|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL
Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
|
i most certainly wouldn't consider myself a 'fawner' of Chomsky - there are quite a few issues and points where i disagree with him, actually. however, i would consider statements such as "Chomsky is an intellectual crook with nothing to say" to be not only false, but libelous. you can certainly disagree with his conclusions - as well as be critical of some of his sources - as well as accusing him of sometimes 'misrepresenting' persons he quotes - but none of those (in my mind) constitute a reason to not read Chomsky and see what he has to say. then again, i'm one of the few extreme-lefties (that i know) who has also read milton friedman, and others like him... basically anybody whom i consider to be 'intelligent' i'll give the fair time to read and think about - whether or not i agree with them (in the beginning or end).
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
#4442798 - 07/23/05 11:56 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Is this a standard name you use on everyone you disagree with? You were calling bukake "Alex" last week.
No, Alex... I just call you Alex.
Quote:
What exactly do you think Kamms "points" demonstrate?
They provide one of many demonstrations of Chomsky's deliberate misquoting of sources.
Quote:
"Red-handed" doing what?
Making stuff up.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Krishna]
#4442850 - 07/23/05 12:04 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Krishna writes:
Quote:
however, i would consider statements such as "Chomsky is an intellectual crook with nothing to say" to be not only false, but libelous.
It is neither false nor libelous to point out his intellectual dishonesty. It's only libel if it isn't true. Chomsky has been caught at this kind of thing so often that he long ago ceased to have any credibility at all.
I never said he has "nothing" to say, I (and others) merely point out that since so much of what he says is demonstrably false, the only way to get anything of value from his output is to expend the effort to track down each and every one of his references and check them. I don't know about you, but I say life is too short for that.
Phred
--------------------
|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL
Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
#4442916 - 07/23/05 12:14 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Phred did you read my previous post (the long reply to the blog-entry you linked to)? i don't want to type the whole bloody thing again, but i don't see how any of the examples they provided there can be counted as intellectual dishonesty. the first would be quoting from a source that misquoted itself, and when finding this out, acknowledging so in later editions. the rest would be using fairly 'open' quotes to demonstrate a point - perhaps you might say it is a crappy style, but i don't think it is intellectually dishonest.
and you say "Chomsky has been caught at this kind of thing so often that he long ceased to have any credibility at all." That blog entry I read gave like 3 examples of this - 2 of which were 25+ years old - and none of which really stand up to meaning anything in my eyes... as well, you say " so much of what he says is demonstrably false" - how is quoting from one source that itself misquoted "so much of what he says" being "demonstrably false"??? seriously, i think you are blowing these 'examples' way out of proportion, without evidence to support such accusations!
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Ped]
#4442989 - 07/23/05 12:25 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ped writes:
Quote:
Suffice to say Noam Chomsky is a controversial figure.
No, it is not sufficient to say that. Rush Limbaugh is an example of a controversial figure: Chomsky is (as has been shown over and over again) an example of a serial liar. There's a difference.
Quote:
The same phenomenon is happening around Michael Moore right now.
Another example of a serial liar.
Quote:
It's just not logical to say that "Michael Moore spurs controversy because he spews lies!"
No, he spurs controversy because of his views. The fact that he uses deceit to "support" his views is a bonus.
Quote:
Passionate abhorrence is blindness and ignorance in that the perception of it's object is neither motivated nor maintained by the reality of things.
There is nothing either blind or ignorant about pointing out deception. As for "the reality of things", it's Chomsky and Moore who treat reality as their personal playtoy.
Quote:
Doesn't it seem absurd to establish bias against someone based on abhorrence for their bias?
If you want to label exhibiting disdain for proven serial liars "establishing bias", I can't stop you.
Quote:
That Noam Chomsky is nothing more than a highly skilled sophist: how can this be known?
By reading his output and checking the references he cites. By reading his output and comparing his bizarre pronouncements to observable reality.
Quote:
If any fruit is going to come of this little tennis game, either side of this discussion needs to have the capacity to remain open to opposing arguments, and to the idea that their own views are completely wrong.
When someone can demonstrate Chomsky's lies aren't lies, I'll change my mind.
Quote:
To get to the truth beneath the controversy, we need simply to shed the controversy.
