On June 08 2010 07:32 Squeegy wrote: Later on in the wiki article:
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words.
I do not understand persian, so my interpretation is based on the article, and that seems to be the conclusion there.
Personally I don't think calling for "regime" change is a bad thing as the current govt is run by extremist right wing hawks who have no interest in peace. A less psychopathic regime would definitely help bring piece to the region.
There is a difference between governments and regimes. Governments change all of the time. Regime change is infrequent, complicated, and typically violent.
Fair point. But as I said, Western first world governments have been implementing regime change all around the world, so I don't see how Iran can then be considered as radically different in making similar calls.
To clarify, I don't support Iran, or the fact that it is becoming increasingly fundamentalist. I'm arguing from base principles here. If powerful western countries(democracies or not) can unilaterally call for and implement regime change, then it's severely hypocritical of us to start crying when others do the same.
This thread has served an interesting purpose from my point of view.
I've learnt new things, kept up to date with both news from within and without Israel, read articles by a prominent liberal Israeli ex-judge, listened to Chomsky and heard arguments from both sides both from people living in the West and also from people living in Israel and Turkey.
I've also come to have a lot of respect for the posts of L, Empyrean and Klaz. Sadly the arguments put up in defence of Israel haven't been nearly so well-considered or written. Of course, for me, this isn't surprising as I think Israel has made a pretty big mess of this situation, both in it's decisions to blockade Gaza through to boarding and murdering civilians on a humanitarian aid ship.
But overall I'm glad I've read so much about this singular and ongoing issue/s and heard some nice arguments at least condemning this event. Some of the links have been great as well.
On June 08 2010 07:32 Squeegy wrote: Later on in the wiki article:
But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Considering that Israel is a democratic state, what he is basically saying is, submit or be destroyed. And you choose to describe this as a regime change. I have to say that is an interesting choice of words.
I do not understand persian, so my interpretation is based on the article, and that seems to be the conclusion there.
Personally I don't think calling for "regime" change is a bad thing as the current govt is run by extremist right wing hawks who have no interest in peace. A less psychopathic regime would definitely help bring piece to the region.
There is a difference between governments and regimes. Governments change all of the time. Regime change is infrequent, complicated, and typically violent.
Fair point. But as I said, Western first world governments have been implementing regime change all around the world, so I don't see how Iran can then be considered as radically different in making similar calls.
To clarify, I don't support Iran, or the fact that it is becoming increasingly fundamentalist. I'm arguing from base principles here. If powerful western countries(democracies or not) can unilaterally call for and implement regime change, then it's severely hypocritical of us to start crying when others do the same.
It is duplicitous to say "first world governments" when you want to say "the United States" in order to obfuscate the fact that there is a strong internal debate about the subject, let alone the sheer amount of international criticism that doesn't manifest in anything other than minor statements because the US is a valued economic partner.
And it's hypocritical to compare the US ideals of a regime (democracy, human rights, capitalism, free speech) to those of Iran (the Shari'a), or what the US plans for the people of the countries within which they have a military presence, to what Iran would have with the people of Israel (at best, and this is blind optimism: force Islamic law on the Jewish people). Or comparing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban to any democratically elected official in a stable democracy.
On June 08 2010 18:07 Subversive wrote: This thread has served an interesting purpose from my point of view.
I've learnt new things, kept up to date with both news from within and without Israel, read articles by a prominent liberal Israeli ex-judge, listened to Chomsky and heard arguments from both sides both from people living in the West and also from people living in Israel and Turkey.
I've also come to have a lot of respect for the posts of L, Empyrean and Klaz. Sadly the arguments put up in defence of Israel haven't been nearly so well-considered or written. Of course, for me, this isn't surprising as I think Israel has made a pretty big mess of this situation, both in it's decisions to blockade Gaza through to boarding and murdering civilians on a humanitarian aid ship.
But overall I'm glad I've read so much about this singular and ongoing issue/s and heard some nice arguments at least condemning this event. Some of the links have been great as well.
On June 08 2010 18:26 Kazius wrote: It is duplicitous to say "first world governments" when you want to say "the United States" in order to obfuscate the fact that there is a strong internal debate about the subject, let alone the sheer amount of international criticism that doesn't manifest in anything other than minor statements because the US is a valued economic partner.
I don't mean the US alone at all, though I guess it's fair to argue that they have been the principal proponents of regime change in recent times. I would also include the UK and on a smaller note Australia (unless I'm mistaken and they weren't involved in the invasion of Iraq)
No doubt there is debate and criticism, but the fact is that OFFICIALLY these governments have called for and implemented regime change. So for these governments to then OFFICIALLY condemn Iran for calling for the same seems to me to be hypocritical
And it's hypocritical to compare the US ideals of a regime (democracy, human rights, capitalism, free speech) to those of Iran (the Shari'a), or what the US plans for the people of the countries within which they have a military presence,
Here I suspect we will disagree strongly. I don't buy that the US invasion of Iraq or for that matter Afghanasthan was fueled by any of the above motivations. Obviously, I prefer the US to Iran by FAR, but just because I do, that doesn't mean I automatically endorse the US's (and others like UK and Australia) decision to engage unilaterally in propping up governments that they want and replacing ones they don't want, especially as I'm unconvinced of the altruistic motives you ascribe and see it much more as led by multinational corporatism than any desire to alleviate suffering.
Saudi Arabia is a case in point where the US is happy to befriend and support a dictatorial ISLAMIC regime that keeps its people backward. While the UK government decided to let BAE systems escape with a slap on the wrist for corporate corruption involving billions and billions under pressure from Saudi Princes. And President Musharaf? A dictator of an Islamic state, with a history of state sponsored terrorism AND in possession of Nuclear weapons. How long did the west support him in power? And last but not least, lest we forgot for just HOW long the US propped up Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq? It was only when he seemed to be leaning to sell Iraqi oil in Euros rather than dollars did the drums of war begin to sound.
So the paradigm seems to be "democracy" by war, invasion and assassination where a suitably compliant dictator cannot be installed or maintained.
to what Iran would have with the people of Israel (at best, and this is blind optimism: force Islamic law on the Jewish people). Or comparing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban to any democratically elected official in a stable democracy.
Firstly, I don't believe Iran have the power to touch Israel, so whatever nonsense is spouted, I'm sure Israel will be fine. Secondly, I'm much more concerned with the carte blanche and REAL action taken by the US, Israel et all in response to these "perceived" threat, and the real damage that is done to peoples everywhere.
The sanctions against Iran are a case in point. If one compares the amount of damage that Israel's direct actions have led to recently to Iran's, the only comparable charge against who can be levelled would be their war with Iraq, which was in self-defence after Saddam (supported by the US) tried to invade. (oh and that was about regime change too I believe after the US supported monarch in Iran was ousted).
On June 08 2010 18:37 Kazius wrote: ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
On June 08 2010 18:07 Subversive wrote: This thread has served an interesting purpose from my point of view.
I've learnt new things, kept up to date with both news from within and without Israel, read articles by a prominent liberal Israeli ex-judge, listened to Chomsky and heard arguments from both sides both from people living in the West and also from people living in Israel and Turkey.
I've also come to have a lot of respect for the posts of L, Empyrean and Klaz. Sadly the arguments put up in defence of Israel haven't been nearly so well-considered or written. Of course, for me, this isn't surprising as I think Israel has made a pretty big mess of this situation, both in it's decisions to blockade Gaza through to boarding and murdering civilians on a humanitarian aid ship.
But overall I'm glad I've read so much about this singular and ongoing issue/s and heard some nice arguments at least condemning this event. Some of the links have been great as well.
... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
Lol you egomaniac I don't need you to link me to your comments. If I'm that interested in your thoughts I'll check them myself through your profile. In case you missed it, I was referring to sc2gg commentator and all-round good guy - Klazart (ie Klaz). Not you.
On June 08 2010 18:37 Kazius wrote: ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
On June 08 2010 18:07 Subversive wrote: This thread has served an interesting purpose from my point of view.
I've learnt new things, kept up to date with both news from within and without Israel, read articles by a prominent liberal Israeli ex-judge, listened to Chomsky and heard arguments from both sides both from people living in the West and also from people living in Israel and Turkey.
I've also come to have a lot of respect for the posts of L, Empyrean and Klaz. Sadly the arguments put up in defence of Israel haven't been nearly so well-considered or written. Of course, for me, this isn't surprising as I think Israel has made a pretty big mess of this situation, both in it's decisions to blockade Gaza through to boarding and murdering civilians on a humanitarian aid ship.
But overall I'm glad I've read so much about this singular and ongoing issue/s and heard some nice arguments at least condemning this event. Some of the links have been great as well.
... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
Lol you egomaniac I don't need you to link me to your comments. If I'm that interested in your thoughts I'll check them myself through your profile. In case you missed it, I was referring to sc2gg commentator and all-round good guy - Klazart (ie Klaz). Not you.
None of us failed to understand who you meant. However, none of us think that you were neutral before reading this thread or while judging Klaz and Co's arguments as better than ours.
On June 08 2010 18:37 Kazius wrote: ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
Strawman
Sure you know what a strawman is?
Yeah win the logic technicality debate. And lose the actual debate in the thread. Nice move pedant
Edit:
LOL I never said I was neutral. I was simply complimenting some decent debating skills and the people who wrote what I was thinking better than I could express it myself.
As for why I corrected him, I simply despise people who say "read my previous comments". So sad. If I had found him uninteresting and deeply biased before linking me to himself now isn't going to change my mind. Thanks for pointing out the obvious that I don't agree with you though.
On June 08 2010 18:37 Kazius wrote: ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
On June 08 2010 18:37 Kazius wrote: ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
On June 08 2010 18:37 Kazius wrote: ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position."
Yes, but how did he present a strawman? Will you, for the first time in this thread, actually explain these claims of fallacies?
He gave a very back-handed compliment (or just insult) by comparing him to Bobby Fischer who, while brilliant at chess, went totally off the deep end in his later attacks on the US and the Jewish people after September 11 2001. Thus it could be said that he was making a terrible analogy that seeks to strawman Chomsky's actual positions by comparing them to the ravings of Fischer.
Equally it could be said to be an ad hominem attack on Chomsky by the unfavourable (and untrue) attack on his supposed character (again by direct comparison to Fischer)
But I don't believe that you failed to understand Klazart just as klazius didn't fail to understand me. You just seek to endlessly derail this debate because your position and arguments are both weak and full of holes.
On June 08 2010 12:18 BlackJack wrote: Has this been posted? The editor of the Jerusalem Post made a "humorous" video about the flotilla.
Fuck those guys. There's no need for aid in gaza? the UN disagrees..
Executive summary of the mission report says: The blockade comprises measure such as restrictions on the goods that can be imported into Gaza and the closure of border crossing for people, goods and services, sometimes for days, including cuts in the provision of fuel and electricity. Gaza's economy is further severely affected by the reduction of the fishing zone open to Palestinian fishermen and the establishment of a buffer zone along the border between Gaza and Israel, which reduces the land abailable for agriculture and and industry. In addition to creating an emergency situation, the blockade has significantly weaked the capacities of the population and of the health, water and public sectors to respond to the emergency created by the military operations. ... Even before the military operations [of the summer of 2009] 80 per cent of the water supplied in Gaza did not meet the WHO's standards for drinking water.
I'm not debating the need for aid itself, but UN isn't exactly neutral, so you would do well to question its statements. Read here for example:
On June 08 2010 18:26 Kazius wrote: It is duplicitous to say "first world governments" when you want to say "the United States" in order to obfuscate the fact that there is a strong internal debate about the subject, let alone the sheer amount of international criticism that doesn't manifest in anything other than minor statements because the US is a valued economic partner.
I don't mean the US alone at all, though I guess it's fair to argue that they have been the principal proponents of regime change in recent times. I would also include the UK and on a smaller note Australia (unless I'm mistaken and they weren't involved in the invasion of Iraq)
No doubt there is debate and criticism, but the fact is that OFFICIALLY these governments have called for and implemented regime change. So for these governments to then OFFICIALLY condemn Iran for calling for the same seems to me to be hypocritical
Official condemnation means nothing - it's done to not be shown as passive supporters of such actions in certain conditions. Politicians being hypocritical is no surprise to anyone, it's a tool of their trade.
And it's hypocritical to compare the US ideals of a regime (democracy, human rights, capitalism, free speech) to those of Iran (the Shari'a), or what the US plans for the people of the countries within which they have a military presence,
Here I suspect we will disagree strongly. I don't buy that the US invasion of Iraq or for that matter Afghanasthan was fueled by any of the above motivations. Obviously, I prefer the US to Iran by FAR, but just because I do, that doesn't mean I automatically endorse the US's (and others like UK and Australia) decision to engage unilaterally in propping up governments that they want and replacing ones they don't want, especially as I'm unconvinced of the altruistic motives you ascribe and see it much more as led by multinational corporatism than any desire to alleviate suffering.
I said nothing of the motivations for entering Iraq. I'm sure those weren't the main reasons. I just said that their ideas of such changes are not comparable, and the end results of those ideas are not to similar. If the entire world would be led by Iran and ruled under the Shari'a, then we would have world peace... but the price for the people would be very high in the long term (dark ages revisited). While the US goes in for whatever reasons, the long term is that there will be a regime that has a chance to do more good for the people living in those areas than Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.
Saudi Arabia is a case in point where the US is happy to befriend and support a dictatorial ISLAMIC regime that keeps its people backward. While the UK government decided to let BAE systems escape with a slap on the wrist for corporate corruption involving billions and billions under pressure from Saudi Princes. And President Musharaf? A dictator of an Islamic state, with a history of state sponsored terrorism AND in possession of Nuclear weapons. How long did the west support him in power? And last but not least, lest we forgot for just HOW long the US propped up Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq? It was only when he seemed to be leaning to sell Iraqi oil in Euros rather than dollars did the drums of war begin to sound.
So the paradigm seems to be "democracy" by war, invasion and assassination where a suitably compliant dictator cannot be installed or maintained.
You also forgot the installation of Saddam Hussein and arming him, turning a blind eye when he used chemical weapons (and so on) in order to set a secular counter-balance to Iran.
to what Iran would have with the people of Israel (at best, and this is blind optimism: force Islamic law on the Jewish people). Or comparing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban to any democratically elected official in a stable democracy.
Firstly, I don't believe Iran have the power to touch Israel, so whatever nonsense is spouted, I'm sure Israel will be fine. Secondly, I'm much more concerned with the carte blanche and REAL action taken by the US, Israel et all in response to these "perceived" threat, and the real damage that is done to peoples everywhere.
The sanctions against Iran are a case in point. If one compares the amount of damage that Israel's direct actions have led to recently to Iran's, the only comparable charge against who can be levelled would be their war with Iraq, which was in self-defence after Saddam (supported by the US) tried to invade. (oh and that was about regime change too I believe after the US supported monarch in Iran was ousted).
Excuse me for taking Iran seriously after they developed missiles capable of a nuclear payload with enough range to cover all of Israel, led by a holocaust-denying nut that calls for regime change while busying himself with getting closer to being a nuclear power daily.
On June 08 2010 19:17 Squeegy wrote: Yes, but how did he present a strawman? Will you, for the first time in this thread, actually explain these claims of fallacies?
Right, since you asked nicely (though you didn't say the magic word 'please'...)
Here is what Kazius said:" ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics)."
He sought to dismiss Chomsky's arguments, not by actually refuting his arguments or his position but by attacking or undermining his person (ad hominum).
He did so by utilising a strawman argument, where he compared Chomsky to Bobby Fischer.
What is the supposed similarity between the two? Their acknowledged brilliance. AND according to Kaz's implication, they we're both "anti-semtic, self hating jews." (though he didn't state this directly that would be the implication) and therefore Chomsky's arguments should be regarded as irrelevant or coming from a position of anti-semitism in the same way as that of Bobby Fischer.
We're talking about a man who idolised hitler, denied the holocaust and made statements like " the United States is "a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcised Jew bastards."
Furthermore
Fischer's library contained anti-Semitic and white supremacist literature such as Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and The White Man's Bible and Nature's Eternal Religion by Ben Klassen, founder of the Church of the Creator.[272][273] A notebook written by Fischer is filled with sentiments such as "8/24/99 Death to the Jews. Just kill the Motherfuckers!" and "12/13/99 It's time to start randomly killing Jews."[274]
The fallacious argument is the UTTERLY ridiculous comparison of the above gentlemen to Professor Chomsky. Who has of course been very eloquent and erudite in his criticism of both US foreign policy and the behaviour of the Israeli government. But he certainly hasn't been anti-semetic.
Of course, this is a VERY TYPICAL tactic of the Israeli PR machine and their supporters. i.e. to claim that anyone who levels criticism at the often criminal action of the Israeli Government is an "anti-semite." (this is especially invoked and directed at people who hold positions of public influence ).
