Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[Agamemnon]

I've always heard it was Egypt that got big US foreign funding bucks.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Actually footnotes are everything. If you can't source your information, then it is far easier to call it biased. Thats why in academia you are required to always source every single assertion made. Its what makes it credible, 'scientific' if you will.

No. The repeated and exhaustive academic reviewing of your footnotes and how you use them is what makes it 'scientific'.

[calculoso]

Here's a question that just came to mind:

If Hizbollah is hiding in civilian areas, and they aren't wearing uniforms, and they hide their missiles in homes (etc)..... How can any of these 'civilian casualty' figures be accurate? Any Hizbollah member would also look like a civilian and probably be counted as such, wouldn't they?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

So one of the most credible sources available (a professor who actually knows how to research and source all of his information) shouldn't be considered credible because he disagrees with right-wingers, is critical of the US gov't and despite being the son of a Hebrew scholar and growing up experienced anti-semistism is called an anti-semitic?

Sorry but none of the those points are any reason to doubt his credibility. His credibility should rest on how well he sources his information and in that he is far more credible than many whom one can drawn on as a source.

Obviously you buy-in wholesale to the right-wing smears against this guy. Someone at the New York Times called him one of the most important intellectuals living today. Like or not he's more informed than any of us on the issue and has the ability to find news sources that regular joes like us can't (partially because he can read Hebrew and therefore gets more news out of that region.)

Did the read the lecture Bingo? If not, I'd ask you to do so. Unless you are the type that will only read points of view from the side you've chosen.

Why don't you take a read at what I had to say to you and then your response and get back to me.

I went out of my way twice to point out that I'm not calling the guy wrong, but that he's washed in controversy in many circles because of his views. I didn't suggest you are wrong, or that you are some communist or a tree hugger, and I didn't suggest your mind is closed.

You? and I quote

-Obviously you buy-in wholesale to the right-wing smears
-Unless you are the type that will only read points of view from the side you've chosen

for a guy that has always cried foul whenever Lanny takes things to the personal side with you, you sure don't seem to mind labeling me a right winger and a close minded person.

Quite sad actually.

Chomsky is a very left leaning person and that calls into question the direction he takes in any research. The fact that he's a professor doesn't change anything. The world is full of fair and balanced people in all professions, as well as politically motivated or jaded people in all professions.

I would never use a source that hangs out on either fringe.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I would never use a source that hangs out on either fringe.

Well then you'd miss out on the most credible sources if one of the so-called "fringes" is actually closer to the truth the than other side.

I would think it a better idea to read from both "fringes" and the so-called middle and see which ones have better sources and which ones resonate with your sense of the truth.

[Hakan]

I would never use a source that hangs out on either fringe.

I agree. The official version is always the correct one. Right Lanny?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

for a guy that has always cried foul whenever Lanny takes things to the personal side with you, you sure don't seem to mind labeling me a right winger and a close minded person.

Well what else should I make of your comment that Chomsky is on the "fringe" and leans to the left? Would it not be natural to assume you're on the right if you think somebody on the so-called left is not credible? It seems logical to me.

I didn't label you a close minded person, I asked if you read the article or if you were the type that doesn't read the other side. It was a question to you.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The world is full of fair and balanced people in all professions, as well as politically motivated or jaded people in all professions.

Disagree. Everyone is biased by their upbringing, their beliefs, any religious they may believe in, what their family and friends say, what they've been taught, etc. They is no such a completely fair, balanced or impartial viewpoint. That's a fantasy.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well then you'd miss out on the most credible sources if one of the so-called "fringes" is actually closer to the truth the than other side.

I would think it a better idea to read from both "fringes" and the so-called middle and see which ones have better sources and which ones resonate with your sense of the truth.

you seem to lean left so I'm sure you see the guy as really credible and a huge loss to the factual picture, but can't you see that you may need to be in said left camp to see it that way?

sourcing is better than not having any sources, but a guy with an axe to grind (on both sides!) will cherry pick data to fit his theme and move on. Sadly it's not enough to come to any definitive answer anymore.

I personally find it frustrating. Things are so much more polarized now and everyone is stating their conjecture as the only truth.

[kermitology]

A professor is no more trustworthy than a bum on the street depending on the circumstances.. Have you ever had a teacher in post secondary school that was wrong in something they taught you? I have, and got kicked out of class for pointing out the error.

While I personally don't like the representations of Chomsky, assuming that he is more correct than someone else is somewhat illogical in my opinion. I prefer to think for myself given the input of various sources.

I think that in some cases the reason to avoid the hardliners is that their beliefs can get in the way of the way things really are. That you form an opinion on something and you can only see the facts in the way that represents your views. It's the inherent bias of human nature. It happens in anything.. like coding. You don't always see all the problems, it takes another set of eyes from a different perspective.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Disagree. Everyone is biased by their upbringing, their beliefs, any religious they may believe in, what their family and friends say, what they've been taught, etc. They is no such a completely fair, balanced or impartial viewpoint. That's a fantasy.

Not necesarially true. While there is no PURE balanced viewpoint it's kind of semantics isn't it. If you look at a subject from all the potential ways then you're more likely to see it closer to an impartial stance...and isn't that what one should strive for?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well what else should I make of your comment that Chomsky is on the "fringe" and leans to the left? Would it not be natural to assume you're on the right if you think somebody on the so-called left is not credible? It seems logical to me.

I didn't label you a close minded person, I asked if you read the article or if you were the type that doesn't read the other side. It was a question to you.

I can't stand fringes on both sides with maybe O'Reilly being my only vice when it comes to the guys that most would have on that kind of a hit list.

I don't agree with everything any one person says, but I do lean right on foreign policy because with it comes action and I have a real fear that isolationism from the past few decades have led to this mess.

That doesn't absolve any nation in the world from mistakes they've made in the past, but the bottom line now is a problem and one that I think needs to be dealt with. If a group that I would consider to be terrorists were sitting on two of my borders I think I too would get fed up and do something about it. You can't negotiate with people that are consistently quoted as saying you and all your citizens shouldn't be allowed the right to live.

[Flame On]

Wow I guess this is a good example of why there's problems over there. Even here there's no grey agreement or middle ground. Most seem to support either Hezbollah or a left version of being against Israel and the other half are adamantly pro Israel.
To me hezbollah are catagorically the agitators here and a terrorist organization. Does that mean Israel has acted with the moral highground? To me no. They've reacted massively out of proportion and are in fact I'm sure, creating more problems for themselves long term.
For example, I don't think Israel is targeting civillians, but I'm pretty sure that in some cases they don't care if it's happened.
That's the message they're trying to send to Lebanon. Fine if youdon't want to deal with Hezzbollah, don't think we'll be any easier. This point of view was amongst others that were less black and white than most here came from my Jewish friend, and even he can smell BS with some of the Isralie response.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Not necesarially true. While there is no PURE balanced viewpoint it's kind of semantics isn't it. If you look at a subject from all the potential ways then you're more likely to see it closer to an impartial stance...and isn't that what one should strive for?

I'm not sure I follow you. If you look closely at a subject one may discover certain truths that lead to taking a stance on the issue.

I think we can agree that everyone has bias. Impartiality of the lack of bias. So you are right, it is semantics to say that no one could be impartial.

I still don't really have an answer from those anti-Chomksy folks as to why he should be considered as more biased and less impartial than anyone else? Does he gain from taking a stance against the US gov't? What does he gain? Does he gain from condemning Israel's actions? What does he gain? Why should we consider him to not be an impartial source?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I can't stand fringes on both sides

Well then you aren't exposing yourself to all angles of the debate and possible missing out on some of the most credible sources in the debate.

I'm still not sure why Chomsky is defined by you as being on the fringe.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well then you aren't exposing yourself to all angles of the debate and possible missing out on some of the most credible sources in the debate.

I'm still not sure why Chomsky is defined by you as being on the fringe.

Just call Chomsky a "vice" and it'll be ok.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I'm not sure I follow you. If you look closely at a subject one may discover certain truths that lead to taking a stance on the issue.

I think we can agree that everyone has bias. Impartiality of the lack of bias. So you are right, it is semantics to say that no one could be impartial.

I still don't really have an answer from those anti-Chomksy folks as to why he should be considered as more biased and less impartial than anyone else?

Certainly everyone has a bias. The thing I'm talking about is in the highlited statement. Looking at it from only one perspective leads you to a certain stance. Looking at it from more persepectives gives you yet another stance, but one that is likely to be more balanced because it takes into account different points of view.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I still don't really have an answer from those anti-Chomksy folks as to why he should be considered as more biased and less impartial than anyone else?

when did I say that?

less impartial than ANYONE else? Never came from my keyboard. I'm pointing out the guy has a left lean and has had some controversy because of that.

The rest you've just tacked on in your mad defence of the man.

Bottom line ... when a site like Wikopedia has a massive section outlining opposition to a guy there may be something to it.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I'm still not sure why Chomsky is defined by you as being on the fringe.

I'd say that it's likely because he lets his emotions get in the way of presenting the honest truth. The things he says may be true, but they don't tell the whole story.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Certainly everyone has a bias. The thing I'm talking about is in the highlited statement. Looking at it from only one perspective leads you to a certain stance. Looking at it from more persepectives gives you yet another stance, but one that is likely to be more balanced because it takes into account different points of view.

I agree.

Now how does this apply to Chomsky and his credibility?