US Savage Imperialism

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.​

Yeah, we know,,,,,,,,,,,,, Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh (Recycle >>>>>>) - Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh......................:lol:
None of whom I listen to. Meanwhile, you fail to notice that those you named are experts in the field of political commentary.

Chomsky's a linguist.
 
Do you care if it's true the US killed one out of every three Koreans living north of the 38th parallel during the Korean War?

Three MILLION lives lost.

Death during War....:eek:....damn unfair.
:doubt:


Were the 3 Million Koreans trying to surrender?
Possibly the children?

US bombs first pulverized every North Korean city, town and village into rubble, then the planes came back and turned the rubble into pebbles.

Do you thing the profit margin on each bomb explains why this occurred?
 
1. He has figured out how to make an exceptional fortune while living as a self-described ‘anarchist-socialist’ dissident in a capitalist society he has described as a ‘police state.’

a. He claims to be constantly threatened with censorship, while publishing dozens of books.

b. He denounces the Pentagon as the epitome of evil, while making million from his work for the very same institution. As a tenured MIT professor he actually works for the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT, and same is entirely funded by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations.

c. His first book, “Syntactic Structures,” was written with grants from the US Army (Signal Corp), the Air Force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and Office of Naval Research.

2. A Professor of Linguistics, Chomsky is vital to the air force and others to improve their “increasingly large investment in so-called ‘command and control’ computer systems” that were being used in Vietnam. Since the computer cannot ‘understand’ English, the commanders’ communications must be translated into a language that the computer can use. Noam Chomsky: Politics or Science?
In other words, he's a chickenred.
Noam's proven his courage from Jim Crow jails to El Salvador.

During the 60s those like Chomsky who protested against racial segregation in this country were often told to "Love it or leave it."

Were the bigots right?

They too were "proud conservatives."
Yeah? Where does Chomsky live?
 
What were his contributions? I've never seen any other than his hatred of America.

1. He has figured out how to make an exceptional fortune while living as a self-described ‘anarchist-socialist’ dissident in a capitalist society he has described as a ‘police state.’

a. He claims to be constantly threatened with censorship, while publishing dozens of books.

b. He denounces the Pentagon as the epitome of evil, while making million from his work for the very same institution. As a tenured MIT professor he actually works for the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT, and same is entirely funded by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations.

c. His first book, “Syntactic Structures,” was written with grants from the US Army (Signal Corp), the Air Force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and Office of Naval Research.

2. A Professor of Linguistics, Chomsky is vital to the air force and others to improve their “increasingly large investment in so-called ‘command and control’ computer systems” that were being used in Vietnam. Since the computer cannot ‘understand’ English, the commanders’ communications must be translated into a language that the computer can use.
Noam Chomsky: Politics or Science?
George, how long are you going to ignore this? Chomsky is a war profiteer.
 
Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.​

Yeah, we know,,,,,,,,,,,,, Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh (Recycle >>>>>>) - Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh......................:lol:
None of whom I listen to. Meanwhile, you fail to notice that those you named are experts in the field of political commentary.

Chomsky's a linguist.
Define "expert".

How many are quoted as often as Plato?

Marx?
 
Yeah, we know,,,,,,,,,,,,, Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh (Recycle >>>>>>) - Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh......................:lol:
None of whom I listen to. Meanwhile, you fail to notice that those you named are experts in the field of political commentary.

Chomsky's a linguist.
Define "expert".

How many are quoted as often as Plato?

Marx?

Satan has been quoted more than almost anyone else. Let's all become Satanists.
 
Do you care if it's true the US killed one out of every three Koreans living north of the 38th parallel during the Korean War?

Three MILLION lives lost.

Death during War....:eek:....damn unfair.
:doubt:


Were the 3 Million Koreans trying to surrender?
Possibly the children?

US bombs first pulverized every North Korean city, town and village into rubble, then the planes came back and turned the rubble into pebbles.

Do you thing the profit margin on each bomb explains why this occurred?

No. I think the North Koreans attacking South Korea..our Allies..was why it occurred.


You don't want death..don't start the fight.
 
Most of the middle east wants Iran dealt with.
The most recent poll I've seen distinguishes between what Middle Eastern elites view as their prime threat and what a majority of the total population of the Middle East perceive as threatening.

By a wide margin Israel and the US are seen by most Arabs as far greater threats than Iran is.

I don't expect you to take my word.
I'll try to find a link.
That's because most Arabs are lied to by their governments, who hope to blame someone other than themselves for their nations being stuck a few centuries behind the rest of us.
All governments lie; however, most Arabs have Al Jazeera to SHOW them the threats that Israel and the US present to poor and middle class Arabs from Iraq to Area C.

It's possible US opinion would change if we saw the same side of empire the Arabs see every night.
 
Death during War....:eek:....damn unfair.
:doubt:


Were the 3 Million Koreans trying to surrender?
Possibly the children?

US bombs first pulverized every North Korean city, town and village into rubble, then the planes came back and turned the rubble into pebbles.

Do you thing the profit margin on each bomb explains why this occurred?

No. I think the North Koreans attacking South Korea..our Allies..was why it occurred.


You don't want death..don't start the fight.
What makes you think "North" Korea started that fight?
 
Possibly the children?

US bombs first pulverized every North Korean city, town and village into rubble, then the planes came back and turned the rubble into pebbles.

Do you thing the profit margin on each bomb explains why this occurred?

No. I think the North Koreans attacking South Korea..our Allies..was why it occurred.


You don't want death..don't start the fight.
What makes you think "North" Korea started that fight?

History?

The situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.[30] It was the first significant armed conflict of the Cold War.[31]
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
From Wiki:

"Avram Noam Chomsky (pronounced /ˈnoʊm/ or /ˌnoʊ.əm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[2][3] cognitive scientist, and political activist. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[4]

"Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics,[5][6][7] and a major figure of analytic philosophy.[2] Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident and an anarchist,[8] referring to himself as a libertarian socialist.

"Chomsky is the author of more than 150 books and has received worldwide attention for his views, despite being typically absent from the mainstream media."

Chomsky hates moral hypocrites and there's no shortage of those among US elites.

Oh, WELL, if the great and mighty Wiki says it, it MUST be true . . . oh, wait, never mind.

Of course a lot of people quote Chomsky. I don't think anyone's ever denied that there are a lot of stupid fuckers in the world at any given time. Case in point, yourself. That doesn't make him 1) worthwhile, 2) worthy of respect, or 3) correct. I mean, hello? Anyone notice MARX on that list? Being quoted doesn't necessarily mean your quotes were right.

For someone who allegedly "hates" something there's no shortage of among elites, he certainly is viewed as an icon of the elites. Of course, you probably mean someone other than the REAL elites in this country.

Nevertheless, one of Chomsky's greatest legacies to all of us - and thank you SO much, you pontificating buffoon - is the inability of anyone in politics anymore to simply conduct a rational, logical debate about the issues and their merits. Thanks to Chomsky, every issue is now viewed as an epic moral struggle between good and evil and the other side is cast as so diabolical as to be unworthy of even debating. And I quote: "By accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one's humanity." So much for civil discourse in politics.

And let us not forget his wonderful bequest of derailing debates by moral equivalency and topic-hopping. Chomsky was a big supporter of the Chinese Communistsl. When he finally had to admit that the ChiComs really did kill millions of their fellow countrymen, he blew off their man-made famines by comparing them to deaths in India that he blamed on that country's program of capitalism. He actually went on to claim that the "crimes of democratic capitalism may be monstrously worse" than the crimes of Communism. So don't anyone accuse him of lacking perspective and proportion.

This man, so admired by leftist pinheads, has gushed over genocidal murderers like the Khmer Rouge, predicted the US creating a holocaust in Afghanistan, and has posited numerous times the idea of a US-Nazi alliance after WWII. (See What Uncle Sam Really Wants.) In 1977, he suggested that history was being rewritten to create the impression of "the sad results of Communist success and American failure. Well suited for these aims are tales of Communist atrocities, which not only prove the evils of communism by undermine the credibility of those who opposed the [Vietnam] war and might interfere with future crusades for freedom. It is in this context that we must view the recent spate of newspaper reports, editorials, and books on Cambodia, a part of the world not ordinarily of great concern to the press."

The piece went on to try to justify the Khmer Rouge. A decade later, he tried to claim he had always recognized the hideous nature of the Khmer Rouge. He wrote, "Outside the marginal Maoist circles, there was virtually no doubt from early on that the Khmer Rouge regime under the emerging leader Pol Pot was responsible for gruesome atrocities." THAT is how he "hates hypocrisy". Anyone as regularly moronic as Chomsky should learn to never, EVER put anything on paper.

More recently, Chomsky has claimed that the 9/11 attacks were nothing compared with President Clinton's 1998 bombing of Sudan, which - according to Chomsky - resulted in probably "tens of thousands of immediate Sudanese victims." Of course. as everyone but him knows, Clinton's bombing resulted in just a handful of casualties. Even the sources he tried to cite for this claim disavowed him, like Human Rights Watch.

Most ironic, though, is this writing from Chomsky in 1966: "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies. This, at least, may seem enough of a truism to pass without comment." Given how spectacularly wrong and dishonest Chomsky has been throughout his highly-touted and overrated career in the public eye, one must at least comment that it would be nice if Noam Chomsky practiced what he preaches.
 
Yeah, we know,,,,,,,,,,,,, Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh (Recycle >>>>>>) - Beck - O'Rielly - Ingraham - Hannity - Coulter - Palin - Dobbs _ Limbaugh......................:lol:
None of whom I listen to. Meanwhile, you fail to notice that those you named are experts in the field of political commentary.

Chomsky's a linguist.
Define "expert".
What Chomsky is as a linguist. Antonym: What Chomsky is discussing geopolitics.
How many are quoted as often as Plato?

Marx?
A thousand years ago, everybody believed the world was flat. Did that make it so?
 
Coincidently, the overwhelming percentage of those living there would like to obliterate Israel and the Sixth Fleet.

Life is so unfair.
Check your scorecard.

