Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba

farfromglorified wrote:

Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly.

I totally respect Moore's right to spew his biased propaganda. He can ignore all alternative evidence or philosophy. I'll simply call him on that.



Definitely on board with this. And, for the record, I certainly don't believe MM is Hitler or anything like that. He's just another in a long line of propaganda artists who exist on all sides of the political spectrum.

In other words, "In the Nothingness" of your existence.

El_Kabong wrote:

hahahahahaaaaaaaaa

what say you, ffg??????????

i rememeber this well in both our cases, i kept saying i never claimed that every side was represented in my post, just mine and he would give me such shit about how i'm all but lying by not showing every single side in an issue and how it is my duty to do this!

good stuff

Wasn't that thread about an educational system??? A system meant to give children a complete picture of Truth?

I'm sorry, but when one invokes the word truth, one is invoking a "complete picture" argument. This is no different than the Halliburton thread where you pretended that a list of Halliburton's mistakes represented the sum total of their accomplishments.

I'm not questioning Michael Moore's right (or your right) to speak, and speak on any subject and in any manner. I'm simply going to question the contradictions. I don't remember the exact specifics of the threads angelica mentions above and if I've contradicted myself here, then I certainly respect her (and your) questions about it.

To reiterate, and to make myself clear: one-sided bias is certainly acceptable as a form of speech. It is simply not acceptable along side claims of complete truth.

El_Kabong wrote:

no, i never said it represented the sum of their total accomplishments, i said i thought their abuses outweighed their positives to make them deserving of bonuses for their work in iraq....yeah, i think feeding our troops spoiled meat, dirty, untreated water (which they were paid to treat), double billing the government for work, charging for work and employees they never had or did...i think that should've meant they got no raise....in fact i posted a pretty long list of thier abuses

and no, it wasn't about education, it was in the 14 worst corporations thread

a few posts below it is your reply saying included in the 14 worst corporations list should also include:
"discuss why people buy their products, however, and what perceived benefits those products have????"

and you complained earlier about the list that
"And no mention of the fact that millions of people actually enjoy Coke?"

and somewhere on page 8 or 9 you complained about me not giving a 'complete picture' of these corporations...that posting a list of he 14 biggest abusers was wrong b/c there was no mention of the good things they did...

you also said:
"All I'm asking for is honesty. If you want to damn a corporation, do it. If you want to educate people about corporations, present information that covers numerous sides of the issue."

you also said it was 'intellectual dishonesty' for me to talk about halliburton and the bad things it did w/o posting as much positive things they have done

Here's the thing, Kabong. You're not seeking to "educate", and neither is Moore. You simply fall back on the "education" arguments when people question the agenda you're trying to push attached to the half-fact you present.

The very concept "14 worst corporations" would imply, again, a complete picture of 14 corporations. It's not "14 worst corporate acts", right? This is insidious language being used.

farfromglorified wrote:

Here's the thing, Kabong. You're not seeking to "educate", and neither is Moore. You simply fall back on the "education" arguments when people question the agenda you're trying to push attached to the half-fact you present.

The very concept "14 worst corporations" would imply, again, a complete picture of 14 corporations. It's not "14 worst corporate acts", right? This is insidious language being used.

what is my agenda?

and how do you know this is my agenda?

annnnnd i took it to mean the 14 corporations that act the worst....not 14 individual acts....if there was nothing to back up the title i could see your point, but alas....the article posted gave PLENTY of reasoning and i gave PLENTY of abuses of haliburton and why the original poster of that article and myself thought these things....you happen to disagree

seems like a lot of bs assumptions, to me

angelica wrote:

If it doesn't live up to someone else's contextual view, such as farfromglorified's, that's not your responsibility.

I absolutely agree with this.

El_Kabong wrote:

what is my agenda?

Social control.

and how do you know this is my agenda?

From your half-fact attached to conclusions that would require all facts.

annnnnd i took it to mean the 14 corporations that act the worst....not 14 individual acts....if there was nothing to back up the title i could see your point, but alas....the article posted gave PLENTY of reasoning and i gave PLENTY of abuses of haliburton and why the original poster of that article and myself thought these things....you happen to disagree

seems like a lot of bs assumptions, to me

Ok.

angelica wrote:

See. Here you are doing it again. If it's not fully "objective", meaning representing all sides, you take issue with it, because you personally do not value humanizing a particular stance. As for judging El Kabong's "agenda", that's reading in on your part. If you can logically prove a flaw in what he says, you fully call him on it, and often/usually he can come back and his points fully stand. Once you are reading in your "guess"/opinion on his agenda, you are getting personal, and really, if his logical points still stand, no matter what his agenda is, really it doesn't matter. Really, the key is, imo, that you don't grasp this type of perspective or the validity of such arguments that you claim you are not against, while proving right here that you ARE against it.

