Hakan,
Sorry for the delay, busy these days.
Although I could certainly spend all day contriving a rebuttal that goes to the heart of Chomsky's credibility, there is no finer critical examination of his arguments/relevance than the following which I've posted several times before and which you expressed outrage with before:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm
The above is relevant because you say Chomsky engaged in an academic debate with Dershowitz and sealed his victory with a blizzard of references . . . . yet we can clearly see Chomsky isn't above making up a few things himself which should leave us to wonder why we should believe him any more than Dershowitz's claim of a conversation with Bill Clinton.
As an example, Clinton is certainly free to deny any conversation with Dershowitz just as Human Rights Watch denied ever authoring a report claimng tens of thousands of Sudanese dying which Chomsky used as a reference after a USA cruise missile attack on a pharmaceutical factory.
We also know that Chomsky's defence of Pol Pot relied upon former supporters of his position who had sensibly changed their minds even as Chomsky was using them.
If you doubt Dershowitz's reference because of prior issues then you should be open to doubting Chomsky for the same reason. . . . . and that, obviously, is relevant to the present-day debate between Dershowitz and Chomsky.
In his post above, you agree Chomsky, whom you favour, is the last person you would want negotiating peace in the Palestinian/Israeli situation, an agreeable position that I found pretty curious . . . . yet you claim Chomsky won a debate on exactly that topic, apparently basing that claim on Chomsky's continued point that peace wasn't possible.
From Haken's post . . .
The fact is, from a scholarly standpoint, Chomsky won this debate. Dershowitz unleashed personal attacks and never substantially refuted ANY of Chomsky's points.
Obviously that's a matter of perspective . . . . as I noted in my original post, with links to opinions dissenting your own, there are equal numbers of people who would say Chomsky was a wandering dufus in the debate . . . . you think he won, I think he lost.
There needs to be a fundamental paradigm shift in the Israeli government to allow real territorial and political concessions to the Palestinians to form a real autonomous state if the violence ever has a hope of ending.
Or you could build a wall around the animals to keep them away from you until they get serious about controlling the violent, uncompromising nutbars in their midst.
I don't agree with Israel building the wall on occupied land but I can see the underlying point in building the wall given it has been helping force the Palestinians to get serious about making peace, rendering impotent the militants among them.
You should note that as we speak the Palestinian Authority is rounding up Islamic Jihad activists who continue to snipe at Israeli's, a move some view as an attempt at an act of good faith . . . . and a good one. A solution will come through dialogue in the end.
There's only one country in this conversation that has consistently traded conquered land back to its original owners in return for guarantees of peace and that's Israel. They have the track record. The Palestinians don't.
You're the only person in the world, next to Chomsky apparently, who would view the Iranian leaders comments as "for domestic consumption" and not take them seriously, particularly after the same guy today made the same general appeal to all Muslim nations.
You'll eventually fall into the trap Chomsky has repeatedly exposed himself to, defending and apologizing for repressive regimes through 50 years long after they've been exposed for what they are, making an utter fool of himself in the process. There's one thing you can never accuse Chomsky off . . . morphing to fit the facts. Credibility comes through flexibility.
Northern Flame wrote:
Now, I think most would agree that about the farthest one could be from an idealougue is to be a scientist. I mean a scientist in the true sense of formulating theories that are empirically testable.
Chomsky came to a defined conclusion in the 1950's, that the USA was to blame for everything, and has never wavered in spite of whatever evidence might come along to challege or outright make a mockery of that conclusion in the instances he's applied it.
Through 50 years, the conflicts are self-evident as noted in the final paragraph of the piece I referenced above:
Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong.
A good scientist wouldn't ignore such obvious contradictions. A good scientist would have followed the truth, both in the instances it supported him and the instances it didn't. Chomsky didn't and never has.
As a linguist, Chomsky is a terrific scientist. As a political analyst, he's a failure as a scientist.
He may be on his last legs, and surely has made his fair share of mistakes in his life (haven't we all?), but to generalize and discount all of his work based on your cursory reading of his political views doesn't do justice to the man, nor does it do justice to the worthy enterprise of honest intellectual effort.
Apparently you missed my final sentence above, where I said: "For a political analyst, Chomsky is a pretty good linguist."
His "life work" is actually in linguistics and is something to be admired.
His work as an activist is a sideline and doesn't have much to do with linguistics.
Its perfectly fine and logical to criticize the man in one area while simultaneously condemning him in another. . . . . or did you miss that same point in the NHLPA thread last week?
I might not be back for the inevitable rebuttal until tomorrow . . . a dentist is due to attack me at any second, perhaps anticipating Hakan kicking my teeth out.
Cowperson