Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[WildCat]

Although the joke about there being a German humorist was a good one.

Hey, Germans have a sense of humor! Here is the evidences:

 

[angrysoba]

Joey McGee, at your request I have revisited one of our earlier discussions on torture. I said at the time:

Joey McGee, it is my contention that you would condone anything and everything if you were told it was a matter of national security.

To which you responded:

Well that's ridiculous. I'd be highly critical of most cases of actual torture that happen and generally for different soft approaches to reach people like deprogramming.

Right. But it is my contention that if a national security argument for torture or pretty much anything else can be made you would agree with it. It's not that extreme a conjecture, actually. Most people would agree that if it really is a matter of genuine national security then pretty much anything can be condoned.

In fact, repeatedly when defending your views on human rights and torture you have said you are not a "rule utilitarian" as if this was some kind of legitimate argument and not a diversionary tactic. Most people are not "rule utilitarians". I expect the Taliban are not "rule utilitarians" nor are the mullahs in Iran. But that doesn't get us any closer to when you do and when you don't condone torture.

In general they just happen to be the kind of people getting themselves into situations where what they know could save a lot of innocent lives...

I don't even know what this sentence means. I don't know who "they" are and I don't know what "situations" you are talking about. Your vagueness of expression is one of the things that put me off engaging with you any further the first time. I usually can't get a handle on what you are talking about leaving me with the impression that your arguments are just completely ad hoc.

In one post you wrote:

I support enhanced interrogation on proven war criminals and terrorists, add me to the list Sam Harris is on that concern trolls keep somewhere.

I think you should avoid euphemisms like that. You responded:

I guess I really should have put it in quotes, then people would have known I meant it in jest.

Well, then, at the very least it confirms what I said earlier about you expressing yourself poorly. There was no indication whatsoever that you used the term "enhanced interrogation" ironically. You even brought in the irrelevant fact that you are in agreement with Sam Harris on this issue presumably in attempt to give your view some respectability.

I asked:

Where do you draw the line on who constitutes a terrorist? Would, say, Julian Assange counts? Do you think he should be legally tortured if only with say waterboarding. Does this also go for associates of terrorists and war criminals? Should Ratko Mladic be subject to waterboarding right now? Should we do the same for everyone we find on the battlefield in Libya?

Obviously none of those things even remotely justify one of the most extreme actions you can take on another human being.

Okay, so even if Julian Assange was designated a terrorist and even if Ratko Mladic is convicted of war crimes you wouldn't endorse torture of them despite the fact that they would then despite the fact that they now fulfil the necessary stipulations you made. Can you see why it is difficult discussing things with you? You seem to contradict yourself a lot. Could you at least tell us what would be a sufficient condition for torture (aside from a ticking time bomb)?

It's really not serious when you are invoking TV Characters that show is horrible I never watched it.

That doesn't say much for you as YOU, not I, were the one who invoked Jack Bauer originally. By the way, that is a run-on sentence.

if it was your family on the line you'd torture someone for information Jack Bauer style without thinking, count on it.

I asked if once the line had been crossed then there was any limit on what kind of torture could then be employed. Would anything at all then be justified:

No definitely not, you could ideally get away with the threat of torture, or increased torture, and obviously there are serious limits to what any rational person would do.

Well, we don't live in an ideal world, Joey. So, this is just an evasion. We also don't know what the "serious limits to what any rational person would do" is. Rational, by whose standards? What constitutes rational torture and what constitutes demented irrational torture?

I then asked:

Now, I'll raise this as a hypothetical since I don't think it has been proven and it certainly is in line with your Jack Bauer posturing.

It has been reported, maybe it's just made up - who knows? - that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's children were tortured to try and get KSM to crack. Sometimes, you see, these hardened terrorist and war criminal types are actually trained themselves to resist torture but somehow, and it may be difficult to believe, they do care about their own families. Do you think if a terrorist type is not talking when waterboarded - and remember this is ticking timebomb stuff - and doesn't talk when the fingernails are removed and still won't talk after his arm has been dissolved in strong acid then it would be time to start bashing the testicles of his infant son?

Never.

Well, why "never"? Doesn't this go against the whole eschewing of "rule utilitarianism" ethos?

I don't know where you draw the line and you have given no indication in your replies that you have really thought this through. So, it continues to be my contention that you would condone torture if you were told it was a matter of national security.

 

[angrysoba]

Israel could be classified as a democratic theocracy,

It could be but only by those who don't know what a theocracy is. Israel cannot correctly be classified as a theocracy.

 

[epepke]

I would definitely agree with you.

Most people would not consider Chomsky a historian and/or someone who accurately presents historical facts for the same reason that most people would not consider Glen Beck a historian and/or someone who accurately presents historical facts.

Quite. I frequently confuse Noam Beck with Glen Chomsky. I used to confuse Rush Chomsky with Noam Limbaugh, but I think that one of them is not listened to much any more.

Both distort facts to support a political agenda that does not match the real world, but which appeals to a small market of people who create a demand for that type of dishonesty.

Right. Both (or all three or more) can make an exciting point that makes one say "Yeah!", but when one actually looks up the ostensible facts, one generally finds a lot of distortions, misquotings, and outright falsehoods, not to mention an absence of the ethical scholarly practice of addressing evidence to the contrary in a fair manner. Eventually the tedium of doing that overrides the excitement, at least for a certain kind of person, of which I am one.

It becomes like sitting down to a mess of brown stuff when it is not so easy to distinguish the chocolate mousse from the cow flop.

 

[JihadJane]

Quite. I frequently confuse Noam Beck with Glen Chomsky.

This could be a result of the depth of your understanding.

I used to confuse Rush Chomsky with Noam Limbaugh, but I think that one of them is not listened to much any more.

This too.

Right. Both (or all three or more) can make an exciting point that makes one say "Yeah!", but when one actually looks up the ostensible facts, one generally finds a lot of distortions, misquotings, and outright falsehoods, not to mention an absence of the ethical scholarly practice of addressing evidence to the contrary in a fair manner. Eventually the tedium of doing that overrides the excitement, at least for a certain kind of person, of which I am one.

It becomes like sitting down to a mess of brown stuff when it is not so easy to distinguish the chocolate mousse from the cow flop.

I wonder if either you or HoverBoarder will ever substantiate any of your smearing generalizations with actual, real-life examples; scholarly ones, perhaps.

 

[Joey McGee]

You said they were "brighter". I asked you if they would say they were brighter as per your contention and then you said I am setting up a strawman.

This just exposes you for concern trollery. "brighter" is a colloquialism, what I said was "brighter on science and philosophy than he was, overall, we've evolved" which clearly only lends to my interpretation.

"Skewing" means "distorting". It is very true that you do distort people's posts to make them easier to attack.

Cite an example so I can skewer it.

You'll probably complain that I am responding to what you wrote rather than what you meant but unfortunately what you appear to mean is so whacko that it is more charitable to assume you mean nothing at all.

Your inability to understand my arguments is not a mark against them.

It is my contention that if a national security argument for torture or pretty much anything else can be made you would agree with it

You make poor contentions for the purpose of polemic eh...

Most people would agree that if it really is a matter of genuine national security then pretty much anything can be condoned

Most people believe in a God, you had no grounds to throw that at me and it was batted away for the weak attempt at polemic it was.

In fact, repeatedly when defending your views on human rights and torture you have said you are not a "rule utilitarian" as if this was some kind of legitimate argument and not a diversionary tactic.

Bizarre, you don't make sense, if I don't think adhering to the rule of "no torture" will benefit us because of the rule ultilitarian argument that's a description of my position, now I'm using for an argument and using tactics while simply explaining my feelings. Wow.

But that doesn't get us any closer to when you do and when you don't condone torture.

Sure it does, I don't think the benefits of never torturing people outweigh the benefits of torturing people rarely.

I don't even know what this sentence means. I don't know who "they" are

lol at you then because if you look at the quote I was responding to it is the war criminals and terrorists I was talking about.

and I don't know what "situations" you are talking about.

The situations that we tortured those three people under will do.

Your vagueness of expression is one of the things that put me off engaging with you any further the first time.

Oh really you didn't respond to all of that stupidity of "How will they know it's bin laden and not shoot an unarmed man Joey!" You're a concern troll who makes no efforts trying to understand, you just make a case of how it could be misunderstood in such a vapid manner I don't consider it honest.

I usually can't get a handle on what you are talking about leaving me with the impression that your arguments are just completely ad hoc.

Or maybe they are just so right you're having a psychosomatic immune reaction.

In one post you wrote:

I think you should avoid euphemisms like that.

I think you should have a beer and lay off the concern trollery.

You responded:



Well, then, at the very least it confirms what I said earlier about you expressing yourself poorly. There was no indication whatsoever that you used the term "enhanced interrogation" ironically.

It's a weak but fair point and I will change how I speak in the future. I come here to learn. But it was a weak attack in the first place and did nothing to my argument to talk like a politician.

You even brought in the irrelevant fact that you are in agreement with Sam Harris on this issue presumably in attempt to give your view some respectability.

pffft "go read what sam has to say he's spent more time on this than me and I don't disagree" was the spirit of that comment but you bother me with more gutless accusations of an argument from authority, boring.

Okay, so even if Julian Assange was designated a terrorist and even if Ratko Mladic is convicted of war crimes you wouldn't endorse torture of them despite the fact that they would then despite the fact that they now fulfil the necessary stipulations you made. Can you see why it is difficult discussing things with you? You seem to contradict yourself a lot. Could you at least tell us what would be a sufficient condition for torture (aside from a ticking time bomb)?

I've said several times here that holding information that can save lives in your brain without revealing it is an act of war that justifies interrogation, and that is the extent of my position. You're basically building straw men with the personal justification that I'm not building endless caveats into my posts which would be 10 times longer than they needed to be if I went to your school of logic.

By the way, that is a run-on sentence.

lol yes, I also have spelling and typo errors in some of my posts to, please point all of those out in the future for everyone to see

.I asked if once the line had been crossed then there was any limit on what kind of torture could then be employed. Would anything at all then be justified:

Well, we don't live in an ideal world, Joey. So, this is just an evasion.

It's not an evasion, it's the fact that to explain myself properly to your standards every post would be 20 000 words long.

I then asked:

Well, why "never"? Doesn't this go against the whole eschewing of "rule utilitarianism" ethos?

No, I couldn't conceive of a situation that would be ethical in.

I don't know where you draw the line and you have given no indication in your replies that you have really thought this through

So, it continues to be my contention that you would condone torture if you were told it was a matter of national security.

Fine. And it's my contention space beams brought down the towers.

 

[Mycroft]

I wonder if either you or HoverBoarder will ever substantiate any of your smearing generalizations with actual, real-life examples; scholarly ones, perhaps.

You make it sound like criticisms of Chomsky are hard to come by. There are whole books written on the topic.

 

[angrysoba]

This just exposes you for concern trollery. "brighter" is a colloquialism, what I said was "brighter on science and philosophy than he was, overall, we've evolved" which clearly only lends to my interpretation.

I know what you said. I responded to what you said and disagreed with what you said. You told me it was a strawman to disagree with your verbatim opinions and changed the terms of your argument. "not more 'astute'" and "but standing on the shoulders of giants." etc...

Cite an example so I can skewer it.

The one above will do.

Your inability to understand my arguments is not a mark against them.

A mark against them would be their vagueness.

You make poor contentions for the purpose of polemic eh... Most people believe in a God, you had no grounds to throw that at me and it was batted away for the weak attempt at polemic it was.

???

Bizarre, you don't make sense, if I don't think adhering to the rule of "no torture" will benefit us because of the rule ultilitarian argument that's a description of my position, now I'm using for an argument and using tactics while simply explaining my feelings. Wow.

?????

Sure it does, I don't think the benefits of never torturing people outweigh the benefits of torturing people rarely.

Right. And under what criteria do you torture people?

lol at you then because if you look at the quote I was responding to it is the war criminals and terrorists I was talking about.

Ah! Okay, then...

In general they just happen to be the kind of people getting themselves into situations where what they know could save a lot of innocent lives...

It's unclear because of its poor wording. What you mean is that what they know threatens innocent lives and finding out what they know could save them. The resulting confusion that arises from confusing torturer with torturee cripples your response.

The situations that we tortured those three people under will do.

Yes, but this merely raises the possibility that something similar comes along in which waterboarding doesn't work on the terrorist. What then? A blow torch? You say, maybe the threat of worse torture will be enough. I say that's wishful thinking. You say, "concern troll!" Now, where do you draw the line bearing in mind that you're not a rule utilitarian? (Are you any kind of utilitarian?)

Oh really you didn't respond to all of that stupidity of "How will they know it's bin laden and not shoot an unarmed man Joey!"

I'm glad you now realize that what you wrote was stupid but that was only partly the reason I didn't respond. One of the reasons was because it is a different subject and I'd already spent enough time reading your twisting and turning on the torture debate.

You're a concern troll who makes no efforts trying to understand, you just make a case of how it could be misunderstood in such a vapid manner I don't consider it honest.

Now that really sounds like a word you picked up from someone who used it against you. Your whole behaviour in this "debate" is vapid.

Or maybe they are just so right you're having a psychosomatic immune reaction.

What?

I think you should have a beer and lay off the concern trollery.

This is projection. I would suggest you read some of that Freud you are avoiding.

It's a weak but fair point and I will change how I speak in the future. I come here to learn. But it was a weak attack in the first place and did nothing to my argument to talk like a politician.

Yes, try writing honestly.

pffft "go read what sam has to say he's spent more time on this than me and I don't disagree" was the spirit of that comment but you bother me with more gutless accusations of an argument from authority, boring.

More run-on sentences. If you have a problem with people misinterpreting you it is because your poor writing makes it difficult to understand what you are talking about. And if you can't give an exposition of what Sam Harris says then why should I accept your say so that he has said anything worthwhile on the subject. If you aren't employing him as an authority then bringing him into the debate is just, well...vapid.

I've said several times here that holding information that can save lives in your brain without revealing it is an act of war that justifies interrogation, and that is the extent of my position.

Well, that is a stupid position. Having information that can save lives but not revealing it is not an act of war.

You're basically building straw men with the personal justification that I'm not building endless caveats into my posts which would be 10 times longer than they needed to be if I went to your school of logic.

I'd actually prefer your posts were shorter - as in concise - and were actually based on reasoning.

lol yes, I also have spelling and typo errors in some of my posts to,

Indeed.

please point all of those out in the future for everyone to see

If I have time.

It's not an evasion, it's the fact that to explain myself properly to your standards every post would be 20 000 words long.

See above.

No, I couldn't conceive of a situation that would be ethical in.

Use your imagination. If you are an act utilitarian as opposed to a rule utilitarian then you would easily be able to come up with a situation in which it would be ethical. Do I take it that you are no kind of utilitarian and would actually prefer large numbers of people to die all because you were too squeamish to torture a terrorist's son?

Fine. And it's my contention space beams brought down the towers.

If you say so.

 

[Joey McGee]

I know what you said. I responded to what you said and disagreed with what you said. You told me it was a strawman to disagree with your verbatim opinions and changed the terms of your argument. "not more 'astute'" and "but standing on the shoulders of giants." etc...

No, I did not change the terms of my argument. Here you are trying to understand what I mean by deciding what I meant based on your own rules, shockingly boring.

The one above will do.

lol

Right. And under what criteria do you torture people?

When they have information that can save lives in their brain. And you try to develop a truth serum or brain hacking technique to avoid the need in the future. I have said this several times.

It's unclear because of its poor wording. What you mean is that what they know threatens innocent lives and finding out what they know could save them. The resulting confusion that arises from confusing torturer with torturee cripples your response.

In some imaginary universe of bizarre argument logic. What I said stands on it's own there is no advanced rebuttal required to understand what I meant.

Yes, but this merely raises the possibility that something similar comes along in which waterboarding doesn't work on the terrorist. What then? A blow torch?

If they are directly responsible for immeasurable suffering and this is proven, forgoing the innocent prisoner scenario, whatever works works. Torture someone with a blowtorch if they blew up a building setting hundreds of people on fire and could tell me how to prevent the next attack? Why do you have a problem with that? That said I doubt that would be the ideal way to get the information and the thought is completely horrific.

You say, maybe the threat of worse torture will be enough. I say that's wishful thinking.

The facts say it's not and I linked to real world examples, drop it.

You say, "concern troll!" Now, where do you draw the line bearing in mind that you're not a rule utilitarian? (Are you any kind of utilitarian?)

The difficulty in acting morally is not an argument to develop weak rules.

I'm glad you now realize that what you wrote was stupid

Your rebuttal that my beloved SEALS were going in there immorally because they might have killed the wrong man was stupid.

but that was only partly the reason I didn't respond. One of the reasons was because it is a different subject and I'd already spent enough time reading your twisting and turning on the torture debate.

more like you spent lots of time hallucinating bizarre interpretations.

Now that really sounds like a word you picked up from someone who used it against you. Your whole behaviour in this "debate" is vapid.

Wahhh what if the SEALS shot the wrong guy wahhh

This is projection. I would suggest you read some of that Freud you are avoiding.

It can't be fun abusing the English language and looking for typos in my posts, projection indeed I have been enjoying some fine weather and bbq.

Yes, try writing honestly.

Yes clearly I am writing in order to win converts to my cult.

More run-on sentences. If you have a problem with people misinterpreting you it is because your poor writing makes it difficult to understand what you are talking about.

Thanks for being there for me. Next time just edit my posts with red ink like a real English teacher.

And if you can't give an exposition of what Sam Harris says then why should I accept your say so that he has said anything worthwhile on the subject. If you aren't employing him as an authority then bringing him into the debate is just, well...vapid.

Actually now that I have gone back and looked at why I mentioned him it's that whole swaths of people totally abused the English language and think he said all kinds of bizarre things about torture so now anyone mentions him and some idiot troll goes "Sam loves torturing innocent puppies" or something. There's even a member here who has a sig that says Sam Harris is the Ann Coulter of atheists, so go read what he has to say in response to the concern trolls. That's not an argument, it's saying something. Turning every word and phrase of your opponents posts into a supposed argument for something is the mark of a desperate man.

Well, that is a stupid position. Having information that can save lives but not revealing it is not an act of war.

Really,

I'd actually prefer your posts were shorter - as in concise - and were actually based on reasoning.

blah blah blah, I'm concerned. There, my posts are more like yours now.

Use your imagination. If you are an act utilitarian as opposed to a rule utilitarian then you would easily be able to come up with a situation in which it would be ethical. Do I take it that you are no kind of utilitarian and would actually prefer large numbers of people to die all because you were too squeamish to torture a terrorist's son?

I don't believe that's the best or only want to make someone talk, the evidence doesn't point to that being a necessary kind of intervention. If you could make a case that it would be the best or only way to save millions of lives, that's a problem for my argument, but I think that case can't be made, ever.

 

[angrysoba]

No, I did not change the terms of my argument. I asked you if evolutionary scientists would agree with you that they are brighter than Aristotle. It was here that you clarified what you meant to say and blamed me for not realizing it and responding to what you had written rather than what you meant. Here you are trying to understand what I mean by deciding what I meant based on your own rules, Wrong! shockingly boring.The most stimulating type of boring.lolLOL! - but try to avoid lest you'll appear uneducated.When they have information that can save lives in their brain. And you try to develop a truth serum or brain hacking technique to avoid the need in the future. I have said this several times. Good. But in the meantime and in the real world?In some imaginary universe of bizarre argument logic. What I said stands on it's own there is no advanced rebuttal required to understand what I meant.If they are directly responsible for immeasurable suffering and this is proven, forgoing the innocent prisoner scenario, whatever works works.Okay, you could have just said this earlier. Torture someone with a blowtorch if they blew up a building setting hundreds of people on fire and could tell me how to prevent the next attack? Why do you have a problem with that? I was saying that my contention was you would accept it. It is you who have been giving the song-and-dance routine. But, finally you agree that I was right. I have a problem with it being made legal. It will be abused by those who are less inclined to moral doubts than you are.That said I doubt that would be the ideal way to get the information and the thought is completely horrific. Well, thank the Lord for that!The facts say it's not and I linked to real world examples, drop it.The difficulty in acting morally is not an argument to develop weak rules. I don't know what you mean by "weak rules". Your rebuttal that my beloved SEALS were going in there immorally because they might have killed the wrong man was stupid. I didn't say they were going in there "immorally".more like you spent lots of time hallucinating bizarre interpretations. Wahhh what if the SEALS shot the wrong guy wahhh So you'd not be bothered by that? It can't be fun abusing the English language and looking for typos in my posts, projection indeed I have been enjoying some fine weather and bbq.Yes clearly I am writing in order to win converts to my cult.Thanks for being there for me. Next time just edit my posts with red ink like a real English teacher. Good idea. Actually now that I have gone back and looked at why I mentioned him it's that whole swaths of people totally abused the English language and think he said all kinds of bizarre things about torture so now anyone mentions him and some idiot troll goes "Sam loves torturing innocent puppies" or something. So you were trolling? There's even a member here who has a sig that says Sam Harris is the Ann Coulter of atheists, so go read what he has to say in response to the concern trolls. Shockingly boring. That's not an argument, it's saying something. Turning every word and phrase of your opponents posts into a supposed argument for something is the mark of a desperate man. I'm sure it would be. Really, blah blah blah, I'm concerned. There, my posts are more like yours now. A marked improvement. I don't believe that's the best or only want to make someone talk, the evidence doesn't point to that being a necessary kind of intervention. If you could make a case that it would be the best or only way to save millions of lives, that's a problem for my argument, but I think that case can't be made, ever.

