Skeptic Project

http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/parecon.htm</p>

I was looking for a recent article by Chomsky and stumbled upon this.

I think I'm finally leaving my communist days behind, I just can't imagine the information flow needed to make this thing work, although I'm always happy to get my hands on a book critical of contemporary economics, for obvious reasons.

Anyone else heard of this?

I do, I consider his work on foreign policy to be very lucid and accurate.

So if you're a linguist, your view of foreign policy is automatically worthless?

I think your argument is garbage.

Meh, I don't accept the "ideologue" argument. Chomsky is putting forward a pragmatic view of geopolitical events that usually offers a range of opportunities to combat them, none of which would be outrageous, if public opinion were allowed to leave the confinement of consent and thus influence politics beyond a narrow scope of empty phrases like "democracy" or "peace process".

If that makes him an ideologue, I challenge you to name somebody who offers insights on international politics who isn't.

Allright, you're trolling me.

Here's your cake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrs3gr_GAs

I wonder if Harris would be so understanding of collateral damage if his wife died as a result of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3n0vBcW5fc

Protip: I am trolling. I like Harris.

I will do so instantly, if I hear enough arguments against him.

So far we only had a quote from Harris that just fails on both levels, first, motives simply aren't everything, I may have the best motives in the world, if I'm just incompetent in carrying them out, I'm simply not doing a good task. Is there a difference between my actions and killing people on purpose? Sure, is it practically significant, if my actions do not archive anything positive? Not really.
Secondly, Chomsky points out himself that the motives of US "collateral damage" are not that good as to defy criticism, so I'll not do the same here.

I don't buy his argument. No, "collateral damage" is not equivalent to kids dying when using sporting equipment. When he says "There is reason we do not refer to the inevitable deaths of children on our ski slopes as skiing atrocities" he is asserting the "inevitable" on faith (scnr), as if it would apply to the atrocities perpetuated by the US.

His "moral equivalence" is a straw man, I've never once seen Chomsky arguing for anything like that, but that's more or less irrelevant to the topic.

If Harris is saying that we should be object more to Islamic terrorism than terror used by allies of the US, I might agree with him, but that's just not a moral point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7UYj-4mTE&feature=player_detailpage#t=277s [4:40]

I think the book as a whole is great, I just don't think he's understanding any of the criticisms against the terms Rumsfeld or Kirkpatrick like to use.
Nothing wrong with that, I think the same about Hitchens and I still enjoy his writing on religion.

I don't know much about Chomsky. I just wanted to put that out there cause I'm a Harris fan. ;)

^trolled

http://dailypaul.com/11918/noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul#comment-613978</p>

Paultards trying to understand Chomsky trashing their hero. Enjoy.

chomsky doesn't have the balls to address countless specific questions about 9/11 which conflict with the official report, building 7 to start, but even goes so far as to say that it doesn't MATTER if factions within our own government perpetrated the incident.

chomsky is as evil as they come; if he tells you to head north, you sure as h*ll better start running south.

chomsky..
>vomiting<

ron paul for president &
Jesus Christ, come soon.

Loving it