• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Topic: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Thumbs down The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    From here:
    http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm



    The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky
    by Keith Windschuttle


    There’s a famous definition in the Gospels of the hypocrite, and the hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others. By that standard, the entire commentary and discussion of the so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they can’t understand it.
    —Noam Chomsky, Power and Terror, 2003



    Noam Chomsky was the most conspicuous American intellectual to rationalize the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the “far more extreme terrorism” of United States foreign policy. Despite its calculated affront to mainstream opinion, this sentiment went down very well with Chomsky’s own constituency. He has never been more popular among the academic and intellectual left than he is today.

    Two books of interviews with him published since September 11, 2001 both went straight onto the bestseller lists.[1] One of them has since been turned into a film entitled Power and Terror, now doing brisk business in the art-house movie market. In March 2002 the film’s director, John Junkerman, accompanied his subject to the University of California, Berkeley, where in a five-day visit Chomsky gave five political talks to a total audience of no fewer than five thousand people.

    Meanwhile, the liberal news media around the world has sought him out for countless interviews as the most promi- nent intellectual opposed to the American response to the terrorist attacks. Newspaper articles routinely open by reminding readers of his awesome intellectual status. A profile headlined “Conscience of a Nation” in the English daily The Guardian declared: “Chomsky ranks with Marx, Shakespeare, and the Bible as one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanities—and is the only writer among them still alive.” The New York Times has called him “arguably the most important intellectual alive.”

    Chomsky has used his status, originally gained in the field of linguistics, to turn himself into the leading voice of the American left. He is not merely a spokesman. His own stance has done much to structure left-wing politics over the past forty years. Today, when actors, rock stars, and protesting students mouth anti-American slogans for the cameras, they are very often expressing sentiments they have gleaned from Chomsky’s voluminous output.

    Hence, to examine Chomsky’s views is to analyze the core mindset of contemporary radicalism, especially the variety that now holds so much sway in the academic and arts communities.

    Chomsky has been a celebrity radical since the mid-1960s when he made his name as an anti-Vietnam War activist. Although he lost some of his appeal in the late-1970s and 1980s by his defense of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, he has used September 11 to restore his reputation, indeed to surpass his former influence and stature. At seventy-four years of age, he is today the doyen of the American and much of the world’s intellectual left.

    There's much more:
    http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm

  2. #2

    Re: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    if i remember correctly this keith windshuttle is an Australian

    and get this he denies that genocide of the indeginous Australians ever happend this is from memory but i dont think i am far off

    would you like to comment Xanax

  3. #3

    Re: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    Quote Originally Posted by charles
    would you like to comment Xanax
    Yes. I find especially delightful Chomsky's defense of the Pol Pot regime.

  4. #4

    Angry Re: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    Quote Originally Posted by XanaX
    Yes. I find especially delightful Chomsky's defense of the Pol Pot regime.
    Xanax you are going to have to do a lot better than this!!!

    first off you will have to establish Keith Windshuttles credibility

    and second it would be a good idea to find the exact context of Chomskys comments that you find offensive if you wish to maintain any credibility

  5. #5

    Talking Re: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    Quote Originally Posted by charles
    Xanax you are going to have to do a lot better than this!!!

    first off you will have to establish Keith Windshuttles credibility

    and second it would be a good idea to find the exact context of Chomskys comments that you find offensive if you wish to maintain any credibility
    No, actually, I don't. You requested a comment. I provided one.

    Since this is an OPINION piece, the author's credibility needs to be established as much as linguistics professor Chomsky's needs to be established when discussing anything outside the realm of linguistics. Then again, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea after all.

    If you'd like to take it upon yourself to "find the exact context of Chomskys (sic) comments," knock yourself out. I'm satisfied with the quotes provided in the article. If you're not, please feel free to refute them.

    You appear to believe that "context" can explain away all the ills of the world. Please, I'm dying to hear you explain that, given the proper context, ethnic-cleansing is not such a bad idea after all. Unfortunately, I'm absolutely sure you believe this to be true.

    So...when's your flight back to Malta?

  6. #6

    Re: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    Quote Originally Posted by XanaX
    No, actually, I don't. You requested a comment. I provided one.

    Since this is an OPINION piece, the author's credibility needs to be established as much as linguistics professor Chomsky's needs to be established when discussing anything outside the realm of linguistics. Then again, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea after all.

    If you'd like to take it upon yourself to "find the exact context of Chomskys (sic) comments," knock yourself out. I'm satisfied with the quotes provided in the article. If you're not, please feel free to refute them.

    You appear to believe that "context" can explain away all the ills of the world. Please, I'm dying to hear you explain that, given the proper context, ethnic-cleansing is not such a bad idea after all. Unfortunately, I'm absolutely sure you believe this to be true.

    So...when's your flight back to Malta?
    the difference is this Xanax, YOUR THE ONE MAKING THE ACCUSATIONS it is up to you to provide full proof, if not your intentions are clear, and you lack all credibility, its easy to rationalize anthing, while i am not a spokemen for Noam Chomsky i take a great deal of interest in him and respect him very much so the rejection of my offer of proof can only be read as proof of your motives

  7. #7

    Talking Re: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    Quote Originally Posted by charles
    the difference is this Xanax, YOUR THE ONE MAKING THE ACCUSATIONS it is up to you to provide full proof, if not your intentions are clear, and you lack all credibility, its easy to rationalize anthing, while i am not a spokemen for Noam Chomsky i take a great deal of interest in him and respect him very much so the rejection of my offer of proof can only be read as proof of your motives
    No, I made no accusations, I posted a link to an article. (OK, maybe one accusation...how about that ethnic-cleansing, eh? You know I'm right...)

    You don't like it, bring something else to the table.

    If you feel the article lacks proper context, then, by all means, provide what you feel is a proper context. I welcome any clarification or rebuttal you might have to offer.

    Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, you never deliver the goods. Instead, you always seem to descend into some sort of desperate, hysterical rage repeatedly demanding "proof" and attacking "credibility." And, in the past, when I have provided "proof" of one thing or another, you either dismissed it out of hand or ignored it entirely. So sorry to disrupt your tidy little world view, but it's a textbook case of "shooting the messenger."

  8. #8

    Re: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    It's prudent here to point out rules of logic and fallacies of logic. In discussions of fact, such as the Pol Pot issue, it is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well" to attempt to discredit the messenger. This fallacy goes something like, "X is not true because the person saying X is not credible." Logical arguments of fact should revolve around the facts themselves, not the the person delivering them. A fact is either true or false, and in this case, discrediting the messenger does nothing to address the veracity of the facts in question. Now if there is no other way to verify the fact and it is a case of someone's word against another's, then credibility becomes an issue. But in this type of case, you must give account of the fact itself, not the person citing it. To give the issue of the messenger's credibility primacy over the facts themselves is an inversion of the logical process.

  9. #9

    Re: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    It's prudent here to point out rules of logic and fallacies of logic. In discussions of fact, such as the Pol Pot issue, it is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well" to attempt to discredit the messenger. This fallacy goes something like, "X is not true because the person saying X is not credible." Logical arguments of fact should revolve around the facts themselves, not the the person delivering them. A fact is either true or false, and in this case, discrediting the messenger does nothing to address the veracity of the facts in question. Now if there is no other way to verify the fact and it is a case of someone's word against another's, then credibility becomes an issue. But in this type of case, you must give account of the fact itself, not the person citing it. To give the issue of the messenger's credibility primacy over the facts themselves is an inversion of the logical process.
    brady , Xanax delivered the message knowing full well what the intent of the message implies, now if i am to take the message seriously i have to know the full context of the message, without the context it is meaningless, and if you want to play with words go ahead, but even if i accept your loaded reasoning the messenger must be lacking in intelligence if he has not weighed up the implications of his message

  10. #10

    Re: The Truth About Noam Chomsky

    XanaX, don't you find it amusing that some people are so fiercely determined to ignore the hard facts that stare them in the face? It's remarkable the mental gymnastics they're willing to do to avoid admitting that which they loathe to admit.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •