|
On June 08 2010 23:28 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 20:23 Squeegy wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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.
The true idiot accepts the intellectual at his word, without any critical review. "Intellectuals" have a very long history of "getting it wrong."
Jimmy Carter is widely viewed as being one of the most intelligent presidents that the US ever had, but he certainly wasn't very good. Obama, another "intellectual" president, is following right in his footsteps.
|
On June 08 2010 23:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 23:28 buhhy wrote:On June 08 2010 20:23 Squeegy wrote: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:[quote] 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: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. The true idiot accepts the intellectual at his word, without any critical review. "Intellectuals" have a very long history of "getting it wrong." Jimmy Carter is widely viewed as being one of the most intelligent presidents that the US ever had, but he certainly wasn't very good. Obama, another "intellectual" president, is following right in his footsteps.
I was thinking about editing my post and adding something like this, but you beat me to it. Implying we're idiots who hang off of everything people "like Sarah Palin" say because we're Americans who don't hang off of everything Chomsky says is a bit underhanded, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
On June 08 2010 23:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 23:28 buhhy wrote:On June 08 2010 20:23 Squeegy wrote: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:[quote] 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: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. The true idiot accepts the intellectual at his word, without any critical review. "Intellectuals" have a very long history of "getting it wrong." Jimmy Carter is widely viewed as being one of the most intelligent presidents that the US ever had, but he certainly wasn't very good. Obama, another "intellectual" president, is following right in his footsteps.
What seems to be discussed is the so called "human factor". People can be stupid and make mistakes, it's invevidable.
Your argument seems to be that we should question those who are considered intellectuals+ you add your own subjective ideas of right and wrong when discussing presidents actions.
This whole discussion is meaningless when people add their own views of certain intellectuals, the straw man discussion earlier was also way out of line.
What we all can agree on is what you first mentioned. Intellectuals should also be questioned. But it shouldn't lead to the point where we raise unintellectuals to a higherlevel of intellect. Should we listen to and respect Sarah palins opinions more than Chomskys?
It's up to every single person to choose, blind trust shouldn't be implemented onto any politician.
I would like to mention an example concerning this though. In Ancient Greece the philosophers wanted to control the politics. Platon backed this argument up with "Those who think and understand the issues are the ones who should be dealing with them".
This isn't plausible today but perhaps there is a reason we listen to the intellectuals more than those who are considered stupid?
Noam Chomsky is considered an intellectual. This is based on his intellect.
Should he not be mentioned at all because he is intellectual?
The basic thing this whole "intellectual or not" discussion has been about is our subjective opinions. Some consider Chomsky to be spot on some don't.
So please lead the discussion into their arguments and vailidity instead of grinding around in late night philosophy leading nowhere.
|
On June 08 2010 23:43 Biochemist wrote:
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.
You are the same as him, every point of view you give on a situation is based on ideals.
For exemple what you just said is a sylogism (a reasonning in 3 step, with one major, one minor and one conclusion).
Your minor is that Chomsky have political ideals not grounded in reality.
Your conclusion is that you "disregard" everything he says.
What is your major? That political ideals not grounded into reality are useless.
Now try to define reality and explain us why ideals who are not grounded on reality are so meaningless.
It's only your point of view, not some kind of scientific reasonning on chomsky's work.
|
On June 09 2010 00:07 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 23:43 Biochemist wrote:
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. You are the same as him, every point of view you give on a situation is based on ideals. For exemple what you just said is a sylogism (a reasonning in 3 step, with one major, one minor and one conclusion). Your minor is that Chomsky have political ideals not grounded in reality. Your conclusion is that you "disregard" everything he says. What is your major? That political ideals not grounded into reality are useless. Now try to define reality and explain us why ideals who are not grounded on reality are so meaningless. It's only your point of view, not some kind of scientific reasonning on chomsky's work.
The thing with Chomsky is that he's viewing political actions from a scientists perspective, not a certain political party's view.
If he's wrong when presenting his knowledge as facts it's horrible but to me I've so far never had a disagreement with his "opinions".
I myself am a social scientist (still student though) so listening to his argumentation, putting everything into functions, goals makes it all fall to pieces pretty easy.
The critique against him saying that he doesn't take the emotional factors into account is probably true in many cases. But it's perhaps not exactly what he's looking for. He sees political actions and dissects them into understandable pieces. Perhaps it's bad that the right wing doesn't have their own Chomsky but Imo it wouldn't be possible since they are the conservatives backing up the imperialistic actions.
|
On June 09 2010 00:06 SirGlinG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 23:28 buhhy wrote:On June 08 2010 20:23 Squeegy wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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. The true idiot accepts the intellectual at his word, without any critical review. "Intellectuals" have a very long history of "getting it wrong." Jimmy Carter is widely viewed as being one of the most intelligent presidents that the US ever had, but he certainly wasn't very good. Obama, another "intellectual" president, is following right in his footsteps. What seems to be discussed is the so called "human factor". People can be stupid and make mistakes, it's invevidable. Your argument seems to be that we should question those who are considered intellectuals+ you add your own subjective ideas of right and wrong when discussing presidents actions. This whole discussion is meaningless when people add their own views of certain intellectuals, the straw man discussion earlier was also way out of line. What we all can agree on is what you first mentioned. Intellectuals should also be questioned. But it shouldn't lead to the point where we raise unintellectuals to a higherlevel of intellect. Should we listen to and respect Sarah palins opinions more than Chomskys? It's up to every single person to choose, blind trust shouldn't be implemented onto any politician. I would like to mention an example concerning this though. In Ancient Greece the philosophers wanted to control the politics. Platon backed this argument up with "Those who think and understand the issues are the ones who should be dealing with them". This isn't plausible today but perhaps there is a reason we listen to the intellectuals more than those who are considered stupid? Noam Chomsky is considered an intellectual. This is based on his intellect. Should he not be mentioned at all because he is intellectual? The basic thing this whole "intellectual or not" discussion has been about is our subjective opinions. Some consider Chomsky to be spot on some don't. So please lead the discussion into their arguments and vailidity instead of grinding around in late night philosophy leading nowhere.
You certainly squeezed a lot of meaning out of those four little sentences! I wouldn't read so much into what I said. Should some additional deference and exposure be given to someone who has a degree or is noticeably more intelligent than the average person? Certainly. My point is that what these intelligent individuals say should be scrutinized all the same. I've been through more than enough higher education to know that intelligence is not the same as wisdom, which is something that more than just a few people forget.
|
On June 09 2010 00:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 00:06 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 23:28 buhhy wrote:On June 08 2010 20:23 Squeegy wrote: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:
[quote]
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:[quote] 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 [quote] 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: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. The true idiot accepts the intellectual at his word, without any critical review. "Intellectuals" have a very long history of "getting it wrong." Jimmy Carter is widely viewed as being one of the most intelligent presidents that the US ever had, but he certainly wasn't very good. Obama, another "intellectual" president, is following right in his footsteps. What seems to be discussed is the so called "human factor". People can be stupid and make mistakes, it's invevidable. Your argument seems to be that we should question those who are considered intellectuals+ you add your own subjective ideas of right and wrong when discussing presidents actions. This whole discussion is meaningless when people add their own views of certain intellectuals, the straw man discussion earlier was also way out of line. What we all can agree on is what you first mentioned. Intellectuals should also be questioned. But it shouldn't lead to the point where we raise unintellectuals to a higherlevel of intellect. Should we listen to and respect Sarah palins opinions more than Chomskys? It's up to every single person to choose, blind trust shouldn't be implemented onto any politician. I would like to mention an example concerning this though. In Ancient Greece the philosophers wanted to control the politics. Platon backed this argument up with "Those who think and understand the issues are the ones who should be dealing with them". This isn't plausible today but perhaps there is a reason we listen to the intellectuals more than those who are considered stupid? Noam Chomsky is considered an intellectual. This is based on his intellect. Should he not be mentioned at all because he is intellectual? The basic thing this whole "intellectual or not" discussion has been about is our subjective opinions. Some consider Chomsky to be spot on some don't. So please lead the discussion into their arguments and vailidity instead of grinding around in late night philosophy leading nowhere. You certainly squeezed a lot of meaning out of those four little sentences! I wouldn't read so much into what I said. Should some additional deference and exposure be given to someone who has a degree or is noticeably more intelligent than the average person? Certainly. My point is that what these intelligent individuals say should be scrutinized all the same. I've been through more than enough higher education to know that intelligence is not the same as wisdom, which is something that more than just a few people forget.
Everything should be critized, specially "intellectuels", but not just by saying "this guy is an idealist so he is useless". That's useless and moronic.
|
On June 09 2010 00:25 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 00:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2010 00:06 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 23:28 buhhy wrote:On June 08 2010 20:23 Squeegy wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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: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. The true idiot accepts the intellectual at his word, without any critical review. "Intellectuals" have a very long history of "getting it wrong." Jimmy Carter is widely viewed as being one of the most intelligent presidents that the US ever had, but he certainly wasn't very good. Obama, another "intellectual" president, is following right in his footsteps. What seems to be discussed is the so called "human factor". People can be stupid and make mistakes, it's invevidable. Your argument seems to be that we should question those who are considered intellectuals+ you add your own subjective ideas of right and wrong when discussing presidents actions. This whole discussion is meaningless when people add their own views of certain intellectuals, the straw man discussion earlier was also way out of line. What we all can agree on is what you first mentioned. Intellectuals should also be questioned. But it shouldn't lead to the point where we raise unintellectuals to a higherlevel of intellect. Should we listen to and respect Sarah palins opinions more than Chomskys? It's up to every single person to choose, blind trust shouldn't be implemented onto any politician. I would like to mention an example concerning this though. In Ancient Greece the philosophers wanted to control the politics. Platon backed this argument up with "Those who think and understand the issues are the ones who should be dealing with them". This isn't plausible today but perhaps there is a reason we listen to the intellectuals more than those who are considered stupid? Noam Chomsky is considered an intellectual. This is based on his intellect. Should he not be mentioned at all because he is intellectual? The basic thing this whole "intellectual or not" discussion has been about is our subjective opinions. Some consider Chomsky to be spot on some don't. So please lead the discussion into their arguments and vailidity instead of grinding around in late night philosophy leading nowhere. You certainly squeezed a lot of meaning out of those four little sentences! I wouldn't read so much into what I said. Should some additional deference and exposure be given to someone who has a degree or is noticeably more intelligent than the average person? Certainly. My point is that what these intelligent individuals say should be scrutinized all the same. I've been through more than enough higher education to know that intelligence is not the same as wisdom, which is something that more than just a few people forget. Everything should be critized, specially "intellectuels", but not just by saying "this guy is an idealist so he is useless". That's useless and moronic.
Idealism, when given a real world application, has a habit of becoming useless in a hurry. There's nothing moronic about criticizing idealist foreign policy ideas, especially when the foundation for those ideas is predicated purely upon idealism and devoid of any practicality.
|
On June 09 2010 00:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 00:06 SirGlinG wrote:On June 08 2010 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2010 23:28 buhhy wrote:On June 08 2010 20:23 Squeegy wrote: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:
[quote]
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:[quote] 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 [quote] 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: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. The true idiot accepts the intellectual at his word, without any critical review. "Intellectuals" have a very long history of "getting it wrong." Jimmy Carter is widely viewed as being one of the most intelligent presidents that the US ever had, but he certainly wasn't very good. Obama, another "intellectual" president, is following right in his footsteps. What seems to be discussed is the so called "human factor". People can be stupid and make mistakes, it's invevidable. Your argument seems to be that we should question those who are considered intellectuals+ you add your own subjective ideas of right and wrong when discussing presidents actions. This whole discussion is meaningless when people add their own views of certain intellectuals, the straw man discussion earlier was also way out of line. What we all can agree on is what you first mentioned. Intellectuals should also be questioned. But it shouldn't lead to the point where we raise unintellectuals to a higherlevel of intellect. Should we listen to and respect Sarah palins opinions more than Chomskys? It's up to every single person to choose, blind trust shouldn't be implemented onto any politician. I would like to mention an example concerning this though. In Ancient Greece the philosophers wanted to control the politics. Platon backed this argument up with "Those who think and understand the issues are the ones who should be dealing with them". This isn't plausible today but perhaps there is a reason we listen to the intellectuals more than those who are considered stupid? Noam Chomsky is considered an intellectual. This is based on his intellect. Should he not be mentioned at all because he is intellectual? The basic thing this whole "intellectual or not" discussion has been about is our subjective opinions. Some consider Chomsky to be spot on some don't. So please lead the discussion into their arguments and vailidity instead of grinding around in late night philosophy leading nowhere. You certainly squeezed a lot of meaning out of those four little sentences! I wouldn't read so much into what I said. Should some additional deference and exposure be given to someone who has a degree or is noticeably more intelligent than the average person? Certainly. My point is that what these intelligent individuals say should be scrutinized all the same. I've been through more than enough higher education to know that intelligence is not the same as wisdom, which is something that more than just a few people forget.
Your previous post was a bit unclear on these factors but after reading this I must say that I actually agree with every point.
|
On June 09 2010 00:07 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 23:43 Biochemist wrote:
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. You are the same as him, every point of view you give on a situation is based on ideals. For exemple what you just said is a sylogism (a reasonning in 3 step, with one major, one minor and one conclusion). Your minor is that Chomsky have political ideals not grounded in reality. Your conclusion is that you "disregard" everything he says. What is your major? That political ideals not grounded into reality are useless. Now try to define reality and explain us why ideals who are not grounded on reality are so meaningless. It's only your point of view, not some kind of scientific reasonning on chomsky's work.
Because political ideals that are not grounded in reality are not very practical. Now I'm not an expert on the guy, but from skimming his wikipedia page it appears that he supports a lot of political philosophies that, to my knowledge, have never been successfully implemented. For that reason I don't trust him. You may call me close-minded and ignorant for that, but the results of major ideological revolutions in the past have generally been pretty poor.
|
On June 09 2010 00:44 Biochemist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 00:07 ArKaDo wrote:On June 08 2010 23:43 Biochemist wrote:
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. You are the same as him, every point of view you give on a situation is based on ideals. For exemple what you just said is a sylogism (a reasonning in 3 step, with one major, one minor and one conclusion). Your minor is that Chomsky have political ideals not grounded in reality. Your conclusion is that you "disregard" everything he says. What is your major? That political ideals not grounded into reality are useless. Now try to define reality and explain us why ideals who are not grounded on reality are so meaningless. It's only your point of view, not some kind of scientific reasonning on chomsky's work. Because political ideals that are not grounded in reality are not very practical. Now I'm not an expert on the guy, but from skimming his wikipedia page it appears that he supports a lot of political philosophies that, to my knowledge, have never been successfully implemented. For that reason I don't trust him. You may call me close-minded and ignorant for that, but the results of major ideological revolutions in the past have generally been pretty poor.
300 years ago, the guy who was dreaming of flying in the sky was a fools and everybody laugh at him: his ideal was certainly not grounded in reality. Yet... some says that it's only because of this silly dream that we now have airplane and everything.
Karl Manheim, one of the first sociologue of knowledge after max scheller (they studied the production of intellectual theories) said that the production of knowledge was bind to ideologies given to us by our social environment. Yet, some people have the vocation to transcend their perspective and their main tool to do that are utopias (in grec utopia means "without place" so it's not grounded at all).
Chomsky "idealism" is necessary to change reality, that's all. It's an important part of his argument, by saying that everything he says is biaised, you only take a conservativ stance. Try to argue in detail with him, that should be way more interesting.
You try to face the gaza blockade with only objectiv arguments, but by doing so you fail because what matter is how the populations are understanding what israel is doing.
(By the way, Liberalism & capitalism have mostly been created by philosopher like Adam Smith who had a chair of "moral philosophy", so it all started with ideals)
|
I won't disagree with you, but when it comes to social "science" I'm not going to jump on an untested bandwagon. I do stuff with big molecules in a lab, and don't have the time or education to debate social philosophy on any deep level. I feel that it would be irresponsible for me to advocate something that has never been shown to work just because someone with flowery speech says it's a good idea. I'm not going to fight against an idea that hasn't been tested, but I'm not going to support it either.
Switching gears:
How do you achieve peace with an organization (Hamas) whose stated goals involve wiping you off the face of the planet? Everyone seems to be pointing fingers at Israel for doing things like enforcing their naval blockade (the logic here seems to be that it's unethical for Israel to have the naval blockade in the first place?), but I don't hear many people offering a solution for peace. Can you stand against Israel's control of Gaza and not be in support of Hamas as a result?
|
|
|
On June 09 2010 01:13 Biochemist wrote:
I won't disagree with you, but when it comes to social "science" I'm not going to jump on an untested bandwagon. I do stuff with big molecules in a lab, and don't have the time or education to debate social philosophy on any deep level. I feel that it would be irresponsible for me to advocate something that has never been shown to work just because someone with flowery speech says it's a good idea. I'm not going to fight against an idea that hasn't been tested, but I'm not going to support it either.
Switching gears:
How do you achieve peace with an organization (Hamas) whose stated goals involve wiping you off the face of the planet? Everyone seems to be pointing fingers at Israel for doing things like enforcing their naval blockade (the logic here seems to be that it's unethical for Israel to have the naval blockade in the first place?), but I don't hear many people offering a solution for peace. Can you stand against Israel's control of Gaza and not be in support of Hamas as a result?
I don't think you're wrong, but I think you're asking the wrong questions. How about achieving peace with the Palestinian people? Hamas and groups like it don't come about spontaneously. Extremists are created when people are oppressed and desperate. The answer to Israel's problems won't be solved by trying to slowly starve millions of people, but by treating them with some humanity. Israel needs to engage seriously in peace talks and start treating the people they have a massive amount of power over with some decency and dignity. Then they won't need to deal with extremist groups like Hamas because Hamas' support will slowly erode. I'm not suggesting that would happen overnight, but those of us old enough remember a time when Hamas didn't exist except as a fringe group and not as a major political player.
|
That does not condone the cold blooded killing of 9 people. Where was the restraint? I would have understood if one or two person died from an overzealous commando, but 9 people is just way overboard.
|
|
|
If commandos defended themselves, they would've used something other than deadly force, unless they were just there waiting for the moment to kill. What happened to tear gas? Is the Israeli army so backwards that they lack non-lethal arms to subdue a few ragtag protesters? Those people may not have been peaceful, but they sure as hell didn't deserve to be gunned down.
|
On June 09 2010 04:11 TOloseGT wrote:If commandos defended themselves, they would've used something other than deadly force, unless they were just there waiting for the moment to kill. What happened to tear gas? Is the Israeli army so backwards that they lack non-lethal arms to subdue a few ragtag protesters? Those people may not have been peaceful, but they sure as hell didn't deserve to be gunned down.
You raise a very valid point. They should've used gasmask penetrating tear gas. Oh wait. Paintball guns. Oh wait. Tazers. Oh wait.
|
On June 09 2010 04:27 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 04:11 TOloseGT wrote:If commandos defended themselves, they would've used something other than deadly force, unless they were just there waiting for the moment to kill. What happened to tear gas? Is the Israeli army so backwards that they lack non-lethal arms to subdue a few ragtag protesters? Those people may not have been peaceful, but they sure as hell didn't deserve to be gunned down. You raise a very valid point. They should've used gasmask penetrating tear gas. Oh wait. Paintball guns. Oh wait. Tazers. Oh wait.
So all that was left was guns? Gimme a break.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
