First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Canada and Israel
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/10 , edited 5/5/10

Yei wrote:


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.


a- I am sure the conext makes it clear that I am refering to the American government.

b- Why would I read something as that? I may as well read 'Mien Kampf'.

c- He does not have a PhD, nor does he have any learnings what so ever in the area. Would you trust a physician without a degree in medicine? No? How about if he was 'knowledgable'? Still no? There's my point. He isn't at all qualified to speak on something he does not have any knowledge of, no matter how much he believes he does or he pretends he does as an authority.

d- And the thought of World Peace count, and you may very well write a book about it, but if you do not do anything to contribute to, or, indeed, to act adverse to this greater goal, what virtue is there? Che's action goes agianst what is moral or righteous, in addition to being adverse to his stated goal, with most of his victims did come from the class he claim to represent.

You have proven nothing, restating everything over again, in addition to the same accusation of being someone else. I suppose you do have a point, excepting our prose, style, personalities, and just about everything, in every other respect, we are the same. That is to say, we are both males, and we are both 'Chinese', and that somehow I live in Los Angeles and he in Canada, we are both one and the same.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/10
Hopefully, there will be substance in your next post, otherwise, I may as well ignore your inane rambling and your senseless idol worship of random rebels.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/5/10 , edited 5/5/10

orangeflute wrote:

a- I am sure the conext makes it clear that I am refering to the American government.

b- Why would I read something as that? I may as well read 'Mien Kampf'.

c- He does not have a PhD, nor does he have any learnings what so ever in the area. Would you trust a physician without a degree in medicine? No? How about if he was 'knowledgable'? Still no? There's my point. He isn't at all qualified to speak on something he does not have any knowledge of, no matter how much he believes he does or he pretends he does as an authority.

d- And the thought of World Peace count, and you may very well write a book about it, but if you do not do anything to contribute to, or, indeed, to act adverse to this greater goal, what virtue is there? Che's action goes agianst what is moral or righteous, in addition to being adverse to his stated goal, with most of his victims did come from the class he claim to represent.

You have proven nothing, restating everything over again, in addition to the same accusation of being someone else. I suppose you do have a point, excepting our prose, style, personalities, and just about everything, in every other respect, we are the same. That is to say, we are both males, and we are both 'Chinese', and that somehow I live in Los Angeles and he in Canada, we are both one and the same.


A - That still isn't specific. Against it in what way? Some policies he likes, others he rightfully hates. If anti-American means simply being against the American government, then Martin Luther King was anti-American. The Germans speaking out against the Nazi government were anti-German? Dissenters in the Soviet Union were anti-Russian? This is a totalitarian state tactic that is really meaningless.

B - Ok, then this argument has no base, there's no need to consider it.

C - Yes he does have lots of "learning" in this area. Are you actually comparing the formal educations necessary to become a physician and a political activist? I already said, you don't need a PhD to know all the facts and understand how the world works. Saying anyone without a PhD in political science isn't qualified to speak on political issues is ridiculous. You're just trying to discredit him before even looking at his work for whatever irrational reason.

D - This is a completely irrelevant discussion now.

I have proven nothing? You're the one making the baseless accusations and ridiculous claims, I don't need to prove anything other than the fact that there's no base to your random accusations. You need to prove your claims if you make them, that's how rational discussion generally works.


Hopefully, there will be substance in your next post, otherwise, I may as well ignore your inane rambling and your senseless idol worship of random rebels.


Coming from the guy who is making random, baseless accusations on a guy he is completely unfamiliar with by quickly looking them up. First you said he was "Anti-American" - you probably picked that up from somewhere quickly without realizing it has no meaning, and making other random insults as well. Then you dropped that and moved on to some other random links you had just found, something about the Cambodia genocide, very botched and pathetic. Interesting how you never mentioned the whole supporting Pol Pot thing initially and how you're so outraged, first it was just generic "he's Anti-American" and then you seemed to just remember other stuff later on. It couldn't be more obvious. This is the definition of pulling stuff out of your ass, you have no idea what you're talking about, I wouldn't be surprised if you never heard of Chomsky before this topic.

