Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

No one wants to defend Chomsky on his stupidity about atheism or the other quotes I mentioned huh? Yeah the guy says a lot of stupid stuff like that his whole life and people just want to get to reality so they ignore him. It's really very basic.

There's a reason why people who whine about him being excluded from whatever (The New York Times, academia, sainthood) always mention the top ten cited author stat without mentioning who the others are. '80-'92 From most to least.

Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero

Yes we should all be paying more attention to these people :rolleyes:
 
stokes234 said:
So proper historians are ignoring someone who isn't actually a historian, and instead provides political analysis of events based on his own political opinions. Stop the press.
Click to expand...

Stokes, would you agree that to the extent that Chomsky's political analysis is a historical analysis, its acceptance by historians is relevant to the question of whether or not his analysis has merit?

Would you agree that with regards to his political analysis in general, its acceptance by other political analysts is similarly relevant?

ETA: Also, I'm pretty sure that portraying Chomsky as not-a-historian-just-a-linguist-with-political-opinions doesn't really bolster his credibility.
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
Yes we should all be paying more attention to these people :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

To Shakespeare and Aristotle, sure. To the mass murderer, Lenin, not so much. Of course during the height of the Soviet Union's power I'm sure that senile bureaucrat, Mao, or the third in the murderous trio, Stalin, would have pushed out those annoying old Romans and Greeks off the list.

But your point stands about mass quotation not meaning much.
 
Yes, Shakespeare is on my reading list, but his is an area that generally can't be outdone or improved upon, it's literature and stories. Philosophy and science have been improved upon, it's the "it's good because it's ancient" fallacy that's worrisome. Aristotle is worthy, but the average evolutionary biologist is probably a lot brighter on science and philosophy than he was, overall, we've evolved. I'm not beyond reading from them, just why should I when I have to wade through so many debunked notions in the process to get to the goods? There are contemporary sources... And in Chomsky's case, there are people who it's possible to take seriously almost all of the time on any issue without being confronted with crazy statements like his one on atheism.

That's a doozy, really, I was just sitting here when it occurred to me "You know, I bet Noam really hates the gnu atheists, let's see if he's said anything stupid about them." Why is it so easy? Yeah basically on a cost/benefit analysis trying to take Chomsky seriously is just too much work. If there is anything to take seriously, he ruined his chances by saying so many bizarre things.
 
Last edited:
Just missed Chomsky - a friend clued me in an hour ago - speaking around the corner in Cologne where he did two lectures Monday and Tuesday, one about Linguistics and one about Politics, and a Seminar today, being the seventh Albertus-Magnus-Professor of the prestigious University of Cologne. Another great honor for the moonbat. :rolleyes:
 
theprestige said:
Stokes, would you agree that to the extent that Chomsky's political analysis is a historical analysis, its acceptance by historians is relevant to the question of whether or not his analysis has merit?

Would you agree that with regards to his political analysis in general, its acceptance by other political analysts is similarly relevant?

ETA: Also, I'm pretty sure that portraying Chomsky as not-a-historian-just-a-linguist-with-political-opinions doesn't really bolster his credibility.
Click to expand...

Who gives a rat's ass about your precious "credibility"

Which political analysts do you have in mind?
 
JihadJane said:
Which political analysts did you have in mind?
Click to expand...

Well, since credibility is off the table, how about Rush Limbaugh? Or Sarah Palin?

But go ahead: You've already cited--what was it? The University of Cologne? You tell us which mainstream political analysts you consider as having provided you with a meaningful peer review and validation of Chomsky's work as a political analyst.

Me, I can't think of any. But then, I'm not looking to convince anyone that Chomsky's work is important or interesting. You think it is, you tell us who else supports that claim.
 
Be my guest.

Google is a wonderful tool...

It sometimes seems just about everything Chomsky says politically is (1) full of hate of the USA / Israel, (2) praises genocidal murderers (communist or Islamic or whatever), and (3) utterly ignores the facts.
 
Last edited:
Still, says a lot about a dude who said the Cambodian genocide didnt happen. Then changed his story to say it did happen and America made the communists do it.

As for retarded things since then, you want the full list?
 
bikerdruid said:
how 'bout listing a few of those bizarre things that chomsky has said?
Click to expand...
how 'bout following the thread?

You should start with explaining his new atheist quote to me, then explain to me why Kamm can be accused of being someone who wants to "prevent exposure of state crimes and their own complicity in them" Polemic distortion is merely the half of it.
 
theprestige said:
Well, since credibility is off the table, how about Rush Limbaugh? Or Sarah Palin?

But go ahead: You've already cited--what was it?The University of Cologne? You tell us which mainstream political analysts you consider as having provided you with a meaningful peer review and validation of Chomsky's work as a political analyst.
Click to expand...

We may all look the same to you but we are still individuals! :)

Chomsky's analysis of mainstream political analysts (i.e. US mainstream media censorship happens at the job interview stage) doesn't win him friends amongst mainstream analysts. He is a threat to their wellbeing.

Me, I can't think of any. But then, I'm not looking to convince anyone that Chomsky's work is important or interesting.
Click to expand...

Neither am I.

You think it is, you tell us who else supports that claim.
Click to expand...

As far I'm concerned, it's your problem if you are unable to recognize the value of his work on its own merits, not mine.
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
how 'bout following the thread?

You should start with explaining his new atheist quote to me, then explain to me why Kamm can be accused of being someone who wants to "prevent exposure of state crimes and their own complicity in them" Polemic distortion is merely the half of it.
Click to expand...

somewhere in the 1100 posts in the thread i missed this...weird, eh?
how about refreshing it?
 
angrysoba said:
Generally speaking when it comes to politics, just about everyone feels entitled to speak their mind and should be able to.
Click to expand...

And everyone does.

I don't think anyone is saying Chomsky isn't entitled to speak his mind. I think the issue is how much credence others should give him, and that too is a matter of opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom