The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Butterfly

^ you seem very confused, mixing petty politics, social issues, foreign policies and economic system into one big jar,

Accidental Ajarn

" so you disagree with his conclusions because they don't match yours ? "

All available objective evidence shows that free-markets and democracies outperform others, Chomsky claims otherwise. What evidence does Chomsky give that other countries are "better" in an measurable way than free-market democracies?

Easy answer, he gives none.

I disagree with Chomsky becasue what he says is not based on evidence and usually is in support of policies that are know to result in violance and early death of much of the population through poverty.

Poverty reduction has never happened anywhere at anytime by following any path Chomsky has advocated.

However, there have been huge recent improvements in the lives of individuals in many poor regions as they move from Chomsky approved policies to those of free-markets.

I actually want to see a better world, not just enrich myself by feeding into the hatred and disillusions of others.

AntRobertson

Then, with all due respect, I think that the issue here is with the auidence, not the message or the messenger. Chomsky does not 'hate' the US, far from it. He's on record as saying that it's his inherent love of the US that drives his criticims. He wants it to be the best that it can be.

Although it is by no means limited to the US it is seemingly more apparent than in other nations for criticims to be thrown back as 'hate'; 'un-patriotic'; or even 'un-American'. It's all very odd.

__________________
... allegedly

Butterfly

^^ AA, you haven't read Chomsky obviously, or worse, you read him but you didn't understand the words on anything he said

you are hyperbolizing, there is nothing of substance in your arguments, just lame cliche from the 80s that have been proved wrong many times over,

btw, this is the 21st century in case you missed it

Accidental Ajarn

“Then, with all due respect, I think that the issue here is with the audience, not the message or the messenger.”

Yeah, I think so. Seems to me, many of the leaders of the radical left are from the just before my generation and grew up in the 60s and 70s and developed some radical/socialist political ideas in their youth. Many of these people have had a hard time letting go of these ideals as they have aged. The positive aspects of their youthful idealism have been proven unworkable and all this is left is the hatred of the “establishment.” Chomsky caters to this audience, what is Chomsky against? That is fairly easy to identify, but try to find out exactly what he is for is more difficult.

Chomsky is for lightweights who want their hatreds reaffirmed and not questioned. He is glad to profit from this market.

AntRobertson

Excellent. So, after all of this, we've come full circle. Back to you calling others dumb for holding a different opinion to you and reasserting unsubstantiated claims as though repeating them enough times makes them fact.

You could've just made that clear and hung your hat on it from the outset without all the surrounding chaff. Thanks for nothing and wasting my time.

Oh and by the way, I don't fit your nice little square-box of a view of the "radical left"; I wasn't even born on the 60's. Thanks for trying to pigeon-hole me regardless, sorry I don't fit your nicely pre-packaged black 'n white view.

Accidental Ajarn

Ar

Ok, then explain to me why you find Chomsky's methodology convincing?

AntRobertson

AA,

What's the point? Honestly? I'd just be repeating myself at any rate and we're already going in circles.

You have, whether intentionally or not, created such a strict and inflexible set of criteria to qualify as "intelligent" that not only would one have to agree with everything you say to qualify, they'd actually have to be you. Obviously I fail on both counts so it strikes me as utterly pointless. Congrats then. You are, by your own definition, the smartest man you know.




"Be willing to recognize strength in arguments whose conclusions you reject and weakness in arguments whose conclusions you accept".

Boon Mee

And we'd never see that better world following Chomsky's failed, delusional theories. Chomsky exists in that rarefied, cloistered world of so-called, 'academics' who's knowledge base doesn't extend outside those ivy-covered walls...

garye

Rarefied,cloistered world of academics vs. in the trenches ,us or them, so called "reality" conservatives
Somewhere there must be a compromise,especially considering the state of the world at present.
Sounds simplistic yet is seems that talking things out beats blowing each other up!
Especially for those getting blown up.
Nothing Ivy League about that sentiment,just seems that the more entrenched people get with their ideas,ideals,beliefs,etc.the less receptive they become to other ideas etc.

cujo

AA at least comes up with material to support his position, (why he opposes Chomsky)
Ant, you're not coming up with anything, just casting aspersions at AA.
So

If you CAN'T explain why you find it convincing, then just shut up.

AntRobertson

Cujo,

AA is merely posting screeds of material that he has Googled. By his own admission it is "hardly reliable or valid", much of it is irrelevant and repetative...

And I'm supposed to refute, point-by-point, all of it? As I said to him for each anti-Chomsky reference he cut 'n pastes I can counter with a pro-Chomsky cut 'n paste. What's the point of that other than clooging the thread with copious amounts of cut 'n pastes.

I reject your claim that I'm casting aspersions at AA, I've done nothing of the sort. I think you'll find it is he calling me 'stupid' because I don't agree with his opinions. Not the other way around.

[Edit]

Seems you have a horse in this race, it was hardly worth a red was it. You're guilty of the same thing you've accused me of. In the absence of your own reasoning and rationale perhaps you should take you own advice and "shut up".

cujo

I was enjoying this debate but find your refusal to substantiate your opinion, explain what you base your opinion on, why you support chomskies theories, annoying, even though I don't have a horse in this race.so it was worth the red.
Which is more than you're doing. By posting what he posts he at least gives an indication as to why his position is what it is.
Do you, Ant, even have a position? If so, what is it and on what do you base it?

AntRobertson

Debate? Where was that amongst the screeds of cut 'n pastes and AA repeating himself and calling others stupid? That was my point.

Have you even read the thread cujo? My position's pretty clear. Do you have a position or are you just interested in attacking me? C'mon, out with it then. Bit rich to accuse someone of not substantiating their position when you've added precisely zero to the debate yourself.

cujo

Precisely, as I said, I don't have a horse in this race.
So are you going to explain yourself, or would it be beneath you and a waste of your time?

AntRobertson

Quote:

Originally Posted by cujo Precisely, as I said, I don't have a horse in this race.

That's patently untrue. You were interested enough to interject yourself. And you seem to have an axe to grind and bare me some animosity.

Quote:

So are you going to explain yourself, or would it be beneath you and a waste of your time?

I have explained myself in the context of what debate did take place, I see no further reason to repeat myself because you found that inadequate. And certainly not after your needlessly antagonistic and sarcastic comments.

I also asked AA several direct questions. These were either missed or outright ignored and in response he continued to cut ‘n paste. I let his continued name-calling and post-shifting pass and tried my best to be reasonable and polite in return.

And now I’ve got you on my back, attacking me, and adding not a single thing to the debate also. Nice one. Either add something constructive yourself or take your own advice because if you expect me to defend myself from your snide comments then sorry, I can't be arsed.

cujo

Absolutely not, don't be so sensitive, I read the thread and although I understood why AA was taking his position, I couldn't see why you were taking yours.
For example "I agree with Chomskies theory that (yadayadayada) because........." I never saw anything like that from you, only digs at AA.Even his cut and paste jobs conveyed his point.
No animosity, just curious as to WHY you support Chomsky.
"I just do" isn't an answer.

good2bhappy

it's called an ad hominem aproach

AntRobertson

I'm not being sensitive. You may want to think on re-wording your approach however; telling people to shut up and sarcastic remarks is never going to get you far.

For the last time, I have already explained my reasoning in the context of the debate