You're lucky I even bothered responding to your obviously botched nonsense. The similarity with Dom is that he does the exact same thing, and the reason is completely unknown. To start arguing about something you have no information on and pretending to be outraged is beyond my understanding.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/10 , edited 5/5/10


a- He opposes America for the sake of opposing America, MLK opposes America for its wrong against the African American Community. Even if the government deserves merit, he oppose their action out of spite.

b- If I don't like the man, why should I widen up and read his work. His interviews make him seem as a pendantic fool so why bother reading something that is probably equally boring.

c- His manner and his speech proves otherwise; he has yet to prove any knowledge in politics under his confounding and ultimately meaningless words. I am not saying you need a PhD, but I am saying that you actually need learning in the area to make comments on it. How is it any different from a doctor? You need to study the body and its functions to have a understanding of how it works, you need to study the world and its political insitutions to understand how it works. Of course, any layman can have his opinion, but it should not be taken as seriously as someone who does have a degree in that area. You can't possibly argue with that, unless, of course, you want to say 'Oh no! It's completely irrelevent and you are only trying to make irrational arguments.'

d- You then agree that Che is not some glorious God-man revolutioniarre, am I correct?

So, in conclusion, you have yet to make a point at all. You have not overturned any argument, aside from a few with the words 'he is pure genius and you are nobody.' (The irony being he is a nobody in the eyes of many, serious political scientist, unless that person is Hugo Chavez, but that is beside the point)
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/5/10
Alright, the baseless accusations you originally made, and therefore you need to provide evidence for, still haven't been backed up with any evidence.That's enough of my time being wasted.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/10

Yei wrote:

Alright, the baseless accusations you originally made, and therefore you need to provide evidence for, still haven't been backed up with any evidence.That's enough of my time being wasted.


As I said before, either it is completely common sense, or I have backed it up, with links you did not bother to read. But, being weary as I am from a strenous day, I shall return tomorrow to see something worth reading is finally posted. 再见! さよなら!Adieu! Adios! God b' wi' ye, and various other forms of farewell.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/5/10 , edited 5/5/10

orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:

Alright, the baseless accusations you originally made, and therefore you need to provide evidence for, still haven't been backed up with any evidence.That's enough of my time being wasted.


As I said before, either it is completely common sense, or I have backed it up, with links you did not bother to read. But, being weary as I am from a strenous day, I shall return tomorrow to see something worth reading is finally posted. 再见! さよなら!Adieu! Adios! God b' wi' ye, and various other forms of farewell.



Oh yeah, it's "common sense"? Are you new to rational discussion?

Here's a conveniently timed topic for you to look at, maybe you can learn how to make real arguments instead of random insults: http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-629551/checkpoints-of-a-rational-argument/
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 5/5/10


Well provide an example of a foreign policy he criticized that was so Anti-American that he shouldnt have said anything to begin with. Anyone can call former President Bush all types of names in the book but if all you have is name calling and no evidence of what he actually did to make people feel that way and what should have been done then your points are invalid. You can at least refute something instead of empty insults. Besides Noam isnt the only one critical of US foreign policy what about Congressman Ron Paul?, Dennis Kuicinch, Ralph Nadar, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, and there is many others these people were just the first to pop up in my head. Are all these politicians Anti-American especially the two who still are in Congress? Why would anyone elect an Anti-American? Also all these so called Anti-Americans provide better solutions.

Then lets go by your analogy by saying he should just stay as a linguistic professor and he doesnt have the right to comment on any of the US foreign policy. Then fine you should stay as whatever you are because I doubt you have any degree in history or anything pertain to Israel so why are you even on this thread commenting on Canada and Israel? Where is your certificate? I can bet all my money if the guy was highly critical of the middle east and muslims you would adore him. I believe because he is critical about Israel, to you now he doesn't have an earthly idea what he is talking about.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:

Alright, the baseless accusations you originally made, and therefore you need to provide evidence for, still haven't been backed up with any evidence.That's enough of my time being wasted.


