Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Noam Chomsky
    #4425144 - 07/19/05 07:35 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

What political book is a good place to start?

Preferably U.S. foreign policy or terrorism.

I was overwhelmed by the amount of books he has on the subject matter, so I was just wondering which you may recommend, and why.

So suggest away.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4425198 - 07/19/05 07:45 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4425370 - 07/19/05 08:31 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

spud said:
What political book is a good place to start?





"I'm an extreme Leftist that is full of shit" - by Noam Chomsky

It should be in your local library.

:lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4425576 - 07/19/05 09:21 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:
Quote:

spud said:
What political book is a good place to start?





"I'm an extreme Leftist that is full of shit" - by Noam Chomsky

It should be in your local library.

:lol:




:thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineWhiteRabbitt
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/06/02
Posts: 3,486
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4425840 - 07/19/05 10:14 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

that guy is a total douche. dont read his filth.


--------------------
You gotta jump and swing up to hit me in the knees.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: WhiteRabbitt]
    #4426022 - 07/19/05 11:02 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

how can you make an opinion on his work without reading it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebukkake
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,764
Loc: Classified
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: vampirism]
    #4426094 - 07/19/05 11:17 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/

That's a book of his up there, online. Mostly about the CIA's reign of terror in Central America in the 80s under Reagan.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: vampirism]
    #4426108 - 07/19/05 11:19 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Morrowind said:
how can you make an opinion on his work without reading it?



I've read Chomsky. It is complete shit. He knows how to write and how to influence people and that is all.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineWhiteRabbitt
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/06/02
Posts: 3,486
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: vampirism]
    #4426306 - 07/20/05 12:15 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

how do you know if i have or havent read it?


--------------------
You gotta jump and swing up to hit me in the knees.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4426336 - 07/20/05 12:23 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Chomsky's influence in the field of theoretical linguistics and psychology is impressive to say the least.

I figured his political contributions would be somehow similar in greatness.

Perhaps I was wrong?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4426382 - 07/20/05 12:36 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Chomsky is obviously a very divisive figure. I personally think that whether or not you agree with his views, they provide an interesting and unique perspective, even if they do reek of excessive America-bashing.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Silversoul]
    #4426680 - 07/20/05 01:48 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
Chomsky is obviously a very divisive figure.  I personally think that whether or not you agree with his views, they provide an interesting and unique perspective, even if they do reek of excessive America-bashing.




for shizzzle my nizzle...he's is the perfect foil to all the retards on the "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" side of the aisle. because we all know the US has never been involved in horrible atrocities via the CIA :rolleyes:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineWhiteRabbitt
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/06/02
Posts: 3,486
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #4426898 - 07/20/05 02:56 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

America, fuck yeah.


--------------------
You gotta jump and swing up to hit me in the knees.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4427179 - 07/20/05 05:45 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I bet you've never even read the dust cover of one of his books let alone the actual content. Its this sort of predictable reactionary crap that has made this place a complete fucking drag.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Silversoul]
    #4427201 - 07/20/05 06:03 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Chomsky was once asked why he bashes on america instead of the USSR (this was during the cold war) - his response (paraphrased cause i'm too lazy to find the actual quote) was, "if i lived in the USSR i would spend my time finding the faults of my own government, however i live in the USA and so will spend my time thusly."

there are many points where people can criticize Chomsky (there was a thread here maybe 6 months ago where me and somebody had a long debate about these points, feel free to search it!), but to say he doesn't have something to say, that he is isn't a very intelligent and extremely well researched writer is complete bullshit.


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Krishna]
    #4427240 - 07/20/05 06:42 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I let a hardcore Republican I know borrow Hegemony or Survival and the result was hilarious. She refused to read more than 50 pages. She actually said she so completely despised the idea of someone pointing out America's faults (hating America in her words I believe) she couldn't read the rest. Instead of reading it and trying to point out any historical or logical faults she simply ignored the message. I think her actions pretty much sum up most of the US.

Edited by newuser1492 (07/20/05 07:58 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: WhiteRabbitt]
    #4427319 - 07/20/05 07:50 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

it's irrelevant, because you're telling him not to read it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #4427344 - 07/20/05 08:12 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

KingOftheThing said:
Quote:

Paradigm said:
Chomsky is obviously a very divisive figure.  I personally think that whether or not you agree with his views, they provide an interesting and unique perspective, even if they do reek of excessive America-bashing.




for shizzzle my nizzle...he's is the perfect foil to all the retards on the "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" side of the aisle. because we all know the US has never been involved in horrible atrocities via the CIA :rolleyes:




I'm pretty liberal, but Chomsky guy just drives me nuts. I actually have one of his books from when I was a die-hard "Bush Knew" lefty. Luckily, I've become more reasonable since then.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Redstorm]
    #4427412 - 07/20/05 08:44 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I've never read much of his stuff other than essays and part of a friend's book on 9/11. I hear Manufacturing Consent is good.

From what I've seen from him, he really isn't all that extreme. While his positions mirror those of more extreme leftists, his arguments are sound and well researched. I've yet to see a reasonable contradiction to his stuff and this thread is no different.

Nobody here who opposes him has stated a single thing he's gotten wrong, or something unreasonable he's said. It seems they're content to dismiss him completely because of his political orientation.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phluck]
    #4427520 - 07/20/05 09:29 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:
I've never read much of his stuff other than essays and part of a friend's book on 9/11. I hear Manufacturing Consent is good.

From what I've seen from him, he really isn't all that extreme. While his positions mirror those of more extreme leftists, his arguments are sound and well researched. I've yet to see a reasonable contradiction to his stuff and this thread is no different.

Nobody here who opposes him has stated a single thing he's gotten wrong, or something unreasonable he's said. It seems they're content to dismiss him completely because of his political orientation.




if chomsky is anything, well-researched and sound would be it! certainly he is idealogically 'extreme', but not without just cause, in my opinion. as to what people have against him, look for this old thread discussing it (must be from december 04 or so) - the biggest complaint was that he was anti-semetic (which i, in my opinion, debunked quite thoroughly)


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Krishna]
    #4427536 - 07/20/05 09:35 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Who's taking bets on pinky's reaction and resulting post to this Chomsky thread?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBanJankri
FreefallerUpwards

Registered: 07/27/04
Posts: 1,392
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4427589 - 07/20/05 09:50 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I'm with paradigm and krishna on this one. Even if he has extreme ideological viewpoints that just is too much for you, the guy has a lot of stuff that you can learn from. You should be able to do that for a lot of writers. For example even though I dont necessarily enjoy reading the hardcore realist classical political science writers, I know they have important things to say and I enjoy reading them nontheless.


--------------------
Just let everything flow, just flow right to the center of everything. You gotta turn off your mind and relax, and then just float downstream...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4427603 - 07/20/05 09:56 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I really liked "Hegemony or Survival". One nice long rant :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phluck]
    #4427616 - 07/20/05 10:01 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Nobody here who opposes him has stated a single thing he's gotten wrong, or something unreasonable he's said. It seems they're content to dismiss him completely because of his political orientation.

:thumbup:

Anyone who is willing to dismiss information based solely on the source is setting themselves up for a lifetime of extreme bias in the other direction :wink:

I read things I don't agree with all the time. I don't stop reading after the first page, just because I don't agree with it.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phluck]
    #4427626 - 07/20/05 10:05 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

ding ding ding


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: GazzBut]
    #4427702 - 07/20/05 10:27 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
I bet you've never even read the dust cover of one of his books let alone the actual content. Its this sort of predictable reactionary crap that has made this place a complete fucking drag.




I read a decent amount of "Manufacturing Consent". He's obviously an intelligent man and he makes some good observations. That doesn't change the fact that he is a biased ideologue and most of the stuff he spews is shit.

If this place is a complete fucking drag, why do you come here?

Edited by RandalFlagg (07/20/05 10:52 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4427718 - 07/20/05 10:30 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

That doesn't change the fact that he is a biased ideologue

Do you know any unbiased political writers?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4427721 - 07/20/05 10:31 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I don't know...I've read some of his things regarding south america
and while it is painful to read, I think it's pretty ridiculous to assert
that recounting history is tantamount to 'spew[ing] shit'.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4427761 - 07/20/05 10:40 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Do you know any unbiased political writers?



Ah... Robert Novak? :confused:


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: afoaf]
    #4427790 - 07/20/05 10:49 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

afoaf said:
I don't know...I've read some of his things regarding south america
and while it is painful to read, I think it's pretty ridiculous to assert
that recounting history is tantamount to 'spew[ing] shit'.




Ok, let me clarify and attempt to be a little more open-minded on this whole subject.

I despise people who are overtly biased and pigeon-holed in their thinking. It is my biggest pet peeve. I can't stand people who latch onto one system of thinking and blindly parrot the party-line. I can't stand Lefties who automatically love the weak and hate the strong, I can't stand Righties who cling to excessive nationalism and rigidity in thinking, and I can't stand religious conservatives who don't think for themselves. I hate ideologies, I hate philosophies, I hate religions, and I detest the people that allow themselves to be blindly led by these things.

Whenever I detect a bias in somebody I tend to discount everything they say. This isn't always good and it is a flaw that I have. Just because some of the things they say is tainted with bias, it doesn't mean they are not expressing some truth.

From the Chomsky things I have been exposed to (some readings and some speakings) I get the vibe from him that he is a bland but vitriolic Lefty. There is no doubt that he is intelligent (he is a professor at M.I.T.). In fact I am willing to admit that his raw intellectual ability is probably far above my own. But strangely enough I have met very intelligent people who were very stupid in some ways.

In the future, I will attempt to be more open-minded about Chomsky.

Edited by RandalFlagg (07/20/05 10:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4427800 - 07/20/05 10:53 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
That doesn't change the fact that he is a biased ideologue

Do you know any unbiased political writers?




No. And they all suck.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4427816 - 07/20/05 10:56 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Well you said it yourself: it's not a good idea to just discount people due to a bias.

I would wager that every human has a bias to some degree or another.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4427838 - 07/20/05 11:02 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Well you said it yourself: it's not a good idea to just discount people due to a bias.

I would wager that every human has a bias to some degree or another.




I constantly examine my own personal and political beliefs.  I'll admit that I have some irrational ones floating about in my head.  I'll also admit that I have some core beliefs (that influence my concious beliefs and opinions) that might be contradictory or unreasonable. 

I'm not afraid to admit my flaws and I'm not afraid to admit when I am wrong.  One of my big flaws is my reactionary hatred of belief systems.  I need to temper this response that arises in me.

But......Chomsky is still a Leftist windbag.  :smirk:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4427845 - 07/20/05 11:04 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Heh, well that's one of the things I like about you, Randal...is you can freely admit when you're wrong!

Kudos for that! :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4428009 - 07/20/05 11:35 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Chomsky as a political writer is a dishonest hack. All this crap about "well-researched" is a nonsense. People tend to praise him as being "well-researched" because they see a lot of footnotes and think he must know his stuff. The problem comes when you actually attempt to follow up his footnotes.

-- An astonishingly large number of these footnotes are nothing more than Chomsky's referrals to his own previous works.

-- Another chunk of these footnotes refer to stuff no one else has been able to find anywhere. The less tactful of Chomsky's critics classify these "footnotes" as being manufactured out of thin air. To be more blunt, he makes stuff up.

-- Many more of these footnotes are quotes from very low level functionaries presenting scenarios or opinion papers or background papers -- not from policy makers. Many more of the quotes even from policy makers quote brainstorming sessions and bear no relation to the actual policies eventually implemented.

-- He routinely makes up numbers and presents them as fact. We all remember his hysterically inflated numbers on how many Afghans would freeze to death or starve in the winter of 2001-2002.

-- The numbers on totalitarian regimes, however, he routinely minimizes or even ignores completely. Chomsky never met a totalitarian he didn't love. His admiration of the Khmer Rouge is perhaps the best known example of this, but certainly not the only one.

-- He cherrypicks quotes -- sometimes as short as a single sentence and even a single phrase -- completely out of context. When you go to the source and read the whole thing, it is obvious the writer is making a case 180 degrees the reverse of what Chomsky's carefully selected sound bite indicates. This is intellectual dishonesty of the most blatant and egregious sort.

Chomsky is that most vile of intellectuals -- a dishonest one.

There are dozens of websites out there which go into all my points (and many more) in considerably greater detail than I do above. If you are really interested in why so many people loathe the man, do a Google search on "Chomsky lies" and spend a few weeks reading through what pops up. Or borrow one of his books and read it through while bearing in mind everything I listed above.

The following is probably the best brief description of Chomsky's methods I have come across. For a more detailed critique you'll have to browse a few Google sites, but the following description gives a pretty good idea what those sites say more prosaically:

Quote:

This is how you lie by telling the truth. You tell the big lie by carefully selecting only the small, isolated truths, linking them in such a way that they advance the bigger lie by painting a picture inside the viewer?s head. The Ascended High Master of this Dark Art is Noam Chomsky.

I have long admired Noam Chomsky. It must be absolutely intoxicating to be able to write so free of any ethical constraints. Chomsky flitters and darts through the vast expanse of human experience, unerringly searching out those few, isolated data points that run contrary to the unimaginably vast ocean of facts crashing ashore in the opposite direction.

Here?s a Noam Chomsky moment for those of you without enough duct tape to wrap around your heads to keep your brains from exploding while you actually read his works:

Let?s say we stand overlooking the ocean along Pacific Coast Highway. From high atop the cliffs, we look down to the waves and the sand below. I ask you what color the beach is. You reply, reasonably enough, that it is sandy white. And you are exactly right.

However, there are people who cannot see the beach for themselves because they are not standing with us on this very spot. This is where Noam earns his liberal sainthood. Noam takes a small pail to the beach and sits down in the sand.

If you?ve ever run sand through your fingers, you know that for all of the thousands upon thousands of white or clear grains, there are a few dark ones here and there, falling through your fingers. With a jewelers loupe and an EXCEEDINGLY fine pair of tweezers, you carefully and methodically pluck all of the dark grains you can find ? and only the dark grains ? and carefully place them, one by one, into your trusty bucket.

It will take you a long time ? it has taken Chomsky decades ? to fill this bucket, but with enough sand and enough time, you will eventually do so. And then, when you do, you can make a career touring colleges through the world, giving speeches about the ebony-black beaches of Malibu, and you can pour your black sand onto the lectern and state, without fear of contradiction, that this sand was taken from those very beaches.

And what you say will be accurate, it will be factually based, and you will be lying like the most pernicious son of a bitch that ever lived.

Why do so many people take this hocus-pocus at face value? Because, like any audience at a Magic show, they want to believe.

Do this long enough, and you will become an Icon ?- no more hours spent sorting sand for you! No sir! And finally, after a few decades as Icon, you may manufacture whatever data you need to make your case, and not one of your followers will call you on it.

Shortly after 9/11, and somewhat before the ?Taliban forces did finally succumb, after astonishing endurance? St. Noam thundered that America?s ?Silent Genocide? in Afghanistan would kill ? pick a number, any number -- somewhere between 3 to 4 million civilians. At one point, he intimated that up to 10 million could die.

The real number was around 500.

Being Noam Chomsky means you get a pass for being wrong not by a factor of ten to one, or even a hundred to one. In Afghanistan, Chomsky was wrong by a factor of 20,000 to one. Being that wrong on a regular basis means going for a $2.99 Happy meal at McDonald?s and paying $59,800 for it. It means frugally walking out of a Nothing Over 99 Cents! store with the seven most expensive items, having just put $138,600 on your credit card. That?s how wrong Noam Chomsky is.




I took the above from http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/2003_06.html It's worth your while to read the entire essay, even though most of the rest of it has nothing to do with Chomsky.

Note the author hasn't even touched upon the other points I raised (and I have by no means given a thorough list, you understand -- just some points I can remember right at this minute), he concentrates pretty much exclusively on Noam's cherrypicking.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4428063 - 07/20/05 11:46 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

An astonishingly large number of these footnotes are nothing more than Chomsky's referrals to his own previous works.


To reassure us you havn't just pulled this out of your ass could you name us a book where he does this? I've just flicked through 2 of his books and have yet to find a single footnote relating to his own work. Which book do you mean?

Another chunk of these footnotes refer to stuff no one else has been able to find anywhere. The less tactful of Chomsky's critics classify these "footnotes" as being manufactured out of thin air. To be more blunt, he makes stuff up.


I'm calling bullshit on this too.

Chomsky never met a totalitarian he didn't love

He has railed on the Soviet Union in every book of his I have ever read.

The rest of your points are too negligible to address. You need to provide evidence and examples to support them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4428181 - 07/20/05 12:12 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I'm not going to waste days showing what a lying scumbag Chomsky is. There are dozens of websites that have done just that.

The fact the two books you skimmed don't reference his previous works is not proof other books of his don't. Chomsky has written a fair number of books.

And no, I don't need to provide examples of them. Google "Chomsky lies", spend a few weeks reading what pops up and you'll have enough examples to fill quite a few buckets.

If you have convinced yourself that Noam is delivering the straight goods -- despite the innumerable examples of him being caught red-handed in some of his more blatant deceits -- you are of course free to continue believing so. No skin off my nose. You will note that I did recommend to people that they read a book or two of his to verify the charges I made. You should be happy -- I am encouraging people to read Noam! What more do you want?



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4428197 - 07/20/05 12:14 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

You need to provide evidence and examples to support them.

:thumbup:

I agree! Phred this is the same tired old argument I've seen you use against Chomsky on numerous occaisions....but I have never seen you back up one of your assertions with actual proof.

Have you ever taken a look at "Hegemony or Survival"? Could you point out some of the footnotes in this book where Chomsky has referenced his own work or, as you say, "manufactured" the references?

I ask about that book in particular because it's the only Chomsky book I currently own, so I can easily use it as reference.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4428219 - 07/20/05 12:18 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I'm not going to waste days showing what a lying scumbag Chomsky is.

That's almost the exact same line conspiracy nuts use when asked for evidence that Bush is personally responsible for 9/11.

"Just go search on the web, you'll find the truth!"

Which really means

"I don't have any proof, so I'm hoping you will give up your search early or just not even bother to look for yourself."

Google "Chomsky lies", spend a few weeks reading what pops up and you'll have enough examples to fill quite a few buckets.

Google "bush knew", spend a few weeks reading what pops up and you'll have enough examples to fill quite a few buckets.


(please note, I am only using the conspiracy nuts as an example here...because I think their claims are wild and unfounded)


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4428226 - 07/20/05 12:19 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Also, please realize I'm not asking you for days to prove that Chomsky is a liar.

If you can show me even one example of a fabricated reference used by Chomsky, I'll be happy.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4428265 - 07/20/05 12:26 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Google "Chomsky lies" and go from there. Not only is there proof of my charges, there is so much proof that even to attempt to provide a partial summary would take more time than I'm willing to invest. I've provided links in previous posts of mine. Check the archives. But to be honest you'd find a lot more a lot quicker with Google than by struggling with The Shroomery's creaky search engine combing through the archived PA&L posts. I'm not going to burn more of my currently limited time debunking Chomsky again. Been there, done that.

And frankly, he isn't worthy of the time. Anyone who has a reasonable background knowledge of the events Chomsky discusses and a good working knowledge of the English language can readily detect what Chomsky is doing. I shouldn't need to hold anyone's hand through the exercise.

Hey, if you think Chomsky is delivering the straight goods, feel free to continue believing that. But if you wonder how so many people have proven him to be a fraud and a charlatan, you owe it to yourself to spend a few days or even just a few hours investigating it.

Up to you.





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4428305 - 07/20/05 12:36 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Sigh.

Check out the several books and articles mentioned in this link.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton071004.htm

Up to you to take it from there.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4428371 - 07/20/05 12:54 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

ok, firstly i'll ignore the fact that they compare Michael Moore (a guy who made one very good film - Roger and Me - and a lot of mediocre emotion-driven crap afterwards) with Chomsky, and keep reading...

Quote:

In actual fact, the quality of Chomsky's thinking is on a par with the rantings of a bus-stop conspiracy theorist.




:confused: where the hell is there support for this anywhere in Chomsky's works?

Quote:

Quite often, his citations regarding a contentious point only lead the reader back self-referentially to another of Chomsky's own works in which he makes the same unsupported assertion, and not to some piece of original evidence or to an analysis built on original evidence, as would be expected in a normal footnote."




an example, please, instead of just an accusation...

Quote:

On Ronald Reagan's liberation of Grenada, for example, Chomsky has written, "When Grenada began to undergo a mild social revolution, Washington quickly moved to destroy the threat." In actual fact, of course, Marxist ideologues had seized power in Grenada in a coup, spurred on by the Soviets who, themselves encouraged by the American "malaise" of the Carter presidency, were aggressively promoting communist revolutions throughout Latin America.




and the support of, for example, contras in Nicaragua was legal/justified since we were fighting "commies", right? :confused: this is a topic that can be debated long and hard - however, in my mind, illegal military action against a soverign nation, simply because their ideology disagrees with your own, is just that - illegal. i wouldn't call that being anti-american - i'd call that being pro-geneva-convention.

Quote:

Chomsky's cavalier disregard for the facts of history in the service of his anti-American ideology helps explain his support for the French Holocaust-denier and anti-Semite Robert Faurisson, a connection detailed by Werner Cohn in "Chomsky and Holocaust Denial."




this specifically i remember de-bunking in the previous Chomsky thread that i was involved in... will try to surface that in a bit.

Quote:

Chomsky's numerous writings, then, are not the fruits of historical knowledge or reasoned analysis. Rather, they are driven by one thesis: that as Horowitz puts it, "America is the fount of evil in the modern world." Even a casual familiarity with history shows that the United States is unusual not for its abuses of power but for its restraint.




in my mind, Chomsky's overall thesis would be 'America has done a lot of screwed up things in the name of 'democracy', the average american isn't exposed to these sorts of historical facts, and they deserve to receive the other side of the story, as it were'.

Phred, this source doesn't discredit Chomsky as much as it shows that the author really doesn't like him, feels that questioning/investigating wrongs that the US might have committed is anti-American, and has to use a lot of emotional statements to get this point across (instead of, say, quotes from Chomsky himself).

i'll gladly admit that Chomsky's works are 'one-sided' - but in my mind, this is because the other-side (the "official" side) is already being preached by basically every media-outlet - thus, Chomsky decides to investigate and bring to light facts that might otherwise be unheard/unknown by the vast majority of people...


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Krishna]
    #4428412 - 07/20/05 01:04 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

ok i found the post...
http://www.shroomery.org/archives/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3409615/page//fpart/all/vc/1

search for #3419761 and you'll see some articles that Divided_Sky posted accusing Chomsky of various things. a few posts later come my responses (although i've noticed now that i only responded to points made in the first two articles, and then it seems i went to sleep :wink: )


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Krishna]
    #4428416 - 07/20/05 01:04 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

That article you posted doesn't cite a single example of Chomsky either referencing his own work or referencing made-up works.

Have you, Phred, ever personally found such a reference in any of Chomsky's works? Or are you just "believing" these articles written by people who, quite obviously, literally hate Noam Chomsky?

Thank you for quickly and efficiently proving my point, Phred :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4428511 - 07/20/05 01:21 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Up to you.




No, Phred, it is up to you to prove the points you make here.

Unless things have changed drastically, that's the way PAL has always been run. If you make a point, you prove it or shut up. Right?

Or should we move to a system where no one has to provide links or proof for anything they say in here? I'm sure Alex123 (or whatever his nick was) would like it :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4428518 - 07/20/05 01:23 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Oh Phred, I really like this as it can be applied to the neocons and their supporters with just a little modification...
Quote:

This is how you lie by telling the truth. You tell the big lie by carefully selecting only the small, isolated truths, linking them in such a way that they advance the bigger lie by painting a picture inside the viewer?s head. The Ascended High Master of this Dark Art is the Neocon.

I have long admired the Neocon. It must be absolutely intoxicating to be able to write so free of any ethical constraints. The Neocon flitters and darts through the vast expanse of human experience, unerringly searching out those few, isolated data points that run contrary to the unimaginably vast ocean of facts crashing ashore in the opposite direction.

Here?s a Neocon moment for those of you without enough duct tape to wrap around your heads to keep your brains from exploding while you actually read his works:

Let?s say we stand overlooking the ocean along Pacific Coast Highway. From high atop the cliffs, we look down to the waves and the sand below. I ask you what color the beach is. You reply, reasonably enough, that it is sandy white. And you are exactly right.

However, there are people who cannot see the beach for themselves because they are not standing with us on this very spot. This is where the Neocon earns his satanhood. The Neocon takes a thimble to the beach and sits down in the sand.

If you?ve ever run sand through your fingers, you know that for all of the thousands upon thousands of white or clear grains, there are a few dark ones here and there, falling through your fingers. With a jewelers loop and an EXCEEDINGLY fine pair of tweezers, you carefully and methodically pluck all of the dark grains you can find ? and only the dark grains ? and carefully place them, one by one, into your trusty thimble.

Of course it takes too long for the politically impatient, so you speed up the process by buying manufactured black sand and adding it to fill up this thimble. And then, when you do, you travel the land appearing on news shows and in front of unquestioning partisans, giving speeches about the ebony-black beaches of Malibu, and you can pour your black sand onto a tiny toy white saucer, ignoring contradiction and smearing those who question your word. After all, some of this sand was taken from those very beaches.

A portion of what you say will be accurate, it will be factually based, but you will be lying like the most pernicious son of a bitch that ever lived.

Why do so many people take this hocus-pocus at face value? Because, like any audience at a Magic show, they want to believe.




--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4428611 - 07/20/05 01:46 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

spud, don't read Chomsky's books. My policy is that I don't read books that don't have pictures or spaceships or discussions of chemistry.

Read his interviews! They're incredibly long winded and I disagree with a lot of what he says. But he always leaves me wanting more. His voice seems very unique, which is the first and usually only quality I look for in people. I dig Chomsky the same way I dig Phred. People could learn a lot from both of them.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Gijith]
    #4428800 - 07/20/05 02:42 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
I dig Chomsky the same way I dig Phred.




You love both of their long-windedness? :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4429353 - 07/20/05 04:42 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

your aware that more than 500 civilians have died in
afghanistan during the war(s), right?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: afoaf]
    #4429520 - 07/20/05 05:22 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Phred might do well to google the phrase "burden of proof."


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebukkake
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,764
Loc: Classified
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Gijith]
    #4430174 - 07/20/05 07:51 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
Read his interviews! They're incredibly long winded and I disagree with a lot of what he says. But he always leaves me wanting more. His voice seems very unique, which is the first and usually only quality I look for in people. I dig Chomsky the same way I dig Phred. People could learn a lot from both of them.



His voice is very monotone and boring. But I listen to what he has to say, in his films, too. Imagine if he had charisma. They'd kill his ass. The ACLU recently accused the FBI of having a file on he, Howard Zinn, and others.

Edited by bukkake (07/20/05 08:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: bukkake]
    #4430426 - 07/20/05 08:52 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Due to this thread, I'm going to reread "Manufacturing Consent" again with an open mind. Then again, I don't think I could read it with any more of an open mind than I did two years ago when I was so left-leaning that Marx would have looked at me like I was crazy.. We'll see, though. Perhaps I'll learn something good from it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Redstorm]
    #4430435 - 07/20/05 08:56 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

It's almost as if Phred's complete lack of credibility and evidence in the argument he provided somehow increased the credibility of Chomsky.

He points out negative things he believes Chomsky does, yet does them himself in his lack to provide evidence and his unsuccessful "google it" cop-out.

Imagine using his strategy in the real world.

*Approaches Christian*

Me: "You know God doesn't exist, right?"

Christian: "Where is your proof?"

Me: *Looks at watch* "Oh sorry, I'm low on time. Try googling "atheism". Bye bye!"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4430446 - 07/20/05 09:00 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

He's a bit extreme for my tastes. While I don't like him at all, I won't go as far as to say his sources are false or that he is lying. I'm not enough of a scholar to determine these things.

I take back my initial comment. Check it out, it may be your thing, or it may not. All I know is that it's not mine. :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Redstorm]
    #4430467 - 07/20/05 09:08 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Martin Luther King Jr. was also considered an extremist.

For many of these "extremists", I wonder if they will be seen in the same light 20 or 50 years from now.

While some such as paranoid conspiracy theorists, like David Icke, are completely insane and extremists at the same time, others that may come off as extremist are perhaps just working within a different paradigm of thought.

As for those calling him overly biased, good. He should be, any one who wants change should be. If you believe something is wrong, and you are there to offer insight or solutions, you better damn well be biased.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefaslimy
Dead Man
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/04/04
Posts: 3,436
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4430543 - 07/20/05 09:30 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

haha

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: faslimy]
    #4430548 - 07/20/05 09:33 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

faslimy said:
haha



?
O.o

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4430552 - 07/20/05 09:34 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I think he's laughing with you, not at you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBanJankri
FreefallerUpwards

Registered: 07/27/04
Posts: 1,392
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: BanJankri]
    #4432055 - 07/21/05 03:15 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

the accusation about the sources are funny. I believe he is a prof at M.I.T. and in the world of academia, a mistake like this cannot be gone unnoticed.


--------------------
Just let everything flow, just flow right to the center of everything. You gotta turn off your mind and relax, and then just float downstream...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Redstorm]
    #4432235 - 07/21/05 06:52 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

really, i don't know why everybody is so taken by Manufacturing Consent. It is a great book (and a really weird movie), but isn't really commentary on current events so much as it is commentary on the way media shapes and forms public opinion in our modern age. if you want to read his opinions on current events, check out Hegemony of Survival for example, or here - http://zmag.org/weluser.htm - where they always have a ton of Chomsky pieces.


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: BanJankri]
    #4432301 - 07/21/05 07:28 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

BanJankri said:
a mistake like this cannot be gone unnoticed.



Apparently it has been noticed, that's why it was brought up in this thread.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4432325 - 07/21/05 07:41 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I think what he meant was if it was noticed (and true), he wouldn't still be a prof at MIT or still have books being published.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4432332 - 07/21/05 07:44 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Yeah... and if George W. Bush lied to get us to conquer Iraq, he would not still be president.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4432334 - 07/21/05 07:45 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I think "president of the USA" is a little different from "professor at MIT" :rolleyes:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4432336 - 07/21/05 07:47 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

You're right, you have to be of at least average intelligence to be a professor at MIT.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4432349 - 07/21/05 07:53 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

:lol:

Bingo!


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4432741 - 07/21/05 10:02 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

trendal writes:

Quote:

If you can show me even one example of a fabricated reference used by Chomsky, I'll be happy.




Sigh.

Okay, one of the better examples of a Chomsky screed being peppered with footnotes referring to previous Chomsky works (which sometimes then even refer to previous Chomsky works) is What Uncle Sam Really Wants. Borrow a copy and see for yourelf. As you may have guessed by now, I personally own no works by Chomsky, though I have read several many years ago -- therefore I cannot give you specific page numbers for these footnotes. If you take the effort to obtain a copy and do the work yourself, you won't need page numbers to find what I'm talking about -- you'll soon find a dozen examples.

You say you own Hegemony for Survival. Here's an example of that specific Chomsky technique from Hegemony for Survival:

From http://www.api-network.com/cgi-bin/reviews/jrbview.cgi?n=1741141621&issue=25

Quote:

In addition to this, there are critical times when Chomsky footnotes his own works, for example where he is discussing Noriega's 'usefulness' to the United States during the contra wars and the similarity between this situation and the one faced by Saddam Hussein in Iraq (footnote 7, p 113). Missing references are also common in this work. As possibly the most widely read commentator on United States foreign relations, his work has potentially wide-ranging influence and basing a great deal of his argumentation upon secondary source information is less than ideal.

Further to this, Hegemony or Survival, is not light reading, despite being targeted towards a wide audience. Chomsky's heavy reliance upon quotations ? at times quoting his own previous works ? often distracts from the narrative.




Here's a very small sample of what else can be found by those who actually care enough about the subject to spend some time determining whether Chomsky is telling the truth or lying his ass off:

From http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3754.html

Quote:

The essays collected in The Anti-Chomsky Reader are useful palliatives to the non-stop anti-American venom spewed by Chomsky, all of it presented in the guise of scholarship. Several of the authors, for example, deconstruct Chomsky's slick use of footnotes in order to appear a rigorous researcher. In many instances, his footnotes lead you back to his own writings. As you dig into his notes, you find that the sources for much of the volatile information Chomsky purports to document are highly suspect and even invisible.




From http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

Quote:

Chomsky's writings are often praised by his admirers as packed with "facts." And indeed there are many footnotes and many references to apparently esoteric pieces of information. But I have found that these references, at least those that deal with crucial points, simply do not check out. Sometimes the source is impossible to track down, sometimes it is completely misquoted, very often it is so patently and completely biased that no responsible scholar could have taken it at face value.




From http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2005/05/four-good-book-reviews-review-of.html

Quote:

Collier and Horowitz understand well the manufactured reality of political fame, and to dismantle it requires not contrary vitriol or clever rejoinders but direct, fact-based assertions that undermine the authenticity of the image. To that end, the contributors follow a simple procedure: Quote actual statements by Chomsky and test them for evidence and logic. The best contributions to the volume add the effective and timely tactic of citing Chomsky's progressive virtues and revealing how smoothly he abandons them...

...Nichols points out that Chomsky's footnotes are red herrings, his numbers exaggerated, and his facts tendentious. For instance, a footnote in Chomsky's World Orders Old and New that purports to demonstrate a point in fact leads only to an earlier Chomsky title, and in that text the relevant passage footnotes still an earlier Chomsky title.




From http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/chomsky_and_dec.html

Quote:

On the evidence of his own writings, Chomsky cannot be trusted to give a reliable or honest account of the sources he cites. Look closely at his voluminous footnotes, and serious doubts occur to the critical reader. Chomsky?s citations rarely cover the scholarly literature; if they did, his methods would be swiftly detected by specialists. (This happened early in his polemical career when the historian Arthur Schlesinger caught him in ?scholarly fakery?.) Many are drawn from press articles. Where books are cited, Chomsky is not averse to withholding information that would enable the reader easily to check Chomsky?s account...

...What I find especially disturbing about Chomsky?s methodology is that in every case (forgivable in a speech, but not in a book that?s decked out with the appearance of scholarship) he drops the page references that would enable his readers to check his claims. The reason for this is not hard to fathom: if he were to give page references, it would be obvious that a rather large ellipsis is involved.








Moving on, the following is a portion of an online forum addressing the reasons why Chomsky's political writings receive no attention (critiques, book reviews, academic journal articles, etc.) in academic circles despite their  appeal to the undergraduate crowd:

From http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17082

Quote:

Nichols: Well, Mr. Summers is right that Chomsky is ignored in the academic journals, and he has come up with a rather elegant explanation of why that might be. But there's a much simpler and sensible answer: Chomsky is ignored because his work is not serious work. It has nothing do with Chomsky's faux-anarchism or his discomfiting aging tenured radicals--and I would remind Mr Summers that Chomsky does his work from a comfortable tenured perch at a major university--and has everything to do with the fact that Chomsky's works are not scholarly works of history or politics, but deceptively-written propaganda masquerading as scholarship. Basically, large chunks of them are fiction, and so the journals don't review his books for the same reason they don't review comic books or Danielle Steel novels.

Mr. Summers says he began recently to read Chomsky "seriously." But there's the rub: Chomsky can't be read seriously, because Chomsky himself pays no attention to even basic rules of evidence or argument. If he needs to invent material to support an argument, he does, and then audaciously creates an empty footnote to make it appear as though he's done his homework and is referencing an actual fact. In his article, Mr. Summers lauds Chomsky's scholarship, but I defy him to do what I did in The Anti-Chomsky Reader, and actually try to follow some of Chomsky's footnotes. As every scholar knows, the whole point of references are to allow other scholars to replicate your research and thus confirm or debate your interpretation, but Chomsky's references are meant to obscure the fact that he's basically making stuff up. When you have, for example, footnotes that support important and controversial points by referencing four or five books in their *entirety*--including, most often, Chomsky's own books --that's not only lousy scholarship, it's a terrible insult to the reader.

So, in my view, Chomsky's invisibility in the academic world has nothing to do with his politics or his views on "power," and everything to do with the fact that his books are really fundamentally silly and not worth the time or attention of a serious reviewer. I've written a lot of book reviews in my career, and as we all know, they take a lot of time and intellectual energy. Since Chomsky doesn't bother to respect his readers--and I have come to suspect that Chomsky knows that most of his readers are not intellectually equipped to really evaluate either his arguments or his methods anyway--why should serious readers bother to respect his works or treat them as though they were written in a true spirit of scholarly inquiry, which they so obviously were not?




and (from the same discussion):

Quote:

Nichols: In any case--and I apologize for the long response--let me just repeat my challenge more directly to Mr. Summers: if you want to see Chomsky reviewed in the journals, do what we in The Anti Chomsky? Reader? did, and sit down to write a serious review essay of any number of Chomsky's works. Follow his footnotes. Force him to substantiate every charge he makes. Try to replicate his research. (I cited concrete examples in my chapter where it is simply impossible to do this with Chomsky's work.)? Read with a critical eye, and ask yourself, for example, why so much of his writing is in the passive voice.

In other words, do what responsible scholars do for each other every day, and see if the most controversial of his claims can sustain an empirical, adversarial challenge. Then ask yourself if this kind of work is something you would really ask your colleagues to bother with, or if it's something you'd even take a moment to read in a journal if they published it. The answer might surprise you.




From http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/a_kind_of_cult.html

Quote:

It isn?t just that Chomsky gives a false account of the issues he writes about: he actively manipulates the evidence in order to mislead. Chomsky?s admirers, many college students among them, frequently lack the background to be able to spot his techniques, and Chomsky takes advantage of this in order to make short-cuts, elisions, false interpolations and outright fabrications. He is to politics, economics and modern history what the Creation Science movement is to geology, palaeontology and biology. When reading him, you have to bear in mind that every (emphasis by Phred) reference and quotation he gives needs to be checked independently; on making those checks, you find a pattern of abuse of source materials that is impossible to explain as mere accident.




I could go on for pages and pages more. But as most of you are aware, I am working at the moment on a borrowed laptop and don't have access to my bookmarks. All the above stuff I found, read, and cut-and-pasted in about an hour this morning by Googling "Chomsky footnotes". If you Google "Chomsky lies" you'll find even more, but for this post I was mostly concentrating on Chomsky's well-known propensity to abuse the footnote process, not on his woefully inadequate grasp of geopolitics, psychology, history, military strategy, economics, etc. Nor did I concentrate on his unrelenting apologia for totalitarian regimes or his denial that there were such  things as the Cold War, Communist expansionism, Cambodian genocide, Maoist purges, Soviet agitation in Latin America. Nor his refusal to take into consideration the fact that things have changed drastically on the world political scene since the Bay of Pigs incident and that what factors may have (and I emphasize "may" here) had some truth four decades ago no longer have the same influence, and....

But I have better things to do with my time today than continue pointing out the obvious. I'll leave you with a final nugget to chew on:

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/an_intellectual.html

If you are really interested in determining the value of Chomsky's rants, I strongly suggest you read the whole thing. It's too long and detailed to excerpt properly here. The author doesn't specifically deal with Chomsky's self-referential footnotes in this particular post but he does an excellent job -- with full links and real source material -- of exposing the standard Chomsky method of twisting, lifting from context, and outright making things up out of thin air.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4432870 - 07/21/05 10:32 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Thank you for the reply, Phred! That gives me quite a bit to read over the next few days, and I will check out the reference to Hegemony or Survival when I get home from work this evening!

However, from the second and third links you posted (the only two I have had time to skim over thus far) there are still no actual examples of his supposed "made up" references or references to his own works (which, I must be honest, does not strike me as a necessarily bad thing to do...many scientists reference their own previous work at times).

They still just insist that Chomsky is, in fact, using these dubious references without giving any actual examples of such footnotes.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4434941 - 07/21/05 06:20 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Look...

Not every single critic of Chomsky gives every single instance by page number and footnote number, no. As I pointed out, anyone who picks up a copy of What Uncle Sam Really Wants just has to look at the footnotes to see the number of times he references his own work.

And I did dig up one which was quite specific as to page number -- it even applies to the book you have in the house.

The fact is that it's not just one rabid "right wing nut" pointing out the same thing -- it's respected writers, historians and academics. They're not making this stuff up. Chomsky does it, and he has been doing it for three and a half decades, despite having been caught at it numerous times. Arthur Schlesinger was one of the first high profile academics to expose him for this dishonesty, but he was far from the last.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4435000 - 07/21/05 06:34 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Please point out where he cites non-existent sources, as you claimed before.

Also, citing previous works is nothing out of the usual.

Thomas Kuhn did so himself.

Does that make him any less creditable?

No.

Does that make his contributions to science any less important?

No.

So for the 1209832890th time, please point out where Chomsky cites non-existent sources.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4435031 - 07/21/05 06:44 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

You're right about the Hegemony or Survival footnote:

Quote:

He then became the target of invasion and kidnapping from the Vatican Embassy in Operation Just Cause, with consequences already mentioned.7
Hegemony or Survival - p.112-113




The footnote is:

Quote:

7. See my Deterring Democracy, pp. 50-51, 263ff., and 278ff. On Duvalier, see my Year 501, chapter 8, section 4.




He clearly states that it is his work he is referencing. Again, I don't see any problem with this. If he's already written about something in one text, why can't he reference it in another? Are writers somehow prohibited from referencing their own works?

I can guarantee you that Chomsky is not the only writer to do this...

So what's the big problem with referencing one's own works, Phred?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
Jâ™ 
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4435037 - 07/21/05 06:46 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Aside from that...footnotes have never impressed me, nor do I actually know anyone (aside from you) who seems to be very impressed by footnotes.

So what's the big deal, here? Is referencing his own works seriously the best argument you can use against this guy?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: trendal]
    #4435512 - 07/21/05 08:32 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

trendal writes:

Quote:

Is referencing his own works seriously the best argument you can use against this guy?




No, it's not the best I can come up with at all. It was just ONE of many reasons I gave to show that Chomsky's use of footnotes does not mean he is well-researched or factual. When the footnotes are trash, self-referential or invented, they indicate not thoroughness but deceit.

Here's your next step -- get the works he mentions in the footnotes, check the parts he references, and see if they actually provide independent proof of what Chomsky claims.

Look, if someone says something like "Moynihan admitted to Reagan that Timor was invaded to provide access to Indonesian markets for WalMart (see What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Chapter 2 section A) and to provide a source of cheap labor for Nike (see The Chomsky Reader Chapter 4 section D)," then you go to The Chomsky Reader to check it and are redirected to What Uncle Sam Really Wants, then you go to What Uncle Sam Really Wants and check the referenced section and it says "Moynihan admitted to Reagan that Timor was invaded to provide access to Indonesian markets for WalMart and to provide cheap labor for Nike," what has been substantiated?

Your task has just begun, grasshopper.  Your next step it to get your hands on Deterring Democracy and Year 501 and follow the trail.

Does Chomsky do this with every single footnote? No, he doesn't. Many of the footnotes dealing with innocuous facts and common knowledge are legitimate. It's when he lays out some nefarious "behind the scenes" Chomskyite fantasy of how this cabal or that junta  did something for reasons only Noam was brilliant enough to unearth that the waters get muddy.

I focused on his phony footnotes mainly because so many Chomskyites cite them triumphantly as showing "He must be right about this. Look how thoroughly he has supported his case!" Footnotes qua footnotes are meaningless. When I was late getting a paper handed in when I was still in school, I occasionally invented footnotes because I gambled my teachers wouldn't bother checking them all. I never got caught once. Noam has been caught over and over again. It doesn't faze him in the slightest.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4435586 - 07/21/05 08:53 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Look, spud, your request was this:

Quote:

I was overwhelmed by the amount of books he has on the subject matter, so I was just wondering which you may recommend, and why.




My recommendation was you spend your time on something useful rather than drink the Chomsky koolaid, and I explained (rather thoroughly) why I gave that recommendation. If you choose to disregard that recommendation, be my guest.

Now you demand:

Quote:

So for the 1209832890th time, please point out where Chomsky cites non-existent sources.




Sigh. This is why I dislike debunking Chomsky over and over again. Because of people like you. You have read neither Chomsky nor Chomsky's critics, yet you have already convinced yourself that for some reason I and dozens of others (most of them far more familiar than I with both Chomsky's works and the subject matter he writes about) am lying about this. Hell, I went to the trouble -- again -- of providing excerpts showing Chomsky's tactics and providing links to the full critiques from which I took the excerpts. Yet you didn't bother to read even the excerpts, let alone the links.

Go to my post 4432741 and re-read it. I especially recommend going to Oliver Kamm's link and reading carefully his entire post. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/an_intellectual.html Kamm has a very detailed and thoroughly-linked expos? of exactly the kind of thing I described in my first post in the thread.

If you want to play the game of pooh-poohing Chomsky's critics without even taking the time to read what they say, play away. Chomsky has become quite wealthy pandering to people as intellectually lazy as you demonstrate yourself to be. Just don't expect me to continue playing.

The best advice I can give you is to pick up a copy of The Anti-Chomsky Reader by Collier and Horowitz before you read any Chomsky. if you choose to disregard that advice, no skin off my nose. It won't affect my life in the slightest if you are duped by a fraudulent huckster. Lord knows you won't be the first.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenewuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4435670 - 07/21/05 09:17 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

When I read Hegemony or Survival I ended up thinking about the ideas rather than the sources. I don't use Chomsky as a source of history rather as a source of ideas.

One thing I noticed, or at least it seemed so to me, was that Chomsky would quote a source or paraphrase a person then veer into his own thoughts and ideas. The problem being that he seemed to do so in a way that would lead the reader to associate Chomsky's words with those of the source or to at least begin to think of Chomsky's ideas as factual rather than simply ideas.

The following is an example of what I consider a useful thought.

Quote:

We are instructed daily to be firm believers in neoclassical markets, in which isolated individuals are rational wealth maximizers. If distortions are eliminated, the market should respond perfectly to their "votes," expressed in dollars or some counterpart. The value of a person's interests is measured the same way. In particular, the interests of those with no votes are valued at zero: future generations, for example.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4436247 - 07/21/05 11:58 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

As I pointed out, anyone who picks up a copy of What Uncle Sam Really Wants just has to look at the footnotes to see the number of times he references his own work.


What uncle sam really wants is a very brief introductory book compiled from his other talks and books. This is made clear in the sources section at the front of the book. Anyone who had ever picked up a copy would have grasped this.

If you want to play the game of pooh-poohing Chomsky's critics without even taking the time to read what they say

Listing a series of notoriously unreliable right-wing websites does not an argument make.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4436325 - 07/22/05 12:22 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

IsaacHunt writes:

Quote:

Listing a series of notoriously unreliable right-wing websites does not an argument make.




Ad hominem. Since Chomsky is an idol of the Left, it's pretty unlikely you'll see more debunking on Leftie sites than on Rightie sites (although you might want to read some of Christopher Hitchens's comments on ole Noam).

Tell you what, Ike... why don't you read the Oliver Kamm (Kamm is a British Leftist) piece I linked to and tell us what part of it Kamm got wrong.

Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4437918 - 07/22/05 12:25 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Ad hominem

No, simple common sense. Before believing something you look at the credibility of the source saying it.

why don't you read the Oliver Kamm

Seeing as this thread is about Noam Chomsky why not simply pick up a book by Noam in your nearest bookstore, read it then come back to us with the page number of the first error you find?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4437939 - 07/22/05 12:30 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

IsaacHunt said:
Seeing as this thread is about Noam Chomsky why not simply pick up a book by Noam in your nearest bookstore, read it then come back to us with the page number of the first error you find?




He doesn't live in the first world like we do. I don't think he has access to a book store that would sell Chomsky.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4437955 - 07/22/05 12:33 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:
Quote:

IsaacHunt said:
Seeing as this thread is about Noam Chomsky why not simply pick up a book by Noam in your nearest bookstore, read it then come back to us with the page number of the first error you find?




He doesn't live in the first world like we do. I don't think he has access to a book store that would sell Chomsky.



I would think that Chomsky would be pretty popular in the third world.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Silversoul]
    #4437997 - 07/22/05 12:42 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
I would think that Chomsky would be pretty popular in the third world.




Could you see someone who was living in a shack with a family of 15 leafing through "Manufacturing Consent"? It doesn't really fit in my opinion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4438002 - 07/22/05 12:43 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

A lot of them read Che Guevara. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they read Chomsky.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Silversoul]
    #4438021 - 07/22/05 12:47 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
A lot of them read Che Guevara. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they read Chomsky.




I guess it's possible, but I always got the impression that Chomsky's fan base was campus lefties, rebellious lefties, overly intellectual lefties, and America haters in the first world.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4438055 - 07/22/05 12:55 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

IsaacHunt:

So you can't dispute any of Kamm's points? Didn't think so.

As for "picking up a book", I live in a Third World Spanish-speaking country with no libraries within a two hour drive. As it happens, though, that is not a problem, since I have read several of Chomsky's works in the past and have no need (and certainly no desire) to subject myself to more of his gibberish. The man's a crank, pure and simple. He always has been and I'm sure he's too old to change his ways now.

Almost none of the points raised by his critics is news to me -- I had noticed them all twenty-some years ago when I first read his stuff and before I knew anyone had even written critiques of his work. It wasn't till I got internet service a few years back and got involved in the political discussion here that I had occasion to look up commentary on his stuff. The point is that it isn't necessary to read Horowitz or Kamm or Nicholls in order to see the appalling quality of Chomsky's "scholarship" -- all that is necessary is to read what he writes. Horowitz et al save us some time -- they've done the tedious tracing down of Chomsky's references, both real and imaginary -- so they provide a real service to the critical reader, but it's really icing on the cake. As I (and they) point out, anyone with a good grasp of the English language and a reasonably good knowledge of current events over the last four decades will have no difficulty detecting what Chomsky is attempting to pull off.

Quote:

Seeing as this thread is about Noam Chomsky why not simply pick up a book by Noam in your nearest bookstore, read it then come back to us with the page number of the first error you find?




I have provided you a link to a very detailed article by a British leftist which does exactly that. I'm sure it took you much less time to read it than it would take me to drive to my nearest bookstore. I'm also sure the readers of this thread find it telling that you won't give us your critique of Kamm's article.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4438583 - 07/22/05 02:49 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

As for "picking up a book", I live in a Third World Spanish-speaking country with no libraries within a two hour drive

Ever heard of Amazon?

The man's a crank, pure and simple

So you keep saying. What we're waiting for is a little evidence to support your beliefs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4438705 - 07/22/05 03:19 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Hegemony or Survival? I'll take both!


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4438783 - 07/22/05 03:36 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

You apparently have a reading problem, Alex. I have no need or desire to spend money on Chomsky's rantings to prove my point... I have provided links to sites which do just that. I can't help but point out again your inability to refute Kamm's article which does exactly what you asked.

The evidence is there, Alex. You can pretend it isn't till the cows come home, for all I care. Those readers who have been following this know I've upheld my part of the deal. The brainwashed Lefties can continue to believe in Saint Noam without ever reading his work or the work of his critics and it won't make a speck of difference to my life.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4438848 - 07/22/05 03:56 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
You apparently have a reading problem, Alex.




Is that Alex123? If it is, where the hell have you been? We need some more literate Lefties in here to mix things up. Let's get this party started!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: newuser1492]
    #4440480 - 07/22/05 10:19 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

cb9fl writes:

Quote:

One thing I noticed, or at least it seemed so to me, was that Chomsky would quote a source or paraphrase a person then veer into his own thoughts and ideas. The problem being that he seemed to do so in a way that would lead the reader to associate Chomsky's words with those of the source or to at least begin to think of Chomsky's ideas as factual rather than simply ideas.




Indeed. And he doesn't do this by accident.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4440805 - 07/22/05 11:46 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

I have provided links to sites which do just that.

Don't confuse providing links to sites with making an argument. As has been pointed out to you by other posters in this thread the links you provided made points that have been proved wrong long ago.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4440946 - 07/23/05 12:26 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

So sorry, Alex, but not a single poster in this thread has proven those points wrong.

I note again that you are unable to refute Kamm's examples.

Quote:

Don't confuse providing links to sites with making an argument.




LOL! What difference does it make if I paraphrase Kamm's words or point the readers directly to Kamm himself? If Phred shows how Chomsky lies it is acceptable to you, but if Kamm -- someone far more familiar with Chomsky's output -- shows how Chomsky lies it is unacceptable? I would have thought Kamm would carry more weight with you, since he is British and I am not, he's a Leftie and I am not, he has immediate access to most if not all of Chomsky's output and I do not.

Face it -- Kamm provides in meticulously referenced detail exactly what you asked for, but since you are unable to refute him you now claim that since it wasn't Phred who did the debunking, Chomsky doesn't lie. This is rational debate?



Enjoy the koolaid.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4441060 - 07/23/05 12:59 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

not a single poster in this thread has proven those points wrong.


Go back and read the thread. Particularly the long post someone made debunking each of the points in turn.

since he is British and I am not

What does being "British" have to do with being right or wrong about Chomsky?

he's a Leftie and I am not

Can you find an article Oliver Kamm has written that you believe makes him a "leftie"? The only article I had the misfortune to read of his was an almost deranged support of George Bush on Iraq. I have no interest in wasting my time reading anymore.

This is rational debate?

It isn't debate at all. Instead of providing any facts on Chomsky you have provided links to right-wing websites which I have neither the time or interest to read. Other posters have already debunked the bulk of the points you raised.

If you are unable to support your own arguments and need Oliver Kamm to do it for you then provide us with just one point Kamm has made that you feel is valid that we can discuss. Just one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4441561 - 07/23/05 03:10 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Face it -- Kamm provides in meticulously referenced detail exactly what you asked for

I've just had the misfortune to skim through Kamms bilge and he does nothing of the sort. He has 3 "accusations" (2 of which he had to go back 25 years for!)and fails to make a case for anything but his own ignorance.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4441877 - 07/23/05 07:13 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

My my my... so you finally got around to actually reading the article after spending days whining the links were crap. Good show!

Observe, fellow readers, the standard Chomskyite defense -- don't read critiques of Chomsky. If you never read critiques, you'll never have your delusions punctured.

Quote:

He has 3 "accusations" (2 of which he had to go back 25 years for!)and fails to make a case for anything but his own ignorance.




No, no, Alex. That won't do at all. You need to tell us which of Kamm's points are inaccurate then demonstrate in what manner it is inaccurate. Kamm provides direct quotes of Chomsky's statements, then provides direct quotes of the material Chomsky was misrepresenting (to use as neutral a word as possible) so the reader can see for himself the shenanigans being perpetrated.

If you say Kamm's method demonstrates "ignorance", it is up to you to show that either:

1) Chomsky was misquoted by Kamm

or

2) The source material was misquoted by Kamm.

Blustering about Kamm's "ignorance" is not a rebuttal or a refutation or an argument. Kamm (and Schlesinger) caught ole Noam red-handed and you know it.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4442002 - 07/23/05 08:33 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

In this Kamm article, he writes

Quote:

Example 1 comes, appropriately, from Chomsky?s first political book, American Power and the New Mandarins, published in 1969. The book purports to expose government deceit in the service of state. Chomsky cites, as evidence of the capitalist imperatives underlying the rhetorical ideals of US foreign policy, a speech given by President Truman at Baylor University in 1947. Yet of this passage, the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr writes (The Cycles of American History, 1986, pp 135-6):

Noam Chomsky in American Power and the New Mandarins (New York, 1969) twice claimed that Truman had said: ?All freedom is dependent on freedom of enterprise?. The whole world should adopt the American system?. The American system can survive in America only if it becomes a world system??. Truman said nothing of the sort, at Baylor or elsewhere. The quotation is fabricated.





I don't have access to "American Power and the New Mandarins", so cannot double-check this quotation to see if it indeed accurate. However, i do have access to Truman's speech from Bayer University (as do you - http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/viewpapers.php?pid=2193) - and can find some quotations from there to justify what Chomsky has written (esp in light of the fact that the quotations turned out not to be direct quotes, but interpretations of Truman's speech - a fact that Chomsky discovered later, but i'll discuss that issue in a second)

from truman's speech:
Quote:

There is one thing that Americans value even more than peace. It is freedom. Freedom of worship--freedom of speech freedom of enterprise. It must be true that the first two of these freedoms are related to the third. For, throughout history, freedom of worship and freedom of speech have been most frequently enjoyed in those societies that have accorded a considerable measure of freedom to individual enterprise. Freedom has flourished where power has been dispersed. It has languished where power has been too highly centralized. So our devotion to freedom of enterprise, in the United States, has deeper roots than a desire to protect the profits of ownership. It is part and parcel of what we call American. ...

If this trend is not reversed, the Government of the United States will be under pressure, sooner or later, to use these same devices to fight for markets and for raw materials. And if the Government were to yield to this pressure, it would shortly find itself in the business of allocating foreign goods among importers and foreign markets among exporters and telling every trader what he could buy or sell, and how much, and when, and where. This is precisely what we have been trying to get away from, as rapidly as possible, ever since the war. It is not the American way.




Truman is basically saying in this speech that the US needs to take a leading role in pushing the agenda to break-down trade barriers, at risk of catastrophe and war if they do not. So, while I cannot double check the original context in which Chomsky wrote those words, I do not think that his 'interpretation' of Truman's speech was incorrect at all. All freedom is dependent upon freedom of enterprise - Truman repeatedly states in this speech that without freedom of enterprise, there will come war again - and that all other freedoms are 'inter-linked' to freedom of enterprise. The American system can survive only if it becomes a world system - Truman also clearly states that unless this system is adopted on a world-wide level, wars and depressions will come about - thus jeopardizing the system in the US. How can you say that Chomsky has mis-represented what Truman said? (the only argument being that Truman didn't say this directly - but as was later found, the sources from which Chomsky quoted from were mistaken, it was not an attempt to 'lie' by him, as such, but a mistake by previous authors - something that he noted in the 2nd edition of this book, but which does not detract from the analysis of the Truman speech).

and, as it seems, Chomsky has been called out on this, and replied "He now concedes that he lifted his ?quotations? from [the highly unreliable historian] *note the use of throwing this in to discredit Fleming - while many disagree with his conclusions about the coldwar, he is by no means an 'unreliable historian' - take, for example this article from the harvard international review where his viewpoint is one used in a debate about the origins of the cold war* D.F. Fleming and [the contemporary observer] J.P. Warburg: but he still insists that they are ?accurate and perceptive? paraphrases of the Baylor speech, that they ?convey the essence of Truman?s speech?."

