keeveek: I believe that Norwegian system wouldn't work in most places in the world.
It would work here, all told we're rich as fuck. We just allow the wealth to concentrate to an insane degree while Norway doesn't allow that. You look at a graph of countries by concentration of wealth and then look at graphs for how well off the citizens are, they always correlate health, happiness, longevity, etc. with the least wealth concentrated countries.
I.E. You're mixing up cause and effect, you're saying their near perfect society is because they have all these things and it's easy to be content in such circumstances, where it's more that they developed the system that allowed the wealth they did have to be shared, instead of hoarded. They weren't already fat and happy when they developed the "near perfect society".
Elmofongo: what does that mean?
JudasIscariot: I think Fred_DM means that a Michael Moore documentary isn't one at all because there is a lot of bias in his films. In a documentary you're supposed to just show things as they are without adding your own bias in the mix. Just my own 2 cents on this matter.
Well then, as someone who watches lots of documentaries, I'll just go ahead and say "bullshit". This might have been what they told you in school, but it's not even remotely true. Most documentary film makers are activists and trying to bring light onto what they believe is an important issue. I even met someone making a documentary on roller derby, I guarantee she was interested in promoting her sport (she played too) in a positive light.
There has never been any serious dose of impartial in the medium, the cases where it has happened are so exceedingly rare that you can safely categorize them as aberrations.
Fred_DM: a documentary is supposed to follow the scientific principles of objectivity and neutrality. Moore always has an agenda. the latter makes the former impossible. his films are political.
Bullshit, see above.