Noam on stuff

[Ziggurat]

I usually agree with most every conclusion Chomsky makes about practical politics.

He concluded that our invasion of Afghanistan would result in genocide. He also concluded at the time that the Khmer Rouge were NOT engaged in genocide. You might want to rethink your position, unless you think these are not issues of practical politics.

 

[jimtron]

Planet Chomsky is the epitome of "noone is responsible for any trouble they cause (unless they're israeli)", pie in the sky, dreamland.

...

Perfect example of totally wrong but for all the right reasons. You know he means well (except possibly to jews) , but he is clueless about reality

I'm skeptical that Chomsky believes that no one is responsible for any trouble they cause (except Israel). Do you have any citations for that?

Do you honestly believe he doesn't "mean well" for Jews?

 

[pipelineaudio]

How is Noam Chomsky ill meaning to Jews? As I recall, he is a Jew.

A black crack dealer is acting VERY much against other blacks, though he is one himself

 

[EGarrett]

He does mention solutions at points. In so far that when the proposed cure is worse than a disease, do nothing is actually the better solution.

I don't consider doing nothing to be an actual solution.

BTW, when the United States nothing, they are ivory tower isolationists. Their sanctions led to the death of millions of people. There is no way to escape anti-USA criticism.

 

[l0rca]

A black crack dealer is acting VERY much against other blacks, though he is one himself

Is this supposed to be an argument or agreement?

If it's an argument, would you mind taking it out of metaphor, and backing it up with some evidence?

 

[TriangleMan]

Coincidentally I'm reading a Chomsky book right now, a collection of Q&As that he's done over the years. I'm part way through but I do see the point from others in that he doesn't really offer any solutions, just discusses the problems and manipulations of those in power, and what he feels are the ultimate motives behind certain decisions made by the US Government.

I do find the book interesting and there is a lot of citations that I'll need to follow up on once I'm done. I'm not sure how accurate his theories are on why politicians made the decisions that they did, but he does try to back up what he says. Keeps referring to the Pentagon Papers, anyone know what that is about? (this would have been late-80s, early 90s)

 

[pipelineaudio]

Is this supposed to be an argument or agreement?

If it's an argument, would you mind taking it out of metaphor, and backing it up with some evidence?

I dont understand

 

[shemp]

I know he is an anarchist, and I simply don't understand anarchism; how it could work.

Anarchism only works when it's well organized and regulated.

 

[Skeptic]

Socialist libertarianism advocates the idea of stewardship of things without any personal property ownership.

I'm sure Chomsky religiously applies this philosophy to his own property, bank account, etc.

 

[Walter Wayne]

I don't consider doing nothing to be an actual solution.

It is an option however, and when the proposed "solutions" are worse, which option do you choose.

BTW, when the United States nothing, they are ivory tower isolationists. Their sanctions led to the death of millions of people. There is no way to escape anti-USA criticism.

When anybody does nothing, when they should something they deserve criticism. Canada could have dropped a batallion into Rwanda before the massacre, as could any number of wetern nations. What is more, we were invited there by both warring factions. We know what happened there, and there is lots of criticism to go around.

Walt

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't consider doing nothing to be an actual solution.

BTW, when the United States nothing, they are ivory tower isolationists. Their sanctions led to the death of millions of people. There is no way to escape anti-USA criticism.

Call it a logic problem.

Whenever A does anything, B criticises what A does.

Whenever A does not do anything, B criticises A for not doing anything.

Is B necessarily a hypocrite? Explain.

 

[Ziggurat]

Keeps referring to the Pentagon Papers, anyone know what that is about? (this would have been late-80s, early 90s)

It was a report comissioned by McNamarra in 1967 concerning US involvement in Vietnam, and later leaked to the press. You can read it yourself here:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent1.html

 

[EGarrett]

Call it a logic problem.

Whenever A does anything, B criticises what A does.

Whenever A does not do anything, B criticises A for not doing anything.

Is B necessarily a hypocrite? Explain.

B shouldn't expect anyone to listen to anything he says.

 

[EGarrett]

It is an option however, and when the proposed "solutions" are worse, which option do you choose

You're assuming that the proposed solutions ARE worse. The most horrible things that have happened to the United States came after years of NOT acting against the perpetrator.

 

[Walter Wayne]

You're assuming that the proposed solutions ARE worse. The most horrible things that have happened to the United States came after years of NOT acting against the perpetrator.

I am not assuming anything. I am asking in those situations where it is the case, is it a better option.

You do recognize that not every situation will be the same?

 

[Walter Wayne]

Call it a logic problem.

Whenever A does anything, B criticises what A does.

Whenever A does not do anything, B criticises A for not doing anything.

Is B necessarily a hypocrite? Explain.

In that situation I would say that B is a complainer. I however don't know of anybody that criticises A whenever they do or don't do anything. It appears that way to some people because of confirmation bias. That and A can't tell that B, C, D ... Z are different entities. So if B complains in one situation, C in another, D in another and so on, they seem to think they are hated by everyone all the time, as opposed to different individuals at different times.

Walt

 

[qayak]

Anarchism only works when it's well organized and regulated.

I don't care who you are, that right there is funny!

 

[hgc]

Call it a logic problem.

Whenever A does anything, B criticises what A does.

Whenever A does not do anything, B criticises A for not doing anything.

Is B necessarily a hypocrite? Explain.

It's not a logic problem. It's a judgement problem.

And we don't have enough information from your example to make an informed judgement. If everything A does and doesn't do is wrong, then why shouldn't B criticize A for everything? You can't assume that B is automatically critical of everything A does and doesn't do merely because B has criticized everything so far.

Black swan problem. Oops, logic applies afterall.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's not a logic problem. It's a judgement problem.

And we don't have enough information from your example to make an informed judgement. If everything A does and doesn't do is wrong, then why shouldn't B criticize A for everything? You can't assume that B is automatically critical of everything A does and doesn't do merely because B has criticized everything so far.

Black swan problem. Oops, logic applies afterall.

You got it exactly right. We don't know whether B is "a complainer", or a hypocrite, or perfectly justified.

To know that, we'd have to know what B was complaining about and why.

The mere fact that B always complains tells us nothing.

 

[EGarrett]

You got it exactly right. We don't know whether B is "a complainer", or a hypocrite, or perfectly justified.

To know that, we'd have to know what B was complaining about and why.

The mere fact that B always complains tells us nothing.

In your example, you're painting "do something" and "not do something" as the only two possibilities. Not "do something one way" or "do something another way."