There is no "controversy" here, Ped. That Chomsky has been lying for almost four decades isn't a controversial statement, it's an established fact.
Phred
--------------------
|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL
Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
#4443034 - 07/23/05 12:36 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
gahhhh you're really raising my blood-pressure here, phred. This statement, "That Chomsky has been lying for almost four decades isn't a controversial statement, it's an established fact." simply isn't true!!! That he has come to conclusions about the rationale/reason behind US foreign policy for the last 4 decades that you disagree with - that's true enough. That he has quoted and/or referenced sources that you might find controversial - that is true enough. But to say he has been lying is just sloppy reactionary thought on your part!
--------------------
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
#4443165 - 07/23/05 01:22 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
You are perhaps the most illogical, irrational, contradictory thinker I have ever met.
That is to say if you assume the premises you spit out are indeed the result of thought.
I'm a student of philosophy, you remind me of the people given as examples for logical fallacies.
I highly recommend you re-evaluate your criteria of evaluating intellectuals.
Perhaps it takes an intellectual to criticize one?
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
#4443181 - 07/23/05 01:25 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said: You are perhaps the most illogical, irrational, contradictory thinker I have ever met.
That is to say if you assume the premises you spit out are indeed the result of thought.
I'm a student of philosophy, you remind me of the people given as examples for logical fallacies.
I highly recommend you re-evaluate your criteria of evaluating intellectuals.
Perhaps it takes an intellectual to criticize one?
Ouch....that's a diss right there. Phred is going to come out swinging.
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
|
My Dis was no different than those directed towards Chomsky.
Except his had no basis.
We both criticized the intellectual capabilities of an individual.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
#4443209 - 07/23/05 01:38 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spud said: We both criticized the intellectual capabilities of an individual.
Them's a fightin' werds right thar'
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Krishna]
#4443214 - 07/23/05 01:40 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Krishna writes:
Quote:
Phred did you read my previous post (the long reply to the blog-entry you linked to)?
Yes.
Quote:
i don't see how any of the examples they provided there can be counted as intellectual dishonesty.
Then you are blind. Chomsky clearly deliberately misrepresents what Truman said, and he even misrepresents what the people (Fleming and Warburg) he claims he was "lifting from" said, as Schlesinger noted:
Quote:
In my review of Chomsky?s book (Book World, March 23, 1969), I traced the quotes to Fleming and Warburg, pointing out that ?the first quotation does not appear on the page cited in Fleming and may well have been invented by Chomsky? ? a point he has more or less conceded.
Feel free to grab a copy of the book in question and see for yourself, Krishna.
Quote:
the rest would be using fairly 'open' quotes to demonstrate a point - perhaps you might say it is a crappy style, but i don't think it is intellectually dishonest.
I suggest you read "example 2" in Kamm's article. What he did to Samuel Huntington was as blatant an example of intellectual dishonesty as one can find. How you can gull yourself into believing that deliberately ommitting a key concluding sentence, then linking the now-enucleated partial quote to two other phrases which had appeared earlier in the piece in question in order to fabricate a "conclusion" by Huntington diametrically opposed to what Huntington actually said -- is nothing worse than "a crappy style" tells the readers volumes about your willingness to grasp at straws in defense of a serial liar.
One thing the critics don't dispute is that Chomsky is an intelligent man. What he did to Huntington is not the kind of thing an intelligent man does accidentally -- particularly when he does it over and over again and particularly when he denies having done it when caught at it. Yes, in the first example (in his very first ever book) he does offer a self-serving "apology" of sorts. That's the last time he ever did that.
The third example is essentially Chomsky doing to Moynihan exactly what he did to Huntington, with an added twist -- he not only again quotes out of context, then strings unrelated passages together, he goes further and resorts to outright fabrication when he claims Moynihan ?in the next sentence goes on to say that he?s aware of the nature of that success?. No such remark appears anywhere in Moynihan's book.
Quote:
That blog entry I read gave like 3 examples of this - 2 of which were 25+ years old - and none of which really stand up to meaning anything in my eyes... as well, you say " so much of what he says is demonstrably false" - how is quoting from one source that itself misquoted "so much of what he says" being "demonstrably false"??? seriously, i think you are blowing these 'examples' way out of proportion, without evidence to support such accusations!
Oh, so there's a statute of limitations on intellectual dishonesty? If it's 25 years old it is no longer dishonesty?
I'll remind you I was asked to provide a single example. So far I have provided many. The links I provided detail many more. Previous posts of mine in this forum on Chomsky provide even more. If you Google "Chomsky lies" and spend some time clicking a few hundred links you'll find more than you can read in a month.
Here's one you might want to look at -- http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm The format is easy to follow -- the left hand column is the Chomsky article, the right hand column contains the commentary.
Here's the introduction to the analysis:
"Chomsky's articles are full of learned sounding citations, in which he cites all sorts of impeccably respectable sources for all sorts of astonishing facts. Highly improbable facts. How does he do it? Easy. He makes it up.
"In Distortions at Fourth Hand [1] , Chomsky and Herman assure us that anything wrong in Cambodia was the fault of the USA, that there was decisive evidence proving the innocence of the Khmer Rouge, evidence which, alas, 'space limitations preclude' them from presenting.
"I checked every citation in the entire article. Not one of them was wholly truthful. At best they were slippery equivocations, with the obvious meaning being a lie, and an alternate, hidden meaning, true but irrelevant, to provide an escape hatch should the lie be discovered." (bolding by Phred)
Enjoy.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
#4443229 - 07/23/05 01:49 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
spud writes:
Quote:
I'm a student of philosophy, you remind me of the people given as examples for logical fallacies.
What a coinky-dink. So am I.
Please provide for us an example of a logical fallacy I have employed in the post to which you replied. If you can't do that, feel free to provide an example of a logical fallacy I have employed in any other post in this thread. Shouldn't take you (a student of philosophy) long to come up with a few if I am in fact illogical, irrational, and contradictory.
Quote:
I highly recommend you re-evaluate your criteria of evaluating intellectuals.
It's not difficult to evaluate someone (be he an intellectual or a ditch digger) as deceitful when irrefutable evidence of that person's deceit is widely available.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Krishna]
#4443242 - 07/23/05 01:53 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Krishna writes:
Quote:
This statement, "That Chomsky has been lying for almost four decades isn't a controversial statement, it's an established fact." simply isn't true!!!
So sorry to raise your blood pressure, but it is an established fact.
Look, if Chomsky never did anything but attempt to blame America for all the world's evils, I'd write him off as just another moonbat. What singles him out for my particular attention is his constant lying. I despise intellectual dishonesty and the high priest of that dark art is Noam Chomsky.
Phred
--------------------
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
#4443253 - 07/23/05 01:56 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ad hominem of the circumstantial type.
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
#4443260 - 07/23/05 01:57 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Well, that and appeal to ignorance, wishful thinking, and begging the question.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
#4443303 - 07/23/05 02:10 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Spud, spud, spud.
The way this works is for you to quote one of my statements, then to demonstrate how that statement is an example of ad hominem or wishful thinking or begging the question or whatever. You as a student of philosophy surely know the drill.
By the way, since when has "ignorance" been classified as a logical fallacy?
Phred
--------------------
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
#4443337 - 07/23/05 02:20 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Spud, spud, spud.
The way this works is for you to quote one of my statements, then to demonstrate how that statement is an example of ad hominem or wishful thinking or begging the question or whatever. You as a student of philosophy surely know the drill.
I'm not sure what academia you attend for philosophy, but for me I must have not got to the section on proper drug forum philosophical etiquette when pointing out when one is flawed.
Quote:
By the way, since when has "ignorance" been classified as a logical fallacy?
Phred
I said appeal to ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam).
If you have any books on logic of philosophy, which I'm sure you, a student of philosophy, must have, look it up in the index.
Or as put best by yourself, "google it"
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
#4443350 - 07/23/05 02:22 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
So you cannot provide the readers with an example of my "logical fallacies"?
Didn't think so.
Phred
--------------------
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
#4443352 - 07/23/05 02:23 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
And I'm to the beach for the day.
Best of luck finding the fallacies in your books/google.
Nice chattin'!
|
spud
I'm so fly.
Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
|
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
#4443356 - 07/23/05 02:24 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, rest assured, the readers are aware of them all.
In fact most of the fallacies I listed were pointed out, with the absence of their names.
It's only you that is not aware, and that is the least of my concern.
|
|