Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because academia has been (and is) involved in almost every major development of western society, certainly through the last 100 years?

Now that's a statement that needs some kind of proof. Sure, philosophy has done a pretty good job about things. I mean we all owe a huge debt to John Locke (that was what... 300 years ago). But academics have a tough time actually doing anything based in reality. Chomsky has the same problem.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Jesus Christ man, that post was a sarcastic comment directed at 'you' because of your initial comment, which was in a different thread, directed at someone else, which said that your 5 years of University education gave you the ability to read minds.

You brought up the 'reading minds' phrase in this debate. You then accused me of saying that I claimed I could read minds. You're a liar.

Go re-read your posting history. You sound like a little girl trying to defend her actions.

Now THAT's a personal attack. Its one thing to comment on another posters messages, or posting style. Calling me a little girl is the next step on the road to a complete breakdown of credibility. Enjoy!

And never once did I say that you mentioned that comment in this thread....that is the politically correct way you're trying to defend yourself.

Yeah, you did. You said I claimed I could read minds.

You said this:

And you were the one who first mentioned that your 5 years of University education gave you the ability to read the 'minds' of 'some' people in 'certain' ways.

You quote 'minds', 'some', 'certain', though I never said any such thing. You put the words in my mouth and then said I made the claim. You're a liar.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You brought up the 'reading minds' phrase in this debate. You then accused me of saying that I claimed I could read minds. You're a liar.

If you want to deny your own words, go right ahead.

I guess 'your' credibility is finished IMO.

EDIT: your original quote...posted BEFORE any of mine...

Based on my 5 years studying political science and history (what you might call 'mindreading'),

[Agamemnon]

There you go, perfect. I said 'what you might call 'mindreading' (in response to FoL's post).

YOU said I claimed to be a mind reader. As you can see, from the post you quoted, I was being sarcastic and subtle. YOU went on to make false claims (lies) about what I said.

[Agamemnon]

And to add, anyone who thinks this statement;

Based on my 5 years studying political science and history (what you might call 'mindreading'),

... is me claiming to have the legitimate ability to read other people's minds, is an idiot. I think its pretty clear I'm not actually posing the claim that I am clairovoyant or posess ESP... to most people. Though apparently this claim has been (falsely) ascribed to me.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

And to add, anyone who thinks this statement;


... is me claiming to have the legitimate ability to read other people's minds, is an idiot. I think its pretty clear I'm not actually posing the claim that I am clairovoyant or posess ESP... to most people. Though apparently this claim has been (falsely) ascribed to me.

Dont worry Ag to anyone using half a functioning brain it is very clear sarcasm was your emo.

Azure, like usual, scrambling and attempting to put words in the mouths of others because every one of his "points" were categorically shot down or thrown back in his face as inncorrect.

I love it!!

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Do you have any specific examples as to how his ideals aren't real-world applicable?

Off of the top of my head? No. I won't be able to look any up until later tonight or tomorrow either.. I'll get back to you on that.

That said, if he's stuck in academia, I'm sure it's happened. It happens to the best of them.

[Flash Walken]

don't worry agamemnon, anyone in this thread with grade 9 reading comprehension has understood the dialogue between you and azure. He seems to be the only one incapable of seeing it. I wouldn't waste your time any further.

[calculoso]

Sorry for bringing this thread back from the dead....

Originally Posted by calculoso

Off of the top of my head? No. I won't be able to look any up until later tonight or tomorrow either.. I'll get back to you on that.

That said, if he's stuck in academia, I'm sure it's happened. It happens to the best of them.

Sorry for the delay. Board being down, added to a busy week, added to a lack of readily available web content on Chomsky's Ideals lead to an unintentional delay.

Anyhooo...

By Geoffrey Sampson
"Summarizing myself in a dozen words, I am:
* an Englishman
* born in 1944
* a professional academic
* a politically-active British subject
"

In a review of two Pro-Chomsky books:

http://www.grsampson.net/VMcGi.html
"In 1979 I published a book which argued that there were strong links between Chomsky’s linguistics and his politics."


"McGilvray and Smith are enlightening, perhaps inadvertently, on the thinness of Chomsky’s political analysis. Chomsky denounces many actions and policies of his own and other Western governments, sometimes justifiably, but (as McGilvray and Smith admit) he never offers any details of how the alternative political system he advocates would work in practice. Surely, every second saloon bar contains a loudmouth who can do as much as Chomsky in that respect? McGilvray suggests that it may be a good thing for Chomsky to keep his political ideal vague, so that it can be adapted to the circumstances of different times and places. If Chomsky espoused a standard, middle-of-the-road brand of politics, that line might perhaps be tenable, but Chomsky’s ideal – anarchosyndicalism – is a political system which has never been realized and which to many people of goodwill seems impossible or meaningless. What use is there in putting the system forward, if we are given nothing to allay those doubts?"

So, we have another academic who takes issue with Chomsky's political ideals. Even someone who agrees with him suggests "it may be a good thing for Chomsky to keep his political ideal vague".

And yet, they are still somehow real-world applicable?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Sorry for bringing this thread back from the dead....



Sorry for the delay. Board being down, added to a busy week, added to a lack of readily available web content on Chomsky's Ideals lead to an unintentional delay.

Anyhooo...

By Geoffrey Sampson
"Summarizing myself in a dozen words, I am:
* an Englishman
* born in 1944
* a professional academic
* a politically-active British subject
"

In a review of two Pro-Chomsky books:

http://www.grsampson.net/VMcGi.html
"In 1979 I published a book which argued that there were strong links between Chomsky’s linguistics and his politics."


"McGilvray and Smith are enlightening, perhaps inadvertently, on the thinness of Chomsky’s political analysis. Chomsky denounces many actions and policies of his own and other Western governments, sometimes justifiably, but (as McGilvray and Smith admit) he never offers any details of how the alternative political system he advocates would work in practice. Surely, every second saloon bar contains a loudmouth who can do as much as Chomsky in that respect? McGilvray suggests that it may be a good thing for Chomsky to keep his political ideal vague, so that it can be adapted to the circumstances of different times and places. If Chomsky espoused a standard, middle-of-the-road brand of politics, that line might perhaps be tenable, but Chomsky’s ideal – anarchosyndicalism – is a political system which has never been realized and which to many people of goodwill seems impossible or meaningless. What use is there in putting the system forward, if we are given nothing to allay those doubts?"

So, we have another academic who takes issue with Chomsky's political ideals. Even someone who agrees with him suggests "it may be a good thing for Chomsky to keep his political ideal vague".

And yet, they are still somehow real-world applicable?

So what you're quoting to me is a piece which makes no effort to formally debate any point of view chomsky expresses in regards to his views on syndicalism, but instead uses the scientific standard of 'people of goodwill'?

Under this overwhelming evidence, I am prepared to completely abandon my view that noam chomsky is any type of serious scholar. Well done.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So what you're quoting to me is a piece which makes no effort to formally debate any point of view chomsky expresses in regards to his views on syndicalism, but instead uses the scientific standard of 'people of goodwill'?

The guy wrote a book criticizing him. The guy references the writings of two other writers, who worship Chomsky, to expose "the thinness of Chomsky’s political analysis".

And yet, he's still someone to be blindly followed?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Under this overwhelming evidence, I am prepared to completely abandon my view that noam chomsky is any type of serious scholar. Well done.

Well done yourself. That isn't anywhere close to any kind of intent I had. Chomsky is a serious scholar... but not beyond criticism.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

The guy wrote a book criticizing him. The guy references the writings of two other writers, who worship Chomsky, to expose "the thinness of Chomsky’s political analysis".

And yet, he's still someone to be blindly followed?



Well done yourself. That isn't anywhere close to any kind of intent I had. Chomsky is a serious scholar... but not beyond criticism.

Have you read his book? I haven't, but it's now on my list.

What you provided is essentially a self-review of his own book. There's no point, counter point, no serious debate offered and no serious attempt at refuting any specific claims other than 'people of goodwill' feel his political ideals are impossible to implement.

I'm all for serious, academic criticisms of chomsky's work, but I have yet to see one in this thread.

Edit: his philosophical arguments also have no bearing on his critque of American Foreign Policy and it's pitfalls, unless he uses them in his defense, which was the original topic of this thread derail. Proving that chomsky has some sort of 'leaning' does nothing to disprove any of his scholarly works and does nothing to undermine his credibility in regards to those critiques.

[calculoso]

Here's another LONG essay that I just found. I read the first part of it (not the whole thing) and thought I'd throw it here.

Dissecting Chomsky and Anti-Americanism
by George Shadroui
6 September 2004

http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle3754.html

"His basic message has not changed over the years: America is a force for evil in the world. You will find this mantra repeated in Hegemony or Survival, and in other recent books such as Power and Terror and 9/11.

Chomsky purports to be a serious thinker and we aim to take seriously the views he has propounded for almost four decades. This is important not only because of the seriousness of the charges he raises, but because truth requires it. It is not my intention to be an apologist for American foreign policy mistakes, but it is my intent to analyze such policies fairly. This requires a bit of foundation-building, for while Chomsky is not nearly as witty or as entertaining as Gore Vidal or Norman Mailer, he is more difficult to get a handle on, not only because he publishes so much, but because he presents as fact so many out-of-context charges. His style is turgid, a nasty blend of fact, fiction and fantasy that can easily confuse and mislead. He is also hopelessly one-sided."

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What a stupid question.

What an even "stupider" answer.

It's a VERY legitimate question when actually applied to the statement involved...i guess you were stumped by it then?

No surprise actually.