Noam Chomsky, Hero or Zero?

[Gorgo]

Please don't mention Chomsky in the same paragraph as Coulter.

[RickSp]

Quote by: moustache When I said that he should have some respect for the ground he stands on I meant the ground of the U.S...or the U.S as a country... but I think you probably already know this yourself .

You seem incapable of seperating the criticism of specific policies of a government from "the ground of the U.S". That sure seems as dumb as dirt to me.

Chomsky is a gifted linguist. I find I disagree with this political views at least half the time. Disagreeing with the polices of a government is not showing disrespect for America. In fact a blind acceptance of the "offical party line" is downright anti-American.

[fedfem]

I find Chomsky to be thought provoking. I would not consider him a hero nor a zero but a necessary voice in a healthy democracy.

I personally do not agree with some of views but I respect them and feel the perspective is important.

[Nono]

RickSP and fedfem make a valid point. I'm sure Chomsky would say that he is, precisely, pro-American in that he upholds values he feels have been betrayed by yahoos who advance yahooism by wrapping themselves in the flag.

As for the hallowed soil of (place country name HERE), that's the kind of talk one has heard from fascists throughout history (Hitler, Mussolini, Jesse Helms, etc.)

[moustache]

I am only expressing my opinion in why I think hes a zero. People like chomsky who are anti-American are all zero's in my book. But once again, you defend him for being a radical. Who am I to say hes a zero? Its only one mans opinion.

I suppose that I look for different values in people than most of you do, this one trait(among others) that chomsky has doesnt fly well in my book.

also as a side note: I too think he is a great linguist, but I cannot agree with his political standings.

[fedfem]

Quote by: moustache I am only expressing my opinion in why I think hes a zero. People like chomsky who are anti-American are all zero's in my book. But once again, you defend him for being a radical. Who am I to say hes a zero? Its only one mans opinion. I suppose that I look for different values in people than most of you do, this one trait(among others) that chomsky has doesnt fly well in my book. also as a side note: I too think he is a great linguist, but I cannot agree with his political standings.

Ironically, I find anyone accusing another as being anti-american as being fascist and disconnected with what this great nation stands for.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache People like chomsky who are anti-American are all zero's in my book.

People who love the United States and wish it to live up to the standards that it purports to promote are "anti-American" and criminals who attack other countries without regard for law or human life are pro-america, I suppose.

[moustache]

Quote by: Gorgo People who love the United States and wish it to live up to the standards that it purports to promote are "anti-American"

and you think chomsky is this kind of fellow? Having reflexive hostility to the United States by exaggerating its alleged crimes and iniquity, while defending its official enemies against criticism. does not sound like the man you portray him to be.

Quote by: Gorgo criminals who attack other countries without regard for law or human life are pro-america, I suppose.

So while the U.S is freeing the Iraqi nation from a horrible dictatorship, they have no regard for law or human life? thats a great perspective. :rolleyes:

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache and you think chomsky is this kind of fellow? Having reflexive hostility to the United States by exaggerating its alleged crimes and iniquity, while defending its official enemies against criticism. does not sound like the man you portray him to be.

Again, that's nonsense, and like your other post, you have nothing to back it up.

Quote by: moustache So while the U.S is freeing the Iraqi nation from a horrible dictatorship, they have no regard for law or human life? thats a great perspective.

Of course. It's a perspective that most of us call reality.

[moustache]

Quote by: Gorgo Again, that's nonsense, and like your other post, you have nothing to back it up.

nonsense? I pulled that quote directly off Wikipedia...I guess its nonsense if you think Wikipeia is nonsense too.

Quote by: Gorgo Of course. It's a perspective that most of us call reality.

who is "us"? liberals in general? anyhow, you dont think the U.S has any regard for human life? I do... I guess freeing the nation of Iraq doesnt qualify for regard of human life in your book. What does? And in reply to "no respect for law", The US still did the right thing by going into Iraq (you disagree), so I could care less about the legal formalities.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache nonsense? I pulled that quote directly off Wikipedia...I guess its nonsense if you think Wikipeia is nonsense too.

And I took my refutation from the same article. You spout nonsense, and you can't back it up.

Quote by: moustache who is "us"? liberals in general? anyhow, you dont think the U.S has any regard for human life? I do... I guess freeing the nation of Iraq doesnt qualify for regard of human life in your book. What does?

I'm not a liberal. Again, you just use your neocon buzzwords like "freeing the nation of Iraq" as though there were any truth to it and don't bother backing anything up.

[Gorgo]

And yes, anyone can post anything on Wikipedia.

[PatrickHenry]

No, Wikipedia is vetted for accuracy constantly. It is the people's encyclopedia.

