Wrong Turn 6 Full Movie Watch Online Free !!TOP!!
Sherry> @Peace/CPA/Quack: I agree with people that say Planet of the Humans is less than accurateI would disagree with that. When you look at what was being presented, there was fact, and there was a lot of CONCERNED IN A REAL WAY people voicing opinions. Some of the facts and things shown were out of date, but they were videos and thus not inaccurate.> (I think I've called the producers negligent" in that regard).You made your contention and now you sling the negative mud. Negligent? Inaccurate can cover a lot of territory. You can be telling the truth, which I think POTH did fairly well to make a point, but have problems with the data but that do not necessarily extend to incompetence or prevarication. In a way that is a fair criticism of Michael Moore's movies, of which this was NOT one, but movie and documentaries are usually efforts to convince that mostly rely on emotion, just like we are bathed in 10,000 times a day with all the advertising and manipulative things we see online, click-bait, etc. So I have to complain about the word negligent. If I had to I might go with incompetent in that I don't think they went through the movie thoroughly enough, but they did say the facts were vetted.I would guess they decided not to miss a captive COVID-19 audience was more important than re-vetting, updating and refreshing the movie before a commercial release that maybe will not happen for months or even years.> I also agree with @Quack that it seems to be written by a bunch of disillusioned idealists who are giving up because the options we have aren't perfect.That's pretty much of a content free statement based on nothing but Quack's image of Michael Moore combined with this position in this world that I could say is threatened so he/she feels obligated to attack it for his own benefit, and be just as valid or correct. It is basically a I can say clever things in a way that appeals and activates my base ... think Trump's mode of campaigning or marketing.The point being that that comment is basically just name-calling.> So why does that message appeal to some people?Perhaps because just as the inaccurate disillusioned explained in the documentary ( you did watch the documentary and pay attention? ) , the first Earth Day was 50 years ago and we are not improving except in rhetoric and cheap talk. This meme is pretty well shown in the movie by the many cases of dishonest marketing.> Why do they find it so satisfying to purposefully sit and watch while we destroy this beautiful planet and so much of the life on it?Come on that is such a desperately emotional comment that you can't know that they are sitting, watching and finding it satisfying that this beautiful planet and its life is being destroyed. In fact when you look, actually look, at the movie it's the exact opposite, they did they movie because they saw, and could make a case that it was everyone else sitting, watching and finding it satisfying that this beautiful planet and its life is being destroyed - that was the problem.> I need to understand that mindset better, because it is foreign to me.We all have our blind spots and imperfections, and that is why we must foster discussion ( not debate ) I was listening to a podcast by Sam Harris who made a great point about the difference between discussion and debate. Sam said that if he is a debate, it is a contest, if he accepts a point from the other side he is LOSING, and he has been in debates where he felt uncomfortable because the other side had a point or was even right - and he is wedged into paralysis because of the whole context of DEBATE, whereas if he was in a discussion the whole effort could actually be productive and create synthesis.Today there is this debate show on PBS - the Intelligence Squared Debates, but they are branded as Oxford-Style debates moderated by John Donvan, and the deadness and awfulness of the show is just as Harris points out. Very disingenuous rhetorical devices to manipulate the audience rather than to bring them into discussion. At least POTH generated awareness and discussion of these issues.When I was younger we used to have a show called the Advocates on PBS that was a bunch of renowned experts in their fields DISCUSSING and issue, and they were always useful learning experiences. Why is it that over the intervening time all these media shows have rotted to such a degree that they are almost useless for informing the public?But the way, the POTH crew has editing the movie since it was so stridently attacked and removed from YouTube due to a excessively exuberant application of copyright infringement that is nothing but political censorship. Just based on the backlash and from who it says people need to see this and make up their own minds.
Wrong Turn 6 Full Movie Watch Online Free
BruceS ...> 1. The guy who supported PotH (Planet of the Humans) by saying that movies all appeal to emotion has it dead wrong. Emotion is fine, but if the facts are wrong then the whole premise is busted. And the facts in PotH are mostly very wrong.Your comment is incoherent in that you start out complaining about emotion and then saying IF THE FACTS ARE WRONG.So, tell me what facts are wrong? You said if, so you must have some idea what facts are wrong, and the magnitude and importance of whatever you are referring to, so rather than say the facts are wrong without any actual factual basis, your comment is dishonest.Movies, documentaries have to rely on emotion. It is not that there are no fact in them, but you cannot discuss any worthwhile issue in the time it takes to watch a movie. You cannot do justice to opposing points of view. You have to present the facts you think support your argument and then make that argument in a strong memorable way that lights up your amygdala and hippocampus so your documentary makes an impression you remember.> 2. While some of the complaints about windmill noise and lights sounded plausible, a lot of the comments seemed overblown. I wonder how many of the people writing are really rural people directly affected, and how many are just trolls. The number that cite PotH suggest to me more of the later.Listening to the aimless logic here. Complaints sound plausible, but they are overblown because you wonder how many people are really rural people directly affected ... and then call people you don't even know or cannot quote trolls, because as you already failed to establish in 1, people who cite POTH are trolls. This is illogic and name calling, not discussion or debate.Facts are useless if you you do not apply critical thinking to them and just assume you can wave them off by saying they are wrong by dictate?