Currently the Sixth Fleet and Israel have obliterated thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of lives in the Middle East in order to validate Adolf Berle's (one of FDR's advisers) axioms "...that control of Middle East oil would yield substantial control of the world..."

US Savage...

Are you saying that the overwhelming percentage of those living in the mid-East are ready to accept the national sovereignty of Israel, and its right to exist?
Since January 1, 1976:

"The fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict grinds on without resolution might appear to be rather strange. For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.

"In this case, it is not only possible, but there is near universal agreement on its basic contours: a two-state settlement along the internationally recognized (pre-June 1967) borders -- with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to adopt official U.S. terminology before Washington departed from the international community in the mid-1970s.

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states.

"Israel refused to attend the session.

"The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980.

"The record at the General Assembly since is similar."

A Middle East Peace
 
The most recent poll I've seen distinguishes between what Middle Eastern elites view as their prime threat and what a majority of the total population of the Middle East perceive as threatening.

By a wide margin Israel and the US are seen by most Arabs as far greater threats than Iran is.

I don't expect you to take my word.
I'll try to find a link.
That's because most Arabs are lied to by their governments, who hope to blame someone other than themselves for their nations being stuck a few centuries behind the rest of us.
All governments lie; however, most Arabs have Al Jazeera to SHOW them the threats that Israel and the US present to poor and middle class Arabs from Iraq to Area C.

It's possible US opinion would change if we saw the same side of empire the Arabs see every night.
Al Jazeera lies to them too, you idiot.
 
What were his contributions? I've never seen any other than his hatred of America.

1. He has figured out how to make an exceptional fortune while living as a self-described ‘anarchist-socialist’ dissident in a capitalist society he has described as a ‘police state.’

a. He claims to be constantly threatened with censorship, while publishing dozens of books.

b. He denounces the Pentagon as the epitome of evil, while making million from his work for the very same institution. As a tenured MIT professor he actually works for the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT, and same is entirely funded by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations.

c. His first book, “Syntactic Structures,” was written with grants from the US Army (Signal Corp), the Air Force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and Office of Naval Research.

2. A Professor of Linguistics, Chomsky is vital to the air force and others to improve their “increasingly large investment in so-called ‘command and control’ computer systems” that were being used in Vietnam. Since the computer cannot ‘understand’ English, the commanders’ communications must be translated into a language that the computer can use. Noam Chomsky: Politics or Science?

Gosh. Good thing he "hates hypocrites". :eusa_whistle:
 
chomsky's an idiot.

Idiot savant.

Just because you know everything about something does not mean you know a whole lot about anything else.

But Chomsky's big insight (That human grammar seems instinctive, but specific grammars are cultural) seems pretty obvios.

And quite a lot of folks who are very bright, also find themselves going down rabbit holes or through the looking glass when they forget their humanity.

Chomsky, like Kozinsky, is what happens when you combine brilliance with psychosis.

Chomsky may or may not be a brilliant linguist. One assumes, since the government sees fit to give him grant funding. He is also, unfortunately, what Daniel Flynn calls an "intellectual moron", cognitive elites who are led by their ideological obsessions to embrace seriously stupid ideas.

He should have stuck to his own field, and not allowed himself to believe that brilliance in one thing means you're brilliant in everything.
 
Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.​
True or False?

"It (the US) was a very racist country all the way through its history, not just anti-black. That was Jefferson's image and the others more or less agreed with it. So it's a settler colonialist society.

"Settler colonialism is far and away the worst kind of imperialism, the most savage kind because it requires eliminating the indigenous population.

"That's not unrelated, I think, to the kind of reflexive U.S. support for Israel—which is also a settler colonial society. Its policies resonate with a sense of American history.

"It's kind of reliving it. It goes beyond that because the early settlers in the U.S. were religious fundamentalists who regarded themselves as the children of Israel, following the divine commandment to settle the promised land and slaughter the Amalekites and so on and so forth. That's right around here, the early settlers in Massachusetts."

Chomsky has published numerous volumns on US foreign policy.

He's far more qualified to his political opinions than you are to judge his political opinions.

Not that that's likely to stop you.

US Savage

If he's so "qualified" for them, how come they're always so egregiously, demonstrably WRONG? Given his track record, if he said, "I am Noam Chomsky", I'd demand documentation, just to be sure.
 
If Chomsky is not talking about applied linguistics, he is just one more bum at the end of the bar.

Except for the fact that he is perhaps the most respected of all American political science scholars.

EVERYBODY who understands Chomsky takes him seriously. So seriously that there are several folks who have made an entire career out of minimizing the impacts of Chomsky's message.

I understand Hitler was very respected in his time, as well. In fact, I understand that a lot of people STILL respect him. Doesn't make him someone I care to admire or quote, but hey, don't let ME stop you.

I'll give you that everybody who understands Chomsky takes him seriously. It's only those who THINK they understand him who take him seriously AND ADMIRE HIM. And you're damned right they try to minimize his impact, much the same way an oncologist tries to minimize the impact of a malignant tumor.
 

Forum List

Back
Top