Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bingo
Wow ...
I'm sick and tired of being questioned on how I think based on the standards of ignorance of others.
-You're actively reinforcing your own ignorance by refusing to even acknowledge information that isn't the status quo --
BS ... by not dropping to my knees to bow at the alter of Noam Chomsky is hardly eliminating all independent thought that falls out side of the status quo.
|
No, you're actively reinforcing your own ignorance by refusing to acknowledge his peer reviewed academic credentials while at the same time dismissing him outright as a legitimate source based on the skimmed testimonials of those who oppose his views. You even insinuated that he was correct, yet still refuse to accept him as a legitimate voice of reason in this discussion. If his writings are correct, what does it matter if he has a bias?
Quote:
-By dismissing '20%' of the argument on both sides, you're only getting just over half of the conversation. Is that not terrifying?
Two problems with this ... 1) I think we all know that 60, 20 and 20 are thrown out there as estimates. I haven't honestly built a scale of all opinions and counted out where the tails should fall. It could be 80, 10 and 10, it could be 30, 35 and 35 for all I know. 2) Nothing scary about tossing out the so jaded and intellectually committed that they barely bring anything to the table worth discussing. A person that thinks the US is the complete evil do'er in every foreign policy initiative in the past 40 years holds way less water for me than the guy that is suddenly upset with something when he's been supportive on others. One is a pattern, the other free thought.
|
See, your lack of ability to even recognize the possibility that US Foreign Policy has done more harm than good is a prime example of the error in judgement of dismissing 'fringe' points of view. For the same reason, 80 percent of Americans believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military requirements of ending the second World War.
Quote:
The fact that you call the US "vessel for human suffering all over the world" would certainly explain your support of of Chomsky. I see mistakes both unforseen and through poor planning, though ill conceived ideas and through unpredictable events. I also see hind sight as the judge and jury for many issues, and the fact that as the world's only superpower, it's pretty hard to come out on top.
But then I'm just ignorant. I should just buy a radicals book and quote it all day.
|
I see conjecture being passed off as informed opinion. I think it is irrational to weigh in on a subject, especially one as specific as the credibility of a source on Israeli history and policy, without prior knowledge of the topic. It is clear that the sum total of your knowledge regarding Chomsky and his writings is quite inchoate. I don't mean to be dismissive, rather, I would like to use this as an opportunity to be inclusive.
I don't know what you're talking about in regards to the buying a chomsky book and quoting it all day. There's any number of authors who could tell you almost the same thing chomsky is. As per the original topic of discussion, if you were interested in Lebannon specifically, I would suggest articles by Robert Fisk, or his two books on the country. If you would like an overview of some of the negative aspects of american foreign policy over the last 50 years, I'd suggest William Blum.
I offer up the following links as introductory pieces to him and his writing. Make sure you have a comfortable reading environment, one of the things lost in skimming chomsky's writing is his attention to specific language. His arguments also tend to be thorough.
Chomsky reader: Personal Influences
Transcript of Debate with former CIA director James Woolsey
Chomsky written debate with Professor Samuel P. Huntington, Author of Clash of Civilizations
'War Is Peace', Excerpt from the book,Fateful Triangle