family that the Bush's were conversing with went against us, but I highly doubt that was part of Bush's plan. If a jew made personal connections with Hitler, that were not communist related, such as buying a car from him, that doesnt make either party less of a person. It just means that the jew bought a car, and Hitler sold one... I dunno.. Those are my thoughts.. sorry, this wasnt very well thought out or well written, I'm rushing to work.. I just wanted to make a comment since Miguel said there were some comments about Michael Moore, and I knew I started it... anyway, have a good day guys...
The questions raised about Michael Moore are important ones.
Should an argument give credit to the opposing view, and acknowledge that maybe there's something worthwhile there? Or should an argument merely demonize the opposition?
Should an argument selectively use evidence? If so, to what extent is this acceptable? Is an argument required to acknowledge evidence that might disprove the claim?
I'm sure we can think of others. I chose Michael Moore's film precisely because he's engaged in a certain time of argument, and because it's extremely popular right now (by popular, I mean both loved & hated). Everyone has some opinion on this film. But can we look at the film objectively, dissect it into its parts, and look at it from the standpoint of a study of rhetoric? By the end of the semester, you should have all the necessary tools to do just that.
And you can apply the tools themselves, of course, to anyone else (Ann Coulter, Noam Chomsky, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, or anyone else).
Well- to be bluntly honest and completely maintain my fence-riding status... I think Michael Moore is a good thing.
I don't argue whether or not he makes good movies.. All I say is it's about friggin' time that the American people just started thinking about politics at all. Whether you like him or not, you need reasons why to hate him and you need reasons why to like him- at least people care now. At least he's lit a fire up under just about everybody's ass. Love him or hate him, he has done a great thing... helping to destroy the apathetic.
This post has been removed by the author.
The work of Michael Moore in regards to his movie (Fahrenhiet 9/11) can't be judged yet when no one has solid knowledge of the critical thinking method and the characterictics to whether his documentary makes a bad or good argument till we get farther down the road in this class. Furhtermore, I did not get to see the movie yet, so till then I can't make any personal or objective opinion towards it.
This post has been removed by the author.
I CAN judge whatever I want... whenever I want.. and I did!
Hey
I think that the topic of Michael Moore and whether or not he is a idiot is to hard to judge. The topics covered in his movie we can not know right or wrong. This will make it hard to critically think and analyze his thoughts and ideas. He has very good arguments against bush but at the same time has pure propaganda. I liked his movie and think that Michal Moore is not the idiot but that Bush is the idiot.
Any time, any one can say what they want, but what makes the difference is whether whats been said delivers a convincing effective argument or just words flying in the air...
Okay. Micheal Moore does contribute a valuable argument to society. He is not an idiot. He is an artist! I understand that his film was specifically targeting the Bush administration and pointing out their flaws! And, YES he does not point out the errors in his own argument! What he was trying to do... was MAKE THE BEWILDERED HERD THINK! And I think he did that quite successfully! He wanted there to be hype! He wanted Republicans and Democrats to see the film! He affected society with this film! He made people think about their leader! He encouraged people to evaluate their leaders performance! Obviously, he was hoping to swing the vote... That didn't happen! But, I don't think I would classify Micheal Moore as an idiot or a moron! His focus seems to be on the underpriveledged and working class people. Maybe that does make him a moron! Afterall, he's got to be rich by now. Should he stop attacking large corporations or dirty white men! I don't think so. Micheal Moore has heart! He argues with EMOTION, and his emotions are valid for him and many other Americans. I don't think Micheal Moore has any ill intent or purposely manipulates his arguments. HE ARGUES WITH INTENSE EMOTION!
Post a Comment
<< Home