.....

 

[Joey McGee]

I asked you if evolutionary scientists would agree with you that they are brighter than Aristotle. It was here that you clarified what you meant to say and blamed me for not realizing it and responding to what you had written rather than what you meant.

I'm sorry I was so mean. Here is an ice cream.

Okay, you could have just said this earlier.

I did.

I was saying that my contention was you would accept it. It is you who have been giving the song-and-dance routine. But, finally you agree that I was right.

lol wut you are making bizarre arguments forcing me to dance all over the place to patch up your messy criticism and now you are claiming an admission of some kind, bizarre.

I have a problem with it being made legal. It will be abused by those who are less inclined to moral doubts than you are.

What kind of idiot doesn't share your concerns about torture being abused or mishandled? Concern trollery is made up of millions of tiny concerns such as this.

I don't know what you mean by "weak rules"

"Make torture 100% forbidden no matter what" is a weak rule.

I didn't say they were going in there "immorally"

Sorry my bad I have failed soba's english tests yet again.

So you'd not be bothered by that?

It wasn't a concern on this raid but concern trolls are concerned.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm sorry I was so mean. Here is an ice cream. Is it smug flavoured?I did. You did later.lol wut you are making bizarre arguments forcing me to dance all over the place to patch up your messy criticism and now you are claiming an admission of some kind, bizarre.What kind of idiot doesn't share your concerns about torture being abused or mishandled? Sadly, idiots who pass legislation they don't read. Concern trollery is made up of millions of tiny concerns such as this. So if someone objects to one of your arguments then it becomes "concern trollery"? "Make torture 100% forbidden no matter what" is a weak rule. It most certainly is not a weak rule; it is a strong rule. "Make torture okay in some situations such as on three occasions I can think of off-hand but only for really, really bad people and with full recognition that some torture such as with blowtorches is absolutely horrific" is a weak rule as it is too vague to be of any use. Sorry my bad I have failed soba's english tests yet again. It's not an English test; it is a strawman/real argument recognition test. But yes, you did fail it.It wasn't a concern on this raid but concern trolls are concerned. Are you actually saying that people concerned about the facts of the bin Laden raid are, by definition, concern trolls? If so I think you don't know the definition of "concern troll".

Anyway, it's been fun!

 

[Joey McGee]

Is it smug flavoured?

It is the taste of victory.

So if someone objects to one of your arguments then it becomes "concern trollery"?

No if someone doesn't like what you say and picks on interpretations you clearly didn't intend they are.

It most certainly is not a weak rule; it is a strong rule. "Make torture okay in some situations such as on three occasions I can think of off-hand but only for really, really bad people and with full recognition that some torture such as with blowtorches is absolutely horrific" is a weak rule as it is too vague to be of any use.

It's not my job to detail all of the right ways to use torture in order to prove it's 100% exclusion is unintelligent.

