Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[bikerdruid]

So you would say that Glenn Beck is just wrong, and nothing else?

i see you dropped ann coulter from your question....good choice.
she gives a whole new meaning to 'wrong'.
can't comment on glen beck....i've never listened to him.

 

[Praktik]

So you would say that Glenn Beck is just wrong, and nothing else?

I don't even agree with the analogy. I don't know why William F Buckley, same generation and all, isn't a better option.

Maybe *maybe* Jeffrey Goldberg in a pinch...

But that is all besides the point that you posted about what you thought my thoughts would be regarding Beck and Coulter, which is mind-reading, plain and simple.

A cornerstone of my personal skepticism is the recognition that people who believe different things than me are quite frequently decent people, who just have a different worldview and - frequently but not always - a scattering of critical thinking pitfalls any self-proclaimed skeptic should be familiar with.

And that kind of thinking extends to even people like Beck and Coulter, whose words are surely more odious than they are as people, and odious in a way they likely can't even see (it comes so naturally to them).

 

[Pardalis]

i see you dropped ann coulter from your question....good choice.

You think she's "just wrong" or do you think she's a lunatic. Be honest.

Same with Chomsky.

But that is all besides the point that you posted about what you thought my thoughts would be regarding Beck and Coulter, which is mind-reading, plain and simple.

They disagree with you, why don't you show them the same courtesy as Chomsky?

They are equally out there. When one is wrong so many times, they are not just simply wrong. They are liars and frauds.

You are willing to give Chomsky a pass because you agree with his politics.

A cornerstone of my personal skepticism is the recognition that people who believe different things than me are quite frequently decent people, who just have a different worldview and - frequently but not always - a scattering of critical thinking pitfalls any self-proclaimed skeptic should be familiar with.

And that kind of thinking extends to even people like Beck and Coulter, whose words are surely more odious than they are as people, and odious in a way they likely can't even see (it comes so naturally to them).

No, these people are repeatedly wrong, and intentionally wrong, so that makes them deceitful, dishonest fear mongers.

Sometimes it's good to call a spade a spade, and moonbats moonbats.

 

[bikerdruid]

You think she's "just wrong" or do you think she's a lunatic. Be honest.

Same with Chomsky.

coulter is a raving, hateful, bigoted, lunatic bitch.
chomsky is not even in her league.
i respect some of chomsky's work.

 

[Pardalis]

How many times does one need to see Chomsky kiss Nasrallah's hairy ass before one admits that he's not "just wrong", but has a peculiar agenda of hate?

Not that I wand to defend that ****, but has Coulter ever been seen courting KKK leaders?

 

[Praktik]

You are willing to give Chomsky a pass because you agree with his politics.

Ok. Tell me more about what I think.

 

[Skeptic]

i see you dropped ann coulter from your question....good choice.
she gives a whole new meaning to 'wrong'

True, true, but Chomsky is the guy who went to meet and kiss Nasrallah's behind. Coulter was never seen in a sympathetic meeting with the leader of the American Nazi party, which would be the rough equivalent.

As despicable as she is -- it is hard to decide what is morally worse, being such an extreme jerk or pretending to be for the money (which I think is what she is doing) -- she isn't fawning over lunatic mass murderers, like Chomsky does.

 

[Gazpacho]

They are equally out there. When one is wrong so many times, they are not just simply wrong. They are liars and frauds.

It's not quite so clear which party is a liar and fraud when one investigates these accusations in detail (by reading the source material and the criticism) and finds that many of them fall into the following categories:

- political hacks slinging mud on behalf of some conservative think tank or other sponsor (David Horowitz);
- writers who misquoted him for a hit piece (Emma Brockes);
- instances where Chomsky relied on a misquotation in another source;
- people who refuse to consider that the US is not God's gift to the world, so any such insinuation must be considered a lie

As for Ann Coulter, I don't think it's much of a criticism to say that she's wrong, since that would imply that her goal is to be right, rather than to serve the interests that pay her way.

 

[Virus]

So did Coulter support any designated terrorist organizations? Because Chomsky did. Twice.

 

[epepke]

They are equally out there. When one is wrong so many times, they are not just simply wrong. They are liars and frauds.

Bingo.

Noam Chomsky, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are all of the same mold. Chomsky isn't even more erudite than the rest, considering how frequently he misquotes; he tries the Great Professor schtick but cannot maintain it very well.

The only real difference between them consists of their conclusions, but the fact that their fans hang onto the conclusions and ignore the intellectual dishonesty. Chomsky is more likely to embrace reprehensible regimes and people, which will be considered courageous (for people who like him) or scummy (for people who don't).

In all cases, it is possible for them to be right, by some definition of the word "right." Rush Limbaugh endorsed Snapple. Personally, I avoid buying Snapple because I don't like to give money to Rush Limbaugh, but there are many people who enjoy Snapple, and it's at least a fairly solid product. If Rush Limbaugh said that he enjoyed mashed potatoes, I'd still eat them, but I might not buy his brand.

 

[Childlike Empress]

In all cases, it is possible for them to be right, by some definition of the word "right." Rush Limbaugh endorsed Snapple. Personally, I avoid buying Snapple because I don't like to give money to Rush Limbaugh, but there are many people who enjoy Snapple, and it's at least a fairly solid product. If Rush Limbaugh said that he enjoyed mashed potatoes, I'd still eat them, but I might not buy his brand.

Ah, the famous Chewbacca Defense. Never gets old.

 

[Gazpacho]

So did Coulter support any designated terrorist organizations? Because Chomsky did. Twice.

That's not really a fair question with the word "designated" in it.

 

[Virus]

Because you wanted to call the US army terrorists or something?

 

[Gazpacho]

Because you wanted to call the US army terrorists or something?

That would be lazy. Here's something better:

Those few abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure with a rifle performed on them. I’m not justifying it, but I do understand how it happened…. The number of deaths attributed to Roe v. Wade: about 40 million aborted babies and seven abortion clinic workers; 40 million to seven is also a pretty good measure of how the political debate is going.

Surely this qualifies as support for terrorists as much as any remark from Chomsky that there are rational factors motivating Hamas or the Sandinistas or the Viet Cong.

 

[Virus]

Surely this qualifies as support for terrorists as much as any remark from Chomsky that there are rational factors motivating Hamas or the Sandinistas or the Viet Cong.

OK. You win. I agree he's as bad as Ann Coulter.

 

[Gazpacho]

Ah, the famous Chewbacca Defense. Never gets old.

A fitting companion to the "Pants on Fire" offensive.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Gazpacho,

Chomsky is the polar opposite of the far right, and considers anything short of the US being spawned from the 9001st layer of hell a lie.

 

[JihadJane]

Bingo.

Noam Chomsky, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are all of the same mold. Chomsky isn't even more erudite than the rest, considering how frequently he misquotes; he tries the Great Professor schtick but cannot maintain it very well.

The only real difference between them consists of their conclusions, but the fact that their fans hang onto the conclusions and ignore the intellectual dishonesty. Chomsky is more likely to embrace reprehensible regimes and people, which will be considered courageous (for people who like him) or scummy (for people who don't).

In all cases, it is possible for them to be right, by some definition of the word "right." Rush Limbaugh endorsed Snapple. Personally, I avoid buying Snapple because I don't like to give money to Rush Limbaugh, but there are many people who enjoy Snapple, and it's at least a fairly solid product. If Rush Limbaugh said that he enjoyed mashed potatoes, I'd still eat them, but I might not buy his brand.

In a post above, referring to Paul Bogdanor's lists of alleged lies that HoverBoarder posted links to:

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.

you wrote:

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.

I responded:

The lists referred to, compiled by a far right Zionist polemicist, are junk. They are cherry-picked quotes, removed from their context, many presented as lies simply because Chomsky has failed to put the politically correct, right-wing spin on events.

The author appears to have a similar attitude to truth as those on this thread who believe that, if a poster states that the Taliban are resisting a foreign invasion, then this proves that that this poster is a Taliban and, therefore, a terrorist sympathizer.

If those posting the links and seeing value [in] these supposed lists of lies would like to make them more convincing they could start by putting some of these "lies" back into their context and showing why they think they are lies.

Epepke, rather than writing yet more unsubstantiated generalizations, please respond to my request by taking specific alleged lies from lists, put them back into their contexts and show why you believe them to be lies.

Of course, your lack of response may indicate that you have me on ignore so perhaps another posted could make a similar request.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gazpacho,

Chomsky is the polar opposite of the far right, and considers anything short of the US being spawned from the 9001st layer of hell a lie.

Chomsky appreciates and praises the freedoms that living in the USA gives him ( "if we don't believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, then we don't believe in it at all.").

Your post is characteristically unsubstantiated mental masturbation.

 

[Virus]

If those posting the links and seeing value [in] these supposed lists of lies would like to make them more convincing they could start by putting some of these "lies" back into their context and showing why they think they are lies.

I'll bite. Page 7 lie number 8:

“The United States and Britain fought the war, of course, but not primarily against Nazi Germany. The war against Nazi Germany was fought by the Russians… you have to ask yourself whether the best way of getting rid of Hitler was to kill tens of millions of Russians. Maybe a better way was not supporting him in the first place, as Britain and the United States did."

Can you prove America and Britain killed tens of millions of Russians and brought Hitler to power?

 

[IDB87]

Epepke, rather than writing yet more unsubstantiated generalizations, please respond to my request by taking specific alleged lies from lists, put them back into their contexts and show why you believe them to be lies.

Hello JJ,

Please see the below post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7286745&postcount=1163

Could you respond to this please, or is this a challenge for Epepke only?