|
Woah, didn't intend to be inflammatory. I chose those two guys because they have ideologies that come from an insanely ivory-tower approach (a linguistics Professor and a chess player), both of Jewish origin, and both I consider to be among the most brilliant men that ever lived, while not connecting to what they say. I do not believe Noam Chomsky hates Israel blindly like Fischer did. But I can understand why someone would assume that I was hinting towards that.
This was not my intention, and let's get back on track to a more serious debate here.
edit: SERIOUSLY GUYS, I WAS WATCHING PROLEAGUE, READING THE PAPER AND I SEE THIS SHITSTORM???!
|
So then, we should be listening to chomsky, hurray \o/
|
On June 08 2010 19:46 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 19:40 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:26 Subversive wrote:On June 08 2010 19:17 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:13 Klaz wrote:On June 08 2010 19:09 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 18:53 Klaz wrote: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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" 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. EDIT: Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 19:44 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:36 Klaz wrote: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. Now... Bobby Fischer.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Anti-Jewish_statementsWe'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.
Nobody said that. Nor did I say that anyone said that. The point is that Chomsky's word gets too much credit because of him being what some would call an intellectual. The reason why you specifically mentioned Chomsky is because he is famous for being brilliant.
But we all know that you are supporting his arguments. The very context you mentioned his name in is very much evidence of this (although not very strong evidence).
|
On June 08 2010 20:07 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 19:46 Subversive wrote:On June 08 2010 19:40 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:26 Subversive wrote:On June 08 2010 19:17 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:13 Klaz wrote:On June 08 2010 19:09 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 18:53 Klaz wrote: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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" 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. EDIT: On June 08 2010 19:44 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:36 Klaz wrote: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. Now... Bobby Fischer.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Anti-Jewish_statementsWe'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. Nobody said that. Nor did I say that anyone said that. The point is that Chomsky's word gets too much credit because of him being what some would call an intellectual. The reason why you specifically mentioned Chomsky is because he is famous for being brilliant. But we all know that you are supporting his arguments. The very context you mentioned his name in is very much evidence of this (although not very strong evidence).
I actually mentioned him because he was posted a few pages back and I was listening to the clip. But then I also mentioned a prominent ex-judge from Israel. Are you done yet?
|
On June 08 2010 20:07 Squeegy wrote:
Nobody said that. Nor did I say that anyone said that. The point is that Chomsky's word gets too much credit because of him being what some would call an intellectual. The reason why you specifically mentioned Chomsky is because he is famous for being brilliant.
Right of course, this is the latest fad in America. We should pay more attention to the arguments of idiots, like Sarah Palin and summarily disregard someone who actually has a clue, like Chomsky because he is an "intellectual elite."
But we all know that you are supporting his arguments. The very context you mentioned his name in is very much evidence of this (although not very strong evidence).
I COMPLETELY support his arguments. But that is because I have actually listened to them, and find them to be erudite and persuasive.
|
On June 08 2010 20:10 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 20:07 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:46 Subversive wrote:On June 08 2010 19:40 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:26 Subversive wrote:On June 08 2010 19:17 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:13 Klaz wrote:On June 08 2010 19:09 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 18:53 Klaz wrote: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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" 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. EDIT: On June 08 2010 19:44 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:36 Klaz wrote: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. Now... Bobby Fischer.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Anti-Jewish_statementsWe'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. Nobody said that. Nor did I say that anyone said that. The point is that Chomsky's word gets too much credit because of him being what some would call an intellectual. The reason why you specifically mentioned Chomsky is because he is famous for being brilliant. But we all know that you are supporting his arguments. The very context you mentioned his name in is very much evidence of this (although not very strong evidence). I actually mentioned him because he was posted a few pages back and I was listening to the clip. But then I also mentioned a prominent ex-judge from Israel. Are you done yet?
Sure, because I'm not sure what is your point.
On June 08 2010 20:10 Klaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 20:07 Squeegy wrote:
Nobody said that. Nor did I say that anyone said that. The point is that Chomsky's word gets too much credit because of him being what some would call an intellectual. The reason why you specifically mentioned Chomsky is because he is famous for being brilliant. Right of course, this is the latest fad in America. We should pay more attention to the arguments of idiots, like Sarah Palin and summarily disregard someone who actually has a clue, like Chomsky because he is an "intellectual elite." Show nested quote +But we all know that you are supporting his arguments. The very context you mentioned his name in is very much evidence of this (although not very strong evidence). I COMPLETELY support his arguments. But that is because I have actually listened to them, and find them to be erudite and persuasive.
