Farenheit 9/11

[rmcrobertson]

Um...doesn't it seem that there's a teensy bit of a contradiction in condemming Marx for reducing everything to the economic, and then claiming that human beings can be reduced to their biology?

Nothing, "pseudo-spiritual," about it at all. Human beings have language, culture, history, art, marriage, etc. These are not biological categories.

If you're alive, you've probably already transcended biology: in a, "state of nature," (and we have no record at all of human beings' life in any such state), you'd probably be dead by now. I'd probably have died several years ago, of old age. There wouldn't be farms in the Imperial Valley out here in California.

 

[Makalakumu]

Um...doesn't it seem that there's a teensy bit of a contradiction in condemming Marx for reducing everything to the economic, and then claiming that human beings can be reduced to their biology?

I think you are confusing posts between myself and Heretic888. I would reduce things to economic/biologic levels, though. Check this thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14637

Nothing, "pseudo-spiritual," about it at all. Human beings have language, culture, history, art, marriage, etc. These are not biological categories.

Are these so unique? According to the Drake Equation there are at least 10,000 other intelligent civilizations in this galaxy alone. I'm sure all of those civilizations have language, culture, history, art, marriage, ect...

Could you explain how these things are NOT biological? Especially since they are originated by a biologic organism.

If you're alive, you've probably already transcended biology: in a, "state of nature," (and we have no record at all of human beings' life in any such state), you'd probably be dead by now. I'd probably have died several years ago, of old age. There wouldn't be farms in the Imperial Valley out here in California.

If anything connects homo sapians to nature it is technology. The evolution of technology directly parallels the evolution of the human brain. There is nothing transcendant about technology. The universe is a large place, considering this, are our creations so unique?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry about the post confusion.

However, you are collapsing categories together, and the Drake equation (as Sagan and Shklovskii pointed out, it's all in how you set the values) isn't going to help that. Nor do I see how, "the evolution of technology directly parallels the evolution of the human brain," except in the most trivial sense that the human brain evolved to a certain point, then we started using tools and fire. Correlation doesn't imply causation, and all that...

And anyways, the human brain doesn't seem to have evolved much over the last twenty millenia--and our culture, technology, language, etc., all sure have.

What's the reason for making it all a matter of biology, anyway?

 

[Makalakumu]

Sorry about the post confusion.

However, you are collapsing categories together, and the Drake equation (as Sagan and Shklovskii pointed out, it's all in how you set the values) isn't going to help that. Nor do I see how, "the evolution of technology directly parallels the evolution of the human brain," except in the most trivial sense that the human brain evolved to a certain point, then we started using tools and fire. Correlation doesn't imply causation, and all that...

Unless you have data to back the assertion up. Take a look at the progression of morphologic characteristics stretching back to homo ergaster and you'll see that as soon as tools pop into the picture, brain size explodes. As social organization becomes more advanced, there is an even larger explosion. The step from technology to biology cannot be made in one giant leap. There are little steps that happen along the way. For instance, everytime we learn something, we build connections in the gray matter in our skulls. The more gray matter, the more connections, the more we can learn, the more complex our behavior becomes. Assumption, yes, but not blind.

The Drake equation is an estimation. There could be more and their could be less. With billions and billions of galaxies in our visible universe alone, it doesn't matter much. My usage of it only illustrates the point that none of the things we do are not unique. Surely there is some bug eyed monster out there how just might have evolved a complex way of communication...like pheremone poetry...

And anyways, the human brain doesn't seem to have evolved much over the last twenty millenia--and our culture, technology, language, etc., all sure have.

Yes it has. Homo Sapians is the species that arose about 60,000 years ago. Homo Sapians Sapians is the species that evolved about 10,000 years ago. The sub-species taxon was added to reflect changes in brain volume. From then on not enough time has passed to see any more morphologic changes though. Changes inside the brain have been recorded, though. New connections can be observed in todays children that would not be seen in a scan our mine or your brain. As soon as the gray matter that exists in skulls reaches is maximum connection density then we will see another explosion in brain size.

How long will this take? I don't know. I would say that our current expansion of technology creates a short time table. For instance, in Newton's day it was possible to have a working knowledge that spanned the bredth of human understanding. These days, that goal would be impossible. How many of you out there know how to do Tensor Calculus?

What's the reason for making it all a matter of biology, anyway?

Biology, more then anything else, truly explains who we are. One of the reasons there is no coherent theory that ties social sciences together is because of the insertion of these pseudo-religious principals into their postulations. As long as people cling to this position that "we are more then what we are made of" nothing but confusion will follow. No one will ever be able to put their finger on the more and agree on what they see. Where as we can see a strand of DNA and analyze it (and maybe argue for a while) and eventually see what it says about who we are.

Seriously, take a look at the thread I posted before. I'm going to post this there too.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

With all due respect, from a newbie in this forum to someone who has been here a long time, upnorthkyosa, I find that your "everything is biology and that's that" explanations to be not arguments at all about biology or how it affects us, but to be essentially tautological arguments that "explain" nothing.

Your view on biology = capitalism is, truly, exactly what lead to Social Darwinism. And Social Darwinism is a system...a social system implemented by or rejected by people... that I consciously reject, and I think most people reject. Your concept of biology "explaining" things takes only competition into account. Most biological/ evolutionary models now try to account for things like *group* selection as well as selection on the individual level, as well as things like cooperation and altruism. Do I think that competition isn't important? Of course it is. But it is not the only force in biological systems. And as humans who think about what social systems they put into place, we can choose a different system if that is what we want, or think would work best.

And just as an aside, I am thoroughly amused to see that virtually all examples of competition given are of men competing for women. Sexual selection is something related, but one of the kinds of competition. As an example of competition, I would probably pick foraging or fighting for food first. But that's probably my personal bias in my own example.

and you'll see that as soon as tools pop into the picture, brain size explodes.

Again, not a causation - a correlation. What else was going on when tools were around? A simple confounding variable, and we do not know.

From then on not enough time has passed to see any more morphologic changes though. Changes inside the brain have been recorded, though. New connections can be observed in todays children that would not be seen in a scan our mine or your brain.

The first part, I completely agree with you. We have not been around long enough to see significant evolutionary changes.

The second part - so what if our children have different kinds of connections? To me that simply means that they live in a different kind of environment than you or I did when growing up, and that they may, oh, be processing more visually than someone years ago, who may have learned more material aurally. Just an example. I agree that as we compile more data about the world, there is more kids can learn. But this is *can* learn. That does not mean that kids today are super-brilliant sponges that absorb everything there is to learn. To me, changes in brain connectivity may mean individual "adaptions" and flexibility to local environments.

As long as people cling to this position that "we are more then what we are made of" nothing but confusion will follow. No one will ever be able to put their finger on the more and agree on what they see. Where as we can see a strand of DNA and analyze it (and maybe argue for a while) and eventually see what it says about who we are.

(laughing) I am fortunate enough to train with some of the best molecular biologists and geneticists in the country. None of them would agree with this statement. Your DNA, although you can look at it (in a way), and measure it, and materially experience it (which seems to be the basis of your definition of something "real" or "biological", or perhaps I am wrong)...and although it is certainly IMPORTANT in the development of the person... is also certainly NOT the end all and be all of what a person is. If so, explain to me why only 50% of identical twins, whose identical twin develops Schizophrenia, and who therefore have the exact same biological underpinnings for Schizophrenia, actually develop the disease themselves. If biology were all we were, all of those genetically identical doubles should without a doubt develop the disease.

No one will ever be able to put their finger on the more and agree on what they see.

As someone with extensive training in multiple academic fields, I am completely surprised by your thumbing your nose at all social sciences. Whether *you* agree with them or not, scientists are attempting to (and are) come to agreements on many part of the "more" and figure out what is going on.

Anyways, that aside.

Yes, Moore has an opinion in his documentaries - who doesn't? I still suggest that people watch the film before going off on how it's not based in fact at all. I haven't seen it yet, but I hope to, so I can join in the discussion of the points made or scenes shown in the film.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Micheal Moore is a total Jerk.

Rich,

I agree with you...he is a jerk. I'm going to go see it, though.

I refused to see his "Bowling For Columbine" based on critiques I'd read of it (I am very pro-gun). My wife saw it, and I started arguing with her about it. I suddenly felt foolish because I was arguing about a film that I hadn't seen...which goes against the grain of what I believe in.

I'll see this latest and then read the critiques and mull everything over. Then I think I'll go get "Bowling" and see it for the same reason, and re-read the critques of that one. I have yet to see "The Passion of the Christ"....and I've read many of the critiques. I have no good reason for not seeing this last one. Given the controversy of all three films, I owe it to myself to see them.

To speak with any objectivity...or for that matter, measured subjectivity of a film/book, I ought to see/read them before I pass judgement on them. This isn't just being fair to the director/author. Moreover it is being fair to ME, as I am better armed to give argument either for or against the work in question.