[Gorgo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Quality

Quality
Critics argue that allowing anyone to edit makes Wikipedia an unreliable work. In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, librarian Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and is "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window." Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's executive editor, Ted Pappas, was quoted in the Guardian as saying: "The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven."[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Who) Discussing Wikipedia as an academic source, Dana Boyd said in 2005 that "[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Boyd)

In a 2004 piece called "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia," by former Britannica editor Robert McHenry, criticized the wiki approach, writing, "[h]owever closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler."[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ote_McHenryFBE) Aaron Krowne wrote a rebuttal article in which he criticized McHenry's methods, and labeled it "FUD," the marketing technique of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt."[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Krowne) Former editor-in-chief Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having, according to Sanger, an "anti-elitist" philosophy of rejecting formal review which would prevent its articles from being perceived as authoritative.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._SangerElitism)

Wikipedia's editing process assumes that exposing an article to many users will result in accuracy. Referencing Linus's law of open-source development, Sanger stated earlier: "Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow."[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...te_LinusSanger) Technology figure Joi Ito wrote on Wikipedia's authority, "[a]lthough it depends a bit on the field, the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived."[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Ito) Conversely, in an informal test of Wikipedia's ability to detect misinformation its author remarked that its process "isn't really a fact-checking mechanism so much as a voting mechanism", and that material which did not appear "blatantly false" may be accepted as true.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_HowAuth)

Wikipedia has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg has argued that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. The entry on Hurricane Frances is five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street is twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Who2) Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger stated in 2004, "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven."[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...gerAntiElitism)

[moustache]

Quote by: Gorgo And I took my refutation from the same article. You spout nonsense, and you can't back it up.

How about chomskys comments on Sudan(as I posted earlier in the thread). He again shows hostility towards the U.S. and defends our enemys against criticism.

Quote by: Gorgo I'm not a liberal.

You are a member of the Lefties, and this led me to believe...

Quote by: Gorgo Again, you just use your neocon buzzwords like "freeing the nation of Iraq" as though there were any truth to it and don't bother backing anything up.

You want proof that we freed Iraq? youd dont think its true? how about the fact that an election was held, and Iraqi's voted for the first time. Is that proof that we got rid of anything?

[moustache]

Quote by: Gorgo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Quality Quality Critics argue that allowing anyone to edit makes Wikipedia an unreliable work. In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, librarian Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and is "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window." Similarly, Encyclopædia Britannica's executive editor, Ted Pappas, was quoted in the Guardian as saying: "The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven."[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Who) Discussing Wikipedia as an academic source, Dana Boyd said in 2005 that "[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Boyd) In a 2004 piece called "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia," by former Britannica editor Robert McHenry, criticized the wiki approach, writing, "[h]owever closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler."[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ote_McHenryFBE) Aaron Krowne wrote a rebuttal article in which he criticized McHenry's methods, and labeled it "FUD," the marketing technique of "fear, uncertainty, and doubt."[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Krowne) Former editor-in-chief Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having, according to Sanger, an "anti-elitist" philosophy of rejecting formal review which would prevent its articles from being perceived as authoritative.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped..._SangerElitism) Wikipedia's editing process assumes that exposing an article to many users will result in accuracy. Referencing Linus's law of open-source development, Sanger stated earlier: "Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow."[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...te_LinusSanger) Technology figure Joi Ito wrote on Wikipedia's authority, "[a]lthough it depends a bit on the field, the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived."[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Ito) Conversely, in an informal test of Wikipedia's ability to detect misinformation its author remarked that its process "isn't really a fact-checking mechanism so much as a voting mechanism", and that material which did not appear "blatantly false" may be accepted as true.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_HowAuth) Wikipedia has been accused of deficiencies in comprehensiveness because of its voluntary nature, and of reflecting the systemic biases of its contributors. Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Dale Hoiberg has argued that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. The entry on Hurricane Frances is five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street is twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#endnote_Who2) Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger stated in 2004, "when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven."[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...gerAntiElitism)

who makes the determination that a source is authoritative?

[Gorgo]

Quote by: moustache how about the fact that an election was held, and Iraqi's voted for the first time.

There are a lot of elections in Cuba. Do you think that means the U.S. freed Cuba?

Quote by: moustache How about chomskys comments on Sudan(as I posted earlier in the thread). He again shows hostility towards the U.S. and defends our enemys against criticism.

And what part of my reply did you not understand? It is illegal to attack other countries. Murder is against international and domestic law.

[moustache]

Quote by: Gorgo Do you think that means the U.S. freed Cuba?

How about being realistic here.

Quote by: Gorgo It is illegal to attack other countries. Murder is against international and domestic law.

but when is it right. In the case of Afghanistan I believe that it was right for us to retaliate. And what chomsky
said about Sudan having the right to attack the U.S was wrong. Thats all I have to say about it. An attack from Sudan would not be justifiable on their part. Chomsky i sa radical, and he has the right to free speech, but I do not agree with him.

[fedfem]

Quote by: PatrickHenry No, Wikipedia is vetted for accuracy constantly. It is the people's encyclopedia.

This is true and anyone that disputes the information can file for a notice to be pasted that the information is in dispute.

The fact that any assertations need to be backed up with citations helps to keep disputes to a minimum. For example, see the notice for this entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

then you can see what the disputed info is and by whom.

[fedfem]

Quote by: moustache How about being realistic here. but when is it right. In the case of Afghanistan I believe that it was right for us to retaliate. And what chomsky said about Sudan having the right to attack the U.S was wrong. Thats all I have to say about it. An attack from Sudan would not be justifiable on their part. Chomsky i sa radical, and he has the right to free speech, but I do not agree with him.

Why don't they have a "right" to attack us? I am dying to hear this. :eek: