|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2001 : 19:11:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Garrette:
1. Chomsky is a skilled obfuscator, even if unintentionally so. Dense prose is fine when necessary, but he seems to delight in it and rely on it to overwhelm his audience. Frankly, I determined the quotes posted by Rubysue to mean much the same that Valiant Dancer said, but I could have--as Val did--written it much more clearly.
I haven't read every book he's ever written, but I just don't find it that hard to read.
quote:
2. Chomsky's support is sparse and intentionally misrepresented. (See below for one example from a link posted by Gorgo, I think)
Again, not so if you look at the whole of his work.
quote:
3. It is good to defend unpopular opinions.
And sometimes popular opinions.
quote:
4. Chomsky does not say outright that he supports the reprehensible positions themselves, but it is not difficult nor erroneous to infer it. Much the same, Gorgo, as I said you 'demonized' the US though you never used the word; tacit support and implied support are still support.
I'm not sure to what you're referring? Faurisson? Smear campaign. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're talking about.
It was more than the word demonized, Garrette. You, and others have this need to divide the world up into Bush's fantasy, where the U.S. is "good" and it has its "good" friends, and "bad" enemies. The war against "Good" and "Evil." If anyone criticizes what the "Good" people do, then they're calling the "Good" ones "Evil" and the "Evil" ones "Good."
quote:
5. A good point, and one with which I agree, but it is only the sheep's clothing Chomsky wears. The claim of objectivity does not equal the fact of objectivity. Chomsky claims it (Gorgo claims it for him, I suppose) but does not demonstrate it. Me? I don't even claim it, but I do claim more professional integrity and honesty than Chomsky.
No such claims. I don't recall the claim or the denial of it. I'm sure he would agree with Zinn that there is no such thing as non-biased history. That doesn't make it false, either. I could be wrong on that, but I don't think so.
quote:
A quick example of the misuse of sources:
Chomsky cites this quotation from Makota Oda's work "The Meaning of 'Meaningless Death'". He uses it to indicate the criminality of the US's use of the atomic bomb.
This was the 1,000 plane raid after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Technically after Japan surrendered, but before Truman announced it.
Again, this is official U.S. history from the U.S. Office of Air Force History. Not Makota Oda, but the citation regarding the thousand plane raid.
quote:
But Oda was using this horror to condemn the Japanese government, not the US. Here's the following paragraph:
So, because Oda says that loyalty to the State is a dumb idea, that excuses U.S. crimes?
quote:
quote:
Seven million Afghans are facing starvation, food will be available next year only to 20 percent of the population as the strikes have disrupted planting of crops. "But only 1 percent of the U.S. people knew about the real travails of the Afghan people," IRNA quoted (Chomsky) as saying.
Nary a source, nary a reference. I call it crap.
My kids still love me.
http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/06/2001 19:34:30
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/06/2001 19:36:22 |
 |
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 20:37:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One other thing about WWII atrocities: Why does Chomsky dwell so much on this assumed atrocity of bombing after the wars end despite a lack of any real evidence of this when Japan committed so many atrocities that it's hard to find the time to go into them? I doubt many Koreans will lend a sympathetic ear to this "poor innocent Japanese victim" story.
@tomic
Exactly. There had been a bombing raid on August 14, followed by one on the night of Aug. 14-15. Japan's leaders may have decided to surrender befure Aug. 15, but they did not announce their decision until the morning of Aug. 15, when some of last night's bombers may still have been flying back to their Pacific-island bases.
But after Emperor Hirohito's broadcast of surrender, there were no more bombings. NONE.
Noam Chomsky's seems obsessed with the premise that our leaders are evil imperialists who are the cause of essentially all the trouble in the world. Thus, he claims that Japan had been forced into attacking Pearl Harbor, even though Japan wasn't even close to being blockaded, let alone conquered, back in 1941.
|
|
|
|
Gandalf
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 20:51:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One other thing about WWII atrocities: Why does Chomsky dwell so much on this assumed atrocity of bombing after the wars end despite a lack of any real evidence of this when Japan committed so many atrocities that it's hard to find the time to go into them? I doubt many Koreans will lend a sympathetic ear to this "poor innocent Japanese victim" story.
@tomic
I don't know where you live or what your nationality is, but Noam Chomsky, like myself, is an American. As a citizen of the United States, in this somewhat democratic nation of ours with tremendous freedoms compared to the rest of the world, we have a moral responsibility for its actions. Our taxes and our silent complicty allow the United States to use its military and its covert units to carry out inhumane and anti-democratic actions throughout the third world. We can of course sit here and criticize the Japonese, the Chinese, or the Russians for their own state atrocities, but such criticism would have as much moral value as criticizing the Roman Empire. Interesting from a historical perspective perhaps, but with little practical implications. Chomsky focuses on the U.S. because he feels responsible for its actions. If you've read his works, you would know he's critical of all states, but he focuses on the U.S. because it's his tax dollars supporting its behavior.
|
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 21:12:31 [Permalink]
|
First, some thanks are in order (and some comments):
Garrette – Excellent post! You have a lovely way of analyzing things (and in such an objective way, which I quite envy). Alas, my “bullshit” filter is so finely-tuned and overly sensitive that I cannot help but attack in the most primitive ways when my alarms go off ; it's really dreadful and shame on me, but I guess it can't be helped. I will REALLY try to be nicer, if at all possible (but don't count on it; peevish ranting is my favorite thing to do now and there are so many valid targets). You bring up some good points about Chomsky's alleged defense of despicable ideas, but if you get a chance, check one of my earlier posts where I genuinely question his commitment to that philosophy. He defends Holocaust deniers (and there is very powerful evidence that he agrees with them) and, of course, loves anyone who attacks the US or Israel, but would he be as rigorous if someone came forward with a repulsive theory that the slave trade was a hoax or that people of color are intellectually inferior? I sincerely doubt it. Besides, as I have said many times, not all ideas are equally valid and some are so morally reprehensible that the only response that would be legitimate from anyone with honesty and integrity would be instant condemnation. Examples: Ask Chomsky to defend someone who says that molestation of small children is acceptable or that continual murder of our leadership is the only correct and proper response to their stupidity and blundering – oops, he's already said that last one, so I guess he flunks this test.
Atomic – Appreciate your fine comments and fully agree with them.
Valiant Dancer – loved your interpretations of the “great” man's obfuscations – hilarious! Alcohol in large quantities does indeed help if one is going to stumble around the dense thickets of brow-furrowing non-profundity dropping like zircons from the lips of NC. Why do I keep thinking of Henry Higgins when reading Chomsky?
Trish – Great job pointing out the “cult” connection! I was trying to put my finger on it, studying the language and the denials and the insults and then it dawned on me – these folks sound just like zealous Christian fundamentalists/creationists! Chomsky has indeed given his acolytes an easy “out” if anyone dares to cite any other media or academic works (left or right) that criticize their lonely, but brave hero: Those media pundits or academicians are “propagandists” who are using language to trick you and they are in the death grip of enslaving corporations who are in turn funding the evil that our American leadership perpetuates on a daily basis worldwide! Who can argue with that?
Now, on to other business from the “Ayatollah” of complete annoyance (that's me!):
As to my “friends” responding to my diatribes with all of the righteous sputtering indignation that they can spare (and welcome, Gandalf – what a great on-line name, by the way, and I mean that sincerely. So nice that Gorgo has friends): I am really quite uninterested in your opinions. Oh, I've responded, in a quite blustery and snotty way, to be sure, but you are small potatoes, merely annoyances like mosquitoes buzzing around my head that I swat at on occasion. I really don't care what your political viewpoints are or if you belong to a gang of naked Trotskyite fruitarian Greens and want everyone else to join you. My real business here is to bring to the table the overwhelming evidence of the moral degeneracy of Noam Chomsky so that the lurking “fence-sitters” who frequent this site (and there are probably not very many who have stayed with this topic this long) may go away thinking twice about ever considering him to be a source of “wisdom” and to ensure that they know his deviousness. Many of the other members of this forum have amply contributed supplemental help to the cause.
Believe it or not, there are many other groups and individuals that probably send me over the edge |
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 00:08:44 [Permalink]
|
URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8758-2001Oct29.html
One of the Taliban guys, Salahuddin Khaled, included in his rather familiar catalog of US villainy, something really odd, according to that article:
At one point, he launched into a stream of revisionist history, portraying the United States as the aggressor against Japan in World War II and justifying the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hawaii, he asserted, rightfully belonged to Japan.
That's the weirdest revisionist history I've ever seen.
I wonder what Noam Chomsky must think of this guy; would he thank Khaled for making this great discovery about what an evil imperialist the US had been in building military bases in Hawaii?
Also, it might have been interesting to find out what Khaled thinks about Japan's kamikaze squadrons of late WWII, since he also stated that he would be willing to give his life for some mission.
|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 01:36:06 [Permalink]
|
Christopher Hitchens, apparently another contrarian social critic of some note and a past admirer of Chomsky, called Chomsky, "intellectually lazy." This was in regards to his current position on the attack of 911. Hitchens says that this attack is "something new," and Chomsky doesn't want to upset his mindset, that he has invested so much labor to develop, to deal with it, for whatever that might be worth. I think, from what i've just read, Chomsky is simply a traitor to the very civilization that tolerates and supports his existence.
The positions of Gorgo, Gandalf, and SJ, just seems a bit too abstract, academic, so totally removed from the still smoldering weckage and the too real smell of rotting flesh of the WTC, to be taken with any real credibility. What kind of mind, can come to see a fireman, pouring gasoline on our collective burning house, as a hero?!? Isn't that just what this Chomsky character is doing? Being a simple person, words like idiotic, foolish, dense, come to mind, certainly blissfully unaware of where their own self interest lie.
OK, western civilization hasn't reached perfection as yet, America has misused its power. What gobal power hasn't? It is a work in progress. What example, would you ill timed critics, raise to strive for, that such abuses aren't present? You have made your rejection of western civilization known, just what is it, that you advocate? The theocracy tyranny of something like the Taliban, might you have any criticisms for their system, notice any abuses of their power, and how might you think your contributions would be recieved by them?
Suspect you to be incable to advocate anything, only to contribute distractions and incriminations to the secular civilization, that is your host. But have been wrong before, prove me wrong again, please.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 03:53:44 [Permalink]
|
I think that there's a Hitchens vs Chomsky thing at the Zmag.org site. I haven't read it yet.
What I advocate is a free press.
What I advocate is that the U.S. begin to promote democracy in the world instead of terror.
If we start on those two things, we'll have gone a long way.
quote:
OK, western civilization hasn't reached perfection as yet, America has misused its power. What gobal power hasn't? It is a work in progress. What example, would you ill timed critics, raise to strive for, that such abuses aren't present? You have made your rejection of western civilization known, just what is it, that you advocate? The theocracy tyranny of something like the Taliban, might you have any criticisms for their system, notice any abuses of their power, and how might you think your contributions would be recieved by them?
Suspect you to be incable to advocate anything, only to contribute distractions and incriminations to the secular civilization, that is your host. But have been wrong before, prove me wrong again, please.
[/size=3][/font=Arial]
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/07/2001 03:57:39 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 04:01:31 [Permalink]
|
Treasonous Anti-American leftist pablum!
quote:
For reference purposes:
United States Constitution, Article III, Section. 3.:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Where I stand, in case anyone is interested:
I have worried and obsessed for decades over our foreign policy (or lack thereof), our lack of vision as a nation, and our misplayed role in helping others establish democratic states that are stable and peaceful, due to a sometimes frightening predilection that our leaders have for propping up despots (and Saudi Arabia really worries me right now). I'm not overly eager that we give a hand out to others with unlimited foreign aid (that forced altruism allergy), but I know there are people that desperately need help. I believe that we have been arrogant, oblivious and insular.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/07/2001 04:03:53 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 04:14:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Chomsky's support is sparse and intentionally misrepresented. (See below for one example from a link posted by Gorgo, I think)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statement is most assuredly false, and proves you have read little of Chomsky. Pick up any of his works - those written by him, not those that are interviews with him - and you'll see this fact.
It is true that I have not read as much of Chomsky as Rubysue and Gorgo, and, I assume, you. I said as much in my post. Yet I stand by this claim. I've read the links given in this thread, and I agree with Rubysue. Chomsky's writings give few if any references.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Chomsky does not say outright that he supports the reprehensible positions themselves, but it is not difficult nor erroneous to infer it. Much the same, Gorgo, as I said you 'demonized' the US though you never used the word; tacit support and implied support are still support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is nonsense. If I'm a tennis coach, and I criticize the technique of a tennis player I'm working with, does that mean I hate that player? These types of false corollaries should be guarded against. If you read all of Chomsky, rather than snippets taken out of context, you would of course know this.
Extremely poor analogy demonstrating nearly the opposite of my point, but I'll try something similar to help clarify it. Have you known any racists who never say anything overtly bad about other races? Who start conversations with something like "I'm not racist, but..." or "Some of my best friends are black..."? Though they never say anything actionable, it becomes clear that they are in fact racist. Just like with Chomsky and his defense of those reprehensible folks. Perhaps he never says directly that he supports the positions themselves, but the implication is clear.
quote:
So Chomsky can't use Oda's eyewitness account as evidence unless he agrees with Oda's interpretation of that evidence? If a firefighter describes a particular fire in lurid detail, and then goes on to say he thinks it was the work of Nazi fascists, can I not use his eyewitness account as evidence even if I disagree with his conclusion? You see the speciousness of your argument? Besides, you missed Chomsky's point, which was the fact that Oda cited that the leaflets themselves contained the lines, "Your Government has surrendered. The war is over!" That was what he was concerned with - the fact that we were bombing when we knew the war was over.
Two points on this: if you conduct an investigation into the lurid fire and use evidence other than the eyewitness description to use another conclusion, of course you may do that.
But this is not what Chomsky does in this article. He presents the quotation AS IF Oda agreed with Chomsky. Intellectual honesty requires that he at least acknowledge that the author of this quotation reached a different conclusion. It remains a misrepresentation of evidence.
quote:
I assume you know that Chomsky is an anarchist, and distrustful of all concentrations of power? The more powerful a state, the more atrocities that usually result from it. Just take a look at our record in Central America, for heaven's sake. That's all the evidence you need.
I am distrustful of concentrations of power, too. Chomsky seems most distrustful of concentration in the US and less so of concentration elsewhere. I have personally cited the US's abominable record in Central America more than once on this board, so I'm hardly a knee-jerk defender of all things American.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. A good point, and one with which I agree, but it is only the sheep's clothing Chomsky wears. The claim of objectivity does not equal the fact of objectivity. Chomsky claims it (Gorgo claims it for him, I suppose) but does not demonstrate it. Me? I don't even claim it, but I do claim more professional integrity and honesty than Chomsky.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When does Chomsky claim objectivity?
Well, as I said, it is more often claimed for him by his supporters, but I am willing to concede the point.
quote:
What is extreme? Wanting the U.S. to conform to the same standards that they expect others to conform to?
We've gone so far to the right that reasonable behavior seems extreme.
No. Extreme is not holding others to the same standard that you hold the US.
quote:
2. Chomsky's support is sparse and intentionally misrepresented. (See below for one example from a link posted by Gorgo, I think)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, not so if you look at the whole of his work.
I never will look at the whole of his work; I've seen enough.
quote:
3. It is good to defend unpopular opinions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And sometimes popular opinions.
Agreed.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Chomsky does not say outright that he supports the reprehensible positions themselves, but it is not difficult nor erroneous to infer it. Much the same, Gorgo, as I said you 'demonized' the US though you never used the word; tacit support and implied support are still support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure to what you're re |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 04:40:25 [Permalink]
|
I don't know what you mean by the "form Chomsky presents it." His commentary and the remarks about Oda are not in the book, but Note 10 is lifted directly from a U.S. Office of Air Force History publication.
quote:
Again, this is official U.S. history from the U.S. Office of Air Force History. Not Makota Oda, but the citation regarding the thousand plane raid.
You are, of course, correct about the 1000 plane raid; I should have checked myself better. However, I can't find this in the
U.S. Office of Air Force History; at least not in the form that Chomsky presents it.
[/quote]
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 04:40:27 [Permalink]
|
I probably won't post on this topic again (but that's not a promise), yet I feel the need to explain some attitudes, at least my own.
Gandalf and Gorgo, you may take this retreat as a concession if you wish, though I assure you it's not. Let me post a little bit of personal stuff (which I do too frequently, probably to the consternation, I'm sure, of some folks here).
All of my adult life has involved significant interaction with people under stress. My civilian career over the past several years has particularly required this. I have been an investigator and Security Director at several medical hospitals. Currently, I work as the Safety Director at a mental hospital.
As you might imagine, this involves dealing with individuals (sometimes with mental illness, sometimes not)who are agitated and who possess the potential to begin physically acting out. The objective in such a situation is to use verbal skills to 'de-escalate' it and to avoid physical confrontation. In fact, I teach courses in verbal and physical crisis management.
There are stages in all personal crises (sp?). The way to respond to a person in one stage WILL NOT WORK when responding to someone in another stage; it will, in fact, make it worse. After a long time of doing this, one becomes proficient in determining quickly what stage someone is in, and therefore what the proper response is.
So when I walk up to an individual in crisis, I might say "Sir, can I help you?" or "Sit down. Now." or "If you do not calm down I will remove you from the building", or I might even go straight into physical management. I have had complaints made against me on more than one occasion because of the impression that I was 'mean'. Interestingly, these complaints have NEVER come from the individual I dealt with but ALWAYS have come from staff members watching from the sidelines; staff members who have had no experience or training in handling agitated individuals; they simply assume that I didn't give the individual enough of a chance when in fact I gave the individual the only chance he/she had. Incidentally, I've never had anything come of any of these complaints.
My point? It is similar to my response to people like Chomsky, and to Slater's response to people like Flesh and Darwin in another thread, and James Randi's response to most deluded people who contact him about his million dollar prize. We recognize where these people are and what response is warranted.
And before you attack me for being too cocksure and arrogant, let me assure you that I am extremely cocksure and arrogant, but I do not act that way with the individuals I approach and I admit when I'm wrong, which I have been. But the wrong times are far outweighed by the right times.
I've read enough Chomsky to know what he's about. I'll not read more. Could I be wrong? Of course, but there's little harm done. If Chomsky is right, then I'll read about it from other sources eventually.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 04:47:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've read enough Chomsky to know what he's about. I'll not read more. Could I be wrong? Of course, but there's little harm done. If Chomsky is right, then I'll read about it from other sources eventually.
My kids still love me.
I don't think I ever asked anything else, but you haven't read enough Chomsky to understand anything, evidence by your remark about footnotes most assuredly. What you've read is Rubysue's 15 minute "research."
Next she'll tell us how wonderful homeopathy is because she found something on the web that shows that it cures everything.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 05:04:19 [Permalink]
|
No, Gorgo, my research is not quite so scarce as that. And while you think my comments about footnotes shows my ignorance of Chomsky, I believe your rejection of my comments shows your blind devotion.
And on behalf of Rubysue, the homeopathy comment is a ludicrous stretch and you know it.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 05:32:48 [Permalink]
|
No, she's bought into a load of crap that she hasn't bothered to substantiate. Your defense of her after her behavior here tells me a little more about you as well.
quote:
No, Gorgo, my research is not quite so scarce as that. And while you think my comments about footnotes shows my ignorance of Chomsky, I believe your rejection of my comments shows your blind devotion.
And on behalf of Rubysue, the homeopathy comment is a ludicrous stretch and you know it.
My kids still love me.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 05:39:42 [Permalink]
|
LP, did you go home?
quote:
LP, did I read the link wrong or is it misquoted? Or did you not read it?
If I'm wrong on this, please tell me why?
And why is 800 a walk in the park, and 1,000 a "terrible war crime?"
http://monkeyfist.com:8080/ChomskyArchive/essays/pacific_html#10
quote:
However, the conventional sort of bombing raids continued until the day of the surrender; there was a big one with over 800 B-29 bombers on August 14, one day before Emperor Hirohito did a radio broadcast announcing Japan's surrender.
Noam Chomsky may have mixed up the order of events, simply out of a willingness to believe that our leaders are guilty of terrible war crimes.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens
Edited by - Gorgo on 11/06/2001 03:41:21
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
