Noam Chomsky's Role as a Media & Political Commentator

RichieC

Good book recommendation for anyone still suffering under the delusion that the Main stream media in the US isn't under the control of the Government:

According to Chomsky, "propaganda is to democracy as the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state," and the mass media is the primary vehicle for delivering propaganda in the United States. From an examination of how Woodrow Wilson’s Creel Commission "succeeded, within six months, in turning a pacifist population into a hysterical, war-mongering population," to Bush Sr.'s war on Iraq, Chomsky examines how the mass media and public relations industries have been used as propaganda to generate public support for going to war. Chomsky further touches on how the modern public relations industry has been influenced by Walter Lippmann’s theory of "spectator democracy," in which the public is seen as a "bewildered herd" that needs to be directed, not empowered; and how the public relations industry in the United States focuses on "controlling the public mind," and not on informing it. Media Control is an invaluable primer on the secret workings of disinformation in democratic societies.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12615.Media_Control

"propaganda is to democracy as the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state,"

MOD NOTE: There seems to be an interest in discussing Chomsky as a media & foreign policy commentator, so a new thread was pulled out of the Iran thread. Let's all stay on topic this time!

JustinDee

Do you believe everything Noam Chomsky says?
He's a linguistics professor with an interest in geopolitics and happened to find a niche market in repetitive books on one particular section of the subject.
I want to see Chomsky release a book on the true geopolitical puppetry that includes every other effing country involved and not the pet-hates of his own country and the UK or France.
If you like a "pacifistic platitude" then apply to all corners of your argument. Not just the myopic bottom of the barrel.

RichieC

JustinDee wrote: »

Do you believe everything Noam Chomsky says?
He's a linguistics professor with an interest in geopolitics and happened to find a niche market in repetitive books on one particular section of the subject.
I want to see Chomsky release a book on the true geopolitical puppetry that includes every other effing country involved and not the pet-hates of his own country and the UK or France.
If you like a "pacifistic platitude" then apply to all corners of your argument. Not just the myopic bottom of the barrel.

The typical response to Chomsky is fairly similar to this, thought not applicable here since I haven't posted an essay, Is to attack his credentials as a linguist while never once showing where or how the points he makes are wrong.

The Fact of the matter is he's a researcher who has been active as a dissident since long before I was ever born, the start of the Vietnam war (thought he wrote his first political essay at the age of 10). How long does it take a person to receive a PHd. or a doctorate in world politics, political science or other relevant fields?

His books on geopolitics will go on being cited long after my, your and everyone else on this websites death.

The bloody cheek of keyboard apologists to call his credentials into question...

By the way the reason his points are never addressed is because of his impeccable sources, either government papers and in the case of the Media he'll cite the NYT's or the business press. He is the scourge of the American Political class. Both left and right, they both come under fire equally.

czx

RichieC wrote: »

The typical response to Chomsky is fairly similar to this, thought not applicable here since I haven't posted an essay, Is to attack his credentials as a linguist while never once showing where or how the points he makes are wrong.

The Fact of the matter is he's a researcher who has been active as a dissident since long before I was ever born, the start of the Vietnam war (thought he wrote his first political essay at the age of 10). How long does it take a person to receive a PHd. or a doctorate in world politics, political science or other relevant fields?

His books on geopolitics will go on being cited long after my, your and everyone else on this websites death.

The bloody cheek of keyboard apologists to call his credentials into question...

By the way the reason his points are never addressed is because of his impeccable sources, either government papers and in the case of the Media he'll cite the NYT's or the business press. He is the scourge of the American Political class. Both left and right, they both come under fire equally.

The cult of Chomsky
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

RichieC

czx wrote: »

The cult of Chomsky
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

Haha, like anyone in their right mind would listen to professional nobody Paul Bogdanor...

why he lowered himself to this guys level I'll never know, but here's his reply: http://jim.com/ChomskyReply.htm

JustinDee

RichieC wrote: »

The typical response to Chomsky is fairly similar to this, thought not applicable here since I haven't posted an essay, Is to attack his credentials as a linguist while never once showing where or how the points he makes are wrong.