As I said before, either it is completely common sense, or I have backed it up, with links you did not bother to read. But, being weary as I am from a strenous day, I shall return tomorrow to see something worth reading is finally posted. 再见! さよなら!Adieu! Adios! God b' wi' ye, and various other forms of farewell.



Oh yeah, it's "common sense"? Are you new to rational discussion?

Here's a conveniently timed topic for you to look at, maybe you can learn how to make real arguments instead of random insults: http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-629551/checkpoints-of-a-rational-argument/


Common enough sense that you feel no need to refute thus, seeing that you are not able to overturn them, and, yes, I watched the link and found it of no interest, your point being.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/10 , edited 5/5/10

drizza wrote:



Well provide an example of a foreign policy he criticized that was so Anti-American that he shouldnt have said anything to begin with. Anyone can call former President Bush all types of names in the book but if all you have is name calling and no evidence of what he actually did to make people feel that way and what should have been done then your points are invalid. You can at least refute something instead of empty insults. Besides Noam isnt the only one critical of US foreign policy what about Congressman Ron Paul?, Dennis Kuicinch, Ralph Nadar, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, and there is many others these people were just the first to pop up in my head. Are all these politicians Anti-American especially the two who still are in Congress? Why would anyone elect an Anti-American? Also all these so called Anti-Americans provide better solutions.

Then lets go by your analogy by saying he should just stay as a linguistic professor and he doesnt have the right to comment on any of the US foreign policy. Then fine you should stay as whatever you are because I doubt you have any degree in history or anything pertain to Israel so why are you even on this thread commenting on Canada and Israel? Where is your certificate? I can bet all my money if the guy was highly critical of the middle east and muslims you would adore him. I believe because he is critical about Israel, to you now he doesn't have an earthly idea what he is talking about.


I'm just saying, he is no authority. If someone with a degree in Middle-Eastern History and Politics, or someone with a degree in History/Politics in general, I would definately read his/her book, but as it stands, Noam has neither of these, nor does he have any credentials, or any proof of knowledge aside from inane ramblings.
Also, you think that I am some Conservative, correct? That I hate Moslems, and I wish them all to the devil. I can tell you thus: I was against the Afghan War when it started, I was against the Iraqi War when it started, I am still against both wars, and I am neutral toward the country of Israel. Thus, you cannot say that 'because he is a leftist radical and not a rightist one, you are critical of him.' It has been fun to talk to you and your attempts at subverting my arguments, but now, farewell. Even if it was an utter failure in every way possible, farewell.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/10

drizza wrote:



Well provide an example of a foreign policy he criticized that was so Anti-American that he shouldnt have said anything to begin with. Anyone can call former President Bush all types of names in the book but if all you have is name calling and no evidence of what he actually did to make people feel that way and what should have been done then your points are invalid. You can at least refute something instead of empty insults. Besides Noam isnt the only one critical of US foreign policy what about Congressman Ron Paul?, Dennis Kuicinch, Ralph Nadar, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, and there is many others these people were just the first to pop up in my head. Are all these politicians Anti-American especially the two who still are in Congress? Why would anyone elect an Anti-American? Also all these so called Anti-Americans provide better solutions.

Then lets go by your analogy by saying he should just stay as a linguistic professor and he doesnt have the right to comment on any of the US foreign policy. Then fine you should stay as whatever you are because I doubt you have any degree in history or anything pertain to Israel so why are you even on this thread commenting on Canada and Israel? Where is your certificate? I can bet all my money if the guy was highly critical of the middle east and muslims you would adore him. I believe because he is critical about Israel, to you now he doesn't have an earthly idea what he is talking about.


Also, the personage that follows him, they do not criticise everything about America's foriegn policy and they actually have ethos as opposed to some intellectual who, having made no more advancements in the field of linguistics, turn his attention towards politics and write a series of literature detailing his opinion of things, and such. So, his opinion, in my eyes, is worth little more than that of a blogger college student who thinks they know everything.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 5/5/10

orangeflute wrote:


drizza wrote:



Well provide an example of a foreign policy he criticized that was so Anti-American that he shouldnt have said anything to begin with. Anyone can call former President Bush all types of names in the book but if all you have is name calling and no evidence of what he actually did to make people feel that way and what should have been done then your points are invalid. You can at least refute something instead of empty insults. Besides Noam isnt the only one critical of US foreign policy what about Congressman Ron Paul?, Dennis Kuicinch, Ralph Nadar, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, and there is many others these people were just the first to pop up in my head. Are all these politicians Anti-American especially the two who still are in Congress? Why would anyone elect an Anti-American? Also all these so called Anti-Americans provide better solutions.

Then lets go by your analogy by saying he should just stay as a linguistic professor and he doesnt have the right to comment on any of the US foreign policy. Then fine you should stay as whatever you are because I doubt you have any degree in history or anything pertain to Israel so why are you even on this thread commenting on Canada and Israel? Where is your certificate? I can bet all my money if the guy was highly critical of the middle east and muslims you would adore him. I believe because he is critical about Israel, to you now he doesn't have an earthly idea what he is talking about.


I'm just saying, he is no authority. If someone with a degree in Middle-Eastern History and Politics, or someone with a degree in History/Politics in general, I would definately read his/her book, but as it stands, Noam has neither of these, nor does he have any credentials, or any proof of knowledge aside from inane ramblings.
Also, you think that I am some Conservative, correct? That I hate Moslems, and I wish them all to the devil. I can tell you thus: I was against the Afghan War when it started, I was against the Iraqi War when it started, I am still against both wars, and I am neutral toward the country of Israel. Thus, you cannot say that 'because he is a leftist radical and not a rightist one, you are critical of him.' It has been fun to talk to you and your attempts at subverting my arguments, but now, farewell. Even if it was an utter failure in every way possible, farewell.


Well see the problem is you say all he does is ramble without providing any evidence of this. Also everything that you are against he was to so I am still confused at where you are getting all this "Anti-American" ramble from. What is it in the American foreign policy that is correct that Mr. Chomsky is so far off it makes him look Anti-American. I mean show something instead of saying he is rambling. I can see if he was rambling with no evidence, offering no solution then you would have a point. But if he is proving that the dangerous American foreign policy especially when it comes to Israel which makes America look like a hypocritical country is doing more harm then good how is that bad to expose that? Besides he isnt the only one criticizing America's corrupt foreign policy. As stated Congressman Ron Paul is against Americas foreign policy and he keeps getting elected back into Congress. My question to you is why would Americans keep electing someone like Ron Paul he is against almost all of the American foreign policy?

Again just what in the American foreign policy to you is justifiable and please give a good example of Mr. Chomsky coming off as an Anti-American because as stated many other Americans such as he is very critical of the US actions overseas.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 5/5/10

orangeflute wrote:


drizza wrote:



Well provide an example of a foreign policy he criticized that was so Anti-American that he shouldnt have said anything to begin with. Anyone can call former President Bush all types of names in the book but if all you have is name calling and no evidence of what he actually did to make people feel that way and what should have been done then your points are invalid. You can at least refute something instead of empty insults. Besides Noam isnt the only one critical of US foreign policy what about Congressman Ron Paul?, Dennis Kuicinch, Ralph Nadar, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, and there is many others these people were just the first to pop up in my head. Are all these politicians Anti-American especially the two who still are in Congress? Why would anyone elect an Anti-American? Also all these so called Anti-Americans provide better solutions.

Then lets go by your analogy by saying he should just stay as a linguistic professor and he doesnt have the right to comment on any of the US foreign policy. Then fine you should stay as whatever you are because I doubt you have any degree in history or anything pertain to Israel so why are you even on this thread commenting on Canada and Israel? Where is your certificate? I can bet all my money if the guy was highly critical of the middle east and muslims you would adore him. I believe because he is critical about Israel, to you now he doesn't have an earthly idea what he is talking about.


Also, the personage that follows him, they do not criticise everything about America's foriegn policy and they actually have ethos as opposed to some intellectual who, having made no more advancements in the field of linguistics, turn his attention towards politics and write a series of literature detailing his opinion of things, and such. So, his opinion, in my eyes, is worth little more than that of a blogger college student who thinks they know everything.


Well nobody is stopping you from refuting him. Just show us where this guy is wrong thats all otherwise the more evidence he provides with his criticism the more I will take his word over yours. If you and him were in court and all the evidence you provided was, "All he does ramble, he should stay as a linguistic professor, he criticizes everything America does overseas." While Noam on the other hand is in court providing the evidence where the US has been wrong, the backlash that is causing, the effect on the economy and national security, the way USA is looking like a hypocrite then you will lose because you have insufficient evidence. There is no way you can win on this guy not having a single clue about what he is talking about unless you can effectively refute his points.

Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/5/10

orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:

Alright, the baseless accusations you originally made, and therefore you need to provide evidence for, still haven't been backed up with any evidence.That's enough of my time being wasted.


As I said before, either it is completely common sense, or I have backed it up, with links you did not bother to read. But, being weary as I am from a strenous day, I shall return tomorrow to see something worth reading is finally posted. 再见! さよなら!Adieu! Adios! God b' wi' ye, and various other forms of farewell.



Oh yeah, it's "common sense"? Are you new to rational discussion?

Here's a conveniently timed topic for you to look at, maybe you can learn how to make real arguments instead of random insults: http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-629551/checkpoints-of-a-rational-argument/


Common enough sense that you feel no need to refute thus, seeing that you are not able to overturn them, and, yes, I watched the link and found it of no interest, your point being.


No, that's your baseless opinion that you picked up off quickly off the internet. I can overturn them by simply saying there's nothing to refute; you have no evidence for any of these claims, and if you read his work you might actually know what you're talking about. My point with the link is it seems you need help understanding rational discussion, you actually need evidence to make claims, especially when they're outright insults. You have provided none, just saying it's "common sense." That's a pretty weak proof.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/6/10 , edited 5/6/10

Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


Yei wrote:

Alright, the baseless accusations you originally made, and therefore you need to provide evidence for, still haven't been backed up with any evidence.That's enough of my time being wasted.


As I said before, either it is completely common sense, or I have backed it up, with links you did not bother to read. But, being weary as I am from a strenous day, I shall return tomorrow to see something worth reading is finally posted. 再见! さよなら!Adieu! Adios! God b' wi' ye, and various other forms of farewell.



Oh yeah, it's "common sense"? Are you new to rational discussion?

Here's a conveniently timed topic for you to look at, maybe you can learn how to make real arguments instead of random insults: http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-629551/checkpoints-of-a-rational-argument/


Common enough sense that you feel no need to refute thus, seeing that you are not able to overturn them, and, yes, I watched the link and found it of no interest, your point being.


No, that's your baseless opinion that you picked up off quickly off the internet. I can overturn them by simply saying there's nothing to refute; you have no evidence for any of these claims, and if you read his work you might actually know what you're talking about. My point with the link is it seems you need help understanding rational discussion, you actually need evidence to make claims, especially when they're outright insults. You have provided none, just saying it's "common sense." That's a pretty weak proof.


When I say that you actually need to have learning in an area before writing a whole book on why your opinion of that area is of the right kind, isn't it common sense? No, appearantly, and by your logic, a professor of religious studies is qualified to write about the Darwinian theory of Evolution, as is a person with a degree in engineering qualified to operate on the human body.

In addition, the proof of his opposition to everything American, as oppose to everything wrong with America, can be proven in his book, or by one of his shorter essays on the internet (numbering about a hundred pages, for how can one embrace the philoshophy of brevity and be an intellectual, absurd!), which, having spare time, I have taken to reading.

You have not yet proven his worth, only vain attempts at degrading mine. I suppose that you have no need to defend 'such great a man whose merit is in being himself and who have no need of defence', but, at, being the ignoramus I am, appearantly, who has not been graced by Salvation as prosposed by Mr Noam Chomsky, I would need proof that his writing and his character are not like those of a rambling mad fool, that is to say, like Polonius of Hamlet.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.