etech, I agree with you, instead of discussing the slant, or the filmakers intentions, or other side issues, how about
PICK A F*CKING QUESTION AND ANSWER IT
You want to make me look dumb, or the people behind the video, thats the way to go!
it was plainly obvious that the interviewer was on a mission to make those people look stupid (which many of them admittedly played right into) and it's not too hard to do when you have the ability to edit tape as you see fit.
I don't see how editing the tape is any advantage other than to remove the people who didn't look like complete morons. Fine, it doesn't eliminate the fact that the people in the footage were morons, which you are trying to dispute. Yes, he was on a mission to prove that they were stupid, but he didn't make them look that way, they did that on thier own. How do you "make someone look stupid?" That is alleviation of responsibility in pure form. Nobody can "make me" look stupid. How about you?
Let me introduce you to my friend logic.
The person with camera is trying to prove a point, that many of these protesters are idiots and have nothing to back up thier opinion. He interviews some of these people, and asks them a question. They don't answer it, or say "I don't know". The point this guy is trying to prove is actually proven by the people themselves. He isn't standing in front of a camera with his statement, he uses them to prove it, by showing you their reactions firsthand.
Please explain how editing the film has anything to do with it? I am sure he edited it, and picked "the best ones" but does that mean "the best ones" aren't complete idiots? Does that eliminate all reasoning?
Part of the problem with rejecting stereotypes and generalizations, is there is a risk factor, and when you automatically reject all stereotypes and generalizations, (as the public schools have been teaching) then you are becoming as close minded as the people you are trying to avoid being like.
What I am saying is, with every generalization, there is a plausibility factor, and a risk factor. You say "most guys who drive old camaros have mullets" and your friend, wanting to avoid the possibility of sterotypes and generalizations being true, and not wanting to associate himself with it, argues with you, and claims it is not true. Then, later on, a survey is done that says 75% percent of guys who drive 1979 camaros have mullets. Your friend, in an attempt to be "open minded", and avoid stereotypes, turns out to be
wrong.
Do you see what I am getting at? If you want to be truly open minded, you must accept the fact that some stereotypes and generalizations are true, otherwise you are just as close minded as the people who believe stereotypes and generalizations are 100% true. The difference is, in today's society, you'll be popular, as sad as that is.
That being said,
most anti-war protesters cannot back up their opinions, or even argue a point, it is more of a fashion than a belief.
Maybe in three or pages, one person can speak out and
answer some of these questions.
