Bowling for Mooreverse

[Atahualpa]

I've got a hippie attitude? Well thx for that, I always fear I am getting too conservative.

Btw, I am reading T.C. Boyle - Drop City, maybe that's the reason Good book btw, paints a real good picture, I am sure you'd like it too.

[Pekka]

Seeker, no, actually some poeple do lock their doors while inside. Some folks in the neighbourhood told my mom for example to do it.

But I guess that's more marginal phenomenon even in the US .

[Pekka]

Ata, go paint your hippie pictures into San Francisco or some other disgusting place.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
Spiffor, keep debating other points I'm not even making. MY POINT IS, read carefully, that MOore intentionally leaves the guilty parties to be Lockheed and MArtin, Walmart, Charlton Hest, the religious right, rich white folks and Bush.

That's hardly the answer.

Why would I argue about something I agree with?

Your depiction of the movie is perfectly right. Considering that there is no reason to argue here, there is also nothing to see here. So I moved along to an actual troll

[Pekka]

Well I was left with the impression you are attacking me with unfair arguments, loaded with hippie attitude. I had no choice but to defend myself. So this is my fault now? Of course not!

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ata, go paint your hippie pictures into San Francisco or some other disgusting place.

Actually it's about a hippie community in California that decides to move up north to Alaska. It's really great reading.
For example you can wonderfully see how the hippies raged against conservativism and such, but then employed the same gender roles, like woman cooking and men hunting. Or the free-love thing, which some women rather found to be a burden than something they enjoyed.
But Boyle is a good writer, he doesn't write so that he states the obvious so that it would look biased, rather you get the point as reader while he writes about it. Other problems are the openess of the community and how they react to elements that try to abuse this. Ofc, these are just the negative points, there's also the good sides of it. It's really quite a neutral point, I'd say and that amazes me.
Another awesome thing is the sharp... okay, just read it

[Pekka]

I refuse to read your propaganda. I might have read it before, now I definitely won't.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ata, no. I meant that the real answer must be combination of things, not necessarily what was preseneted in this film.

GePap, crack kids? The kid that was presented in this film was 6 years old. No matter what surroundings, it could have happened. If his daddy was a drug dealer, or just normal daddy who left the gun around because he was stupid. Makes no difference.

You are all starting to disgust me with your hippie attitudes.

"Hippie attitudes"? That is trully a new one, TRULLY a new one.

As for the six year old, the point of that was simple, no handgun in the house, no shooting, unless you expect the six year old to go out and buy himself a 9MM on the streets.

[Pekka]

Yeah what a crappy point though. Handgun properly stored in the house, no shooting. Or better yet, no one making babies, no new murders in 60 years.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah what a crappy point though. Handgun properly stored in the house, no shooting. Or better yet, no one making babies, no new murders in 60 years.

Now you just pointed out why there are laws on the books in many US states mandating child proof gun locks.

Oh, and all problems regarding humans would be solved by voluntary extinction.

[Pekka]

Sure. But the shooting had very little to do with BUsh, or the companies mentioned. It just suits Moore's personal agenda.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Pekka
I refuse to read your propaganda. I might have read it before, now I definitely won't.

In that case... ...please take a look at the red light

[Pekka]

No you look at the red light. You just are no good at all, where are your morals??

[Atahualpa]

What did you just say?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Pekka
Sure. But the shooting had very little to do with BUsh, or the companies mentioned. It just suits Moore's personal agenda.

ITS AN EXAMPLE!@$#%^#^%@%#@$%$&^&

Moore creates a hypothesis, and gives what he believes to be supporting evidence. FINE, you don't agree with his evidence, OK, we get it. AND I personally don't give a ****.

That is what his film is, a hypothesis in film form, as opposed to op-ed print piece form.