First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Canada and Israel
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

orangeflute wrote:


He a world rated intellectual on account of his contribution to the field of linguistics, and his analysis of language is far more profound than his analysis of world politics. He does not have any studies into the delicate art of Political Science, and, like the Fool of Pope's famous maxims, rush into those area where angels dare not tread, without map, nor compass, nor any other instrument of navigation. I don't know jackshit about the field of botany, and my learning of plants and plantlife is limited to my childhood gardening expierences, should I write a whole book on the follies of modern botanist and recomend an absurd system to replace the current, slightly less absurd one? Should my advice hold any weight over experts and professors? Why, then, should his advice on politics hold weight over those learned in the field when he is, by all account, a rather radical layman? He is, then, indeed, 'some random guy who talks about politics' just like Joe McBlogger, only with a larger vocabulary and much better grammar.

Also, what should it matter that he was the most quoted man of all time? Chairman Mao once held that spot, should his Little Red Book of quotes be given precedent over Marx and Engles when once wishes to study Communism? Pat Robertson talks much about, and thus, is quoted much on the topic of Evolution, does his word hold more weight than a learned Evolutionary Biologist?



He us world-renowned and respected for his linguistic and his political activism. If you knew what you were talking about, maybe there would be a point to this discussion, but you don't.

Go read all his books, and see why he's respected all over the world for his political analysis. Then maybe we can have a serious discussion concerning his ideas, because you don't even know what they are. Just randomly trying to play devil's advocate on a subject you know noting about, for whatever reason.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10 , edited 5/2/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


He a world rated intellectual on account of his contribution to the field of linguistics, and his analysis of language is far more profound than his analysis of world politics. He does not have any studies into the delicate art of Political Science, and, like the Fool of Pope's famous maxims, rush into those area where angels dare not tread, without map, nor compass, nor any other instrument of navigation. I don't know jackshit about the field of botany, and my learning of plants and plantlife is limited to my childhood gardening expierences, should I write a whole book on the follies of modern botanist and recomend an absurd system to replace the current, slightly less absurd one? Should my advice hold any weight over experts and professors? Why, then, should his advice on politics hold weight over those learned in the field when he is, by all account, a rather radical layman? He is, then, indeed, 'some random guy who talks about politics' just like Joe McBlogger, only with a larger vocabulary and much better grammar.

Also, what should it matter that he was the most quoted man of all time? Chairman Mao once held that spot, should his Little Red Book of quotes be given precedent over Marx and Engles when once wishes to study Communism? Pat Robertson talks much about, and thus, is quoted much on the topic of Evolution, does his word hold more weight than a learned Evolutionary Biologist?



He us world-renowned and respected for his linguistic and his political activism. If you knew what you were talking about, maybe there would be a point to this discussion, but you don't.

Go read all his books, and see why he's respected all over the world for his political analysis. Then maybe we can have a serious discussion concerning his ideas, because you don't even know what they are. Just randomly trying to play devil's advocate on a subject you know noting about, for whatever reason.


I suppose that you have read but one line, found it offensive and disagreeable with your opinions, and then wrote this reply, but I will not argue that point. Below is a link to Pierre Vidal-Naquet's article on Noam concerning his impassioned defence of Mr Robert Faurisson. Mr Noam Chomsky went to far as to preface a book, which he admits he did not read, base on the character of Mr Faurisson, who he causally exchanged correspondence when he first came out as an Anti-semite, and the works of Faurisson's critic. Noam is a political activist, true, but so were a great deal of other people, say Mao or Stalin, only his eloquence and his mastery of the language, obtained though his actual studies, Linguistics, he is able to weave a web of saying and condemning everyone without saying thus, and manipulating the works of his critics to appear evil without having to explain how.
http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet81b/
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10
I suppose I should read his book once, if only to practise the delicate art of weaving and decieving through the medium of language. Who knows, I might be beguiled by his nonsense and, like yourself, become a Chomsky puppet.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 5/2/10 , edited 5/2/10
Here a comment from nut case. I wished the Israelis would push the Palestine's back into Jordan were allot of them started from, some forty years ago. See how Jordan government treats Palestine's. I guess you can tell I am for Israel. The Palestine's voted Ho-muse into office there goal is to wipe out Israel. A state of war already has been declared by the palatines vote. Voting has consequence the only thing a hard lesson. The people hear are just now understanding just how open and just the O'bama admiration is. These clown have been fight so long i just want it over with. have every one stay out of it.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

orangeflute wrote:

I suppose I should read his book once, if only to practise the delicate art of weaving and decieving through the medium of language. Who knows, I might be beguiled by his nonsense and, like yourself, become a Chomsky puppet.


For the last time, if you're ignorant about the subject, there's no point in discussing it. Know what you're talking about first, otherwise it's a waste of my time.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

I suppose I should read his book once, if only to practise the delicate art of weaving and decieving through the medium of language. Who knows, I might be beguiled by his nonsense and, like yourself, become a Chomsky puppet.


For the last time, if you're ignorant about the subject, there's no point in discussing it. Know what you're talking about first, otherwise it's a waste of my time.


Sir or Madam, I have to admit, you are not as fun to argue with as DomFortress, for the simple reason that DomFortress actually reads the arguement put against him. You first fail to disprove my arguement that he is in no way qualified to speak about politics, and so his words should not be taken as seriously as intellectuals actually in the trade, ordained through extensive studies. Secondly, you fail to counter my arguement that his character is doubtful, declaring that I am an ignoramus, and that I should have no speak on this subject. I can see why, seeing as I am indeed ignorant on the subject of Noam Chomsky, but, from what I read of his politics, I disagree, and from what I read of his character from judges of various spectrums, from the Liberal Vidal-Naquet to some rightist, whose name escape me at this moment, I disagree. You make no argument against me, and, so, I only can say, you must have conceeded defeat, either because you are wary of this argument, or, much more likely, you cannot win.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

I suppose I should read his book once, if only to practise the delicate art of weaving and decieving through the medium of language. Who knows, I might be beguiled by his nonsense and, like yourself, become a Chomsky puppet.


For the last time, if you're ignorant about the subject, there's no point in discussing it. Know what you're talking about first, otherwise it's a waste of my time.


Sir or Madam, I have to admit, you are not as fun to argue with as DomFortress, for the simple reason that DomFortress actually reads the arguement put against him. You first fail to disprove my arguement that he is in no way qualified to speak about politics, and so his words should not be taken as seriously as intellectuals actually in the trade, ordained through extensive studies. Secondly, you fail to counter my arguement that his character is doubtful, declaring that I am an ignoramus, and that I should have no speak on this subject. I can see why, seeing as I am indeed ignorant on the subject of Noam Chomsky, but, from what I read of his politics, I disagree, and from what I read of his character from judges of various spectrums, from the Liberal Vidal-Naquet to some rightist, whose name escape me at this moment, I disagree. You make no argument against me, and, so, I only can say, you must have conceeded defeat, either because you are wary of this argument, or, much more likely, you cannot win.


I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were one of DomFortress's accounts, because you have the same habit of arguing over things you know nothing about.

You started off criticizing Chomsky randomly by saying he's anti-American. You undoubtedly looked up some Noam Chomsky criticisms and posted that for the sake of playing devil's advocate (Dom does that too), even though you probably knew nothing about him before. Then you forgot about that, googled some more and posted that he supported Pol Pot and made some random quotes. You're not familiar with his work, you're not familiar with him, you've been googling random info on him just for the sake of arguing. I don't want to waste my time. Now you've moved on from the other random nonsense you were saying to "he doesn't have a political science degree." It's a joke of an argument. The evidence of his knowledge and perceptive is in his dozens and dozens of books were he is consistently brilliant. But you haven't read any, so you aren't in a position to be saying anything.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

I suppose I should read his book once, if only to practise the delicate art of weaving and decieving through the medium of language. Who knows, I might be beguiled by his nonsense and, like yourself, become a Chomsky puppet.


For the last time, if you're ignorant about the subject, there's no point in discussing it. Know what you're talking about first, otherwise it's a waste of my time.


Sir or Madam, I have to admit, you are not as fun to argue with as DomFortress, for the simple reason that DomFortress actually reads the arguement put against him. You first fail to disprove my arguement that he is in no way qualified to speak about politics, and so his words should not be taken as seriously as intellectuals actually in the trade, ordained through extensive studies. Secondly, you fail to counter my arguement that his character is doubtful, declaring that I am an ignoramus, and that I should have no speak on this subject. I can see why, seeing as I am indeed ignorant on the subject of Noam Chomsky, but, from what I read of his politics, I disagree, and from what I read of his character from judges of various spectrums, from the Liberal Vidal-Naquet to some rightist, whose name escape me at this moment, I disagree. You make no argument against me, and, so, I only can say, you must have conceeded defeat, either because you are wary of this argument, or, much more likely, you cannot win.


I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were one of DomFortress's accounts, because you have the same habit of arguing over things you know nothing about.

You started off criticizing Chomsky randomly by saying he's anti-American. You undoubtedly looked up some Noam Chomsky criticisms and posted that for the sake of playing devil's advocate (Dom does that too), even though you probably knew nothing about him before. Then you forgot about that, googled some more and posted that he supported Pol Pot and made some random quotes. You're not familiar with his work, you're not familiar with him, you've been googling random info on him just for the sake of arguing. I don't want to waste my time. Now you've moved on from the other random nonsense you were saying to "he doesn't have a political science degree." It's a joke of an argument. The evidence of his knowledge and perceptive is in his dozens and dozens of books were he is consistently brilliant. But you haven't read any, so you aren't in a position to be saying anything.


He is indeed anti-American, which is easily proven, and he did support Pol Pot in the 70s. He does not have any learning in the area of political science, something that is, I don't know, essential when commenting on politics (look up Ethos), I am not familiar with his work, I admit that much, and his 'knowledge' on the science of politics is laughable, his position always clear, America is the great imperialist evil, oppressing the poor, coloured folks, and dictators like Pol Pot are the heroes. You fail to disprove any of this, only saying 'You are not qualified to talk about him in such a manner.' I say, 'Tis true, but he is not qualified to speak about politics in such manner either, so why not?' DomFortress does agrue, makes point to defend himself, whereas, you, on the otherhand, reply with the words 'You are no authority.' In you other post, you resort to the same gimmick. Can this be because you have no valid arguement? Is that because you seem to think that Noam is radical and therefore correct? You quoted Che once, some bullock on Anguish. But, say, did he or did he not murder the same people he claim to defend, was he not born of rich parents, a doctor of fortune, and then a revolutionary who installed oppressive reigm thoughout Latin America? Are you simply seeking the most radical people, embracing their view for the sake of non-conformity? But, going back on topic, you fail to answer to any argument presented, dismissing them with the words 'you are not qualified to speak', which, as I pointed out, neither is your idol.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

orangeflute wrote:
He is indeed anti-American, which is easily proven, and he did support Pol Pot in the 70s. He does not have any learning in the area of political science, something that is, I don't know, essential when commenting on politics (look up Ethos), I am not familiar with his work, I admit that much, and his 'knowledge' on the science of politics is laughable, his position always clear, America is the great imperialist evil, oppressing the poor, coloured folks, and dictators like Pol Pot are the heroes. You fail to disprove any of this, only saying 'You are not qualified to talk about him in such a manner.' I say, 'Tis true, but he is not qualified to speak about politics in such manner either, so why not?' DomFortress does agrue, makes point to defend himself, whereas, you, on the otherhand, reply with the words 'You are no authority.' In you other post, you resort to the same gimmick. Can this be because you have no valid arguement? Is that because you seem to think that Noam is radical and therefore correct? You quoted Che once, some bullock on Anguish. But, say, did he or did he not murder the same people he claim to defend, was he not born of rich parents, a doctor of fortune, and then a revolutionary who installed oppressive reigm thoughout Latin America? Are you simply seeking the most radical people, embracing their view for the sake of non-conformity? But, going back on topic, you fail to answer to any argument presented, dismissing them with the words 'you are not qualified to speak', which, as I pointed out, neither is your idol.


It really does seem like you're Dom's duplicate account. These are all absolutely baseless accusations, like Dom, trying to play devil's advocate just because you want to argue.

If I wanted to, I could start making baseless accusations on anyone I wanted for the hell of it, but I have better things to do.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:
He is indeed anti-American, which is easily proven, and he did support Pol Pot in the 70s. He does not have any learning in the area of political science, something that is, I don't know, essential when commenting on politics (look up Ethos), I am not familiar with his work, I admit that much, and his 'knowledge' on the science of politics is laughable, his position always clear, America is the great imperialist evil, oppressing the poor, coloured folks, and dictators like Pol Pot are the heroes. You fail to disprove any of this, only saying 'You are not qualified to talk about him in such a manner.' I say, 'Tis true, but he is not qualified to speak about politics in such manner either, so why not?' DomFortress does agrue, makes point to defend himself, whereas, you, on the otherhand, reply with the words 'You are no authority.' In you other post, you resort to the same gimmick. Can this be because you have no valid arguement? Is that because you seem to think that Noam is radical and therefore correct? You quoted Che once, some bullock on Anguish. But, say, did he or did he not murder the same people he claim to defend, was he not born of rich parents, a doctor of fortune, and then a revolutionary who installed oppressive reigm thoughout Latin America? Are you simply seeking the most radical people, embracing their view for the sake of non-conformity? But, going back on topic, you fail to answer to any argument presented, dismissing them with the words 'you are not qualified to speak', which, as I pointed out, neither is your idol.


It really does seem like you're Dom's duplicate account. These are all absolutely baseless accusations, like Dom, trying to play devil's advocate just because you want to argue.

If I wanted to, I could start making baseless accusations on anyone I wanted for the hell of it, but I have better things to do.


It is by no mean baseless. For example, I furnished you with several links, including his infamous defence of some Revisionist. You made no attempt to look at it, I said he is not qualified, you fail to refute that, only saying that he is a frist-rate intellectual. I offer you my base, you sneer at it, so why should I even attempt to offer more?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/4/10

orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:
He is indeed anti-American, which is easily proven, and he did support Pol Pot in the 70s. He does not have any learning in the area of political science, something that is, I don't know, essential when commenting on politics (look up Ethos), I am not familiar with his work, I admit that much, and his 'knowledge' on the science of politics is laughable, his position always clear, America is the great imperialist evil, oppressing the poor, coloured folks, and dictators like Pol Pot are the heroes. You fail to disprove any of this, only saying 'You are not qualified to talk about him in such a manner.' I say, 'Tis true, but he is not qualified to speak about politics in such manner either, so why not?' DomFortress does agrue, makes point to defend himself, whereas, you, on the otherhand, reply with the words 'You are no authority.' In you other post, you resort to the same gimmick. Can this be because you have no valid arguement? Is that because you seem to think that Noam is radical and therefore correct? You quoted Che once, some bullock on Anguish. But, say, did he or did he not murder the same people he claim to defend, was he not born of rich parents, a doctor of fortune, and then a revolutionary who installed oppressive reigm thoughout Latin America? Are you simply seeking the most radical people, embracing their view for the sake of non-conformity? But, going back on topic, you fail to answer to any argument presented, dismissing them with the words 'you are not qualified to speak', which, as I pointed out, neither is your idol.


It really does seem like you're Dom's duplicate account. These are all absolutely baseless accusations, like Dom, trying to play devil's advocate just because you want to argue.

If I wanted to, I could start making baseless accusations on anyone I wanted for the hell of it, but I have better things to do.


It is by no mean baseless. For example, I furnished you with several links, including his infamous defence of some Revisionist. You made no attempt to look at it, I said he is not qualified, you fail to refute that, only saying that he is a frist-rate intellectual. I offer you my base, you sneer at it, so why should I even attempt to offer more?


Let's examine the claims

Anti-American: the term has no meaning, a concept totalitarian states tend to use. Everyone should be pointing out the crimes of terrorist and imperialist states.

He did not support Pol Pot, the link of that letter some random guy wrote didn't provide any proof that he did.

How is he not qualified? Any intellectual with as much knowledge and understanding as Chomsky is absolutely qualified. Read all of his books and see how qualified he is. You have no base for this claim, you haven't even read any of his books.

You know nothing about Che Guevara, just like you know nothing about Chomsky. You're just spouting random insults about them that you quickly looked up and stuck to.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/10 , edited 5/4/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:
He is indeed anti-American, which is easily proven, and he did support Pol Pot in the 70s. He does not have any learning in the area of political science, something that is, I don't know, essential when commenting on politics (look up Ethos), I am not familiar with his work, I admit that much, and his 'knowledge' on the science of politics is laughable, his position always clear, America is the great imperialist evil, oppressing the poor, coloured folks, and dictators like Pol Pot are the heroes. You fail to disprove any of this, only saying 'You are not qualified to talk about him in such a manner.' I say, 'Tis true, but he is not qualified to speak about politics in such manner either, so why not?' DomFortress does agrue, makes point to defend himself, whereas, you, on the otherhand, reply with the words 'You are no authority.' In you other post, you resort to the same gimmick. Can this be because you have no valid arguement? Is that because you seem to think that Noam is radical and therefore correct? You quoted Che once, some bullock on Anguish. But, say, did he or did he not murder the same people he claim to defend, was he not born of rich parents, a doctor of fortune, and then a revolutionary who installed oppressive reigm thoughout Latin America? Are you simply seeking the most radical people, embracing their view for the sake of non-conformity? But, going back on topic, you fail to answer to any argument presented, dismissing them with the words 'you are not qualified to speak', which, as I pointed out, neither is your idol.


It really does seem like you're Dom's duplicate account. These are all absolutely baseless accusations, like Dom, trying to play devil's advocate just because you want to argue.

If I wanted to, I could start making baseless accusations on anyone I wanted for the hell of it, but I have better things to do.


It is by no mean baseless. For example, I furnished you with several links, including his infamous defence of some Revisionist. You made no attempt to look at it, I said he is not qualified, you fail to refute that, only saying that he is a frist-rate intellectual. I offer you my base, you sneer at it, so why should I even attempt to offer more?


Let's examine the claims

Anti-American: the term has no meaning, a concept totalitarian states tend to use. Everyone should be pointing out the crimes of terrorist and imperialist states.

He did not support Pol Pot, the link of that letter some random guy wrote didn't provide any proof that he did.

How is he not qualified? Any intellectual with as much knowledge and understanding as Chomsky is absolutely qualified. Read all of his books and see how qualified he is. You have no base for this claim, you haven't even rII proead any of his books.

You know nothing about Che Guevara, just like you know nothing about Chomsky. You're just spouting random insults about them that you quickly looked up and stuck to.


a) Anti-Americanism, is, by definition, to be against America. While I do admire him for going out against the Vietnam War, his stance on America foriegn policies snice amounts to little more that 'America subjegates the poor Countries by either invading or installing puppet goverments, and then follows by exploiting their resources to benefit the American Government's overlord, the Corperation.' Read any of his book, and summarize it, and, chances are, if you are a fair and apolitical judge, you will come up with something very similar to the above.

b) The book is titled 'Distortions at Fourth Hand'.

c) He is only qualified to speak of liguistics as a professional, and on any other topics, not dealing with his field of learning, he should only be read as a layman. I provided the example of the amateur botanist, which, while I assumed that you have not at all read, I will not reproduce it here, which illustrate my feeling on this man, who rushes in to areas he have no business in, nor does he have any business in. He can write prettily, I give you that, otherwise you will have more argument than 'go read his book', but, what it amounts to must not be much, otherwise there will be more substance in your defence of him as his fan.

d) I do know that Che Guevara, no matter how kind, loving, and well intentioned he is, executed his political enemies, that is 'to cause a termination in the continued existence of people who dissented from his opinion', en masse. I also know that he is only a 'true revolutionary' because he seems such a romantic figure, but otherwise, he is a doctor's son, who, himself, became a doctor, and then gave it up for political power.

I do congratulate you, though, for you altered your argument from 'He is a intellectual and you should read him' to 'You have no basis, and he by virtue of his intellectual status, is right about everything, and you should read him.'
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 5/4/10

orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:
He is indeed anti-American, which is easily proven, and he did support Pol Pot in the 70s. He does not have any learning in the area of political science, something that is, I don't know, essential when commenting on politics (look up Ethos), I am not familiar with his work, I admit that much, and his 'knowledge' on the science of politics is laughable, his position always clear, America is the great imperialist evil, oppressing the poor, coloured folks, and dictators like Pol Pot are the heroes. You fail to disprove any of this, only saying 'You are not qualified to talk about him in such a manner.' I say, 'Tis true, but he is not qualified to speak about politics in such manner either, so why not?' DomFortress does agrue, makes point to defend himself, whereas, you, on the otherhand, reply with the words 'You are no authority.' In you other post, you resort to the same gimmick. Can this be because you have no valid arguement? Is that because you seem to think that Noam is radical and therefore correct? You quoted Che once, some bullock on Anguish. But, say, did he or did he not murder the same people he claim to defend, was he not born of rich parents, a doctor of fortune, and then a revolutionary who installed oppressive reigm thoughout Latin America? Are you simply seeking the most radical people, embracing their view for the sake of non-conformity? But, going back on topic, you fail to answer to any argument presented, dismissing them with the words 'you are not qualified to speak', which, as I pointed out, neither is your idol.


It really does seem like you're Dom's duplicate account. These are all absolutely baseless accusations, like Dom, trying to play devil's advocate just because you want to argue.

If I wanted to, I could start making baseless accusations on anyone I wanted for the hell of it, but I have better things to do.


It is by no mean baseless. For example, I furnished you with several links, including his infamous defence of some Revisionist. You made no attempt to look at it, I said he is not qualified, you fail to refute that, only saying that he is a frist-rate intellectual. I offer you my base, you sneer at it, so why should I even attempt to offer more?


I am sorry lol but I must agree all I am reading is baseless assaults on this guy. Nothing you presented is question worthy at all. Your first paragraph proves it. First you agree with the guy stance on Vietnam war but then you attack him for criticizing Americas foreign policy? So basically to you if he just stays silent, blindly follow what his government says then he is patriotic right? Even if you can see the backlash of this dangerous foreign policy, the innocent lives it is taking, and the hate it generates towards America lol you are calling someone anti-American for taking a stance against it. I am sorry but that is the most foolish thing I have ever heard in my life. In case you havent notice some people want this foreign policy to change so we can end these senseless wars, stop installing corrupt dictators and soon having to go invade that same country and kill them, most of the time the these dictators are cruel to their citizens. I am sorry buddy but you can keep that insane view but what you are stating is just opinions and not doing a good job proving a point at all.

In fact you should be called Anti-American for agreeing with him on his stance against the Vietnam war. How is he all of a sudden a patriot when it comes to disagreeing with that war but then Anti-American for disagreeing with continued senseless wars and occupation of third world countries? You see you make absolutely no sense at all and I find it funny that you would even bring Dom Fortress name into this retarded debate in my view because nobody here looks up to that guy nor wants to even be like him. I am not saying he is a bad person but I dont even see where you was even going with that. I say to you try harder to prove this guy doesn't know what he is talking about with more refuting to the OP rather then just baseless character assassination attacks.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/4/10

orangeflute wrote:
a) Anti-Americanism, is, by definition, to be against America. While I do admire him for going out against the Vietnam War, his stance on America foriegn policies snice amounts to little more that 'America subjegates the poor Countries by either invading or installing puppet goverments, and then follows by exploiting their resources to benefit the American Government's overlord, the Corperation.' Read any of his book, and summarize it, and, chances are, if you are a fair and apolitical judge, you will come up with something very similar to the above.

b) The book is titled 'Distortions at Fourth Hand'.

c) He is only qualified to speak of liguistics as a professional, and on any other topics, not dealing with his field of learning, he should only be read as a layman. I provided the example of the amateur botanist, which, while I assumed that you have not at all read, I will not reproduce it here, which illustrate my feeling on this man, who rushes in to areas he have no business in, nor does he have any business in. He can write prettily, I give you that, otherwise you will have more argument than 'go read his book', but, what it amounts to must not be much, otherwise there will be more substance in your defence of him as his fan.

d) I do know that Che Guevara, no matter how kind, loving, and well intentioned he is, executed his political enemies, that is 'to cause a termination in the continued existence of people who dissented from his opinion', en masse. I also know that he is only a 'true revolutionary' because he seems such a romantic figure, but otherwise, he is a doctor's son, who, himself, became a doctor, and then gave it up for political power.

I do congratulate you, though, for you altered your argument from 'He is a intellectual and you should read him' to 'You have no basis, and he by virtue of his intellectual status, is right about everything, and you should read him.'


a) "To be against America" doesn't mean anything. There's no ambiguous entity called "America." Do you mean the government? Do you mean the elites? The culture? The society? And the views you stated are not a stance; American foriegn policy is a fact, and it's pretty well-understood. US imperialism has been consistently brutal and widespread, just because you're ignorant of it doesn't mean that's not the case.

b) Ok, read the book and find the evidence.

c) Chomsky's a political activist with vast knowledge on politics and the world. What he got his PhD in is not relevant to how much he can know. Just because you don't like what someone's saying doesn't mean they're "not qualified," anybody who knows all the facts and has powerful insight is qualified to speak. You can't claim the Dalai Lama isn't qualified to speak to us about philosophy because he never got a PhD in it, and so we should disregard everything he says. Chomsky on the other hand is very well educated and is gifted with impressive intelligence. He's received honorary degrees from dozens of universities all over the world.

d) I've read some of Che Guevara's work, and it is inspirational. Just like in all socialist states, Cuba was forced into totalitarianism and so the execution and oppression weren't justified, but I can understand them. If it's the thought that counts, all Che wanted was to free his people from imperialism and get rid of poverty. His ambitions and determination are inspirational by themselves.

And again, it's been pretty obvious from the beginning that you were just googling or quickly looking up ways to criticize Chomsky. I'm not sure why, other than you being Dom's duplicate and therefore wanting to irrationally argue things for no reason.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/10

drizza wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:
He is indeed anti-American, which is easily proven, and he did support Pol Pot in the 70s. He does not have any learning in the area of political science, something that is, I don't know, essential when commenting on politics (look up Ethos), I am not familiar with his work, I admit that much, and his 'knowledge' on the science of politics is laughable, his position always clear, America is the great imperialist evil, oppressing the poor, coloured folks, and dictators like Pol Pot are the heroes. You fail to disprove any of this, only saying 'You are not qualified to talk about him in such a manner.' I say, 'Tis true, but he is not qualified to speak about politics in such manner either, so why not?' DomFortress does agrue, makes point to defend himself, whereas, you, on the otherhand, reply with the words 'You are no authority.' In you other post, you resort to the same gimmick. Can this be because you have no valid arguement? Is that because you seem to think that Noam is radical and therefore correct? You quoted Che once, some bullock on Anguish. But, say, did he or did he not murder the same people he claim to defend, was he not born of rich parents, a doctor of fortune, and then a revolutionary who installed oppressive reigm thoughout Latin America? Are you simply seeking the most radical people, embracing their view for the sake of non-conformity? But, going back on topic, you fail to answer to any argument presented, dismissing them with the words 'you are not qualified to speak', which, as I pointed out, neither is your idol.


It really does seem like you're Dom's duplicate account. These are all absolutely baseless accusations, like Dom, trying to play devil's advocate just because you want to argue.

If I wanted to, I could start making baseless accusations on anyone I wanted for the hell of it, but I have better things to do.


It is by no mean baseless. For example, I furnished you with several links, including his infamous defence of some Revisionist. You made no attempt to look at it, I said he is not qualified, you fail to refute that, only saying that he is a frist-rate intellectual. I offer you my base, you sneer at it, so why should I even attempt to offer more?


I am sorry lol but I must agree all I am reading is baseless assaults on this guy. Nothing you presented is question worthy at all. Your first paragraph proves it. First you agree with the guy stance on Vietnam war but then you attack him for criticizing Americas foreign policy? So basically to you if he just stays silent, blindly follow what his government says then he is patriotic right? Even if you can see the backlash of this dangerous foreign policy, the innocent lives it is taking, and the hate it generates towards America lol you are calling someone anti-American for taking a stance against it. I am sorry but that is the most foolish thing I have ever heard in my life. In case you havent notice some people want this foreign policy to change so we can end these senseless wars, stop installing corrupt dictators and soon having to go invade that same country and kill them, most of the time the these dictators are cruel to their citizens. I am sorry buddy but you can keep that insane view but what you are stating is just opinions and not doing a good job proving a point at all.

In fact you should be called Anti-American for agreeing with him on his stance against the Vietnam war. How is he all of a sudden a patriot when it comes to disagreeing with that war but then Anti-American for disagreeing with continued senseless wars and occupation of third world countries? You see you make absolutely no sense at all and I find it funny that you would even bring Dom Fortress name into this retarded debate in my view because nobody here looks up to that guy nor wants to even be like him. I am not saying he is a bad person but I dont even see where you was even going with that. I say to you try harder to prove this guy doesn't know what he is talking about with more refuting to the OP rather then just baseless character assassination attacks.


I do not say that America is one hundred percent perfect, and that every thing it has ever done has been for the greater good, but Noam Chomsky makes it his business to oppose all American foriegn policies, even though that does deserve merit as well as those that do not. So, no, it is not at all baseless, nor is it 'character assassination', for how can one assassinate someone's character when that personage makes himself foolish and idiotic as to assasinate his own character.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.