Kamm continues, "It is characteristic of Dr Chomsky?s unbeatable instinct for distortion that he can write in the October Commentary: ?Truman argued that freedom of enterprise is one of those freedoms to be valued ?even more than peace?.? What Truman actually said, as the reader will have observed, was that Americans valued freedom even more than peace, and he made it clear that he meant above all intellectual and religious freedom." Well, it is up for debate there. From the text of the Truman speech, i don't see him making it clear that he above all means freedom of speech and worship. in fact, i see him making it clear that unless we have the "third freedom" (freedom of enterprise), then the first two are doomed to fail. Here i see Kamm, or rather Schlesinger whom he is quoting, misrepresenting Truman's speech, not Chomsky.

Schelensinger continues, "There is no point in trying to deal with all Dr Chomsky?s misrepresentations; it would make my letter as long and boring as his. His comment, with regard to the exposure of his fake Truman quotations, about Schlesinger?s ?elaborate pretense that he couldn?t find the quotes, that I had invented them,? is an easily demonstrable lie. 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." but refuses to (it seems) even read Chomsky's comments about the 'fake Truman quotations' (perhaps the letter was too long and boring?), where Chomsky writes, "As I explained in the October issue of Commentary, in my book I erroneously attributed to Truman two statements that were, in fact, paraphrases of his Baylor speech by D.F. Fleming and James Warburg. In the book I also gave a precise page reference to the source from which I took the quotes (which, to compound the error I mistranscribed). As I stated, this was a careless and inexcusable error, which I am glad to have pointed out, and which is corrected in the second printing?. Schlesinger was quite justified in pointing out this error, though his elaborate pretense that he couldn?t find the quotes, that I had invented them, that this fakery, fabrication, etc., was perhaps somewhat exaggerated." So, Schlesinger couldn't find the quotes on the pages cited because of a typographical error - an error which was corrected in the 2nd edition of the book. They were mis-quotes, surely, but mis-quotes through no fault of Chomskys - the historians whom he quoted from had themselves mis-quoted Truman, and when Chomsky found this fact, he said, "sorry, these quotes aren't directly from Truman, but they do depict the overall meaning of his speech" or something to this regard - which, after having read Truman's speech, seems true enough.

As to example 2, where they claim that Chomsky mis-represents quotes, i believe that there lies more to the issue. Certainly, when Chomsky takes a quotation such as "Writing in Foreign Affairs, he [Huntington] explains that the Viet Cong is 'a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist.' but not including the final sentence of that quotation "Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation.", one might claim that Chomsky is mis-representing what others have said. However, I don't see it quite as such - i see it more as taking what other's have said, and showing how the 'obvious conclusions' that they draw might not be the only conclusion that one could draw. A modern example would be, when Bush said "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." one might claim "oh no, you are mis-representing what he meant, he meant 'positive-propaganda' or 'the truth' or whatever" - and might even claim so rightfully. However, it does not devalue at all my using this quotation to say "look, the obvious truth comes out of the horses mouth!" The fact is, the quotation can be seen in both ways, depending upon your viewpoint - but neither is misusing the quotation - both are merely taking the quotation and drawing upon it to postulate some conclusions. If this wasn't allowed, then how could anybody quote basically any philosopher from before, say, the 1900s? We don't really know what they meant, we only have their works to go by, so how do we know that this 'interpretation' is not false, and thus intellectually dishonest? Of course it isn't false, nor dishonest - it is an interpretation!!! Same thing that Chomsky does - he takes quotations such as the previous one about the Viet Cong, and interprets!

As for the examples of Chomsky mis-representations of Moynihan's comments about east-timor, i unfortunately don't have either the Chomsky source, nor the Moynihan source, to compare and see if i come to the same conclusions as the blog author. However, i could see it as a distinct posibility that Kamm might equally well be mis-representing quotations to prove his points. All that this argument shows, I believe, is that it is very easy to use quotations to say whatever you want. Kamm has tried to do just this. Chomsky, on the other hand, actually has original thoughts to bring to the table - while I certainly wouldn't claim him to be a perfect scholar, and most certainly not one without bias, I would claim him to be a very interesting thinker who brings a viewpoint which [popular] media altogether ignores today.


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Phred]
    #4442254 - 07/23/05 10:32 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

No, no, Alex

Is this a standard name you use on everyone you disagree with? You were calling bukake "Alex" last week.

You need to tell us which of Kamm's points are inaccurate then demonstrate in what manner it is inaccurate

You mean like we've been asking you to do to back up your groundless Chomsky insults for the last 10 pages?

What exactly do you think Kamms "points" demonstrate?

Kamm (and Schlesinger) caught ole Noam red-handed and you know it.


"Red-handed" doing what?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Krishna]
    #4442291 - 07/23/05 10:40 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

My congratulations Krishna. Wading through Kamms self-serving and long-winded opinion peice is no easy task.

All that this argument shows, I believe, is that it is very easy to use quotations to say whatever you want. Kamm has tried to do just this.

And the fact that he's had to go back 25 years to find two of his "examples" when Chomsky has published countless books since then gives you an idea of how desperate Kamm was.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: IsaacHunt]
    #4442429 - 07/23/05 11:04 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Like twins who share the same essential qualities, the right and the left seem only able to perceive their differences, and are rarely able to recognize even a small sliver of the vast myriad of similarities between them.

Suffice to say Noam Chomsky is a controversial figure. Controversial figures have a polarzing effect on people. The things Noam Chomsky says cause turbulence. When somebody causes turbulence, many rally around him in discipleship, and many more conceive of him as a reprehensible demon. Acting from these conceptions alone, arguments like this one appear in their appropriate context around the world. The same phenomenon is happening around Michael Moore right now. It's just not logical to say that "Michael Moore spurs controversy because he spews lies!" Neither is it logical to say that "Michael Moore spurs controversy because he reveals the uncomfortable truth!" These are extremes, and the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle. The same things spoken of Chomsky are not any more rational.

What's needed is a less passionate abhorrence of Noam Chomsky and his views, and, on the other side of the argument, a less maniacal obeisance. Passionate abhorrence is blindness and ignorance in that the perception of it's object is neither motivated nor maintained by the reality of things. Maniacal obeisance is the same blindness, the same ignorance.

Doesn't it seem absurd to establish bias against someone based on abhorrence for their bias?

That Noam Chomsky is nothing more than a highly skilled sophist: how can this be known? That Noam Chomsky is a social commentator of unparalleled calibre: how can this be known? 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. That is the essence of objectivity. To get to the truth beneath the controversy, we need simply to shed the controversy.

The ability to set aside one's own views in order to properly understand the views of another: this would be a trait of a truly worthy President, Prime Minister, or King.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Edited by Ped (07/23/05 11:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: Ped]
    #4442744 - 07/23/05 11:50 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

:thumbup:

It is true that people either fawn over or hate certain polarizing political figures.  The fawners tend to not question what the person is saying and the detractors sometimes can be overly critical.

Each individual circumstance requires true independent investigation and research.  That is usually asking too much for most people.  They want the answer immediately without having to do any work.

Edited by RandalFlagg (07/23/05 11:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4442795 - 07/23/05 11:56 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

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).


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

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!


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishna
कृष्ण,LOL
 User Gallery

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!


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
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?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
I'm so fly.

Registered: 10/07/02
Posts: 44,410
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4443198 - 07/23/05 01:33 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

My Dis was no different than those directed towards Chomsky.

Except his had no basis.

We both criticized the intellectual capabilities of an individual.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
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'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
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. :smirk:

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"  :smirk:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

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


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
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'!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespud
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Noam Chomsky [Re: spud]
    #4443359 - 07/23/05 02:24 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

No hurry. My posts will be here when you get back. Take your time.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* An interview with Noam Chomsky
( 1 2 3 all )
Phred 3,960 46 09/16/04 10:25 AM
by Xlea321
* Noam Chomsky on the Drug War
( 1 2 all )
xnevermore 4,994 32 10/09/02 02:01 PM
by EchoVortex
* Noam Chomsky insulted Turkey - publisher on trial Luddite 713 4 09/24/06 11:56 PM
by Turn
* Noam Chomsky: Venezuela is an Example of True Solidarity
( 1 2 3 all )
lonestar2004 5,008 56 02/28/06 05:58 PM
by Skeptikos
* Has Noam Chomsky retired? mr.bixby 1,144 2 06/21/09 10:04 PM
by mr.bixby
* Chomsky on the Drug War delian 1,995 10 08/25/01 07:56 PM
by headphone
* Chomsky on how to get out
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 2,041 32 05/14/04 08:15 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* 1969: Buckley vs Chomsky. If only I'd been alive to live through such civility. Gijith 777 4 10/12/06 07:11 AM
by Aldous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,336 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.075 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 14 queries.