Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

theprestige said:
... 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.
Click to expand...


Completely misrepresenting this thread. Look at the title. It isn't about telling people that Chomsky's work is important or interesting, it's about telling people that Chomsky is a "moonbat". And those feeling the need to tell people about Chomsky's moonbattery are uneducated kids who never read a book of him and are in no position to criticize him. That's what gets pointed out. Wake me up when Virus has achieved not two to three dozen, but a single honorary doctorate.

Doesn't help that you guys don't even read carefully enough to separate me and JihadJane. :rolleyes:
 
Joey McGee said:
Is this a war of attrition? You're killing me! :p

like I said in the post... "By the way who was that "New Atheist" lecturing a grieving mother on how she won't see her dying child in heaven?"
Click to expand...

i freely admit that sometimes comments go over my head.
i do confess to being rather a luddite.

is the criticism of chomsky that he says that a 'new atheist' said this to a grieving mother, without citing the exact incident?
 
"I don't join the New Atheists. So, for example, I wouldn't have the arrogance to lecture some mother who hopes to see her dying child in heaven -- that's none of my business ultimately. I won't lecture her on the philosophy of science."

The criticism is that is a spectacularly stupid thing to say no matter what you think it means. It mathematically adds up to stupid and I'd like to see someone try and apologize for it without looking equally as stupid.

It sounds like he's saying new atheists do stuff like this, which only a psychopath would do. So it's kind of like calling them psychopaths in my eyes. Anyway, it really doesn't matter what the hell he meant by it, the fact that he says stuff like this is a reasonable explanation why people don't take him seriously. This is ********.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Completely misrepresenting this thread. Look at the title. It isn't about telling people that Chomsky's work is important or interesting, it's about telling people that Chomsky is a "moonbat". And those feeling the need to tell people about Chomsky's moonbattery are uneducated kids who never read a book of him and are in no position to criticize him. That's what gets pointed out. Wake me up when Virus has achieved not two to three dozen, but a single honorary doctorate.

Doesn't help that you guys don't even read carefully enough to separate me and JihadJane. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So terrorist supporters and can get honorary doctorates.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It's a statement against fundamentalism and arrogance. You don't getting it says nothing about Chomsky.
Click to expand...
I understand it's possible that he meant it in some other way, but that's how idiots talk.

ETA: When you hear that, you get the impression of a person actually doing that, the white elephant effect. I don't like people who talk like that, I prefer to laugh at them and make fun of them. It's an instinct. He's a stupid man. His arguments against them that follow are also pretty stupid. He's a tone troll. Millions of people were helped by the movement that popped up spontaneously after the big evolution in schools showdown, it's just a bunch of crap he's spewing.
 
Last edited:
The New Atheists are Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger and Christopher Hitchens. Please tell me how it is a helpful analogy to explain any of their actions objectively. Hitchens is probably an easy target :D But seriously.
 
Here's a video of Noam Chomsky on pornography.



Claims never to have heard of "the Hustler" [sic] before doing an interview for Hustler, but has strong opinions on pornography.
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
The New Atheists are Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger and Christopher Hitchens. Please tell me how it is a helpful analogy to explain any of their actions objectively. Hitchens is probably an easy target :D But seriously.
Click to expand...


I only know two of those names. Dawkins is a rather likable atheist fundamentalist and Hitchens is a rather unlikable atheist fundamentalist. Chomsky seems to say (and I can't be bothered to check any context on this) that he doesn't want to join their club. How does this reflect on his body of work, other than that you disagree and want to join the club?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Completely misrepresenting this thread. Look at the title. It isn't about telling people that Chomsky's work is important or interesting, it's about telling people that Chomsky is a "moonbat". And those feeling the need to tell people about Chomsky's moonbattery are uneducated kids who never read a book of him and are in no position to criticize him.
Click to expand...

Like much of what Chomsky wrote, this is false. I'm reasonably well educated and spent 13 years on the faculty of FSU.

I first became interested in Chomsky for linguistics. He made some notable contributions, such as the Chomsky taxonomy of grammars and early work on generative grammars (without semantics). However, his transformational grammar, while fun to play with, is pretty much useless. He also had this fixation about language being uniquely human and innate.

So far, this is fine. People come up with good ideas and bad ideas. However, he worked so hard at creating a cult of Chomsky and going around being aggressive to people and using his status to put down other, more promising approaches like HPSG and deep case grammars.

He does the same thing with politics, and he lies not only about factual matters and what other people wrote but about things that he himself said and wrote. He uses his linguistic skills to weasel, but even clear statements he made he lies about later. Occasionally, he's right, but what he writes is usually ignorant, and he also has a penchant for fixating on minor sources that he happens to disagree with.

Even the most famous book that he only co-wrote, Manufacturing Consent, almost completely ignores the vast amount of work in media studies.

If anything, the "ignorant kids" comment applies more to his acolytes. He gives the impression of letting the reader on a great secret, oversimplified to produce a "ding-dong" effect. He does for the left what Ayn Rand did for the right. Rand was a wingnut. Chomsky is a moonbat.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I only know two of those names. Dawkins is a rather likable atheist fundamentalist and Hitchens is a rather unlikable atheist fundamentalist. Chomsky seems to say (and I can't be bothered to check any context on this) that he doesn't want to join their club. How does this reflect on his body of work, other than that you disagree and want to join the club?
Click to expand...

You rather unsurprisingly miss the entire point, which is the statement about New Atheists telling grieving mothers that they won't be reunited with their children up in Hebbin. Is this based on a specific incident, or is it just more handwaving, based on the idea that talking about atheism just makes you a big meanie going around denying people comfortable fantasies?

Chomsky won't tell.
 
epepke said:
Like much of what Chomsky wrote, this is false.
Click to expand...


Nope, it isn't. Anybody who calls Chomsky a "moonbat", whatever that may be, is excluded from rational discourse immediately, regardless of his/her formal education. The facts, almost obsessively sourced by Chomsky as known to anybody familiar with his work, speak for themselves, and you only posted unfounded and therefore irrelevant opinions.

edit: I perfectly get the point of trying to nail Chomsky on a dismissive statement he made about an obscure group of atheist fundamentalists. The point is trying to score cheap points on the JREF forum, hoping that the audience goes "oooh, he doesn't like the New Atheists, he must be a moonbat".
 
Last edited:
epepke said:
Like much of what Chomsky wrote, this is false. I'm reasonably well educated and spent 13 years on the faculty of FSU.

I first became interested in Chomsky for linguistics. He made some notable contributions, such as the Chomsky taxonomy of grammars and early work on generative grammars (without semantics). However, his transformational grammar, while fun to play with, is pretty much useless. He also had this fixation about language being uniquely human and innate.

So far, this is fine. People come up with good ideas and bad ideas. However, he worked so hard at creating a cult of Chomsky and going around being aggressive to people and using his status to put down other, more promising approaches like HPSG and deep case grammars.

He does the same thing with politics, and he lies not only about factual matters and what other people wrote but about things that he himself said and wrote. He uses his linguistic skills to weasel, but even clear statements he made he lies about later. Occasionally, he's right, but what he writes is usually ignorant, and he also has a penchant for fixating on minor sources that he happens to disagree with.

Even the most famous book that he only co-wrote, Manufacturing Consent, almost completely ignores the vast amount of work in media studies.

If anything, the "ignorant kids" comment applies more to his acolytes. He gives the impression of letting the reader on a great secret, oversimplified to produce a "ding-dong" effect. He does for the left what Ayn Rand did for the right. Rand was a wingnut. Chomsky is a moonbat.
Click to expand...

Vacuous, unsubstantiated, smearing generalizations.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I only know two of those names. Dawkins is a rather likable atheist fundamentalist and Hitchens is a rather unlikable atheist fundamentalist. Chomsky seems to say (and I can't be bothered to check any context on this)
Click to expand...
Then why should anyone bother to reply to your unsubstantiated opinions?
that he doesn't want to join their club. How does this reflect on his body of work, other than that you disagree and want to join the club?
Click to expand...
Like I said, number one it's the white elephant effect. I don't like people who say things like this because it's stupid. To the weak-minded he's got you feeling something that is not objectively supported by the evidence. They do nothing that could make a person feel like that. It's not a good analogy. Hitchens doesn't break into people's houses and hold a gun to their head telling them to read his book. What does he do? He writes stuff and says stuff where people pay him and invite him to. Chomsky is an idiot. And he says that maybe it's ok for people who believe the world is 10,000 years old, I'm sorry that is retarded, they openly debate who are considered to be the most sophisitcated theologians at places like Norte dame and millions of people are helped by this movement, just like millions of people are profoundly liberated by evolution, it was an amazing victory for people when the dover trial was over and the movement just took off from there. Oh look what's in the paper today.

Kevin Myers: Myth of Dawkins as an intolerant, atheist crusader is just that -- myth

Childlike Empress said:
Nope, it isn't. Anybody who calls Chomsky a "moonbat", whatever that may be, is excluded from rational discourse immediately
Click to expand...
You have a lot of bad reasons from excluding people from rational debate it's like you're the decider. You should run critical thinking education because if the JREF is in this much trouble surely you could save humanity.

edit: I perfectly get the point of trying to nail Chomsky on a dismissive statement he made about an obscure group of atheist fundamentalists. The point is trying to score cheap points on the JREF forum, hoping that the audience goes "oooh, he doesn't like the New Atheists, he must be a moonbat".
Click to expand...
haha
 
Joey McGee said:
Hitchens doesn't break into people's houses and hold a gun to their head telling them to read his book.
Click to expand...


Alert me when Chomsky does something like this. I'm SO tempted to quote from the drunken rants you sent me two days ago but I will resist because unlike some other people (tach Oystein) I respect the "private" part of private messages. Just give it up, it's laughable.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Nope, it isn't. Anybody who calls Chomsky a "moonbat", whatever that may be, is excluded from rational discourse immediately, regardless of his/her formal education. The facts, almost obsessively sourced by Chomsky as known to anybody familiar with his work, speak for themselves, and you only posted unfounded and therefore irrelevant opinions.

edit: I perfectly get the point of trying to nail Chomsky on a dismissive statement he made about an obscure group of atheist fundamentalists. The point is trying to score cheap points on the JREF forum, hoping that the audience goes "oooh, he doesn't like the New Atheists, he must be a moonbat".
Click to expand...

I agree. Its much better to attack him for denying the communist genocide in Cambodia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom