Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Actually that's exactly what we were talking about until you changed the focus. Fox news? Hello?

Chomsky writes his articles based on opionion?

And we were talking about credibility?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

Chomsky writes his articles based on opionion?

And we were talking about credibility?

You don't seem to able to follow the discussion, try reading the last page again. Try making the distinction that Fox News is not the same as CNN, if you've watched both it's plain to see.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

You don't seem to able to follow the discussion, try reading the last page again. Try making the distinction that Fox News is not the same as CNN, if you've watched both it's plain to see.

One is left-leaning, one leans to the right. I understand that.

They still report the same news though.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

They still report the same news though.

Do they? Have you watched both?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Do they? Have you watched both?

Sure I have.

On 9/11, CNN reported exactly the same thing Fox News did.

For example; check out both the Fox and CNN websites. Both are reporting the situation in Britain. Basically the same thing.

[Hakan]

it takes about 15 minutes to find numerous essays that put in question these very points about the man.

- selective sourcing
- sources that have turned out to be wrong and recanted though Chomsky never did
- and a history of giving left leaning govnerments the benefit of all doubt despite atrocities while pinning every ill of the world on western democracies.

The man has a serious bias and a very consistent one that has completely owned his work for 40 years.

Once again I implore you to read Chomsky instead of relying on -mostly hamfisted- criticisms of his work. The first article that Transplant posted is a classic example of that. They claim he's a hypocrite because he doesn't live up to his own standards. Fine. So he's a hypocrite.

That doesn't detract in any way from his critiques of US Foreign Policy.

Alan Dershowitz is a plagiarist but people still listen to him.

More specifically to your points:
Selective sources? Ok fine I don't know which sources you are referring to but Chomsky has written over 40 books and hundreds of articles. He may have used a faulty source in one or two books or one or two articles. Does that now somehow discredit his entire library?

With regards to giving left leaning governments the benefit of the doubt. I don't see much evidence, especially lately. Sure back in the polarized world of the 1970s you either gave the U.S. and its allies the benefit of the doubt or you gave the communist adversaries the benefit of the doubt. That hardly discredits him either.

Hell, I'll buy and send you a book of Chomsky's on the middle east for you to read. I very much doubt that you'll find any glaring factual or academic errors in his research.

But please, lets keep stuffing this man with straw. It's far easier to attack the individual than his purported truths.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sure I have.

On 9/11, CNN reported exactly the same thing Fox News did.

For example; check out both the Fox and CNN websites. Both are reporting the situation in Britain. Basically the same thing.

Not really what I was thinking of. How about on a day where there isn't some major world news going on? Then do they report the same things?

[Lurch]

I don't necessarily agree with your comparison between Franken and O'Rielly, but I certainly see where you're coming from.

Quote:

Just my opinion, but three good, non-academic, sources for a full spectrum view of an issue are the Economist, Weekly Standard and The Nation. One is centrist, one very right wing and one very left. Personally, very little on television is worth bothering with as it is concerned with headlines, visuals and entertainment.


Problem is, only one side can be right.

To me, a centrist paper would be the best read. I can't understand how people will listen to Franken, and then to justify their neutral approach, they turn around and listen to Hannity.

I think this is a very fundamental problem with most of your positions. Very little in the world is simple enough that only one side can be right. Further, when you try to pick a single source that is most likely to be correct, you have robbed yourself of the ability to make your own opinion. If you never read, digest and ulimately understand the opposing viewpoint complete with the background information and context that they provide, how can you possibly have an informed opinion.

My biggest problem with modern media and a lot of people in political discussions generally, is that it is impossible to have nuanced positions. The classic Bushism "you're with us or against us" is ridiculous and typifies the idea that only one side/source/position can be right.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Hell, I'll buy and send you a book of Chomsky's on the middle east for you to read.

I'll take you up on that offer, and it won't cost you a penny. Recommend a Chomsky book on the Middle East, I'll try to pick it up at the Library (I have access to three public library systems here in the GTA so I am confidant that I will find the book you recommend.)

I will also ask around for a comperable author (not Alan "The Plagarist" Dershowitz) on the subject. Though I think we both know that our opinions might not really change, it may be an interesting endevour.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Not really what I was thinking of. How about on a day where there isn't some major world news going on? Then do they report the same things?

But it IS what I am talking about.

Major news? They report exactly the same thing. Once you hit the opinionated hosts, both are completely different.

[transplant99]

Once again I implore you to read Chomsky instead of relying on -mostly hamfisted- criticisms of his work.

Well in college I was required to read one of his books...and by doing so I have no difference of opinion on him whatsoever.



He is a brilliant linguist....always has been. The rest of it is his agenda coming into play with very well written essays, books and opinion pieces. No more and no less.

No idea why the left-leaning academic types are so sure he is the gospel.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hakan

More specifically to your points:
Selective sources? Ok fine I don't know which sources you are referring to but Chomsky has written over 40 books and hundreds of articles. He may have used a faulty source in one or two books or one or two articles. Does that now somehow discredit his entire library?

With regards to giving left leaning governments the benefit of the doubt. I don't see much evidence, especially lately. Sure back in the polarized world of the 1970s you either gave the U.S. and its allies the benefit of the doubt or you gave the communist adversaries the benefit of the doubt. That hardly discredits him either.

Hell, I'll buy and send you a book of Chomsky's on the middle east for you to read. I very much doubt that you'll find any glaring factual or academic errors in his research.

But please, lets keep stuffing this man with straw. It's far easier to attack the individual than his purported truths.

The guy has been anti-US his entire career ... if you're anti-anything that grey you tend to come at things with a serious preconception. A quick look at some critics identifies numerous examples of the man picking and choosing when it comes to sources and then completely avoiding his own sources when they themselves have recanted.

Flash ahead to today and his opinions in the last five years ... will his current list of sources be proven wrong? Is he picking and choosing again as he so often did in the past?

Certainly seems possible to me.

And for the record I never brought the guy up .. I was talking about the issue itself until he was introduced as THE source on all things Middle East. When I questioned him as a guy with an abundant record of anti-Americanism and therefore a guy that you'd have to take with a grain of salt a few of you have added five pages to this string in an empassioned need to hold the man up.

I'm more than willing to go back to the issues themselves as long as you don't hold the guy with the axe to grind against the US as the basis of truth in the discussion.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The guy has been anti-US his entire career ... if you're anti-anything that grey you tend to come at things with a serious preconception.

Well but one has to ask whether he had preconceptions before he did his research or whether the conclusions he comes to were logical from the information he found. In one case he is biased and you can accuse him of preconceptions. In the other case you can't. Not sure why you assume he was biased and had preconceptions before looking into these matters.

And I have to once again tell you that he's not anti-everything US. He believes the US does the best job at free speech for example. So that's a generalization you should stop repeating.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well but one has to ask whether he had preconceptions before he did his research or whether the conclusions he comes to were logical from the information he found. In one case he is biased and you can accuse him of preconceptions. In the other case you can't. Not sure why you assume he was biased and had preconceptions before looking into these matters.

And I have to once again tell you that he's not anti-everything US. He believes the US does the best job at free speech for example. So that's a generalization you should stop repeating.

Well the man has been consistently anti-US foreign policy through eight administrations and now five decades.

That's pretty consistent.

The man may think they make the best kick ass hamburger in the US but that doesn't really detract from his anti Americanism, does it?

It all gets back to my middle 60% theory that seems to have caused so many so much angst. I have a lot easier time swallowing an opinion or factoid from a guy that doesn't spend all his time railing against something come hell or high water. He has a history of scapegoating left leaning governments regardless of their atrocities and giving no benefit of the doubt to anything from a western democracy.

That's a pattern and a concern if you use this guy as your primary source.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well but one has to ask whether he had preconceptions before he did his research or whether the conclusions he comes to were logical from the information he found.