What does the latest fad in America have to do with anything?
|
This thread is pretty decent in some ways as I posted earlier. I really shouldn't let Squeegy drag me into these useless disagreements. I'm out Squeegy. You'll have to bother someone else.
|
Hay, Goering had something to say about this to!
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country"
|
On June 08 2010 20:07 blomsterjohn wrote:
So then, we should be listening to chomsky, hurray \o/
Chomsky is brilliant, and his contribution to Linguistics is probably the most major one of the 20th century. He's eloquent, and very reasonable. On paper, pragmatism will win every time, but the real-world solutions are often very different from intellectual debates. He's too much of an ivory-tower type in his reasoning for most tastes, and I believe he fails to see the emotional contents of a situation being as big a factor as they are in practice.
Again, we're going on tangents here. Let's leave Chomsky alone.
|
Let's make it clear: In the constitution Israel is the state of JEWS, so Arab are not recognize as they should.
In the second time, i think you have a different identity card if you are arabic or jew in israel. So it's NOT a "pure" democracy in theory.
Well, beside that Israel is a nice democracy with a great democratic system (better than my country for exemple) where everybody can vote.
Seriously Krazius, i agree that Chomsky has always been an idealist (a famous confrontation to Foucault back in the days clearly showed that) but still, your way of thinking is exactly your so called "ivory-tower". All you do is defending your country and saying on the same time that you are a "peace activist". Be clear with yourself.
To be more precise, you can't make war for peace, that's an idiocy by itself: you can make war to change the actual state, or to free people, or anything else.
You cannot say that you want peace and on the same time agree with IDF's violence.
There is a big difference between "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" (if you want peace, prepare war) and "if you want peace, make war".
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
On June 08 2010 21:15 ArKaDo wrote:
Let's make it clear: In the constitution Israel is the state of JEWS, so Arab are not recognize as they should.
Just to clarify something here, are you sure that this true? I mean looking through here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel It seems that what you have said is not the case, are there other sources on this matter?
|
Chomsky is about the best person to listen to when you want to be informed about such matters. He's also very pragmatic, offering clarifications and clear reasoning of the Gaza conflict and suggestions that would be wise to implement. The reason he gets called an idealist or worse is because his suggestions are basically veto'd by elites that don't have the people's best interests at heart, but that's not a problem with Chomsky (who also writes about that problem), but with the USA political and media class.
|
On June 08 2010 21:44 Mothxal wrote:
Chomsky is about the best person to listen to when you want to be informed about such matters. He's also very pragmatic, offering clarifications and clear reasoning of the Gaza conflict and suggestions that would be wise to implement. The reason he gets called an idealist or worse is because his suggestions are basically veto'd by elites that don't have the people's best interests at heart, but that's not a problem with Chomsky (who also writes about that problem), but with the USA political and media class.
Chomsky is the best person to listen if you want a specific viewpoint.
|
A viewpoint that is well-argued and persuasive, however.
|
On June 08 2010 21:31 Spenguin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 21:15 ArKaDo wrote:
Let's make it clear: In the constitution Israel is the state of JEWS, so Arab are not recognize as they should.
Just to clarify something here, are you sure that this true? I mean looking through here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel It seems that what you have said is not the case, are there other sources on this matter?
It is a complicated matter because there is no constitution in Israel like I said in another post (I was refering in fact to the equivalent of the constitution in this country), but in the declaration of establishment of the state of israel (see it here) it is said "the establishement of a jewish state in Eretz-Israel". You can also see here that in 2007, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert still wanted Palestinian authority to acknowledge Israel's existence as a "Jewish state".
As for the identity card, there are 3 variations considering that you are Hebrew, Arabic or palestinian (see it here)
|
On June 08 2010 21:44 Mothxal wrote:
Chomsky is about the best person to listen to when you want to be informed about such matters. He's also very pragmatic, offering clarifications and clear reasoning of the Gaza conflict and suggestions that would be wise to implement. The reason he gets called an idealist or worse is because his suggestions are basically veto'd by elites that don't have the people's best interests at heart, but that's not a problem with Chomsky (who also writes about that problem), but with the USA political and media class.
Chomsky is indeed the best person to listen if you want to be informed, I'm amazed by all he knows on Israel's actions (he said, for exemple, that IDF & the mossad kidnapped & killed people all the time at sea, but since it's not occidentals, nobody cares). He is indeed pragmatic, like everybody (pragmatic is a shitty word), but he have ideals (WHICH IS GOOD BY THE WAY). It's not bad to be an idealist, he just came to my country a week ago, I think he is great.
What I mean is, let's suppose that his point of view is biaised and focus on the main topic. Chomsky is so big that mentionning his name is a good argument for others to just discredit your point, so the discussion is meaningless in the end.
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
On June 08 2010 23:00 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 21:31 Spenguin wrote:On June 08 2010 21:15 ArKaDo wrote:
Let's make it clear: In the constitution Israel is the state of JEWS, so Arab are not recognize as they should.
Just to clarify something here, are you sure that this true? I mean looking through here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel It seems that what you have said is not the case, are there other sources on this matter? It is a complicated matter because there is no constitution in Israel like I said in another post, but in the declaration of establishment of the state of israel (see it here) it is said "the establishement of a jewish state in Eretz-Israel". You can also see here that in 2007, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert still wanted Palestinian authority to acknowledge Israel's existence as a "Jewish state". As for the identity card, there are 3 variations considering that you are Hebrew, Arabic or palestinian (see it here)
Ah kay cool thanks.
|
I have to add that the article that I linked is shit since he is justifying Israel's demand without even considering Israel's demography at the moment.
76% of the population is Jew, 16% is muslim and 2,5% are arabic christian. And the Arabic population is growing faster than the jewish one. And I must add that a quater of the "Jew" population is not Jew but atheist :
"Official figures do not exist as to the number of atheists or otherwise non-affiliated individuals, who may comprise up to a quarter of the population referred to as Jewish."
Identity cards don't show religious belief. Atheist Jews and religious Jews get the same cards. However, there are opinion polls about religious belief in Israel
(see here, and note the big difference between jews' enfant mortality (3,1) and arabic enfant mortality (7,7))
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Population_of_Israel.svg/600px-Population_of_Israel.svg.png)
|
On June 08 2010 20:23 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 20:10 Subversive wrote:On June 08 2010 20:07 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:46 Subversive wrote:On June 08 2010 19:40 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:26 Subversive wrote:On June 08 2010 19:17 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:13 Klaz wrote:On June 08 2010 19:09 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 18:53 Klaz wrote:[quote] Strawman Sure you know what a strawman is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" 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. EDIT: On June 08 2010 19:44 Squeegy wrote:On June 08 2010 19:36 Klaz wrote: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. Now... Bobby Fischer.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Anti-Jewish_statementsWe'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. Nobody said that. Nor did I say that anyone said that. The point is that Chomsky's word gets too much credit because of him being what some would call an intellectual. The reason why you specifically mentioned Chomsky is because he is famous for being brilliant. But we all know that you are supporting his arguments. The very context you mentioned his name in is very much evidence of this (although not very strong evidence). I actually mentioned him because he was posted a few pages back and I was listening to the clip. But then I also mentioned a prominent ex-judge from Israel. Are you done yet? Sure, because I'm not sure what is your point. Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 20:10 Klaz wrote:On June 08 2010 20:07 Squeegy wrote:
Nobody said that. Nor did I say that anyone said that. The point is that Chomsky's word gets too much credit because of him being what some would call an intellectual. The reason why you specifically mentioned Chomsky is because he is famous for being brilliant. Right of course, this is the latest fad in America. We should pay more attention to the arguments of idiots, like Sarah Palin and summarily disregard someone who actually has a clue, like Chomsky because he is an "intellectual elite." But we all know that you are supporting his arguments. The very context you mentioned his name in is very much evidence of this (although not very strong evidence). I COMPLETELY support his arguments. But that is because I have actually listened to them, and find them to be erudite and persuasive. What does the latest fad in America have to do with anything?
The latest fad in America is listening to the voice of idiots. The words of an intellectual SHOULD have more weight than those of people with less intelligence.
|
I don't disregard much of what chomsky says because he's an "intellectual elite," I disregard much of what he says because his political ideals are absolutely not grounded in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
