Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You want to actually return to the issue of the thread? Then do so. Don't just talk about it and then don't do it yourself. Maybe you could address the Chomsky video, don't just hearken back to some gay hey day with vague assertions and little more
When Chomskey aligned himself with Pol Pot and supported what that animal was doing in Cambodia he removed himself from any rational discussion. Chomskey is a progressive asshole and I value his opinion as much as I do a gnats fart.
I'm sorry you feel that way bri, many don't agree with you. I wish there was a PhD program for you and that you were given the chance to study academic rigor instead of the tripe the comes from the tube and press.
Yes, there are many numskulls who believe Chomsky is a genius. As for academic rigor, Chomsky is a linguist. His political pronunciations are pure opinion, and they are supremely idiotic. Chomsky defended Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky spews out more pure stupidity than any leftist in academia. You have to be supremely gullible to swallow his horseshit.
You are speaking pure falsehood. If you care to be corrected, go here and listen for 5 minutes. Do you have that much time or are you too afraid that your claim is a total fraud?."
Chomsky never supported Pol Pot. The book you are referring to was written in 1979 he referred to the Khmer Rouge as a comparison with how this massacre was denounced in the media but Timor, which was totally ignored in the media despite the fact it was an equivalent massacre. Why? Chomsky drew the correct conclusion, if you care to look at history, that Timor was a brutal massacre while the US supported what was going on in Timor.
Stop your fraudulent claims you "numbskull."
Chomsky lies:
Chomsky's articles are full of learned sounding citations, in which he cites all sorts of impeccably respectable sources for all sorts of astonishing facts. Highly improbable facts. How does he do it? Easy. He makes it up.
In Distortions at Fourth Hand [1] , Chomsky and Herman assure us that anything wrong in Cambodia was the fault of the USA, that there was decisive evidence proving the innocence of the Khmer Rouge, evidence which, alas, “space limitations preclude” them from presenting.
I checked every citation in the entire article. Not one of them was wholly truthful. At best they were slippery equivocations, with the obvious meaning being a lie, and an alternate, hidden meaning, true but irrelevant, to provide an escape hatch should the lie be discovered.
Every citation was a lie in the sense that the material cited failed to support the conclusions that Chomsky leads the reader to believe it proves. In some cases the material cited supported similar but far weaker conclusions, in most cases the opposite – the material cited is evidence for the opposite of what Chomsky leads the reader to believe it shows, for example Schanberg on not seeing bodies
You can read a detailed analysis of his lies here:
Chomsky lies: denial of the Khmer Rouge holocaust in Cambodia.
Do you think the man is stupid? Can you point out any errors he made in that video? Can you find us a review of the man's work in any field that indicates he's sub par? Do you actually think you've got the brains to polish the man's shoes?
You should be able to discriminate between political OPINIONS and facts. Between Liberal arts philosophy and science. The fact that you can't --- means that whatever education you had is a complete failure. And all you got left is ad hominems and worship of credentials.
Asking those questions is like comparing Joe Biden to Dan Quayle. YET -- BOTH those folks were in similiar positions of power affecting everyone's lives. Dr. Chom is a Progressive Warrior. He sells the same anti-capitalist, populist BS over and over again. And he's MOSTLY wrong. That's the important bit.. The only thing I'd ever agree with him on is that American Foreign Policy has SUCKED the big one no matter which party has been in charge.
Buzz off and grow up...
I have to jump in here and say Chom does not proffer opinion often, he almost exclusively sticks to rational logic, based on cited sources, verbatim. In other words, facts. Facts are the not by any means opinions, though what you think is opinion is fact and vice versa.
So it's understandable you'd spin that to mean he is spouting BS and opinion. You are correct, it is BS but only insofar as we believe your assertions. But why take your assertions seriously when most people don't (at least outside of America)? In fact, your views are not just opinion at their surface, but factually they are verifiable BS. Most of it is de facto false, unlike much of Chomsky.
What you think represents a defense of your views is commonly irrelevant and is glittered up to impress or one-up. So no wonder, you think this constitutes a defense of an argument when it's really just using language games to compete. Sure, after decades of training your brain to be rationally deficient, then you can get good at lying to yourself that Chomsky is speaking opinion when he mostly quotes, sources, and does it some more.
Whatever went on in Timor is irrelevant.
Chomsky is a piece of shit.
You want to actually return to the issue of the thread? Then do so. Don't just talk about it and then don't do it yourself. Maybe you could address the Chomsky video, don't just hearken back to some gay hey day with vague assertions and little more
When Chomskey aligned himself with Pol Pot and supported what that animal was doing in Cambodia he removed himself from any rational discussion. Chomskey is a progressive asshole and I value his opinion as much as I do a gnats fart.
My goodness. We just had this discussion the last page. If you care at all to remove the cotton from your ears westwall, and begin to think what you say might be made up, then watch the video on this link. http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...rsity-study-on-agw-deniers-9.html#post8741163.
BTW, classic westwall nonsense. You spend about 5% of your posts conveying information, the rest I value as much as a gnat farting.
Once something like this is admitted too we can move on our journey of understanding why it is occurring. Should of admitted it in 2008. Real skeptics can be good but deniers that won't even admit to the basic science are two very different things.
Whatever went on in Timor is irrelevant.
Chomsky is a piece of shit.
Right....people being massacred is irrelevant. You are so lucky to be born in America and not Timor then.
These two unfounded assertions sum up your objection. Pathetic. Just shameless. You won't go actually read what Chomsky wrote, you prefer to take it from a secondary source that is intentionally misleading automatons like yourself.
BTW, classic westwall nonsense. You spend about 5% of your posts conveying information, the rest I value as much as a gnat farting.
BTW, classic westwall nonsense. You spend about 5% of your posts conveying information, the rest I value as much as a gnat farting.
BTW, classic westwall nonsense. You spend about 5% of your posts conveying information, the rest I value as much as a gnat farting.
Be warned, you've earned a spot on his enemies list now.
But, as Wil Wheaton said to Brent Spiner, concerning being on the enemies list of Dr. Sheldon Cooper, "Don't worry, it doesn't take up a whole lot of your time."
Now Bri doesn't have a specific enemies list. He just screams at everyone.
I wish I could say yes but alas, I am not referencing anything special.
AGWCult has to go through deprogramming. I'm against Big Government but I'd support an effort to deprogram the death-worshiping AGWCult. It's only a matter of time before they hurt themselves or some innocent people
This study was about antivaxxers, but the same principle applies to denialists.
When It Comes To Vaccines, Science Can Run Into A Brick Wall : NPR
---
VEDANTAM: Well, I think, David, what Nyhan seems to be finding is that when you're confronted by information that you don't like, at a certain level you accept that the information might be true, but it damages your sense of self-esteem. It damages something about your identity. And so what you do is you fight back against the new information. You try and martial other kinds of information that would counter the new information coming in. In the political realm, Nyhan is exploring the possibility that if you boost people's self-esteem before you give them this disconfirming information, it might help them take in the new information because they don't feel as threatened as they might have been otherwise.
---
That is how I deal with normal people in the real world on this issue. I go with a "you're obviously smart enough to see through this denialist nonsense" strategy. It works well with good people who have just been misled a little. It won't work on hardcore cultists, so I don't use it here.
This study was about antivaxxers, but the same principle applies to denialists.
When It Comes To Vaccines, Science Can Run Into A Brick Wall : NPR
---
VEDANTAM: Well, I think, David, what Nyhan seems to be finding is that when you're confronted by information that you don't like, at a certain level you accept that the information might be true, but it damages your sense of self-esteem. It damages something about your identity. And so what you do is you fight back against the new information. You try and martial other kinds of information that would counter the new information coming in. In the political realm, Nyhan is exploring the possibility that if you boost people's self-esteem before you give them this disconfirming information, it might help them take in the new information because they don't feel as threatened as they might have been otherwise.
---
That is how I deal with normal people in the real world on this issue. I go with a "you're obviously smart enough to see through this denialist nonsense" strategy. It works well with good people who have just been misled a little. It won't work on hardcore cultists, so I don't use it here.
It sounds like we've known something like this all along like treat your opponent with respect and even try to show concessions to make the discussion amicable. At least on occasion I use this method here but I agree, I don't think much of anything works on hardcore "cultists" short of lobotomy.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I interpret part of your post to be saying you go and proselytize folks like a Christian or Mormon but for the truth of scientific inquiry. What a crusader! lol
This study was about antivaxxers, but the same principle applies to denialists.
When It Comes To Vaccines, Science Can Run Into A Brick Wall : NPR
---
VEDANTAM: Well, I think, David, what Nyhan seems to be finding is that when you're confronted by information that you don't like, at a certain level you accept that the information might be true, but it damages your sense of self-esteem. It damages something about your identity. And so what you do is you fight back against the new information. You try and martial other kinds of information that would counter the new information coming in. In the political realm, Nyhan is exploring the possibility that if you boost people's self-esteem before you give them this disconfirming information, it might help them take in the new information because they don't feel as threatened as they might have been otherwise.
---
That is how I deal with normal people in the real world on this issue. I go with a "you're obviously smart enough to see through this denialist nonsense" strategy. It works well with good people who have just been misled a little. It won't work on hardcore cultists, so I don't use it here.
It sounds like we've known something like this all along like treat your opponent with respect and even try to show concessions to make the discussion amicable. At least on occasion I use this method here but I agree, I don't think much of anything works on hardcore "cultists" short of lobotomy.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I interpret part of your post to be saying you go and proselytize folks like a Christian or Mormon but for the truth of scientific inquiry. What a crusader! lol
The truth is that mamooth is a delusional AGW cult member, just like you. Con artists dispensing Kool-Aid don't deserve to be treated with respect. You deserve to be ridiculed.
Get used to it.
Talking about a major issue of science doesn't drop to that level of nuts!
It sounds like we've known something like this all along like treat your opponent with respect and even try to show concessions to make the discussion amicable. At least on occasion I use this method here but I agree, I don't think much of anything works on hardcore "cultists" short of lobotomy.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I interpret part of your post to be saying you go and proselytize folks like a Christian or Mormon but for the truth of scientific inquiry. What a crusader! lol
It sounds like we've known something like this all along like treat your opponent with respect and even try to show concessions to make the discussion amicable. At least on occasion I use this method here but I agree, I don't think much of anything works on hardcore "cultists" short of lobotomy.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I interpret part of your post to be saying you go and proselytize folks like a Christian or Mormon but for the truth of scientific inquiry. What a crusader! lol
The truth is that mamooth is a delusional AGW cult member, just like you. Con artists dispensing Kool-Aid don't deserve to be treated with respect. You deserve to be ridiculed.
Get used to it.
I feel the same about the people wanting us back in the 18th century. They're also kooks.
