Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[Bingo]

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.

Or ...

you're avoiding the people with a preconceived answer before they start any research and therefore avoiding the noise so you can tackle an issue without all the BS covering it up.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by kermitology

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.

Who does tell the whole story then? Who doesn't let their emotions get in the way of presenting the honest truth?

What basis do you have for believing that Chomsky let's his emotions bias the truth?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I agree.

Now how does this apply to Chomsky and his credibility?

He doesn't present the whole story, just the side of it that goes along with his thoughts.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Who does tell the whole story then? Who doesn't let their emotions get in the way of presenting the honest truth?

What basis do you have for believing that Chomsky let's his emotions bias the truth?

Varied sources.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Or ...

you're avoiding the people with a preconceived answer before they start any research and therefore avoiding the noise so you can tackle an issue without all the BS covering it up.

Well having been exposed to some of Chomsky's works I'm not sure why you'd believe that applies to him.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Varied sources.

Who's to say they aren't letting their emotions sway the truth? Why are they more credible in your mind?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well having been exposed to some of Chomsky's works I'm not sure why you'd believe that applies to him.

I don't think you see this ...

You tend to think the same way so of course you don't have a problem with the guy and think he's credible.

That's my point.

Imagine a Ann Coulter fan believing she is credible and then being surprised that she would come under attack from those that don't lean right and bash everything left. (and no I'm not comparing the two directly).

If a guy that thought the world was flat was exposed to a lecture from a professor thinking the world is flat I'm sure he would be scratching his head at the thought of bias.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Or ...

you're avoiding the people with a preconceived answer before they start any research and therefore avoiding the noise so you can tackle an issue without all the BS covering it up.

The only thing preconceived here are your assertions about Chomsky.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You tend to think the same way so of course you don't have a problem with the guy and think he's credible.

Well that's where you're wrong. I have come to believe a lot of the things he believes because of the logic in his arguments, the evidence he presents and how it all fits together. I certainly didn't start anywhere near his beliefs. In fact I grew up in a fundamental Christian home and was raised in more of a right-wing ideology. So you can't assume I'm a "leftie" because I always was and that my beliefs verify themselves. I was converted to my present beliefs because of what I've read and heard that I deem to be credible.

Why do I think he's credible? Because he'll source EVERYTHING he says. He does not make claims without having researched it and he'll encourage you to prove him wrong or verify his research. I have not seen the same diligence from most other sources.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hakan

The only thing preconceived here are your assertions about Chomsky.

well first ... I didn't apply that comment directly to Chomsky, nor do I direct that comment to Chomsky alone.

Are you saying the man is a centrist, with no political leanings and can be taken as a pure factual source with little opposition because he hasn't a history of siding with any one political ideal that could cloud his judgement or ability to come to a fair conclusion?

if you are saying that then I guess we differ

if you're not then really you're just taking a pot shot aren't you? touch a nerve?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well that's where you're wrong. I have come to believe a lot of the things he believes because of the logic in his arguments, the evidence he presents and how it all fits together. I certainly didn't start anywhere near his beliefs. In fact I grew up in a fundamental Christian home and was raised in more of a right-wing ideology. So you can't assume I'm a "leftie" because I always was and that my beliefs verify themselves. I was converted to my present beliefs because of what I've read and heard that I deem to be credible.

Why do I think he's credible? Because he'll source EVERYTHING he says. He does not make claims without having researched it and he'll encourage you to prove him wrong or verify his research. I have not seen the same diligence from most other sources.

We're just going in circles amigo

I think I and Kermit have said twice that sourcing things is nice and it's nice to source EVERYTHING, but that doens't mean you're using EVERY source when you do your research.

As I said it's sad these days but you can pretty much source any theory under the moon these days and hold up to your foot note acid test.

And for the record I was pretty much up the middle until 911 and then moved over on foreign policy issues (not liberal issues) because I think these things need to be tackled, but I don't expect that movement to lean any crediblity to anything I say. Just my gut. You could be raised under a rock for all I care, doesn't make you believing Chomsky any more valid.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Are you saying the man is a centrist, with no political leanings and can be taken as a pure factual source with little opposition because he hasn't a history of siding with any one political ideal that could cloud his judgement or ability to come to a fair conclusion?

What kind of educated intellectual would have no political leanings? Perhaps somebody who didn't at all delve into politics. Meanwhile we're talking about political issues. I would assume that every educated intellectual who is interested in politics and has done enough research to be considered an expert on some topics would have taken some stances and have some leanings. Is that not a fair assumption?

This theoretical fence-sitter who doesn't sway in any direction is a fantasy. Calling everyone has some political leanings non-credible would disqualify EVERYONE.

[Hakan]

well first ... I didn't apply that comment directly to Chomsky, nor do I direct that comment to Chomsky alone.

Are you saying the man is a centrist, with no political leanings and can be taken as a pure factual source with little opposition because he hasn't a history of siding with any one political ideal that could cloud his judgement or ability to come to a fair conclusion?

if you are saying that then I guess we differ

if you're not then really you're just taking a pot shot aren't you? touch a nerve?

You said you wanted to avoid people that already had preconceived ideas so that you could have a more unbiased view of a situation. But by labelling people as having preconceived notions or not you are essentially doing what you want to avoid. FDW is right, you need to look at the broad spectrum, not just the centre. Ideas may be at the fringe because they might be fanatical, obtuse and faulty BUT they also might be there because they're the most potentially damaging and truthful.

You are deliberately 'preconceiving' the messages you hear if you automatically eliminate ideas and commentators that you ascribe as having a bias. And frankly, I very much doubt you have even read a book by Chomsky to dismiss him as 'preconceived' yourself but have instead relied on third parties who have a concerted interest to marginalize his views.

Who's the preconceived one here?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

We're just going in circles amigo

Agreed.

Based on the logic that you use to discount Chomsky's credibility we would have to discount everyone's credibility. So here we are, talking about an issue that no is credible on, least of all us.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What kind of educated intellectual would have no political leanings? Perhaps somebody who didn't at all delve into politics. Meanwhile we're talking about political issues. I would assume that every educated intellectual who is interested in politics and has done enough research to be considered an expert on some topics would have taken some stances and have some leanings. Is that not a fair assumption?

This theoretical fence-sitter who doesn't sway in any direction is a fantasy. Calling everyone has some political leanings non-credible would disqualify EVERYONE.

Hakan and FDW ...

might as reply to both here, you both said essentially the same thing.

From what I gather then ... life is a switch or black and white. I can't lop off the fringes because all I'm left with is Howdy Doody in the middle?

Sorry ... but you can cut 20% of the fat off both sides and still have a lot of nice meat in the middle to work with (about 60% if my math serves). That's all I'm saying.

If you're saying I'm guilty of preconceiving that Chomsky is pretty left leaning then guilty as charged, though I don't think anyone would disagree with that would you?

Many shades of grey in the middle to choose from on both sides.

[Hakan]

Well good debate settled.

I hope the sand isn't too hot though Bingo, you wouldn't want to burn your head.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Well good debate settled.

I hope the sand isn't too hot though Bingo, you wouldn't want to burn your head.

personal attack again huh?

my head is in the sand because I don't agree with Chomsky as a source?

why can't you guys disagree with someone without attacks and labels? Just floors me. In my experience it points to a guy that has either become too frustrated to hold serve, or has nothing left to say. Which is it?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think I and [k]ermit have said twice that sourcing things is nice and it's nice to source EVERYTHING, but that doens't mean you're using EVERY source when you do your research.

Bingo.. erm.. exactly!

Personally I don't think that Chomsky is any less credible, but that using his arguments as the sole basis for your own arguments makes you less credible. (Note the use of YOU is not directed at any person in particular, just the general sense)

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Well good debate settled.

I hope the sand isn't too hot though Bingo, you wouldn't want to burn your head.

ZING!!!

Some comments on the discussion so far...

Based on information I'm looking at right now, Israel gets 12.5% of all U.S. Foreign aid, almost as much as Egypt and Pakistan together (they are the second largest recipients). Egypt rans second in dollars received, garnering 9.5% of the foreign aid dished out, and that is considered a big payoff for remaining neutral in the Israel situation. No other nation gets over 4% of the foreign aid.

IIRC, and someone please feel free to correct this if this is not true, Israel's foreign aid does also not include military equipment "given" to their military for "field testing". Israel gets billions in weapons each year that do not count as foreign aid and fall under a special treaty.

Oh, and I laughed outloud when someone (I can't remember who) called Chomsky an anti-semite. Oh my, that one almost drew tears. Talk about uninformed BS from a stereotype dreamed up by the right wing to discredit their greatest nemesis. Some people should actually listen to what the guy has to say. For a leftwing "moonbat" (wtf does that grade two insult mean?) he certainly makes a lot of sense when you get past the rhetoric.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

From what I gather then ... life is a switch or black and white. I can't lop off the fringes because all I'm left with is Howdy Doody in the middle?

Sorry ... but you can cut 20% of the fat off both sides and still have a lot of nice meat in the middle to work with (about 60% if my math serves). That's all I'm saying.

If you're saying I'm guilty of preconceiving that Chomsky is pretty left leaning then guilty as charged, though I don't think anyone would disagree with that would you?

Many shades of grey in the middle to choose from on both sides.

What you haven't answered is the question about whether a large chunk of the truth may be located in one of your so-called fringes. Is it not conceivable that those in the so-called "middle" might be compromising the truth?

Personally I hate this whole spectrum thing. It is an oversimplification of very complex issues. To summarize one person's beliefs about all things political, moral, etc as being on a single spectrum is preposterous. I try not to think in those terms.

In this case here I think you are being hurt by the conception of it. You see Chomsky as an extremist because of how you appear to view the political spectrum. When I see your stance like that it makes perfect sense, I tend to disregard extremists on most issues as well and I think that can be a healthy stance.

But this political spectrum is an idea that humans have invented. It's a way for us to conceptualize and generalize and it has it's uses. Unfortunately it also seems very divisive and can obscure things. How did we decide where the middle was? Will that conception change over time because it seems like it already has. In 50 years what is now considered Liberal or left-wing may be the centre of the political spectrum.

Is Chomsky on the "left-wing"? Yes. Does that mean he doesn't have some interesting things to say? No. Bottom line? I respect your stance that you like to disregard extremists. But I believe Chomsky has some things to say that people need to hear and he has the sources to back it up. It certainly won't hurt you or anyone else to read some of his material and in fact may enlighten. Choosing not to expose one's self to arguments on what you might view as the opposite side of the political spectrum is close-minded. I didn't accuse you of it earlier but your stance that you won't read his stuff because he's left-wing sure makes it seem like you are. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.