Are you actually saying that people concerned about the facts of the bin Laden raid are, by definition, concern trolls? If so I think you don't know the definition of "concern troll"

No I would prefer it if people actually addressed my actual reasoning and arguments instead of nitpicking but that's because I take this slightly seriously I suppose.

 

[Toontown]

Anyway, it's been fun!

That's your idea of fun?

 

[HoverBoarder]

You make it sound like criticisms of Chomsky are hard to come by. There are whole books written on the topic.

It's not that it is hard to come by.

There a full repositories with giant lists all of the lies from Chomsky, Like here, or here, or a hundred other sources.

The issue is not all of the details on how Chomsky tells completely made up stories to sell books to his followers, the problem is that his cult-like followers have been so indoctrinated that Chomsky can "do no wrong" even when he is outright lying to their faces again, and again, and again.

 

[epepke]

It's not that it is hard to come by.

There a full repositories with giant lists all of the lies from Chomsky, Like here, or here, or a hundred other sources.

They've been linked to already in this thread. As that didn't have an effect, it seems unlikely that doing it again will have an effect, either. Internet fact wars are for entertainment purposes only.

The issue is not all of the details on how Chomsky tells completely made up stories to sell books to his followers, the problem is that his cult-like followers have been so indoctrinated that Chomsky can "do no wrong" even when he is outright lying to their faces again, and again, and again.

That is an aspect of Chomsky. Related is that he has improved the technique, pioneered by Senator Joe McCarthy. This technique consists of making so many statements and bouncing around so much that it is not possible to hold them all for a coherent argument. It is occasionally possible to nail down a few statements, but that leaves the risk of giving the impression that only those statements have been shown to be wrong, and the rest are right.

 

[WildCat]

This technique consists of making so many statements and bouncing around so much that it is not possible to hold them all for a coherent argument. It is occasionally possible to nail down a few statements, but that leaves the risk of giving the impression that only those statements have been shown to be wrong, and the rest are right.

It's the "blizzard of bull[feces]" tactic, favored by creationists, AGW deniers, and truthers among others.

 

[epepke]

It's the "blizzard of bull[feces]" tactic, favored by creationists, AGW deniers, and truthers among others.

I realize belatedly that I did not give the name of the tactic, which is the Multiple Untruth.

 

[angrysoba]

This is from an article by George Monbiot:

Last week, Edward Herman, an American professor of finance best known for co-authoring Manufacturing Consent with Noam Chomsky, published a new book called The Srebrenica Massacre(16). It claims that the 8,000 deaths at Srebrenica are “an unsupportable exaggeration. The true figure may be closer to 800.”

Like Karadzic, the book claims that the market massacres in Sarajevo were carried out by Bosnian Muslim provocateurs. It maintains that the Serb forces’ reburial of Bosnian corpses is “implausible and lack any evidential support” (an astonishing statement in view of the ICMP’s findings). It insists that the witnesses to the killings are “not credible” and suggests that the Bosnian Muslim soldiers retreated from Srebrenica to ensure that more Bosnians were killed, in order to provoke US intervention(17).

...

But here’s where it gets really weird. The cover carries the following endorsement by John Pilger. “In this brilliant expose of great power’s lethal industry of lies, Edward Herman and David Peterson defend the right of us all to a truthful historical memory.” The foreword was written by Noam Chomsky. He doesn’t mention the specific claims the book makes, but the fact that he wrote it surely looks like an endorsement of the contents.

Monbiot is often referred to as George Moonbat by those on the right for his apparent far-leftism and is someone who might otherwise be considered a natural ally of Chomsky. So, the fact that he's penned this is quite interesting. It ends thusly:

Herman rightly maintains that far more attention is paid to atrocities committed by US enemies than to those committed by the US and its allies. But both groups then take the unwarranted step of belittling the acts of genocide committed by opponents of the western powers. The rest of us should stand up for the victims, whoever they are, and confront those trying to make them disappear.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/06/13/naming-the-genocide-deniers/

 

[Joey McGee]

soba wins the internet! Oh man that's brutal.

"But here’s where it gets really weird."

What? Come on it would be weird if Chomsky didn't lend his name to that.

True, George “Moonbat” Monbiot wielding the big stick against Chomsky is indeed newsworthy.