Bowling For Michael Moore's Bodyguard

[DialecticMaterialist]

Uhhhmmmm...How many Hollywood film makers were murdered with guns yesterday? The day before? Last year? Last decade? Century?

Compare that to ordinary cab drivers and convenience store clerks, cops, or even rappers.

I don't know, can you compare? Do you have anything here to offer besides unwarranted speculation?

 

[crimresearch]

I don't know, can you compare? Do you have anything here to offer besides unwarranted speculation?

As has already been pointed out to you, you are the one making the ridiculously absurd claim that Michael Moore needs protection...and you have run away from requests to back that assertion up with any sort of evidence.

Now you want to come skulking back and pretend that I just suddenly made a speculative and bogus claim out of the blue that being a Hollywood movie maker isn't as dangerous as being a taxi driver or a convenience store clerk?

What a lame piece of trollage.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

My belief is based on the fact that there have been no public "threats" made, there have been no attempts on his life, no extremely violent "anti-Moore" rallies.

And you know this how? The fact is merely being a high-profile individual makes one succeptible to death threats and crime:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2392489.stm

And the fact is there have been death threats against Michael Moore even before he made Ferenheit 9/11:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-20-moore_x.htm

Next time do at least a cursory google search before disseminating your misinformation.


Even the Dixie Chicks recieved death threats:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2972043.stm

In fact, all we have at all is Moore's word. And given his penchant for hyperbole as evidenced in his documentaries (both Bowling and 9/11 were essentially feature-length appeals to emotion), it's not too much of a stretch to consider that he could possibly be exaggerating the grave 'danger' he's supposed to be in.

I'm sorry but that reasoning just doesn't follow. There is a difference between ordinary claims and extraordinary claims, and a claim that a high-profile person is recieving threats for making controversial statements hardly goes under the heading of "extraordinary". Hence different standards of evidence can be applied to both situations.

In other words- the burden of proof is on you. Its not my job to prove that Moore isn't faking his death threats, its your job to prove that he is. Noting that Moore exagerates in his documentaries in order to further his political causes is irrelevant to this matter, as Moore's statements concerning politics are far less in tune with background knowledge.

The fact is even obscure professors who write books on psychonalaytic views of Hindu philosophy recieve dozens of death threats:

http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/05/3fcf7d2594188

Even the heritage foundation itself admits "Every high-profile person receives death threats. ":

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072401a.cfm

Given this data, which should be more common sense then anything, the notion that Michael Moore isn't recieving death threats is what I would call an extraordinary claim. The idea that even though obscure professors and retro rockers recieve death threats, while the unheard of, and uncontroversial Michael Moore doesn't (because we all know that he hasn't said anything to piss any fanatics off, ever) is patently absurd.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2004-02-26-darkness-death-threats_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA


And the fact is you inappropriately apply the anectdotes do not equal evidence principle. The actual principle is that anecdotes are not evidence for generalizations or extraordinary claims.

If a claim is ordinary then an anecdote is perfectly acceptable. For example, if my brother tells me he got in a traffic jam today I don't go off on how "That's anecdotal, I won't believe you until you PROVE it."

If my friend tells me she ate Cheerios for breakfast, I don't require a massive amount of corroboration before I suspend my disbelief (even if she has exaggerated her politics before). And I likewise doubt you do either when faced with several dozens or hundreds of mundane claims you face every day. That is because such claims are in line with our background knoweldge.

Likewise, though, if they tell me they saw a pink elephant walking the street, I would need more then their word, or I would think them insane if they were serious. That is because claims of that nature are extraordinary claims, with which normal anectdotal evidence is not sufficient to establish as true.

Hence the burden of proof, like I said, is not on Moore to prove that he somehow isn't lying about what is a relatively common matter, it is on you to prove that Moore, for some odd reason, is making this up and hiring a body guard for show.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

As has already been pointed out to you, you are the one making the ridiculously absurd claim that Michael Moore needs protection...

