Bowling for Columbine: fact or fiction?

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-22 01:30am

I've found this at SB. What do you think of this?
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-22 01:44am

The homepage of that site throws into doubt some of the conclusions and legitimacy of the essay.

The fact he's a right-wing gun-nut conspiracy-theorist doesn't really bode well for his essays.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-22 02:00am

The Lockheed Martin part of the essay is accurate. LockMart's Atlas and Titan rockets can't carry current warheads due to the warheads' design. As far as I know, no weapons have ever been made at that plant.As far as the rest of the essay goes, it sounds plausbile, but it's easy to make something sound plausible. I'd need to do research to prove or disprove any points.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-22 09:54am

Some of the points made in that essay are legtimate and other purely editorial. I do think the NRA is rather callus to the reality of gun violence but then again I do think Moore lied and twisted the truth. He's a left wing loon.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-22 01:32pm

As much as I hate using this argument, since it's often fallacious, I think here we legitimately have a case of two extremists (black and white), and the truth is gray. Some of what each person said is true, and some is factual. There's a difference between the two. Something can be factual but be presented in such a way as to be untrue. Both appear guilty of doing this.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 01:47pm

The Dark wrote:The Lockheed Martin part of the essay is accurate. LockMart's Atlas and Titan rockets can't carry current warheads due to the warheads' design. As far as I know, no weapons have ever been made at that plant.As far as the rest of the essay goes, it sounds plausbile, but it's easy to make something sound plausible. I'd need to do research to prove or disprove any points.

Correct. The modern Atlas designs are very different from their ICBM ancestors; the Titans have been demilitarized and are due to be more or less expended soon.

It is somewhat pointless in this day and age to build large liquid-fueled ICBMs if one can avoid it as it takes so long to prep them for launch.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-22 06:29pm

phongn wrote:Correct. The modern Atlas designs are very different from their ICBM ancestors; the Titans have been demilitarized and are due to be more or less expended soon.

It is somewhat pointless in this day and age to build large liquid-fueled ICBMs if one can avoid it as it takes so long to prep them for launch.

I know a bit about missiles from studying to understand my father's projects. He was on Patriot before GW1, so I read up on ballistic missiles to know what he had gone through. This was about 8 years after he'd worked on it, though, because it was a Black Hole Project at the time.
He just finished working on the JSF, scheduling the development of the electronics systems. Now he may be switched from the Sniper/Pantera project (F-16 targeting system) to Longbow. I hope he does; he already knows some of the guys on that project from when he did troubleshooting a few years back. Apparently some programs had problems adjusting from the Cold War, when they were basically given blank checks to develop systems, to the new world, where the government worries more about cost than capability.
So that's why I often relate things back to Lockheed Martin. My father's been in Martin since the mid-80s, and he'll tell me anything that's not classified, that I know enough to ask about, and he knows the answer to.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-22 08:06pm

Many of my relatives used to work for Honeywell in the 1980s when they were fat off the Reagan-era military buildup. My uncle did the navagation systems for the TLAM

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-22 09:09pm

The Dark wrote:As much as I hate using this argument, since it's often fallacious, I think here we legitimately have a case of two extremists (black and white), and the truth is gray. Some of what each person said is true, and some is factual. There's a difference between the two. Something can be factual but be presented in such a way as to be untrue. Both appear guilty of doing this.

Golden Mean means that you automatically assert that, given two opposing viewpoints, the correct one must be a compromise between the two (see intelligent design). It does not rule out the possibility that the truth may, indeed, lie in the middle of certain debates. The caveat, as always, is that you must rationally justify your position. It would be fallacious to say that, since Moore and Heston are two opposing views, that the correct view is in the middle. Similarly, it would be fallacious to classify them both as extremists by virtue of the fact that they hold polar opposite viewpoints.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-23 10:07pm

Bowling for Columbine just won the Oscar.

Take that, you gun nuts.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-03-23 10:13pm

Yeah but that fucknut went on a rant about Bush and the war. You know its bad enough that these celebrity fucks are gladhanding themselves but while young men and women are risking their lives out there would you pleas ehave some respect and STFU.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-23 10:17pm

Stravo wrote:Yeah but that fucknut went on a rant about Bush and the war. You know its bad enough that these celebrity fucks are gladhanding themselves but while young men and women are risking their lives out there would you pleas ehave some respect and STFU.

I know. What a fucktard.

And I actually wanted him to win.

Shit! I now have no respect whatsoever for the man.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-24 12:13am

The satellites, which provide early warning for ballistic missile launches where, deployed using the space shuttle. That entire aspect is pure bullshit.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-24 12:19am

Here's what he said when he left:

"I'm an American, and you don't leave your citizenship when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theater. What's great about this country is that you can speak your mind," he said.

He said that, far from being appalled, many people in the audience stood up to applaud him.

"I say tonight I put America in a good light," he said praising the decision to push ahead with the Oscars (news - web sites) despite the war raging in the Middle East.

"I showed how vital it is to have free speech in our country and all Americans have the right to stand up for what they believe in," he said.