I really don't understand that. If his preconceptions have been formed the extensive research he has done, and he has come to a conclusion, does that not then give him 100% credibility?

Or wouldn't you say he best forms an opinion based on what he has researched, but that does not necessarily mean he is right in his belief?

If his conclusion comes from the ability to research well, then each issue he researches should be black and white. Given his ability and education in the areas of expertise, as many people are defending here, he can't go wrong.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well the man has been consistently anti-US foreign policy through eight administrations and now five decades.

That's pretty consistent.

The man may think they make the best kick ass hamburger in the US but that doesn't really detract from his anti Americanism, does it?

It all gets back to my middle 60% theory that seems to have caused so many so much angst. I have a lot easier time swallowing an opinion or factoid from a guy that doesn't spend all his time railing against something come hell or high water. He has a history of scapegoating left leaning governments regardless of their atrocities and giving no benefit of the doubt to anything from a western democracy.

That's a pattern and a concern if you use this guy as your primary source.

What left wing governments has he scapegoated?

Perhaps his vehement opposition to US Foreign Policy over the last 8 presidential administrations has something to do with the destructive nature of American foreign policy? Perhaps he rails against it with such vigor because it is a vessel for human suffering all over the world?

The 60 percent argument is garbage. You're actively reinforcing your own ignorance by refusing to even acknowledge information that isn't the status quo. That's the type of thinking that produced the dark ages.

By dismissing '20%' of the argument on both sides, you're only getting just over half of the conversation. Is that not terrifying?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What left wing governments has he scapegoated?

Perhaps his vehement opposition to US Foreign Policy over the last 8 presidential administrations has something to do with the destructive nature of American foreign policy? Perhaps he rails against it with such vigor because it is a vessel for human suffering all over the world?

The 60 percent argument is garbage. You're actively reinforcing your own ignorance by refusing to even acknowledge information that isn't the status quo. That's the type of thinking that produced the dark ages.

By dismissing '20%' of the argument on both sides, you're only getting just over half of the conversation. Is that not terrifying?

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.

-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.

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.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

nm

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

-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.

"Reading Chomsky is like standing in a wind tunnel. With relentless logic, Chomsky bids us to listen closely to what our leaders tell us--and to discern what they are leaving out...The questions Chomsky raises will eventually have to be answered. Agree with him or not, we lose out by not listening."
--Business Week

“Noam Chomsky . . . is a major scholarly resource. Not to have read [him] is to court genuine ignorance.”
--The Nation

Since you don't seem to really listen to anything we've said, I thought I'd post some thoughts on Chomsky by people paid to review what he's written. And there's more where that came from.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

"Reading Chomsky is like standing in a wind tunnel. With relentless logic, Chomsky bids us to listen closely to what our leaders tell us--and to discern what they are leaving out...The questions Chomsky raises will eventually have to be answered. Agree with him or not, we lose out by not listening."
--Business Week

“Noam Chomsky . . . is a major scholarly resource. Not to have read [him] is to court genuine ignorance.”
--The Nation

Since you don't seem to really listen to anything we've said, I thought I'd post some thoughts on Chomsky by people paid to review what he's written. And there's more where that came from.

Amazing that you guys won't let this go. Amazing.

Reviews now?

Who the hell cares ... every book ever written on any topic comes complete with positive reviews strewn over the first half dozen pages.

The first one has some nice merit in that it suggests the man raises interesting questions. I can see that. His bent on the US likely means he answers them as well, but if you can see through that it would probably generage some discussion.

But the Nation? It would be like me using NewsMax to suggest Ann Coulter is a great writer.

And would it do any good for me to run around posting comments from his critics to prove to you that he's not a good source? Probably not.

Is there anyway to let this guy drop? You brought him up as the source, and I pointed out the guy seems to have an agenda. I think through the 11 pages you've actually agreed to that. There are other sources, you can still have an opinion on the Middle East without reading one of these guys books, and you're not going to sway me on him.

There's a lot more meat on this bone then one author.