This conveniently skirts the issue of actually having to address the criticism by simply labelling it as racist. Which Proff Chomsky, most certainly is not.
I don't mean to patronise, but next time, please do a little reading before jumping into a debate.
On June 08 2010 18:37 Kazius wrote: ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position."
Yes, but how did he present a strawman? Will you, for the first time in this thread, actually explain these claims of fallacies?
He gave a very back-handed compliment (or just insult) by comparing him to Bobby Fischer who, while brilliant at chess, went totally off the deep end in his later attacks on the US and the Jewish people after September 11 2001. Thus it could be said that he was making a terrible analogy that seeks to strawman Chomsky's actual positions by comparing them to the ravings of Fischer.
Equally it could be said to be an ad hominem attack on Chomsky by the unfavourable (and untrue) attack on his supposed character (again by direct comparison to Fischer)
But I don't believe that you failed to understand Klazart just as klazius didn't fail to understand me. You just seek to endlessly derail this debate because your position and arguments are both weak and full of holes.
That is not a strawman, nor is the latter an ad hominem. I don't think you really understand anything about logic or debating, especially if you don't even understand how simple fallacies like ad hominem and strawman work, so I don't care so much if you consider my arguments weak.
On June 08 2010 19:17 Squeegy wrote: Yes, but how did he present a strawman? Will you, for the first time in this thread, actually explain these claims of fallacies?
Right, since you asked nicely (though you didn't say the magic word 'please'...)
Here is what Kazius said:" ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics)."
He sought to dismiss Chomsky's arguments, not by actually refuting his arguments or his position but by attacking or undermining his person (ad hominum).
He did so by utilising a strawman argument, where he compared Chomsky to Bobby Fischer.
What is the supposed similarity between the two? Their acknowledged brilliance. AND according to Kaz's implication, they we're both "anti-semtic, self hating jews." (though he didn't state this directly that would be the implication) and therefore Chomsky's arguments should be regarded as irrelevant or coming from a position of anti-semitism in the same way as that of Bobby Fischer.
We're talking about a man who idolised hitler, denied the holocaust and made statements like " the United States is "a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcised Jew bastards."
Fischer's library contained anti-Semitic and white supremacist literature such as Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and The White Man's Bible and Nature's Eternal Religion by Ben Klassen, founder of the Church of the Creator.[272][273] A notebook written by Fischer is filled with sentiments such as "8/24/99 Death to the Jews. Just kill the Motherfuckers!" and "12/13/99 It's time to start randomly killing Jews."[274]
The fallacious argument is the UTTERLY ridiculous comparison of the above gentlemen to Professor Chomsky. Who has of course been very eloquent and erudite in his criticism of both US foreign policy and the behaviour of the Israeli government. But he certainly hasn't been anti-semetic.
Of course, this is a VERY TYPICAL tactic of the Israeli PR machine and their supporters. i.e. to claim that anyone who levels criticism at the often criminal action of the Israeli Government is an "anti-semite." (this is especially invoked and directed at people who hold positions of public influence ).
This conveniently skirts the issue of actually having to address the criticism by simply labelling it as racist. Which Proff Chomsky, most certainly is not.
I don't mean to patronise, but next time, please do a little reading before jumping into a debate.
His argument was that because a man is brilliant, it doesn't mean he's right. Ironically, you construct a strawman here.
I really suggest taking a course or two in formal logic to you guys.
On June 08 2010 18:37 Kazius wrote: ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).
"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position."
Yes, but how did he present a strawman? Will you, for the first time in this thread, actually explain these claims of fallacies?
He gave a very back-handed compliment (or just insult) by comparing him to Bobby Fischer who, while brilliant at chess, went totally off the deep end in his later attacks on the US and the Jewish people after September 11 2001. Thus it could be said that he was making a terrible analogy that seeks to strawman Chomsky's actual positions by comparing them to the ravings of Fischer.
Equally it could be said to be an ad hominem attack on Chomsky by the unfavourable (and untrue) attack on his supposed character (again by direct comparison to Fischer)
But I don't believe that you failed to understand Klazart just as klazius didn't fail to understand me. You just seek to endlessly derail this debate because your position and arguments are both weak and full of holes.
That is not a strawman, nor is the latter an ad hominem. I don't think you really understand anything about logic or debating, especially if you don't even understand how simple fallacies like ad hominem and strawman work, so I don't care so much if you consider my arguments weak.
So yeah, let's go back to the topic!
I've noticed you never actual reply to any of the questions that anyone asks you in reply to your arguments. Equally here you just dismiss what I'm saying as a lack of understanding. I'll be interested to see what you have to say in reply to Klaz's post (that is if you bother to reply). I don't really care to debate with you either, as the form it takes is you evading questions and dodging issues while endlessly affirming or reposting your earlier positions.
On June 08 2010 19:17 Squeegy wrote: Yes, but how did he present a strawman? Will you, for the first time in this thread, actually explain these claims of fallacies?
Right, since you asked nicely (though you didn't say the magic word 'please'...)
Here is what Kazius said:" ... and please don't listen to Chomsky, the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics)."
He sought to dismiss Chomsky's arguments, not by actually refuting his arguments or his position but by attacking or undermining his person (ad hominum).
He did so by utilising a strawman argument, where he compared Chomsky to Bobby Fischer.
What is the supposed similarity between the two? Their acknowledged brilliance. AND according to Kaz's implication, they we're both "anti-semtic, self hating jews." (though he didn't state this directly that would be the implication) and therefore Chomsky's arguments should be regarded as irrelevant or coming from a position of anti-semitism in the same way as that of Bobby Fischer.
We're talking about a man who idolised hitler, denied the holocaust and made statements like " the United States is "a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcised Jew bastards."
Furthermore
Fischer's library contained anti-Semitic and white supremacist literature such as Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and The White Man's Bible and Nature's Eternal Religion by Ben Klassen, founder of the Church of the Creator.[272][273] A notebook written by Fischer is filled with sentiments such as "8/24/99 Death to the Jews. Just kill the Motherfuckers!" and "12/13/99 It's time to start randomly killing Jews."[274]
The fallacious argument is the UTTERLY ridiculous comparison of the above gentlemen to Professor Chomsky. Who has of course been very eloquent and erudite in his criticism of both US foreign policy and the behaviour of the Israeli government. But he certainly hasn't been anti-semetic.
Of course, this is a VERY TYPICAL tactic of the Israeli PR machine and their supporters. i.e. to claim that anyone who levels criticism at the often criminal action of the Israeli Government is an "anti-semite." (this is especially invoked and directed at people who hold positions of public influence ).
This conveniently skirts the issue of actually having to address the criticism by simply labelling it as racist. Which Proff Chomsky, most certainly is not.
I don't mean to patronise, but next time, please do a little reading before jumping into a debate.
His argument was that because a man is brilliant, it doesn't mean he's right. Ironically, you construct a strawman here.
I really suggest taking a course or two in formal logic to you guys.
Where did anyone say that "Chomsky is brilliant therefore he is right". Because I'm searching and I can't see that in my post. All I said was that I listened to Chomsky. I didn't even express support for his arguments.
On June 08 2010 19:44 Squeegy wrote: His argument was that because a man is brilliant, it doesn't mean he's right. Ironically, you construct a strawman here.
I really suggest taking a course or two in formal logic to you guys.
Bullshit, this is just getting silly. He said...
" ... and please don't listen to Chomsky,"
Not a single refutation of Chomsky's positions or arguments but an outright dismissal, and on what basis?
"the guy may be brilliant, but so was Bobby Fischer (same thing only with chess instead of linguistics).""
So therefore we should summarily disregard arguments made by people who are considered brilliant? That sounds REALLY logical. Hey, I know this guy, he's a fucking genius, don't listen to a word he has to say...
or is it?
Don't listen to this guy who's brilliant because's here's an example of a racist anti-semit jew who was ALSO brilliant.
And of course it is a TOTAL TOTAL COINCIDENCE that Chomsky has repeatedly been labelled as such by those who seek to dismiss his arguments. Ya, Kaz was not trying to draw an underhanded comparison between the two AT ALL. It's completely unrelated.
Of course the fantastic irony at play here, is that even if we accept your "interpretation" (vomit) of his statement, it's STILL a strawman.
Example of brilliant person who was full of shit. Therefore, dismiss other brilliant person arbitrarily without actually looking at what he has to say in the first place.
EPT
