2007-3-26 14:44:00
Larry quoting me:
I agree with you that they probably threw the African angle in for effect. They are attempting to beat the global warmers at their own game. But yes, they do have a point.
Larry writes:
Usually you say things that I can agree with, but I thought this was pretty moronic on your part.
I very strongly resent being called "moronic" as a means of refuting me. Can't you at least give me the courtesy of what it is that was moronic in what I said?
I would really appreciate it if you would use logic rather than base name-calling when you do not agree.
I see you replaced this with another post, but I saw no apology.
Larry:
Yea, they just threw that in "for effect," just forget the fact that the lives and well being of millions of people in Africa depend on whether these resources are developed or not.
I said nothing about forgetting about the destitute. Everything in the film was for effect in one way or another. That does not mean I am saying anything in the film was "just" for effect as you insinuate.
After watching the film I had the impression that after considering all areas of the film to include they were faced with a choice to give the African angle a passing reference or to give it fairly strong emphasis. A passing reference would work for the mentally polarized, but when they thought about how emotional the average people are I felt they decided to give strong emphasis to this emotional angle. As evidence of this note the anecdotal accounts which appeal to the emotions more than the rest of the film.
I do not criticize them for this. I probably would have done the same thing if I were making the film for you have to reach the emotions of the average people to change hearts.
One emotional touching is worth a hundred scientific facts to the emotionally polarized.
I see nothing moronic about my perception here.
Larry:
You agree with SH on this? I find it amazing that a person who at times can be very far sighted can at other times appear to be so short sighted, and unimaginative.
I agreed on the point that they decided to place extra emphasis on the African plight. How that is short sighted and unimaginative is beyond me.
Larry:
I fail to understand your lack of moral outrage when someone makes such a statement as SH made above, and which you quoted (and apparently agreed with).
A agreed with SH that they decided to put extra emphasis on the emotional African issue but I disagree with him that they are not sincere. I think other motives besides sincerity of African plight were at play. I think they had a strong motive to make a good film and if the African angle had detracted from this it would not have gotten as much play, no mater how much empathy they felt for the third world.
I may have disagreed with SH on their sincerity, but he is entitled to his opinion and that wasn't enough in my book to play the moral outrage card. If you read his wording carefully he may not have been accusing them of being insincere. He appeared to be saying that sincerity for the Africans was not their motive in doing the piece. He could still see them as being sincere about the destitute, but not having that as their motive. Instead, their main motive was to destroy the standard model of global warming.
Larry:
First off, the argument that people in the Third Word, especially those in Africa, absolutely need power plants and technology that will pollute is iron clad. I don't think anyone can refute it.
I have supported this idea so why would I want to refute it?
Larry:
SH's, or your opinion as to the motives of someone advancing this argument are totally irrelevant. The argument is either valid, or it is not. Opinions as to motives, especially when those opinions serve to _devalue_ that argument, are reprehensible at the very least.
My statement of belief that they put emphasis on the piece for effect does not effect or diminish the argument. I said nothing about their sincerity. Perhaps it would have avoided some outrage on your part if I would have.
Larry:
I did not find this to be an impressive use of logic by someone who apparently claims to be very logical.
And I see miniscule logic here on your part. It would be nice if you just showed me where my logic is in error rather than just authoritatively stating that it is bad.
Larry:
The effect of environmentalism on the Third World is an important and significant issue, and it serves no valid point to attack the motives of those are rationally pointing this out.
I didn't attack anyone's motive.
Larry:
This comment is extremely revealing (on SH's part). It reveals that the _primary_ concern of many environmentalists is not the welfare of humanity. For them some theoretical "welfare" of the planet is more important, and the real extremists when they are honest would admit that they would support a massive "die off" of humanity to some Stone Age level which is the only level of human technology they feel is "appropriate."
Some environmentalists do believe this way and it is outrageous. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that SH does or we would be in the same boat as those judging the sincerity of those who made the film.
Copyright © 2007 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved