The Top 100 Chomsky Lies....
posted by GayandRight @ 1:32 PM
GayandRight
My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)
Friday, April 14, 2006
GayandRight
My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Ahmadinejad continues his threats....
- Hey, this works for me!
- The latest zionist conspiracy....
- Israel Condemned by FIFA....
- Is this the sound of appeasement?
- Iraq's economy is booming...
- The New UN Human Rights Commission...
- Iraq did go shopping for uranium in Niger...
- Is this going to be a dangerous trend in education?
- Gay Pride and Families...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
8 Comments:
Gnome Chomsky is a psychiatric mess with a knack for words. The fact that there are so many people who willingly become irrational in order to endorse Chomsky's rants is truly sad. Is there any hope that these people will ever find happiness?
After a quick, initial read through, it sure seems like a pathetic work by the author, full of straw man arguments and the use of sources far less trustworthy than Chomsky's own sources. Sad. Nevertheless, I'll read it through as it's always fascinating when some tool claims to have proven Chomsky a liar. Hardly any of his critics, over decades, have been able to score more than the occasional debating point, but I'm sure this genius will be the first to debunk Chomsky's entire life's work in convincing fashion. I won't hold my breath though.
Anonymous, if you were an intellectually honest person you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who is more rational than Chomsky. In fact, if you yourself were at all rational you wouldn't have called his work "rants". As for the happiness issue, you might be on to something when you assume that Chomsky readers aren't as happy as, say, supporters of Dear Leader George Bush (mutually exclusive groups, one would think). After all, it's easy to be happy when you don't have a conscience.
Chomski, the mouthpiece of dead commies and live terrorist can go to hell! (if hell exists though)
FREE REPUBLIC
Gosh. Chomsky must be doing something right if he merits this type of opposition. The obvious manipulative and disingenuous comments on four or five of the '100 lies' give the game away. Very few people are going to try to follow the quotes and counter quotes all the way back to source, but the good news is you dont have to. Just find those four or five examples and you will realise that there's a good chance the whole of the rest of the 'lies' are in the same sorry category.
Am I the only one who finds it very strange that the author of "The Top 100 Chomsky Lies" manages to be so blatantly illogical in his counterarguments? Right at the beginning, in the very first two arguments, he attempts to rebut Chomsky's unmistakable COMPARISON arguments by merely providing evidence from ONE SIDE of the comparison! I couldn't believe it when I saw it. How moronic must you be to think that you can rebut the statement A>B by claiming "nuh uh, B is freakin huge." This incredibly simplistic logical fallacy is mindnumbingly weird, at least to me.
Maybe if we all were a bit more specific...
Simon, why are the author's sources "far less trustworthy than Chomsky's own sources"? In many cases he goes beyond what Chomsky said - like showing that "general James Bell" was not the one we thought or by showing whole quotes that contradict the meaning given by Chomsky to incomplete quotes.
G, Barnes, I did find a few of the "lies" weak. But others seem pretty consistent. So why is it that if 4 or 5 are unfair against Mr. Chomsky then let's better forget about it all? It seems like he is a "sacred cow" for the left due to his great work on linguistics, and therefore his POLITIC thought should be given credit automatically. I prefer to remain critical, as the author does.
Anonymous, "B is freaking huge" is actually "the paradise mentioned by Chomsky caused over 5 millions of deaths". I didn't feel a need to mention A's size after that, SPECIALLY since Chomsky says that B was practically a paradise. Unless you have numbers (serious numbers, I mean) which can make this look as a paradise. And that was right at the beginning, since apparently you didn't bother to read more.
Also (you don't need to publish this comment), wouldn't it be better if we could see the date AND time of the post? I don't know how far ago these were posted...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home