DescentBB

Religion and belief is this funny thing. Some people believe in one thing, others in another. Yet other people chose not to believe anything unless it is proven beyond all possible doubt.

We all know about World War 1, that it happened. No one doubts this, despite the fact that no-one currently alive was actually there.
So why do we know that it happened with such certainty?

1) Images, there are a few photos of the war
2) Stories and books. There are millions of these, biographies, histories, you name it and it's there.
3) Memorials. There are few countries that don't have at least a few war memorials to the world wars.

So what will happen in several hundred years? When the memorials have fallen down, when the stories are so old that people doubt their accuracy, and image faking has reached a state where you can't tell the difference between a fake and an authentic.

Will something like the World Wars turn into a myth? A story? Perhaps something like the bible, to be debated over endlessly.
Given enough time, can anything turn into a myth?

Maybe if all history books are burned, all monuments demolished, oral history obliterated, and the internet dismantled.

Otherwise, no.

null0010 wrote:Maybe if all history books are burned, all monuments demolished, oral history obliterated, and the internet dismantled.

Otherwise, no.

I disagree, Iran is already trying to make the Holocaust a myth, and if memory servers Chavez has said the same thing.
look at the Kennedy assassination. or even with the 911 truthers, in 1000 years what will really be said? people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe.

Those things in other countries are only possible without the internet.

null0010 wrote:Those things in other countries are only possible without the internet.

so are you saying the countries like Iran don't have the internet and that makes what Ahmadinejad is saying plausible?

I think, CUDA, what he meant was that such goofy claims only stick if the public has no access to information, and hence facts. That is why, more and more often, dictators and despots seek to limit or bar access to the Internet as a means of control. On the small scale, say Tunisia or Egypt. On the grand scale,
see China.




aside: w00t! I'm up to 'Ace' status. You folks here are a generous lot. I'll be an Admiral in no time!

possibly. but there is already so much false information that you need to wade thorough when you do research that I could easily see how it could be used to propitiate a lie, OR cast doubt on the truth. have you ever checked out the Truthers websites? they do an excellent job of making what they say seem factual. but it's only if you dig further into what they say that it is shown to be half truths. and base less accusations.

the best lie is 90% truth

aside: w00t! I'm up to 'Ace' status. You folks here are a generous lot. I'll be an Admiral in no time!

well most of us don't post 35 times a day

And there are some who say man never landed on the moon with explanations and "proof" that the ignorant easily believe. In wars, the winners get to write the history. Imagine if Hitler won. What would we believe today?

true Woody
then you have people like Michael Moore with his "documentaries" they are all subjective propagandist lies.

too many people are sheep that have no will to search for the truth, and are unwilling or are too lazy to learn and expand on their knowledge. it's just easier to sit back and have someone tell you what you want to hear. rinse and repeat to the next sheep.

Interesting comparison with the moon, I hadn't thought of that one. But it definatly is similar.

We humans seem to be very gullible, we believe almost anything we are told, but then some of us tell us the opposite, and we believe that too!

CUDA wrote:true Woody
then you have people like Michael Moore with his "documentaries" they are all subjective propagandist lies.

care to back that one up with proof?

too many people are sheep that have no will to search for the truth, and are unwilling or are too lazy to learn and expand on their knowledge. it's just easier to sit back and have someone tell you what you want to hear. rinse and repeat to the next sheep.

sort of akin to folks that sit back and declare Moore's films 'all subjective lies' yet probably have never either seen them, nor followed up on the questions they raise. I'm not suggesting he doesn't come to the table with an agenda, just that the man generally makes a fair number of valid points, and raises more questions in his work that he dictates answers. In fact, Moore generally doesn't draw any firm conclusions,
but leaves it up to the viewer to ponder.

Alas, you will not get most peeps here to agree with you about Moore. The amazing thing is people actually paid real money to see his films.

woodchip wrote:The amazing thing is people actually paid real money to see his films.

Did you ?

Grendel wrote:

woodchip wrote:The amazing thing is people actually paid real money to see his films.

Did you ?

I gave up fantasy films when the kids grew up.

so what you're saying woody, is you've never seen a moore film and you're simply drawing on subjective anecdotes.

Ferno wrote:so what you're saying woody, is you've never seen a moore film and you're simply drawing on subjective anecdotes.

No, I'm basing them on well written critiques such as the one by Christphor Hitchens in Slate:

"That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait"

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/

And before you come back and say Slate is republican propganda:

"Slate used to contribute to the now canceled National Public Radio show Day to Day."

"During the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, a significant majority of staff and contributors supported Democratic challenger John Kerry,[9] and in 2008, Slate staff overwhelmingly favored Democrat Barack Obama.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_%28magazine%29

Now Ferny, would you like to source where Moore's movies are stellar examples of honest film making?

So, subjective anecdotes.

I don't see a critique; only an opinion piece.

Ferno wrote:I don't see a critique; only an opinion piece.

Are the two not inter-changeable? Was not my copied piece more than opinion?

Why would anyone waste their time defending MM?

woodchip wrote:Alas, you will not get most peeps here to agree with you about Moore. The amazing thing is people actually paid real money to see his films.

alas, I really couldn't care less if ANYONE agrees. My first question to any would be which ones did you watch, and what, specifically, is your problem with them?

oh, and reading down a bit, it seems the detractors judge films and content based on what someone else tells them to think. Priceless.

woodchip wrote:Are the two not inter-changeable? Was not my copied piece more than opinion?

you know, i wish you'd just be honest and think for yourself instead of relying on opinion pieces and fox news to think for you.

That would also require him to think about how his avatar doesn't make any semblance of sense.

indeed. the joker was no socialist.

Personally, I've seen "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Sicko," and "Capitalism: A Love Story."

I thought Fahrenheit was terrible, Sicko was decent, and Capitalism was pretty good.

I've personally seen bits of Bowling for Columbine and all of Fahrenheit 9/11. Both of them struck me as more akin to conspiracy-nut video ('secret' information, loads of questions with implied answers, stretches of logic in connections, presented as "now you know the truth!") than real documentary work.

I've heard Sicko and Capitalism are worth seeing, if only for the sake of spurring discussion... but I probably won't.

I see Mikey Moore with the same palm-to-face goggles that I watch Alex Jones with.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Are the two not inter-changeable? Was not my copied piece more than opinion?

you know, i wish you'd just be honest and think for yourself instead of relying on opinion pieces and fox news to think for you.

So just to understand your point, when you made comments on Bush, the Iraq war and even your defense of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, did you actually go to the White house and sit in on some of Bushes Cabinet meetings?
Did you go and visit Iraq first hand? Did you think up the 9/11 conspiracy all by yourself? Or did you read opinion pieces on MSNBC or get your facts from NPR?

Unlike you Ferny and your new friend callmeslick (I guess his name sums him up) I can read opinions from a number of sources and develop a idea about something. In the case of M. Moore, I have not read much more than his movies all have a ideological push and he will distort anything that suits his need. These type of movies have no interest for me. I'm sure tho, having M.Moore inculcate his political beliefs into yours is acceptable as it is so much easier to be Svengali' swayed than go out and see what other peoples "Opinions" may be.

...and as for the topic, I honestly believe that very soon we're going to lose most of our new technology. Whether or not you see that as legitamate idea or or just a hypothetical, let's look at it as a hypothetical.

Most things are going electronic nowadays, including books. Given enough time, books will be a thing of the past. Now let's say a society vested all of their knowledge electronically, and then lost it, and a large chunk of their population. It would be George R. Stewart's Earth Abides to a T. (I really, really suggest that book to read).

woodchip wrote:So just to understand your point, when you made comments on Bush, the Iraq war and even your defense of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, did you actually go to the White house and sit in on some of Bushes Cabinet meetings?

Unlike Moore's films, such events tend to be reported a little bit more objectively. Nice red herring, but no. Cabinet meetings are not analogous to Michael Moore's films. For one, they have less of his whiny little voice.

woodchip wrote:I can read opinions from a number of sources and develop a idea about something. In the case of M. Moore, I have not read much more than his movies all have a ideological push and he will distort anything that suits his need. These type of movies have no interest for me.

Which sources?

I think if enough people are so lazy as to form their opinion on the kind of work Michael Moore does then turning WWI into myth will be easy.

If World War I could so easily be "turned into a myth," why hasn't the American Revolution or the Civil War turned into a myth?

For that matter, why haven't the Peloponnesian Wars or the Greco-Persian Wars been "turned into a myth," if it's so simple?

null0010 wrote:If World War I could so easily be "turned into a myth," why hasn't the American Revolution or the Civil War turned into a myth?

are you suggesting that, to some extent, they haven't been?
Both eras have much about them which has been mythologized. Hell, some folks are working on making the life of Ronald Reagan a mythological era. History is, at times, a foggy lens we view things through.

Accurate information about the Revolutionary and Civil Wars is easy to obtain, to those who are interested. It is true that high school history textbooks, for example, are woefully inadequate, but the same could be said for any high school textbook, really.

So why is it that recent things, like the moon landing, have been cast in doubt as to wether it happened, but older things, like the civil war are still treated as pure fact, when they are probebly less accurate!

I think it may e because of it's age. When something is at a history stage, it is in textbooks, and is put down as fact. Before things get into textbooks it seems that they can morph and be mis-understood.

It gives conspiracy theorists something to do.

woodchip wrote:So just to understand your point, when you made comments on Bush, the Iraq war and even your defense of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, did you actually go to the White house and sit in on some of Bushes Cabinet meetings?
Did you go and visit Iraq first hand? Did you think up the 9/11 conspiracy all by yourself? Or did you read opinion pieces on MSNBC or get your facts from NPR?

this is ridiculous and only geared to provoke a reaction. I'm not falling for it.

History…Myth, all a big blur after enough time. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the perfect example. Most people in the US believe that Kennedy was a big hero, and that the USSR blinked first…wrong.

A secret deal was made that removed our offensive missiles in Turkey, a fact most people seem unaware of, giving the president all of the glory as a big hero.

Spidey wrote:History…Myth, all a big blur after enough time. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the perfect example. Most people in the US believe that Kennedy was a big hero, and that the USSR blinked first…wrong.

A secret deal was made that removed our offensive missiles in Turkey, a fact most people seem unaware of, giving the president all of the glory as a big hero.

It was all this guy.

Yea, I heard about that guy…scary.