What an infantile buffoon.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2003-03-24 02:01pm

fgalkin wrote:
Stravo wrote:Yeah but that fucknut went on a rant about Bush and the war. You know its bad enough that these celebrity fucks are gladhanding themselves but while young men and women are risking their lives out there would you pleas ehave some respect and STFU.
I know. What a fucktard. And I actually wanted him to win. Shit! I now have no respect whatsoever for the man.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Oh honestly, people! Having respect for our troops in the field and respect for His Appointeeness Bush are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. I recall that after a rather close election in 2000 there were some things said about bipartisanship and I'd like very much indeed to see that from Bush now.

Similarly, support for the soldiers and support for the war don't run hand in hand. I think the war is pretty stupid (ask yourselves: who has the -burden of proof here-? Does Saddam need to prove the non-existance of WMDs?) but I also want for our troops to come back whole and healthy; they aren't the ones responsible.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-03-24 04:33pm

fgalkin wrote:Bowling for Columbine just won the Oscar.

Take that, you gun nuts.

Eh, to get patted on the back for an anti-gun stance in a place like Hollywood is no great feat. Yosef Stalin could get a standing ovation in that town.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2003-03-24 06:37pm

fgalkin wrote:
Stravo wrote:Yeah but that fucknut went on a rant about Bush and the war. You know its bad enough that these celebrity fucks are gladhanding themselves but while young men and women are risking their lives out there would you pleas ehave some respect and STFU.
I know. What a fucktard. And I actually wanted him to win. Shit! I now have no respect whatsoever for the man.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

He's been spouting his anti-war and anti-Bush message for weeks and months, respectively. He's been speaking his mind, at every possible opportunity he's had, for over a decade. If he didn't say the kind of stuff he said at the Oscars, he would have been called a sell-out, and rightfully so.

P.S. Check out the link to his post-acceptance news conference: http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/win_32297.html

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-24 08:16pm

weemadando wrote:The homepage of that site throws into doubt some of the conclusions and legitimacy of the essay.

The fact he's a right-wing gun-nut conspiracy-theorist doesn't really bode well for his essays.

Ad hominem fallacy (with "appeal to motive" thrown in). You cannot simply dismiss someone's work because they are biased. Everyone is biased. You must examine the evidence, gathering additional evidence as you see fit, and THEN evaluate the situation.

In this case, I believe that the author of that website is correct. I think he has clearly documented his sources, and I believe that his sources show that Moore consistently and purposely altered the facts when making his alleged documentary. Regardless of what I feel of the author's opinions regarding OTHER, tangential subject matter, I believe that his analysis of "Bowling for Columbine" was correct. I don't think that it was a documentary, despite being billed as one. I especially found that Moore's treatment of Heston's speech was completely dishonest, and I admit that I had been fooled when I watched that portion of the film into believing that those were contiguous comments. I think it clear that he deliberately duped the audience in an effort at sensationalism in journalism, and have no respect for anyone who trades in such crafts.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-25 09:07pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
weemadando wrote:The homepage of that site throws into doubt some of the conclusions and legitimacy of the essay.

The fact he's a right-wing gun-nut conspiracy-theorist doesn't really bode well for his essays.
Ad hominem fallacy (with "appeal to motive" thrown in). You cannot simply dismiss someone's work because they are biased. Everyone is biased. You must examine the evidence, gathering additional evidence as you see fit, and THEN evaluate the situation.

In this case, I believe that the author of that website is correct. I think he has clearly documented his sources, and I believe that his sources show that Moore consistently and purposely altered the facts when making his alleged documentary. Regardless of what I feel of the author's opinions regarding OTHER, tangential subject matter, I believe that his analysis of "Bowling for Columbine" was correct. I don't think that it was a documentary, despite being billed as one. I especially found that Moore's treatment of Heston's speech was completely dishonest, and I admit that I had been fooled when I watched that portion of the film into believing that those were contiguous comments. I think it clear that he deliberately duped the audience in an effort at sensationalism in journalism, and have no respect for anyone who trades in such crafts.

Actually for academic reasons I wouldn't use that site for anything other than a subjective analysis.

Is it an accepted world press organisation? No. Is it a recognised academic institution? No. Is it a government site? No.

Its thus academically inadmissable as anything other than subjective evidence.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-25 10:39pm

weemadando wrote:Is it an accepted world press organisation? No. Is it a recognised academic institution? No. Is it a government site? No.

Actually, it links clearly to an article from a respected news agency that actually brings up more points against the film, but in a slightly different (and less-researched) manner.

Its thus academically inadmissable as anything other than subjective evidence.

It's a second-hand source. It should still be admissible, particularly since its sources are all clearly documented.

Moreover, you STILL haven't attacked a single argument that the site makes. If you are going to dismiss it, then do so on grounds of the credibility of this article rather than ad hominem attacks against the person writing it, or use the "style over substance" fallacy to show that this is not a respected news agency (whatever that means) and therefore is only good for reporting a subjective opinion. By your standards, Barbara Tuchman books are only subjective opinions and not "academically admissable."