Hehe...are you not just as guilty of the above here?

If my "guess" is wrong, I'll totally accept that.

farfromglorified wrote:

I absolutely agree with this.

You know what is so frustrating to me?? Its that I've stood behind the validity of your base views, too, to numerous people who I am close with on this board, many times privately. I get that sometimes they don't see where you are coming from, and on this board, you are sometimes a lone voice with some fundamental logic that us "idealist" types don't so naturally see. But the ironic part is that you don't get the validity of what they are saying either. All of these views do co-exist harmoniously, if you can wrap your mind around the objective level AND the existential levels of awareness at the same time. Integrating these conceptual points of view takes time and human personal growth in order to perceive. It's so frustrating to see that until that happens, these two views will be at odds with each other, when in actuality they are not. There is so many "I'm right" and "you're wrong" views on this board that are about personal human individual perspectives, and not realistic truths. Why bring the personal judgment into it??

edit: wow...it's weird that I inadvertently and prematurely posted part of this post before it was finished....

angelica wrote:

Can you be specific, please. If you can prove that I am, I'd love to own up to it.

You just seem to be reading into my motives and mind too. If people's words don't represent their actual meanings, all we have is guesses and opinions. Are my opinions not "humanized"? Are you not "getting personal"? If "agendas don't matter", what does bias?

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not sure at this point what I'm even debating, so I'll just leave it at this:

What I originally meant by the following statement:

"Whoah...I don't believe 'all sides must be represented equally and fairly', unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly."

was that no one has some inherent obligation to not speak from biased perspective unless they're also claiming some non-biased truth or perspective. That would be contradictory. Certainly I have called out posters here for doing this, including you angelica, and I stand by that. But those actions were based on my perceptions of the language people use. And if those perceptions were incorrect and people were simply unapologetically putting forth their biased perspective, then I was wrong to call them out on that contradiction.

Yeah, and again, what I referred to in terms of El Kabong, Abook and Byrnzie was not even what I considered "biased" views. They were subjective views of a certain angle within the whole picture, for example, the people of Iraq or Palestinian people--as from the perspective or the groups in question. I don't consider for El Kabong, or Abook or Byrnzie to put forth such a view to be biased, since none of them have a personal stake in representing such a view, in a personally biased sense. I believe it to be truthful and accurate to represent a lesser known or acknowledged view, particularly, when in the mass perceptions, such views are minimized, ignored or distorted to serve the mainstream purposes. In such cases, the mainstream American view is biased and distorted, based on the purposes of the people, and for those to step out of the box and to represent the lesser known view, well it's definitely called for imo. So I applaud anyone who does so, especially when as a minority view, they are castigated widely for speaking such truths. I've heard each of the above be assailed with all kinds of derogatory names for taking such a less-"acceptable" stance. Now granted, it is a biased view for them in the sense that some people are naturally personally predisposed to think in a certain way that makes them personally notice and care about the lesser known view. I don't see it biased in anyway that they are distorting the truth, in essence. The way the distortions come in are how I see them come in for you, farfromglorified. By individuals getting frustrated and angry and getting emotional, and using derogatory terms and attitudes towards the opponent's argument and giving themselves license to excuse imbalanced nuances due to personal flaws. And yes, this is what Michael Moore does. An example that leaps out at me was his treatment of Charleton Heston, which agree or disagree with the man's stance on guns--the bottom line is, once you denigrate another human being as Michael Moore did by crossing lines with him, you become part of the problem.

Do I also do this? You bet I do. Do I accept that I do? No. Do I give myself permission to do it? No. Do I justify doing so? No. Do I give myself license to do so? No. The reason I can't justify any of this is due to my awareness that psychologically, I'm aware that as long as I'm making the other guy wrong so that I can be "right", I'm not at the "higher" levels of psychological integration. When in the "right/wrong" game, we're all going in circles. As I tell my boyfriend the few times a week when he takes issues with my contradictions...I'm a human--I'm as flawed and contradictory as anyone. The only option in recognizing how short I fall of my own ideals is humility.