The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

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.

__________________
The Revolution will be televised... Eleven o'clock... Channel 10.

Accidental Ajarn

Butterfly

I have read enough of Chomsky to tell you what the conculsion of any of his writing will be

America and everything it stands for is bad. Capitalism-Bad, free-markets, every foreign ploicy decision made by the US government-bad.

That is always his conclusion, the only matter of interest in his writing is to see how he will attempt to "prove" this conclusion in a new context.

Butterfly

so you disagree with his conclusions because they don't match yours ? so why is it his fault ? why not yours for failing to question your own bias and opinions ?

Accidental Ajarn

“Do you find Chomsky objectionable because of his methodology or because his conclusions happen to be contrary to your political views?”

My political views on the economy are based on the best available scientific evidence we have. Free-market economies with openness to international trade outperform centrally controlled economies that are protectionist.

Furthermore, all available evidence I have seen (and common sense) shows the democracies have better economic performance and lower levels of violence than do countries that are undemocratic (Yes I know there are exceptions, which is what Chomsky would point out to make his case instead of looking at all the evidence).

Therefore I support the promotion of free market democracies.

Other political issues there are no objective right or wrongs to. I oppose abortions, therefore you can claim I am on the right. I have no objections to gay marriage, therefore you can claim on the left. I support gun rights, therefore I am on the right while I oppose the death penalty (although if anyone can come up with reliable evidence that the death penalty actually deters crime I will reconsider) and I have no problem with legalized drug usage therefore I can be on the left if you like.

I, like Chomsky, initially opposed the war in Iraq, however unlike Chomsky I can see and understand both sides of the issue and I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is evil nor do I think the majority of people in my country, are bad. We are a democracy and I like some of our decisions and dislike others, but I do not doubt the good intentions of 95% of all Americans regardless of political party.

Chomsky and his ilk spread hatred yet give nothing constructive in return.

But, hatred seems to sell really well these days. Chomsky knows how to satisfy his market and profit from it. Say that for the guy, he is a great salesman.

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.

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...

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.

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".

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.

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 that took place. That this was lost or missed in the subsequent chaff of cut 'n pastes and AA calling me stupid is not my problem. If you can discern some rational and logical points from AA's posts then you're a better man than I; because I saw little amongst all that.

It wasn't me that shifted the posts so I fail to see how it's onerous on me now to go back and reinstate them to the original position.