Afterwards, I'll probably still think Moore is a jerk. I actually think he is far worse than that...but there are young people that read this forum. Thus I will refrain from honest assessment.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

I find it interesting to see comparisons drawn between 'Farenheit 911', 'Bowling for Columbine', and 'The Passion of the Christ'.

Now ... how far you accept the label 'documentary' is a viable discussion. Some have stated they think Michael Moore is more about 'propaganda' (I am paraphrasing). But I don't think we should even begin to put Mel Gibson's film in the same category.

If you were just saying that you formed an opinion of 'The Passion' based on comments by reviewers ... and that is your argument, then I understand.

I do think that most know how the 'Passion' ends .... while 'Columbine' reaches far fewer conclusions. I don't know what 'Farenheit' is going to tell us. (well, actually I have a pretty good idea because I do try to keep myself informed - links between Hussein and al Qaeda ... {chuckle})

Mike

 

[Cruentus]

Rich,

I agree with you...he is a jerk. I'm going to go see it, though.

I refused to see his "Bowling For Columbine" based on critiques I'd read of it (I am very pro-gun). My wife saw it, and I started arguing with her about it. I suddenly felt foolish because I was arguing about a film that I hadn't seen...which goes against the grain of what I believe in.

I'll see this latest and then read the critiques and mull everything over. Then I think I'll go get "Bowling" and see it for the same reason, and re-read the critques of that one. I have yet to see "The Passion of the Christ"....and I've read many of the critiques. I have no good reason for not seeing this last one. Given the controversy of all three films, I owe it to myself to see them.

To speak with any objectivity...or for that matter, measured subjectivity of a film/book, I ought to see/read them before I pass judgement on them. This isn't just being fair to the director/author. Moreover it is being fair to ME, as I am better armed to give argument either for or against the work in question.

Afterwards, I'll probably still think Moore is a jerk. I actually think he is far worse than that...but there are young people that read this forum. Thus I will refrain from honest assessment.


Regards,


Steve

Movie critics rarely give an accurate assessment of documentaries, whether Moore's or anyone elses. They aren't used to giving an intellectual opinion at all. I'd imagine this has to do with the difficulty of making the transition between talking about the kooky antics in the college-frat movie "Van Wilder" or the zany humor in "Mean Girls," then go to "serious" Documentary film. It just doesn't work well. I find that critics, whether giving positive reviews or negative ones, rarely give an educated viewpoint, and often miss the point of the documentary all together.

Proof is that "Bowling for Columbine," if you paid attention to the film, was not really "anti-gun." At least, that wasn't the point of the film, regardless of some of the seemingly anti-gun parts. The point of the film was that due to a violent past, capitalistic consumerism, and the media's fascination with sensationalism, we have created a "culture of violence" in this country; a society that could facilitate an incident like the Columbine shooting. The point is actually pretty brilliant. Taking away guns is never offered as a solution to the problem in the film. In fact, he rebuttles the idea that guns may be the cause. There are many causes, ranging from our history of violence to consumerism and sensationalism, but guns are not offered up as one of those causes.

Whether you hate Moore, think he is a dick, or whatever (met him, and he was actually pretty nice to me, but that was just my one isolated experience), Bowling for Columbine was brilliantly done. And, I'll tell you what, I can't say that about "Roger and Me" or his other works. So, even if you dislike Moore, I suggest seeing Bowling for C.

Farenhiet 911 I think will be even better then Bowling for C. Since 9-11, I have been following all the obscure news blurps and proofs that have been hidden from regular americans. Things ranging from Bush's Bin Laden family connection, to the patriot act and other policies that have been pushed through by this administration that are in violation of our freedoms. Anyways, I already have a base knowledge of what this film is going to cover, so I am interested in hearing his thesis.

So...in spirit of the new film, and to utterly annoy his critiques (lol), I'll be posting here daily to countdown til opening day!

:uhyeah:

 

[Cruentus]

8 days til fahrenheit....

 

[michaeledward]

8 days til fahrenheit....

And the real B!+CH about that, is June 25 - 26 - 27 is the local Trout Unlimited chapter's Alder Hatch fishing trip.

When the movie comes out ... I will be waist deep in the Andrascoggin river, where the Alder fly hatch is supposed to be so thick you can't see the leaves on the trees and bushes, with nary a theater in sight.

The fishing can't wait however ... if we continue on the path which Bush has placed us, soon these fisheries may be gone.

so ... 11 Days for Me

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Proof is that "Bowling for Columbine," if you paid attention to the film, was not really "anti-gun." At least, that wasn't the point of the film, regardless of some of the seemingly anti-gun parts. The point of the film was that due to a violent past, capitalistic consumerism, and the media's fascination with sensationalism, we have created a "culture of violence" in this country; a society that could facilitate an incident like the Columbine shooting. The point is actually pretty brilliant.

Good point. I think people came away with an "anti-gun" message in part because of Moore going after Charlton Heston. I was rooting for Moore, not because I think Heston is evil, but in the film it details how, after every school shooting, the NRA and Heston showed up in town immediately afterwards to hold pro-gun rallies. While people were just beginning to mourn. Poor taste, I think. Poor taste.

Now ... how far you accept the label 'documentary' is a viable discussion. Some have stated they think Michael Moore is more about 'propaganda' (I am paraphrasing). But I don't think we should even begin to put Mel Gibson's film in the same category.

True - Moore's films are documentaries. The Passion of the Christ was not. Did he take artistic license with some things? Sure. Was it controversial? Sure. Did some love it and some hate it? Sure, sure.

Like I said, there will always be some sort of slant in a film - even in the way the film is edited and shot, there will be bias in what the director wants to show.

Again, I think whether you like Moore's bias or hate it, you should see a film before you critique it. And if you *do* hate it, you will be able to intimately critique it after watching it.

If you don't want to pay to see the movie, you could always sneak in or pirate it or watch it at a friend's house when they rent it, but don't use that as a reason.

ETA: (I missed this!)

When the movie comes out ... I will be waist deep in the Andrascoggin river, where the Alder fly hatch is supposed to be so thick you can't see the leaves on the trees and bushes, with nary a theater in sight.

The fishing can't wait however ... if we continue on the path which Bush has placed us, soon these fisheries may be gone.

so ... 11 Days for Me

That is sad but true about the fisheries - enjoy the fishing! That sounds wonderful, very peaceful.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I find it interesting to see comparisons drawn between 'Farenheit 911', 'Bowling for Columbine', and 'The Passion of the Christ'.

Now ... how far you accept the label 'documentary' is a viable discussion. Some have stated they think Michael Moore is more about 'propaganda' (I am paraphrasing). But I don't think we should even begin to put Mel Gibson's film in the same category.

If you were just saying that you formed an opinion of 'The Passion' based on comments by reviewers ... and that is your argument, then I understand.

I do think that most know how the 'Passion' ends .... while 'Columbine' reaches far fewer conclusions. I don't know what 'Farenheit' is going to tell us. (well, actually I have a pretty good idea because I do try to keep myself informed - links between Hussein and al Qaeda ... {chuckle})

Mike

Mike,

I've formed no opinion of "The Passion".

Nowhere in my post do I indicate, in any way, that I had formed an opinion of the movie based on the reviews I had read. Nor did I state that I thought it was a documentary. The word "documentary" doesn't appear in the post.

I lumped it with Moore's films because all three are controversial. I didn't compare them. They're hardly of the same genre.



Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

I didn't compare them. They're hardly of the same genre.

Got it ... which is why I started my comments with "I find it interesting".

Of all the things I might lump together with 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Farenheit 911' ... I was thinking 'The Passion of the Christ' would be way ... WAY .... WAY down the list.

I don't think I was making a judgement one way or the other about your statement.

Anyhow ... I did make a judgement about 'Passion' based on the reviews. I definately do not want to pay money to see someone beaten and abused to death. ... and I was pretty sure there wasn't a surprise ending.

Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Sorry, Mike...I was a little grumpy when I posted that. I probably fired off a little too harshly.

I'm sitting here with staples in my knee having just had an ACL reconstruction. When I wrote that, the pain meds were wearing off.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Not a problem at all. ... I can see that my post could also have looked a bit testy ... and I can't blame that on pain medication. Cheers Mate

 

[Cruentus]

Guess what?

7 days and counting!!

 

[jeffbeish]

>>>LINK EDITED<<<http://www.drudgereport.com/jp.htm

Moore is the son of Adolf Hitler








MOD NOTE: Link removed due to explicit nature of content

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Moore is the son of Adolf Hitler

lmao

 

[michaeledward]

>>>LINK EDITED<<<

Moore is the son of Adolf Hitler

You know .. that link is in extremely poor taste.

And

It has little to do with Michael Moore.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Uh, Jeff...Adolf Hitler was RIGHT WING. Look it up. Last I checked, Moore was a tad to the left.

You seem to be getting a LOT of your links yanked by the mods. Remember there are kids that read M.T.


Regards,


Steve