The Fact of the matter is he's a researcher who has been active as a dissident since long before I was ever born, the start of the Vietnam war (thought he wrote his first political essay at the age of 10). How long does it take a person to receive a PHd. or a doctorate in world politics, political science or other relevant fields?

His books on geopolitics will go on being cited long after my, your and everyone else on this websites death.

The bloody cheek of keyboard apologists to call his credentials into question...

By the way the reason his points are never addressed is because of his impeccable sources, either government papers and in the case of the Media he'll cite the NYT's or the business press. He is the scourge of the American Political class. Both left and right, they both come under fire equally.

So you will accept anything he says/
Thought so.
'Bloody cheek', I think not. I've enough of his books to be able to make up my own mind on the fella, thanks.

geeman

@JustinDee; BlaasForRafa; RichieC ; SamHarris

What do you all think of Norman Finkelstein?

Pros/Cons.

Pros: For me, He offers hope.

Why?

His family lived through the holocaust and know the difference between right and wrong.

Cons:

I don't know of any cons but I'm optimistic some of the astute analysts here can find some.

geeman

Norman who?

SamHarris

Noam Chomsky is a zeolot. He may be a brilliant linguist but he is by no means a revered poltical scientist, note he releases popular novels on the subject, not academic papers. The only reason he is so massivly popular is because of his extreme views.He in no way represents a political or intelectual consensus on the issues he speaks out about. And if you are attempting to claim he sees some sort of parrallel in the level of control over speech - straight from the horses mouth "In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations" In the same quote he continues to say it has the most free speech too (something that is beyond contention in many ways). Clearly this indicates that not even he believes there is a similiar level of control in the media.

He is an activist when it comes to politics, he himself admits that. More he is a radical activist. People seem to think that because he is also an accomplished academic (in a different field) means his arguments bear much more authority.

Yes, Arab and Iranian media is far more controlled than Western media. They make no efforts to hide it, merely justify it in various ways.

Again, you can make vague references to books you have read that "prove" media is controled in the West to a massive degree, but Im afraid that is far far from actually proving anything of the sort, much less drawing a comparison between the two.


Way to keep the thread on topic anyway . . .

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

@JustinDee; BlaasForRafa; RichieC ; SamHarris

What do you all think of Norman Finkelstein?

Pros/Cons.

Pros: For me, He offers hope.

Why?

His family lived through the holocaust and know the difference between right and wrong.

Cons:

I don't know of any cons but I'm optimistic some of the astute analysts here can find some.

Powerful argument, let me guess - the "right" way is the one that agrees with you in a given conflict?

Wow, are you implying that people who's parents lived through the holocaust have no morality?

Why does he offer you hope? Because he is a Jew that disagrees with Israeli policy?

Really this is a bizarre post given the topic and discussion at hand, people on this thing are dangerously manic when it comes to anything even approaching talking about Jews...

czx

RichieC wrote: »

Haha, like anyone in their right mind would listen to professional nobody Paul Bogdanor...

why he lowered himself to this guys level I'll never know, but here's his reply: http://jim.com/ChomskyReply.htm

What a comprehensive rebuke. He 'lowered' himself because he's trying to cover his tripe from being exposed. If it was so absurd then why would he even bother? Fraud

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

Channel Zero

czx wrote: »

What a comprehensive rebuke.

There's more here

He 'lowered' himself because he's trying to cover his tripe from being exposed. If it was so absurd then why would he even bother? Fraud

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

Yawn.

Just look at the type of people who are criticising him. Neocon shills like Horowitz and Islamophobic militant athiest zealots like Sam Harris. What does that tell you?

brimal

geeman wrote: »

Pros: For me, He offers hope.

Why?

His family lived through the holocaust and know the difference between right and wrong.

What a very odd thing to say.

Technically every Jew alive today has/had family who 'lived through the holocaust' - and a large percentage of them have family who were directly affected by the holocaust.

'Knowing the difference between right and wrong' - well you've lost me on this part.


I'll just point out to you that there are millions of Jews across the world, who hold an infinite amount of different views on different subjects (you know, like every other human on the planet). I don't understand the need for this 'Look at this Jew, he's a good'un!' tone to your post.

Alot of people treat Jews like some untouchable, mysterious, single-minded organisation - they are like any other person ffs.

So please take your rate-a-Jew shit elsewhere.

geeman

Stranger to me is the amount of Islamophobic/hate mongering people on these boards.

Atleast Finkelstein has an opinion of his own and not afraid to speak out against oppression of Palestinians.

He doesn't try to justify it with 'the holocaust card' like some.

It wouldn't matter what Israel did wrong, you'd have the same supposedly 'high intellectual' ME analysts on here defending Israel at every turn labeling anyone who disagreed an 'Anti-Semite' which you can hardly say Finkelstein is, can you?

geeman

SamHarris wrote: »

Powerful argument, let me guess - the "right" way is the one that agrees with you in a given conflict?

Wow, are you implying that people who's parents lived through the holocaust have no morality?

Why does he offer you hope? Because he is a Jew that disagrees with Israeli policy?

Really this is a bizarre post given the topic and discussion at hand, people on this thing are dangerously manic when it comes to anything even approaching talking about Jews...

Honestly, would you blame anyone for believing you had a prejudice against Arabs, Persians, Muslim people based on some of the stuff you post?

As for Norman, Yes, he is Jewish, Yes he had family that survived the holocaust and Yes he is smart and brave enough to come out against something which is clearly wrong and cannot be excused.

Norman Finkelstein opposes oppression of Palestinian people, he doesn't try to excuse it because Jews suffered at the hands of Nazis during WW2 .. and what did the Palestinians exactly have to do with that anyway? ...No idea, maybe you'll offer your highly intellectual insight on that one? No doubt.

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

Honestly, would you blame anyone for believing you had a prejudice against Arabs, Persians, Muslim people based on some of the stuff you post?

Name one negative comment about the islamic community I have made that was not backed up with data and empirical evidence. Go ahead, Ill wait.

Im also getting real sick of you spouting a whole heap of unqualified statements each and every thread. If memory serves you spent an entire page basically attacking many points you could not even then find were even made by anyone. To put it lightly, put up or shut up.

The recognition of very well documented problems within a given community consitutes a recognition of mathematical evidence. It does not require "prejudice" it requires eyes. If I were to then assume every Muslim is violent and willing to support various attacks based on the large minority opinion, THAT would be prejudice.

The assumption that a Jew with family members who were in the holocaust will not have any morality, THATS prejudice.

If you cant read a simple poll and reach the conclusion clearly shown within said poll then the problem rests with you, not with anyone else. Its irrelevant if the results make you uncomfortable.

SamHarris

Channel Zero wrote: »

There's more here



Yawn.

Just look at the type of people who are criticising him. Neocon shills like Horowitz and Islamophobic militant athiest zealots like Sam Harris. What does that tell you?

Ad hominem much?

SamHarris

Even if Noam Chomsky whole heartedly believed the media in the States and the West in genreal was as controlled as in the Middle East (he explicitly doesnt) this would mean nothing more than that your opinion and that of a linguistic proffesor who has a side in political agitation have some things in common. That is not an argument. It barely even begins to make a point, it only lets your own position be known, whatever that accomplishes.

If you have evidence of massive government control of media in the states, Richie, please dont hold it back from us all.

I wonder if it is possible for a handful of people on this forum to have any discussion without bringing up how evil they think the US/ Israel is? Its almost a complex that applies to any issue.

czx

Channel Zero wrote: »

There's more here



Yawn.

Just look at the type of people who are criticising him. Neocon shills like Horowitz and Islamophobic militant athiest zealots like Sam Harris. What does that tell you?

It's funny because Chomsky is their counterpart on the other side of the spectrum, every bit as entrenced in his views. Also, it doesn't mater in the slightest who is criticizing him as long as they can back up the criticism with facts.

Despite the fact that many of his rebuttals are based on his distorted view of the facts presented, the article is rubbished from the outset when he tries to squirm out of the fact that Chomsky deliberately misleads people to further his agenda.

OK, so the first thing that needs to be kept in mind when addressing Chomsky's 200 supposed lies is this. What is a lie? If someone disagrees with me, does that mean they are lying? Obviously not. What if they rely on a source and that source turns out to be wrong. Is that a lie? I think it's pretty obvious that it is not.

What if someone makes an error? Does that mean they lied? What if they won't admit their error? That's not a lie. It could be a character defect.

Channel Zero

SamHarris wrote: »

Ad hominem much?

Sorry, was referring to the other slightly more famous Sam Harris. The writer.

czx wrote: »

Also, it doesn't mater in the slightest who is criticizing him as long as they can back up the criticism with facts.

Which this Bogdanor fellow has failed spectactularly in doing. It's a poor attempt at a hatchet job.
He and God knows how many of his little helpers trawl back through the mountain of material that is Chomsky's published work, speeches, interviews etc for the last half century or so, and they come up with that. Must try harder.

czx wrote: »

..the fact that Chomsky deliberately misleads people to further his agenda.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to speculate of course. It seems safe to say you generally don't agree with his views; fair enough.
I'll be treating your "fact" that he deliberately misleads as just your opinion until such time as you provide examples to back that contention up.

Now i'm not saying that Chomsky was never wrong, biased or misinformed on facts and figures, or anything of the sort, but you don't get to be one of the most respected and quoted intellectuals in history without being right and/or credible quite a good bit of the time. And, despite whether people agree with him or not, that's why he has gained such respect from many shades of the political spectrum.
It's mostly the extremists from wherever and establishment interests who have it in for him.
He's despised in all the right places it seems.

Brown Bomber

Channel Zero wrote: »

Sorry, was referring to the other slightly more famous Sam Harris. The writer.

...Whose area of expertise is neuroscience. IMO he is largely ignorant on issues of politics and religion and is driven by an irrational ant-Islam bias.

David Horrowitz is just a professional anti-Islam propagandist who funds people like Geert Wilders.
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/6/16/wilders-and-the-us-israel-lobby.html

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

Name one negative comment about the islamic community I have made that was not backed up with data and empirical evidence. Go ahead, Ill wait.

Are you serious?

SamHarris wrote: »

The massive misogony and objectification of women has nothing to do with rape being many times more common originating within Muslim communities? Thats a very interesting view point. I cannot be bothered looking up where I read it
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=74032508

There is dozens more comments like this that you've made if you want?

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you serious?



There is dozens more comments like this that you've made if you want?

I didnt ask for a thread in which you and another CTer ignored reems of evidence and links by various people (including me) again and again. But thanks for reminding me why I dont engage with your sort.


I remember very clearly in the exact same thread later linking to a study by which it was found people of South West asian ethnicity (the vast majority of which are pakistani and therefore Muslim) were far more likely to be involved in sexual violence. Indeed, I gave quotes from the head of the Muslim Council in Britain who admitted it was a massive problem. Hence, no doubt why you chose to engage with it elsewhere, and not where your points had already been proved to have no merit.

Nice "selective" quoting btw. Is this how you usually read statements made by other people? Sure explains a whole lot.


You could have tried to argue it had more to do with culture or poverty, instead you chose to ignore it. As you did with every other piece of evidence I brdought up in that thread.

Unfortunatly for you, however, the misogony is so prevalent and so unchallenged in the community that they feel comfortable proudly claiming that rape inside marriage is "impossible". The laws in various Islamic countries reflect this "impossibiity".

I am not looking for the same links again, you will merely ignore it (again) and bring it up (again) in a few months time as though it has not already been dealt with. Given your position on basically everything it seems this is par for course when it comes to you and reality.


Which is why I chose to stop debating with you and still hold that position, on any issue in every thread.

If you want to continue that debate knock yourself out and post in that thread again, everyone who reads it can then easily find the various posts in which I gave the facts and figures which proved my ascertians correct and clearly see that your ascertian - that Islam is a religion of peace - was based on nothing more than you being more comfortable with that position.

Im well aware of the CTer "strategy" of ignoring evidence provided, and asking for it again and again untill the person who is giving the evidence no longer bothers engaging.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

I remember very clearly in the exact same thread later linking to a study

... which I've just debunked in that thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77761718#post77761718

SamHarris

Channel Zero wrote: »

Sorry, was referring to the other slightly more famous Sam Harris. The writer.





Which this Bogdanor fellow has failed spectactularly in doing. It's a poor attempt at a hatchet job.
He and God knows how many of his little helpers trawl back through the mountain of material that is Chomsky's published work, speeches, interviews etc for the last half century or so, and they come up with that. Must try harder.



That's your opinion and you're entitled to speculate of course. It seems safe to say you generally don't agree with his views; fair enough.
I'll be treating your "fact" that he deliberately misleads as just your opinion until such time as you provide examples to back that contention up.

Now i'm not saying that Chomsky was never wrong, biased or misinformed on facts and figures, or anything of the sort, but you don't get to be one of the most respected and quoted intellectuals in history without being right and/or credible quite a good bit of the time. And, despite whether people agree with him or not, that's why he has gained such respect from many shades of the political spectrum.
It's mostly the extremists from wherever and establishment interests who have it in for him.
He's despised in all the right places it seems.

My point was not that the ad hominum may or may not be insulting, my point is that it is a basic logical fallacy that proves nothing beyond your dislike.

He is a respected LINGUIST.

His position on politics is popular because he is so radical. He is unchallanged by the vast majority of mainstream thinking not because his thesis is so beyond reproach, but because his work is commercial - not academic.

You will notice to that hollow earth theorists are not the target of massive groups of geologists. This does not lend their theories more credence.

If you want to argue that Western media is massivly controled, start a new thread and make your point. Dont make the point " I Read this book that says it is so!"

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... which I've just debunked in that thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77761718#post77761718

As you can see if you bothered reading, you seem to be the only person that beleived that particular piece "debunked". Go ahead and read all the replies.

Regardless thats not the link I was refering to, as you may see that was Wibbs link. My one was concerning the UK, and it followed research prompted by that gang of Pakistani men who targeted Western girls, a Muslim leader came forward claiming it was a massive problem, the research was one of the follow ups in this particular case.

Again, regardless given the attitude to women in marriage (and the "rape" that cannot take place therein) the idea is far to rooted to be "debunked" by a blogger on, of all places, electronic intafada.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Please don't drag issues from other threads into new threads.

I will also add that people who continually drag threads off topic will not be long for this forum. There is only so much mopping up we can do.

Chuck Stone

My God. Chomsky is now a radical? Talk about a complete and utter distortion of reality.

geeman

SamHarris wrote: »

Name one negative comment about the islamic community I have made that was not backed up with data and empirical evidence. Go ahead, Ill wait.

So if you can provide empirical evidence to support the belief black people commit more crime than white people in urban areas of the US, your prejudice of black people is valid?

Just out of curiosity but how many Arab, Persian or Muslims do you know personally?

The recognition of very well documented problems within a given community consitutes a recognition of mathematical evidence. It does not require "prejudice" it requires eyes. If I were to then assume every Muslim is violent and willing to support various attacks based on the large minority opinion, THAT would be prejudice.

So you don't think you're making assumptions about every Arab, Persian or Muslim?
Your opinions of them on these forums would suggest otherwise.
I wonder what assumptions you have about the traveler community and black people in general.

The assumption that a Jew with family members who were in the holocaust will not have any morality, THATS prejudice.

I don't know where the hell you got that from...I merely pointed out that if Norman Finkelstein has the ability to see the oppression of Palestinians as wrong, then why can't you?

People like you always excuse Israeli oppression using the Holocaust and it's something Norman has been very critical of. Excusing the oppression of Palestinians is no more different than excusing the oppression of black people during South Africas apartheid regime...there's no difference.

If you cant read a simple poll and reach the conclusion clearly shown within said poll then the problem rests with you, not with anyone else. Its irrelevant if the results make you uncomfortable.

Ha...it is yourself that's uncomfortable with facts, that's obvious.

Chuck Stone

SamHarris wrote: »

If you want to argue that Western media is massivly controled, start a new thread and make your point. Dont make the point " I Read this book that says it is so!"

Chomsky lays bare how the western media ignores atrocities committed by western allies and people western interests do business with.

Take the Indonesian atrocities perpetrated against the people of East Timor. There was little to no reporting of them in US media. Why? Because the US interests were being severed - indeed it was done with the blessing of Washington (from memory)

Chomsky details how the omission of such acts by the media is par for the course.

Memnoch

SamHarris.

You seem to launch repeated ad Hominems against Mr. Chomsky throughout this thread yet you have provided little evidence to support your sweeping generalisations.

I think perhaps you may be missing the point. It's not that Western Media is controlled and we should be comparing it to Saudi Media which is even more controlled or Pakistani media where journalists routinely lose their lives for asking the wrong questions.

It's simply, that we are not AS free as we think we are. And the media's lack of freedom and honesty plays a big role in the weakness of the ideas of Western democracy.

I too despair at the state of Western democracy and the failure of our media outlets to help us to maintain a true democracy as opposed to the plutocracy/oligarchy into which we seem to have fallen.

It's important and correct to point this out because we should not be trying to compare ourselves to Saudi Arabia because that is not the direction we want to be going. We want and believe in democracy and that is what we must fight to conserve and strengthen and I believe Mr. Chomsky plays a vital role in the same.

It's easy to dismiss him as a radical without actually directly addressing the meat of his arguments and the reasoning by which he arrives at his conclusions. Though I'll confess I have not read the work being discussed in this thread or a LOT of his other writings apart from various articles I'm come across over time.

SamHarris

Memnoch wrote: »

SamHarris.

You seem to launch repeated ad Hominems against Mr. Chomsky throughout this thread yet you have provided little evidence to support your sweeping generalisations.

I think perhaps you may be missing the point. It's not that Western Media is controlled and we should be comparing it to Saudi Media which is even more controlled or Pakistani media where journalists routinely lose their lives for asking the wrong questions.

It's simply, that we are not AS free as we think we are. And the media's lack of freedom and honesty plays a big role in the weakness of the ideas of Western democracy.

I too despair at the state of Western democracy and the failure of our media outlets to help us to maintain a true democracy as opposed to the plutocracy/oligarchy into which we seem to have fallen.

It's important and correct to point this out because we should not be trying to compare ourselves to Saudi Arabia because that is not the direction we want to be going. We want and believe in democracy and that is what we must fight to conserve and strengthen and I believe Mr. Chomsky plays a vital role in the same.

It's easy to dismiss him as a radical without actually directly addressing the meat of his arguments and the reasoning by which he arrives at his conclusions. Though I'll confess I have not read the work being discussed in this thread or a LOT of his other writings apart from various articles I'm come across over time.

No, Your clearly missing my point and addressing ones I never made. Fine you can ignore the ad hominums, the points anyone made with reference to them were an argument from (perceived) authority anyway with absolutly nothing to do with the topic so I really shouldnt have engaged with their obsessions to begin with.

I never compared any place to Saudi Arabia, I addressed the point of the thread with a point of my own Richie felt the need to bring up how the US incredibly controlled media, his support for this was how he once read a book about it. Even if he presented a reasoned and valid argument for why he believed that it wouldnt have mattered a sht because it had nothing to do with the point I made regarding the Arab position towards Palestinians and why they have it.

No one brought up the "meat" of his arguments, so there is no need for me to address them, because they have absolutly nothing to do with the topic nor with the point I made.

Your proposing that next time someone makes a vague reference to a single book it is then the perview of the respondy to address all points made in said book and debunk them? Really. . .

SamHarris

Can we PLEASE start banning the people whos contribution to every thread bascially boils down to "I dont like the US" . . .

SamHarris

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Take the Indonesian atrocities perpetrated against the people of East Timor. There was little to no reporting of them in US media. Why? Because the US interests were being severed - indeed it was done with the blessing of Washington (from memory)

Then your memory fails you. The indonesian forces were originally allied with the West, the occupation of Timor ended when the West and mainly Washington put preassure on Indonesia. It was then one of the main reason given by al Qaeda for their attacks on US citizens.

karma_

SamHarris wrote: »

Can we PLEASE start banning the people whos contribution to every thread bascially boils down to "I dont like the US" . . .

First with the ad homs, now this old chestnut. I love how typical these threads get at times, it's comforting to know that some things never change.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

The Chomsky posts from the Iran thread have been pulled into their own thread (the one you are posting in now). The original Iran thread is here.

Memnoch

SamHarris wrote: »

Your proposing that next time someone makes a vague reference to a single book it is then the perview of the respondy to address all points made in said book and debunk them? Really. . .

Of course not. I think you have a valid point. I think if you were to simply say what you just said. That simply linking to a book does not prove Western media is malfunctioning, or however else you want to word that, there's a lot of validity to it.

However, the topic is 'Noam Chomsky's Role as a...' And your response has been ad hominem and sweeping generalisations of Mr. Chomsky. Which I do not agree with.

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

So if you can provide empirical evidence to support the belief black people commit more crime than white people in urban areas of the US, your prejudice of black people is valid?

What?

geeman wrote: »

Just out of curiosity but how many Arab, Persian or Muslims do you know personally?

Irrelevant.

geeman wrote: »

So you don't think you're making assumptions about every Arab, Persian or Muslim?
Your opinions of them on these forums would suggest otherwise.
I wonder what assumptions you have about the traveler community and black people in general.

Then you dont know the difference between statistics that prove significant proportions of support for various acts and the act of assuming.

Not my problem, yours.

geeman wrote: »

I don't know where the hell you got that from...I merely pointed out that if Norman Finkelstein has the ability to see the oppression of Palestinians as wrong, then why can't you?

What the hell are you talking about? When was that even brought up in this thread? When did I say the oppression of Palestinians was right?

Stop making stuff up, its embarrassing.

geeman wrote: »

People like you always excuse Israeli oppression using the Holocaust and it's something Norman has been very critical of. Excusing the oppression of Palestinians is no more different than excusing the oppression of black people during South Africas apartheid regime...there's no difference.

Where? Citations now.

southsiderosie

SamHarris wrote: »

Can we PLEASE start banning the people whos contribution to every thread bascially boils down to "I dont like the US" . . .

MOD NOTE:

If you have a problem, PM a mod or report a post. Don't clutter up the thread with it.

Chuck Stone

SamHarris wrote: »

Then your memory fails you. The indonesian forces were originally allied with the West, the occupation of Timor ended when the West and mainly Washington put preassure on Indonesia. It was then one of the main reason given by al Qaeda for their attacks on US citizens.

You have completely failed to consider my point.

Try again.

SamHarris

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You have completely failed to consider my point.

Try again.

Wrong, I didnt CARE about your point, I was merely pointing out your ignorance on the matter which concerned me.

I have no interest in this thread, I had an interest in the original premise which was unfortunatly high jacked, then I had to defend myself against repeated stupid and completly off topic little comments. Ill only be back to see where the hell geeman got all his information.

geeman

SamHarris wrote: »

What?

What did you not understand about the question? It was pretty straight forward.

Irrelevant.

I'll translate that as "I don't know any arab, persian or muslim people"

Then you dont know the difference between statistics that prove significant proportions of support for various acts and the act of assuming.

Well, I don't judge an entire race of people based on statistics from racist organisations.

I judge people based on my own encounters and that's why I've asked you how many arabs, persians or muslims you know personally.

SamHarris

geeman wrote: »

What did you not understand about the question? It was pretty straight forward.



I'll translate that as "I don't know any arab, persian or muslim people"



Well, I don't judge an entire race of people based on statistics from racist organisations.

I judge people based on my own encounters and that's why I've asked you how many arabs, persians or muslims you know personally.

No the "what" was where the hell your getting all this from.


You obviously dont know how to forumlate an argument, even when you feel comfortable making things up.

Just pointing out all the "positions" you attacked, were only in your own head. Or would you like to bring that evidence out now?

Then you judge based on anecdotal evidence? Im not surprised. Look up anecdotal evidence. Then look up statistical evidence. In any debate anywhere in the world, one is valued incredibly highly, the other is nearly always disregarded. Guess which one you just backed? You demonstrate an enormous inability to gather and parse information.


Im not teaching you how to evaluate information, if you want to learn start a new thread and ask why all of that is the case. You wont find anyone who disagrees with me on this that has a clue what they are talking about.

Chuck Stone

SamHarris wrote: »

Wrong, I didnt CARE about your point, I was merely pointing out your ignorance on the matter which concerned me.

Again you have failed to consider my point. You'd rather talk about Mr Chomsky's lack of credentials, as you see it, and call him 'a radical'.

What gives you the authority to call Mr Chomsky a 'radical'.

K-9

The first 20 posts or so were from a separate thread, hoping an off topic subject might generate a topic of some interest and discussion.

Unfortunately all it resulted in was:
Posters posting further off topicness about aforementioned off topic thread and the usual off topicness.