Chomsky has feet of clay.

See post #20: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...l#post23915676

People always make the mistake of thinking they can depend on people. But people are always proving they aren't absolutely right or absolutely reliable.

Psalm 118 vv. 8-9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...18&version=NIV

Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky Chomsky.

Yeah he's cited a lot on this site.

I just keep bumping into him in strange places when I'm not looking for him.

But then I might have a plebian suspicion of intellectuals in general. People usually use their intelligence to exploit people just as much as they do to help them.

Look at communism....China is suppose to be The People's Republic of China...The People's. Yet I just watched a documentary on the BBC news network the other day with the people complaining that the party had exploited them. It seems the party forced them to tear down their village to build condominiums. If you have a totalitarian party then all people can't think for themselves any more...they have to follow the party line or its "off with your head" or "you aren't a good party member."

This must make you dislike many forms of Christainty too since it often encourages people to follow the party line in an off with your eternal head kind of way if you aren't a good party member.

At first I was like:


But then I was like:

Yeah i should of gone with noam noam noam thing. Damn.

He probably thinks we all have a moral obligation, however what I was referring to was intellectuals in particular. He thinks academics have a crucial role to play in keeping the state under scrutiny since they have both the resources and time which most of us lack. In his view, the propaganda of the state will do a fine job of revealing "the enemy's" wrongdoing, however will do an equally good job of hiding those wrong acts performed by the state itself.

Hence his criticism is directed at the US and those in power there, rather than at the US's enemies.
There are plenty of people who say Chomsky supported pol pot in those two books, sure. Chomsky gave a response (above) and others (me included) who have read them affirm that he wasn't supporting pol pot, he was criticizing US foreign policy. You're still happy to assert "Chomsky wrote books defending pol pot?"

If someone accuses you of misunderstanding science, you explain your view, then they reassert it based on citing kurto and hooey - does it strike you as reasonable or fair? I don't think you should make definitive statements about "what Chomsky wrote" without reading his works. He's just too controversial and arouses too much passion to be able to form any meaningful view based on secondhand reports/analysis.

Quite honestly if Chomsky isn't guilty of rhetoric I'd be greatly surprised. There are too many reports and quotes of him making factual misstatements and it is unreasonable to think it is all partisanship on his critics' part.

It's hard to draw a true picture of him and his motives without studying everything he says in context. I can't make up my mind mind if he's an ego maniac, an attention whore, an over the top radical, a misinformed but well meaning do-gooder or a deep cover communist agent. He's a very confused individual with some strange associates. Of course, he could be all of them.

I also don't think you have to hate on your own country to criticize it. Did any founding fathers hate on the U.S. to convey their thoughts? They may have used strong language but hate? No. Patriots don't hate their country.

He could also be correct couldn't he? (Open mind and all that).

Irrespective - are you going to retract your statement of fact or are you happy to continue to assert his views over his own denials without reading the books you claimed contain the 'defence of Pol Pot'?

I doubt he's totally open minded. He's too partisan for that.

I don't think it necessary to retract a statement I have multiple secondary sources for as its common for people to use multiple secondary sources in lieu of the original. If I had access to Chomsky's book though I would read it...Wonder why it's out of print. I don't know why forum members on here are constantly applying an additional burden of proof to my posts that they themselves don't observe. If they come across something they are as likely to repeat it as I am.

One of the sources citing "the defense" is by Stephen Morris in his Harvard International Review article of 3-4 December, January 1981

http://radioislam.org/totus/CGCF/file10Morris.html

Quote from Morris' article:

"The work under review, The Political Economy of Human Rights, is the culminating effort of a five-year campaign by Chomsky to provide a defense for those Western intellectuals who consciously and deliberately helped put Pol Pot and Le Duan in power. Written in collaboration with Edward S. Herman, a professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania, Chomsky's two-volume extravaganza is not only an attempt to reconstruct the anti-Western ideology of the new left; but also is the most extensive rewriting of a period of contemporary history ever produced in a non-totalitarian society."

I was suggesting that you should be. I agree that he probably isn't.
I'm not applying any further burden of proof on you than anyone else, fwiw. I was making a general point that, in matters of controversy, the only definitive statements we should make are those we can verify directly. Your initial comment implied it was settled - I don't particularly care about that as an opening statement because, as you say, we all cite secondary sources all the time. There's no foul if one turns out to be disputed. In the face of such dispute though, I think it's wise for all of us to refrain from presenting opinion as if it is fact.

I've seen you say you were wrong before and I was curious whether your views on Chomsky are so firmly set that you wouldn't retract it or whether you'd accept that you don't know the facts without reading his book. (I don't see anything wrong with citing the anti-Chomsky crowd but all that establishes is that people say he was defending pol pot. The only way to settle such a question is by looking at the book itself and asking the author.

Fwiw, I think you should read his books. I doubt you'll agree with them, but it's beneficial to read widely IMO and he has a well researched and well argued case against those in power in the US. As a member of that democracy you have power (and I think a moral responsibility) to press for moral behavior from your government. This is true regardless of whether Chomsky overstates his case, distorts facts or downright lies.

My views of him could be subject to modification. As I said above I'm not really that against him.

I really just took note of him from the thread in which he was made out to be an atheist proto type of superiority. But if he's been caught on record lying he can't be as wonderful as his supporters think.

I do agree with him there is a lot of propaganda in the world. Each country is like its own unit. Oftentimes news in one country doesn't make it over to another country or is edited out and vice versa.

I might have a moral responsibility but then again I might not.

Most of my focus today is on spiritual development and I thing getting involved in causes could disrupt that.

I am very suspicious of politics in general and have a recent heightened awareness of how partisanship can turn sour.

Do you remember my early posts on Chomsky when I mentioned Horowitz? Horowitz is the perfect example. He was a liberal who turned conservative after a group he belonged to committed a felony (at least he alleges a felony...It was never proven). But it could have been the reverse in another situation. A person could go from conservative to liberal.

I find causes oftentimes start out with a seemingly good motive and they go bad or change over time.

Another good example is the actions of Nixon and Kissinger in the Vietnam War. They decided to bomb Cambodia without informing and getting the consent of Congress. They were in the middle of a cause and they got caught up in things. I'm sure they felt they were justified in doing it but at the outset of the Vietnam War did anyone think they'd later be bombing Cambodia? No it just developed later from circumstances. So I'm suspicious about joining causes...I'd prefer to spend my time on education or charity work to causes.