What makes the claim ridiculous or absurd? Seeing as even the new staff of a new Dr. Who, a movie/series not even out yet are recieving death threats:

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/16512004.htm

As is Britney Spears:

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/1262004.htm

As does a Israeli-Trans-sexual that I have yet to even hear of until today:

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/News/9806/29/showbuzz/#story3

As has a 9/11 commissioner:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/17/gorelick.threats/


Do you really expect me to think that a high-profile celebrity making controversial claims does not need protection? Are you really expecting anyone to believe that for a second?

 

[Checkmite]

Next time do at least a cursory google search before disseminating your misinformation.

Sorry, all the USA Today article does is repeat Moore's own claim to receiving death threats.

I'm sorry but that reasoning just doesn't follow. There is a difference between ordinary claims and extraordinary claims, and a claim that a high-profile person is recieving threats for making controversial statements hardly goes under the heading of "extraordinary". Hence different standards of evidence can be applied to both situations.

The question is whether there is enough danger to warrant getting bodyguards and riding around in bulletproof cars. I haven't said Moore doesn't get any flak; I'm skeptical that it's as bad as he says it is.

In other words- the burden of proof is on you. Its not my job to prove that Moore isn't faking his death threats...

Fortunately, nobody has asked you to...

...its your job to prove that he is.

Prove that he's faking? Well I can't do that. I don't think he's completely fabricating anything; I just don't believe it's as bad as he says it is. Some proof from him that it's as bad as he claims might sate my skepticism, of course.

The fact is even obscure professors who write books on psychonalaytic views of Hindu philosophy recieve dozens of death threats:

http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/05/3fcf7d2594188

So? Does this person employ a bodyguard, ride around in a bulletproof car?

Even the heritage foundation itself admits "Every high-profile person receives death threats. ":

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072401a.cfm

...and?

Given this data, which should be more common sense then anything, the notion that Michael Moore isn't recieving death threats is what I would call an extraordinary claim.

If somebody makes that claim, I'll be sure to refer them to you.

The idea that even though obscure professors and retro rockers recieve death threats, while the unheard of, and uncontroversial Michael Moore doesn't (because we all know that he hasn't said anything to piss any fanatics off, ever) is patently absurd.

Sounds reasonable to me.

And the fact is you inappropriately apply the anectdotes do not equal evidence principle. The actual principle is that anecdotes are not evidence for generalizations or extraordinary claims.

I'm sorry, Michael Moore implies that the level of threats he receives is so extraordinary that he requires protection greater than that of most state government officials and even Federal district judges, some of whom actually have been assaulted. Yes, high-profile people like to pick up stalkers. Yes, they get plenty of hate mail, and even some death threats. Howard Stern, in his book Private Parts, printed pages and pages of hate mail and death threats that had been mailed to him. Yet he doesn't travel with a security detail, and nobody's tried to touch him yet.

I don't buy it.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Your whole argument comes down to this: "I don't buy it."

Well you can say that to just about anything. Life evolved over billions of years? I don't buy it. Man landed on the moon? I don't buy it. High-profile people making controversial claims need protection? I don't buy it.

That is known as an argument from personal incredulity and it is considered among one of the weakest of arguments. Basically, because you don't want to believe it, it isn't true.

Unfortunately whether or not a person chooses to believe in something is not itself a compelling argument.

And what argument you do make is rather dubious.

Basically your one supporting argument in your post is:

-X doesn't have bodyguards, so Michael Moore doesn't need body guards.

This is hardly compelling. Especially seeing as you gave not one link, not one iota of evidence for verification for any of your claims (that after your lengthy tirade against anecdotes being used was surprising).

First off, which senators and judges are you talking about? Have they recieved death threats or not? Are they representative for high-profile people as a whole?


Secondly, you gave one example, one of a celebrity without a body guard, one who recieved pages of death threats. And you have yet to give a link to verify this.

It should go without saying one example hardly establishes a general rule, especially a negative general rule, especially seeing as the man himself recieved death threats (which would cause many people to get a body guard, I sure would, wouldn't you?).

But even if you did have credible examples, so what?

I could say for example:

- Person X must be lying when he said his relatives died, I know people who's relatives have not died, so person X is wrong.

Or:

-When Bill says he is allergic to honey he must be wrong, I know many people not allergic to honey, so Bill must be exaggerating. His body may have a bad reaction to it, I don't doubt that, but I don't think it rises to the level of an allergy.

Of course to make it a more accurate representation of yours , I'd have to note my one other person as an example, Mr. Rockwell, who while having a sickly reaction to honey has never had his condition diagnosed as an allergy because he doesn't believe in doctors.


Your examples are questionable, and your entire form is invalid even if your examples were credible.

 

[Skeptic]

(Shrug)

The point isn't that Moore recieves death threats and is wise to hire a guard--most big celebrities recieve such threats and have bodyguards, from Bush to Britney Spears.

The point is that, while most celebrities consider such threats to be what they are--an annoyance, part of the price of fame (like papparazi, etc.)--Moore the egomaniac considers this, naturally, to mean that he is under constant and imminent threat of death, no doubt a Republican plot, the result of being so dangerous and important in the evil adminimstration's eyes... but, natually, a sacrifice Michael "selfless hero of the people" Moore is willing to make for the truth, for defeating the Republicans, etc., etc., etc.

Remember, folks: this is a man who sees EVERYTHING at all as being chiefly part of a cosmic morality play, where he and Bush have the chief parts. For example, F911 just won the "people's choice" award. Mike's reaction on his web pages? No, it isn't a movie winning an award; it's proof that "The people" support him (it's NAMED the "people's choice" award, isn't it? Then again, North Korea is the "people's democratic republic of Korea"...), and that Bush "shuddered" in the white house when he heard about it. Seriously.

Naurally, this means that the death threats HE recieves are not the same common death threats other celebrities recieve. He's too important for that. His are the extra-strengh, super-serious, republican-conspiracy, imminent-death, world-fate-determining ones.

 

[Art Vandelay]

DialecticMaterialist, it is you that is making completely invalid arguments. You say that if extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then nonextraordinary claims require no evidence. That does not follow. Simply because this is not an extraordinary claim does not mean that Joshua Korosi somehow has the burden of proof. You have provided evidence in support of your claim, but nothing approaching proof.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

then nonextraordinary claims require no evidence. That does not follow.

Nope, I said ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.

Simply because this is not an extraordinary claim does not mean that Joshua Korosi somehow has the burden of proof.

Yes he does, because presuming someone to be a liar is not a default position.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The point is that, while most celebrities consider such threats to be what they are--an annoyance, part of the price of fame (like papparazi, etc.)--Moore the egomaniac considers this, naturally, to mean that he is under constant and imminent threat of death, no doubt a Republican plot, the result of being so dangerous and important in the evil adminimstration's eyes... but, natually, a sacrifice Michael "selfless hero of the people" Moore is willing to make for the truth, for defeating the Republicans, etc., etc., etc.

Remember, folks: this is a man who sees EVERYTHING at all as being chiefly part of a cosmic morality play, where he and Bush have the chief parts. For example, F911 just won the "people's choice" award. Mike's reaction on his web pages? No, it isn't a movie winning an award; it's proof that "The people" support him (it's NAMED the "people's choice" award, isn't it? Then again, North Korea is the "people's democratic republic of Korea"...), and that Bush "shuddered" in the white house when he heard about it. Seriously.

Naurally, this means that the death threats HE recieves are not the same common death threats other celebrities recieve. He's too important for that. His are the extra-strengh, super-serious, republican-conspiracy, imminent-death, world-fate-determining ones.

Again I will ask, can anyone present any actual evidence for the above assertions?

As far as taking threats seriously goes, the man is very much hated in our country, more then most other celebrities I bet. Putting your money down, would you say Michael Moore was more hated, or less, then the regular high profile joe?

Let me tell you it doesn't take the hire ups in the GOP to plan an assasination, all you need is a nut who thinks he's being patriotic. I'm willing to bet there are many, many people out there with this attitude.

I've seen people attacked just for wearing a shirt slightly critical of the US, beaten so bad they had to be hospitalized by someone thinking the act patriotic (he did of course tell everyone else to call the cops before he started whaling on the guy, being such a sensible man I suppose). I've had right-wingers over the internet say they know "where I live" just for saying a lot of Israelis consider themselves socialist, and I have even one time had a man threaten me and my friends with a gun-- over a band T-shirt he thought was offensive to his religion (he said he was going to grab it, and instead just drove off).

I would be, more then anything, very much surprised if all of these death threats Moore recieved were just gags, and not the fanatical ramblings of serious, or semi-serious people. And the ones making death threats are not necessarily the ones Moore has to worry about anyways, the real culprit might be some militia supporting nut who just goes to shoot him, or some desperate guy who lost his son in OIF, believes in it, and sees Moore as insulting what his son died over.

 

[Checkmite]

Your whole argument comes down to this: "I don't buy it."

Well you can say that to just about anything. Life evolved over billions of years? I don't buy it.

Exercise 1: Can you tell the difference between evolution and Moore's claims, as they relate to the current discussion? *Hint - it's come up earlier in the discussion. (Answer at the bottom)

Man landed on the moon? I don't buy it.

Exercise 2: Can you tell the difference between the Apollo program and Moore's claims, as they relate to the current discussion? *Hint - it's the same as the answer to the above question. (Answer at bottom)

High-profile people making controversial claims need protection? I don't buy it.

Hey, the reason I chose Howard Stern as an example (sorry I can't provide a link, as the book hasn't been electronically transcribed. Your local library should have it) is because he is at least as controversial as Moore, if not more so, and he's been thus for a lot longer than Moore has been. The fact that such a person hasn't needed as much protection makes Moore's claim juuuuust a little less "ordinary".

That is known as an argument from personal incredulity and it is considered among one of the weakest of arguments. Basically, because you don't want to believe it, it isn't true.

Here's another weak argument - the claim that "absense of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, therefore I'm correct". You say that I'm abusing the concept of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" because Moore's claim is not extraordinary. Well I feel that it could be. But even if it's not - the antithesis of that concept is "ordinary claims require ordinary evidence". Fine, I don't require the exceptional standard of evidence I would ask for if Moore was claiming to be abducted by aliens. But ordinary evidence is still some kind of evidence, and Moore has yet to produce any. Moore claims - without even bothering to try and offer corroboration - that his life is in so much danger that he needs this substantial amount of protection. You say I should just throw my mind away and believe him because "lots of celebrities get death threats". But the component your argument does not address is the degree of harassment and danger, not just the fact that such exists. You're right, lots of high-profile people get "death threats". But not all high profile people crow about how much danger they are in, or hire security entourages. In fact, I don't know of anybody who's argued that even a majority of them do. And I may have offered only one single example of one that doesn't, but that's all I really need.

Unfortunately whether or not a person chooses to believe in something is not itself a compelling argument.

And what argument you do make is rather dubious.

Well, baseless claims don't make a compelling argument either. What's funny is, I'm sitting here trying to defend my skepticism of another person's argument, and somehow said skepticism has become a "claim" on my part that I need to "prove"; while the other argument is allowed on pure faith.

Basically your one supporting argument in your post is:

-X doesn't have bodyguards, so Michael Moore doesn't need body guards.

This is hardly compelling. Especially seeing as you gave not one link, not one iota of evidence for verification for any of your claims (that after your lengthy tirade against anecdotes being used was surprising).

I'm not making claims, mister. I'm doubting them.

First off, which senators and judges are you talking about? Have they recieved death threats or not? Are they representative for high-profile people as a whole?

Well I admit I had nobody particular in mind. I was actually running off your assertion (complete with linked "evidence") that all high-profile people receive death threats:

Even the heritage foundation itself admits "Every high-profile person receives death threats. ":

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072401a.cfm

I take it from the word "admits" that you agree with the Hertiage foundation. Or are you the only one allowed to use that claim, since you are the one that mentioned it?

Secondly, you gave one example, one of a celebrity without a body guard, one who recieved pages of death threats. And you have yet to give a link to verify this.

He put them in his book. Not just transliterated...at the end of every chapter he has a section called "Hate Mail", which features two or three scanned copies of the hate mail and death threats he received. That's more evidence than Moore has presented, at least.

It should go without saying one example hardly establishes a general rule, especially a negative general rule, especially seeing as the man himself recieved death threats (which would cause many people to get a body guard, I sure would, wouldn't you?).

Well no, they'd cause me to call the police. Has Moore called the police? And of course Stern received death threats, for years even - but he didn't need a security detail because of it, which was of course the point I was trying to make. I don't need to establish a rule that makes Moore's claim incredible; all I need to do is establish that there is no rule which automatically makes Moore's claim, in fact, credible.

But even if you did have credible examples, so what?

I could say for example:

- Person X must be lying when he said his relatives died, I know people who's relatives have not died, so person X is wrong.

Hey, you're allowed not to believe Person X. When I worked at McDonald's, I knew a kid who called off work falsely insisting that his grandmother had died and he was going to the funeral (the kid laughingly bragged about it one day when the boss wasn't around). Now, you can go off on this wonderful anecdote of mine, attacking it because it's an anecdote...but Moore's anecdote is acceptable because...? You don't think he's lying?

-When Bill says he is allergic to honey he must be wrong, I know many people not allergic to honey, so Bill must be exaggerating. His body may have a bad reaction to it, I don't doubt that, but I don't think it rises to the level of an allergy.

Well that's not quite an accurate analogy. A better one would be:

Bill says he's allergic to sunlight. I don't believe him.

...which is closer to my objection to Moore. Yes, there are such things as people who are allergic to sunlight, but they aren't so common as to make the claim "ordinary". Now, there are such people who receive hate mail and death threats, and have actually been assaulted (thus justifying the need for extra security), but such cases aren't so widespread that I have to believe every single person who claims to be one of them; particularly when somebody else equally contoversial who has actually presented some physical evidence of his harassment has not needed any extra security.

Here's another example. Suppose I'm sitting in my cubicle at work, and a man in business casual shows up, claiming to be "Detective Roberts" from the police department. He wants to know if I have any information about the location of a friend of mine, as part of an investigation. Now, I have no real compelling reason to believe this guy isn't who he says he is. Police detectives often wear business casual, or even street clothes. They come to ask questions of people at their place of work. Perhaps I've been told by somebody that my "friend" might be in legal trouble. And most people who impersonate police officers usually impersonate the uniformed street kind. So, with all this in mind, should I just suppose he's telling the truth, and go ahead and answer his questions? No, because while I have no compelling reason to believe the guy is lying, I also have no compelling reason to believe he's telling the truth. It's easy to solve this dilemma, which never lasts more than a few seconds - identification, please? He shows me a numbered badge and ID, I'm satisfied. He's given some evidence to support his claim. And it's not extraordinary evidence, because it's not an extraordinary claim.

But right now, the detective is not showing his badge, and you're playing the part of the guy in the next cubicle who's telling me to just believe him and answer the questions. Doesn't work that way.

If Moore would simply "show me his badge", all my doubts would be comfortably laid to rest. Gracefully, without argument. Till then, I'm skeptical. I'm not particularly sorry if that somehow offends you, but I do feel it unfortunate.

Your examples are questionable, and your entire form is invalid even if your examples were credible.

My entire form? I don't believe this guy because he has shown no evidence at all whatsoever. This is "wrong" of me? I must admit that I never expected, here, in this place, to be chastized for simple skepticism.

(Answers: The claims discussed in both Exercise 1 and Exercise 2 have evidence to support them, while Moore's claim does not.)

 

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
"...Secondly, you gave one example, one of a celebrity without a body guard, one who recieved pages of death threats. And you have yet to give a link to verify this."

It is tempting to take DM's point as being 'if it is on the internet, it is evidence, but if it is just pages of scaned copies in a book, it is unverified'.

Not that I would ever jump to that conclusion....just pointing out that it is tempting.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ok Josh, I'm going to make this very simple for you.

Please provide even a shred of evidence that Moore is lying.

Because all I have seen you do so far is avoid the burden of proof, and dodge the issue like a ninja.

With regards to your first in a series of strange arguments.

1- Moore's claims are not on par with evolution, or the moon landing.


Response: It was an analogy, not an exact conclusion, one meant to illustrate an epistemic principle. I could have just as easily substituted my sister with regards to my niece, or a judge with regards to trials, or even a plumber with regards to to fixing toilets. Of course there are literal differences in the above, however the principle would be valid in each case- that's kind of the whole point of an analogy.

Given your standard there is literally no time anyone can ever use an analogy, because there will always be "some difference" one can think up.

Hey, the reason I chose Howard Stern as an example (sorry I can't provide a link, as the book hasn't been electronically transcribed. Your local library should have it

Proof surrogate, it's not my job to find or verify your evidence for you.

is because he is at least as controversial as Moore, if not more so, and he's been thus for a lot longer than Moore has been. The fact that such a person hasn't needed as much protection makes Moore's claim juuuuust a little less "ordinary".

So now we are defending unproven claims with....more unproven claims.

Well I feel that it could be. But even if it's not - the antithesis of that concept is "ordinary claims require ordinary evidence". Fine, I don't require the exceptional standard of evidence I would ask for if Moore was claiming to be abducted by aliens. But ordinary evidence is still some kind of evidence, and Moore has yet to produce any.

If an ordinary claim is in line with background knowledge, mere testimony is sufficient as evidence.

That is why I believe my sister for example if she says she drove to work the other day.

Now, there are such people who receive hate mail and death threats, and have actually been assaulted (thus justifying the need for extra security), but such cases aren't so widespread that I have to believe every single person who claims to be one of them; particularly when somebody else equally contoversial who has actually presented some physical evidence of his harassment has not needed any extra security.

I don't get what you're saying here. Does someone have to wait to be assautled before its ok in your eyes to have any actual security?

That's so ridiculous I can't even believe it was presented. The fact is after you are shot, or assaulted, it could very well be a little late in the game to be calling security.

In any event, with regards to your last two comparisons regarding sunlight or the detective, again there is the issue of ordinary claims vs. extraordinary. The above two situations (police without ID or uniform, person being allergic to sunlight) are not in line with background knowledge.

The fact of the matter is that Moore's status making him a target of certain hateful or fanatical centers of society is. Are you seriously saying that nobody out there has any serious intentions of killing Moore?

Or are you saying, even if some people seriously want to kill or harm Moore, you are sure none of them will ever try?

Or are you saying, even if they would try, Moore shouldn't make the choice to protect himself?

 

[Checkmite]

Ok Josh, I'm going to make this very simple for you.

Please provide even a shred of evidence that Moore is lying.

Because all I have seen you do so far is avoid the burden of proof, and dodge the issue like a ninja.

OK, let me inform you of a very basic and simple tenet of skepticism that you seem to have never been made aware of:

The burden of proof rests with the CLAIMANT, NOT the person doubting the claim.

Say it to yourself, several times if necessary. The CLAIM here is "Michael Moore's life is in such danger that he requires such a high level of security to remain safe."

Now, a skeptic is somebody who does not accept a claim without evidence. Note: not accepting a claim without evidence is not the same as making a claim that the opposite of the original claim is true. In other words, my not believing Moore's claim is not the same as calling Moore a liar.

Have you got all that? Good - we can proceed.

I don't believe Moore's claim because he has presented no evidence. Other people needing security is not equal to Moore needing security. As soon as Moore presents evidence, my skepticism will be sated.

I know it's not up to you to find my "evidence" for me - I've already found it. But the Stern book wasn't presented as evidence to try and convince you. It was presented as a link in my chain of reasoning, a chain which leads me to doubt Moore's claim. Although I must say that if it were supposed to be evidence, your dismissing it merely based on the fact that I can't provide a "link" is kind of funny.