/lit/ - Literature

Yes. Thank god he's not a judge.

>>6565246
>muh kant
>utilitarianism isn't valid

okay good post dude

>>6565248
>a man who kills a pedestrian after losing control of his car
>a man who kills a pedestrian by intentionally running him over
>both are equal in the Eyes of Chomsky™

Is that really his claim? I think it's more like 'intentions don't change the material nature of our actions or anyone else's.'
Harris was basically 'durr thought experiments are important, fuck actual events and facts, what do you think about my naive ideas about the way presidents make decisions?'

what's with these stupid strict moral principles

intentions gives us information about the probability of future actions

consequences are the results and more or less trump causes most of the time but there are easily cases where intention matters more than result, eg the feeling people get when "it's about the principle"

it's obvious to any reasonable person that intention and consequences are part of the same equation. get some good metaethics in you

>>6565254
>but there are easily cases where intention matters more than result, eg the feeling people get when "it's about the principle"
Nice emotivism. If the principle is genocide, is it justified based on that feeling?

>>6565260
Nice misrepresentation and cherry picking of what he said.

>>6565253
Intentions do change the morality of those actions.

They are the fundamental basis of our legal system. In the events of >>6565249, one is fundamentally morally wrong while the other is an accident. The results (somebody dead) are the same, but the consequences (murder vs accident) are profoundly different.

>>6565253
>Is that really his claim?

No.

Reading the exchange, Harris comes off by far the worse. He seems obsessed with establishing some moral superiority of Clinton's bombing to 9/11 - a superiority which Chomsky repeatedly cedes, which Harris seems oblivious to. But the point is not whether Clinton's bombing is less repugnant than 9/11, but whether it's repugnant when considered in its own right.

Chomsky has always taken the position that Western states do enough in the way of criticising actors like bin Laden for there to be no need for him to do so also. For him to focus on criticising Western states is in the manner of filling a gap in the market, not, in itself, taking up for any and all opponents of those states.

>>6565246
what really grates me about chomsky is the sort of pompous arrogance with which he presents his claims. i feel like people like him are the root of why anti-intellectualism is a thing.

>>6565266
>Nice misrepresentation and cherry picking of what he said.
I'm responding in kind.

Chomsky is horrible, always was.

In his exchange, or lack thereof, with Harris he was obviously scared. I've noticed it several times with him, he will immediately attack/defame his opposition when he knows he has no argument

>So he's been an idiot all along?

And that surprises you, given his ridiculous criticisms of the Obama administration?

>>6565246
He's no idiot, he's brilliant.
This is a guy who makes millions of dollars from the army for helping them be more efficient while charging Leftists thousands to give speeches about how terrible the army is.
This is a guy who makes millions of dollars from corporations to improve their marketing while charging Leftists thousands to give speeches about how terrible working for corporations is.
He's a multi-millionaire that charges Leftists thousands to give speeches about how terrible 'the rich' are.
He uses shelters and trusts to avoid paying taxes on his stock market investments that charges Leftists thousands to give speeches about how terrible it is to avoid paying taxes.

Best of all, if asked he will freely admit that yes, all these things are true.

If there is any single person that demonstrates just how intellectually bankrupt Leftists are it is Chomsky.

I think he's a hero.

stop shilling sam harris

>>6565260
you fucking idiot. simplifying again, how about you interpret what i say with the full context

and i'm being descriptive not prescriptive

>If the principle is genocide, is it justified based on that feeling?
there is no nuance of thought here, just a cringe attempt to make a rhetorical post. le genocide is bad xd that will show him !

>>6565246
give him a break
he just cant be bothered to debate harris and made that perfectly clear during their email exchanges

>>6565467
how about a source

i dislike chomsky as much as the next goy but
>This is a guy who makes millions of dollars from the army for helping them be more efficient
>This is a guy who makes millions of dollars from corporations to improve their marketing

>Guy roofies a girl, rapes her while she's asleep, and isn't aware of the guy's actions when she wakes up.

Chomsky: I support this

>>6565499
>deliberately misinterpreting/misunderstanding this hard

>>6565506
"BEEP BOOP, COMMENT IRRELEVANT, BEEP, MUST INCREASE UTILITY"

>>6565479
>le genocide is bad xd that will show him
Do you deny that genocide has a negative moral value? It does seem like your argument hinges on trivializing moral claims of that sort.

"Anything is morally permissible if it increases utility. Lying, racism, murder, genocide, all things I have done in the name of utilitarianism"

-Noam Chomsky

>>6565498
The book 'Do As I Say (Not As I Do)'; heavily researched and confirmed with emails to and from Chomsky himself.

Also excerpts published in places like the Post where the editors ALSO confirmed everything.

In more than one Chat with Chomsky events people have asked Chomsky directly if the statements in the book and articles are correct and he has always stated that they are accurate.

His CV lists his work with the Department of Defense and various corporations.

The addresses and values of his homes are public knowledge, easily verified, and confirmed by Chomsky.

That's part of what makes it great - if you ask him
>"Hey, are you a multi-millionaire defense contractor who uses trusts to avoid estate and income taxes?'
He'll just say
>"Yes, I am!"

And then he''' smile, wave, and go to the airport so another college can fly him (first class) and pay him $5k-$10k to give a lecture on how rich people who avoid taxes are bad.

He's like a used car salesman crossed with a televangelist who is open about what's going on and his audience doesn't care!

>>6565499
>Implying that is a bad thing

You're either a fag, a cuck or a woman. In which case , fuck off

>>6565529
>Also excerpts published in places like the Post where the editors ALSO confirmed everything
I expect this will be another thread where you mention these and just call everyone who asks you for links a leftist twat.

>>6565529
wow.

>>6565547
http://www.newsofinterest.tv/politics/book_summaries/daisnaid/daisnaid_chomsky.php
seems there's sufficient evidence of chomsky being a complete hypocrite

>>6565547
You're a poor liar
I handed out the google searches needed to find everything for yourself. ONE GUY said 'I only see on thing and it's only an excerpt from a book' while everyone else was talking about all the proof they found.
I didn't 'call everyone a leftist twat'
I called the guy who couldn't use google a moron who can't use google.

Let me guess - that was you, right?
May I point out that someone in the thread found proof on their own?

>>6565556
>>6565572
As usual you're hostile to anyone asking you to provide *links* to sources, overlooking the possibility that the person asking might agree with you. I do believe Chomsky is a hypocrite, but I don't see how that invalidates his work. It says he's a scummy human, but it doesn't invalidate his activism.

Chomsky is the personification of the word hack. Pseudo intellectuals across the interwebs flock to him because he has a monotone voice and looks like a goblin so he must therefore be smart

>>6565579
i'm
>>6565498
>>6565556

i'd say if part of chomsky's activism is to call for responsibility of his peers (implying the kind of hypocrisy he himself engages in) then that doesn't invalidate the concept but completely removes any legitimacy of his saying these things.

what invalidates his activism is the appearent futility of a "good life" when even someone who arguably has immense clarity of thought and resources to live life within certain boundaries doesn't do so at all. the life he calls for seems to lack a proof-of-concept.

>>6565595
>i'd say if part of chomsky's activism is to call for responsibility of his peers (implying the kind of hypocrisy he himself engages in) then that doesn't invalidate the concept but completely removes any legitimacy of his saying these things.
I agree, but I think the principle is still valid for other leftists and all intellectuals. Chomsky just falls short of his own standards, i.e, is a hypocrite.
>what invalidates his activism is the appearent futility of a "good life" when even someone who arguably has immense clarity of thought and resources to live life within certain boundaries doesn't do so at all
Does Chomsky claim to offer advice on how to attain eudaimonia? Is that a main focus of his activism and research, rather than a philosophical aside that occasionally comes up in his interviews? I'm not saying that when this problem pertains it doesn't matter, only that it isn't necessarily invalidate his work. Heidegger lived his philosophy, but he was a Nazi. What does compliance with one's own moral code have to do with the actual moral content of his actions? It surely isn't the absolute determiner, it's only a part of what he's done for which he should he scrutinized. I think Chomsky would agree with my reasoning.

>>6565609
>Heidegger lived his philosophy, but he was a Nazi
My point is that simply deciding on a set of principles and living up to them doesn't automatically make you a good person. Simultaneously, despite being a Nazi at one point and never really apologizing for it, Heidegger's work is still interesting.
The same goes for Chomsky and his not-so-secret capitalism.

>>6565609
the pop interpretation of chomsky seems to be that he is some sort of lefty anarcho messiah which clearly he's not.
>eudaimonia
i was talking more about a concrete application of the things he seems to deem "good". i honestly don't know much about chomsky so i'm a bad judge of this. but there seem to be very, very few leftists who actually, as the book title goes, "do as they say"

in theory, you're right, in practice, it doesn't matter, it does strongly illegitimize a good portion of the things he seems to stand for.

if you completely remove his person from his ideas, sure, they seem legitimate

>>6565627
addendum

i'm sorry, i don't think i'm expressing myself very well here, but i think with some goodwill you will see what i meant.

i'm talking about legitimacy of the views and their implications as a life choice, not as a theoretical construct.

>>6565627
>i honestly don't know much about chomsky
Which is why you should stop typing

>>6565636
how is typing directly related to discussing chomsky
>checkmate athiest

i do believe i know enough about chomsky to criticise chomsky in the way i criticise chomsky tho

>>6565636
This discourse is entirely typed, idiot

>>6565656
I'd ask if you'd like his ideas and what he stands for if he gave his money away but who really cares what you think

>>6565627
>it does strongly illegitimize a good portion of the things he seems to stand for.
Like researching claims and caring about using facts to back them uo? I think you'd have to try pretty hard to make this seem like a principle that Chomsky's hypocrisy somehow invalidates.

>>6565658
Meant for >>6565656

He doesn't engage with critical theory enough & doesn't contribute enough original political ideas.

>>6565661
>I'd ask if you'd like his ideas and what he stands for if he gave his money away
i like them regardless, that's not my point, i just think they're not practically applicable because of human nature. and i really don't want to start a discussion about human nature so let's just end it there and i'll preemptively agree to disagree
>but who really cares what you think
that goes for all of the posters here really

>>6565666
i was obviously just making a shitty joke, autist

>>6565664
i meant his anarchist principles and yes, the methods of inquiry he deems infallable, but he had a discourse with zizek about this and nothing really came from it except fanboys on both sides claiming the other party got #rekt so i don't think we'll end it all here, either. let's just call it opinion

>>6565579
So, let me get this straight:
YOU attack someone; that anon responds saying you are wrong and now YOU say
>you're hostile
?
I bet anyone who interacts with you for more than 5 minutes wants to call you names, myself.
And dude: not only did the guy you attack give sources but some other anon found them on his own.

Sounds like you got slapped down in the past and still resent it.

>>6565579
Yeah - you haven't changed, pal.
Just so you know
>>6565556
wasn't me. You are insulting random people, now.
What a moron

>>6565609
>Chomsky just falls short of his own standards, i.e, is a hypocrite.
Sorry, but that is wrong:

hypocrite
[hip-uh-krit]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

'wanting to do x and failing' != hypocrisy
'telling people x is bad when you don't actually believe x is bad' = hypocrisy

Chomsky actively tells young people 'don't work for the military; don't work for corporations; pay full taxes' but he, himself, obviously doesn't believe this because he works for the military & corporations and avoids taxes.
This is NOT 'falling short of his own standards' it is proof he doesn't believe those standards to be valid. It would be VERY EASY for him to pay taxes - stop paying your tax attorney and accountants to shield them! He could VERY EASILY stop collecting fat checks from corporations and the DoD and just do more $5k a pop 1 hour lectures with paid travel - he's already a millionaire!

No; he's the best of all con men - a con man whose marks defend him

>>6565688
I know that wasn't you, I meant to call both of you out. Your attitude isn't much different from his, you're just angrier.
>>6565684
He was hostile in the other thread and he's being more hostile than the other guy who holds exactly his position. Call me names if you want, I don't act like this IRL. Maybe I got slapped down but I don't really care.
>>6565680
>but he had a discourse with zizek about this
Someone edited clips of them criticizing each other together into a YouTube video. Neither party was really even trying to rek the other, people act like there's a substantial rivalry between them when there isn't. Chomsky is better at research than Zizek, who basically does what Chomsky does without the fact-checking.
>>>6565701
>This is NOT 'falling short of his own standards' it is proof he doesn't believe those standards to be valid
I concede the point. He might be a con man, but he makes some good points, just like Harris, Zizek, and Dawkins have some useful things to say.

>>6565736
As far as I can tell, the only person upset in either thread is YOU. I mean, when I call you a moron it is only descriptive of your actions, not emotional.
You, however, somehow remember me saying:
>Everyone else can find all sorts of things with the same google search, you're either a moron or a liar
as me saying
>You're a leftist twat

That sounds like you are both
1- Yes, a moron,
and
2- Emotionally invested to the point you are making shit up in your head
>

>>6565736
>He might be a con man, but he makes some good points,
Let me translate that for you
>Yes, he obviously does not, himself, believe any of the bullshit he says and only says it to get rich off the credulity of morons BUT HE MAKES GOOD POINTS

Credulity.
Morons.

>>6565736
>Chomsky is better at research than Zizek
fair enough, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he is more right. anyways, i gotta go, have fun discussing

>>6565753
'You're a leftist twat' was obviously a paraphrase, autist. Your attitude in that thread made it seem lime you were going after Chomsky because he's affiliated with the left and you wanted to make leftists look bad. If that wasn't your actual intention I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. In the future, when someone asks you for links after telling you they couldn't find much with a Google search, being less of an asshole might prevent this kind of misunderstanding.
>>6565762
So you don't think anything he says is true? What exactly is your point? We agree about him being something like a hypocrite.

>>6565796
Protip: "making shit up" != "paraphrasing"

I've said over and over I admire Chomsky for being bold. Sure, I think it points out the idiocy of people who still think he has a point, but there it is.

>when someone asks you for links after telling you they couldn't find much with a Google search, being less of an asshole might prevent this kind of misunderstanding
Let me remind you - in both cases I gave a list of sources to check out and the first time gave related google searches.
NO ONE BUT YOU had any trouble finding the various sources and citations. In this thread plenty of people found those sources and citations on their own.
In the LAST thread I GAVE you more links, and citations, and you kept harping over and over
>I can;t find these; I can't find this; I can't find that
despite other people ALSO posting links to what THEY had found.
After the 6th or 7th time you whined you wanted links because you can't use google *right after* someone else posted another link I called you a moron.
Not because you're a leftist - because you;re a moron.

Same thing is going on NOW.
+ I've provided sources
+Other people have provided direct links
+You are whining "Oh, maybe if you would cater to my every idiotic whim I might stop making shit up about what you said., Oh, and Chomsky might be a liar and a con man, but I think he makes good points"


As I recall the last time me and 15 other anons pointed out what a fucktard you were being you went Full Metal Autist and derailed the entire thread - just like here.

tl;dr - when everyone else but you find the task easy the problem isn't the task or everyone else

>>6565903
>"making shit up"
That was my genuine impression of you.
>NO ONE BUT YOU
I was the only person who even bothered to Google anything. I posted a link to an article someone wrote about the book in the other thread. As I've been saying all along, Chomsky light be a hypocrite but he's still right about some things. He's just not a saint. My issue is with your attitude. Have fun calling people autistic.

>>6565246

If you think Chomsky thinks intentions don't matter, you're dumber than Sam Harris.

>>6565246
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

>>6566017
>the only person who
I meant 'first,' not 'only.'

>>6566034
I-is that p-possible?

>>6566044
Yeah, the guy's got a few degrees. He's probably smart. He's definitely smarter than Dumbsky.

>>6566049

He's obviously smart but he isn't smart enough to know when he's being an idiot. He has a BA in philosophy and it shows when he tries to do philosophy.

>>6566054
I bet he knows more about the brain than you do

>>6566049
>Dumbsky
Seriously?

>>6566017
Summary
>Well, I DID google something, and I DID find that Chomsky was lying and being hypocritical, and other people DID find a lot of proof to support your statements as fact, but I am STILL calling you an asshole, claiming you didn't do what you actually did, a day later in another thread
>don't call me names
OK, pal. After that, I certainly don't need to
Especially with your repeated point of

>SURE Chomsky OBVIOUSLY doesn't believe a single thing coming out of his own mouth about Capitalism, taxes, the military, or corporations. Heck, he even tells people he doesn't understand how or why they believe him! But I STILL think he says some pretty smart things about Capitalism, taxes, the military, or corporations


I have never said you have to believe a particular way.

>>6566076

I would hope so given that he has an advanced degree in neuroscience and I don't. Then again I'm not out in public making retarded neuroscientific claims but he is out making retarded philosophical claims.

>>6566083
>but I am STILL calling you an asshole,
Yes, just like I'm still calling Chomsky a hypocrite while agreeing with him on certain things.
>claiming you didn't do what you actually did,
You were an asshole about someone asking you for a link. Just accept it.
>a day later in another thread
Yup.

>>6566094
He probably also knows more about philosophy than you do

>>6566118

I can guarantee he doesn't.

Sam Harris?
Not a scientist.
Yes, really.
The son of rich parents he dropped out of college halfway through to do drugs and backpack India. He finally finished his degree in Philo more than a decade later and wrote a crappy book about religion.
He went back to school and got a degree in Cognitive Neuroscience - a branch of Psychology! - but his research was both schoolwork and closely directed.
And it was psychological work, not biology.
His jobs have been trustafarian, pop science writer, and CEO of a non-profit he founded.

I'm sure he's clever, but his IQ is probably no more than 110 or so.
He has done NO original research since then.

>>6565249
and we punish them accordingly. one with manslaughter sometimes not even serving a single day in jail. the other with a life sentence.

>>6565512

>>6566125
Care to prove it?

>>6565246

INTENTIONS are analysed from COMPASSION viewpoints. WE SUFFER the INTENTIONS of the CRIMINAL as if we were doing it.

COMPASSION is for the WEAK minded, it fills the HEART neglecting the SPIRIT

we don't want the HEART to take our SPIRIT, we see the CONSEQUENCES and then punish them.

this is the FIRST PRINCIPLE of our JUSTICE

>>6566334
>WE SUFFER the INTENTIONS of the CRIMINAL as if we were doing it.
Pretty much sums up Chomsky's response to Harris. Whether or not intentions matter, people still suffer from the effects our actions.

>>6565556
>Also see the article Noam Chomsky: Controlled Asset of the New World Order

lol

God Harris supporters are dumb as bricks

>>6566355
I like to tell myself that it's just trolls. I don't know if I could rationalize spending so much time on a board where so many of his supporters post un-ironically.

>>6566082

If nothing else, "Chumpsky" is just sitting there, looking at you expectantly. How is Dumbsky the best you can do in that spot?

>>6566351
See, this is one of the reasons I was skeptical about those Google results. Just finding references to this book on scattered random websites doesn't really make it seem like a completely credible source.

>retards ITT think a man's character is based on his thoughts not his actions

LMAO

>>6566383
>character
More like intellectual credibility.

>>6566383
actions are just manifest thoughts

>>6566397
A man's entirety is based on his actions

>>6566404
LMAO

>>6566404

ayyyyyyyyy lmaooooo

go back to psychology 101

Did I ever tell you about the time I did a bunch of meth with Dr. Chomsky and watched him fuck a gang of strippers in a Panorama City motel?

>>6566375
>I still haven't figured out how this weird Google thingy works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_as_I_Say_(Not_as_I_Do)

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4781037?book_show_action=true&page=1

That was FIFTEEN SECONDS on Google to see the Wikipedia entry that shows Chomsky confirms the statements against him AND a reviewer discussing the bibliography of the book.

You ARE the morons that Chomsky makes millions off of. Here are multiple sources all confirming he is a lying conamn AND confirming he ADMITS he is a lying con man and your repeated responses are
>Well, I just don't trust that well-sourced book and all the confirmations it is accurate
and
>Well, Chomsky may be a lying con man, but boy! I think he's RIGHT!

You might be the funniest man I ever met on /lit/ - heaven knows you make me laugh heartily.

>>6566438
>>6566407
>I can't refute you
nice conversation fellas.

>>6566494
How is Hillary's campaign going to justify paying you for this post?

>>6566507

That's funny, because I actually slam Hillary in the Chomsky story. Google it.

>>6566405
True, but a man's intellectual credibility is largely determined by his published work and the research & reasoning behind it.

>>6566496
>he ADMITS he is a lying con man

Bah?

>>6566496
It was a New York Times bestseller thanks to Bill O'Reilly, and the only Good eads review is from 8 years ago. It may in fact be a credible book, but you haven't convinced me yet. I'm not going to buy it, either. Maybe if you link me a PDF I'll read it over the summer. I'm not denying that Chomsky is a hypocrite or that many leftists and leftist ideologies often are, as well. You're being difficult about backing up your claims about the significance of the claims made in this book; it's popular among conservatives, but I'm not sure what that means. As I've made clear I'm not willing to completely disregard Chomsky on these grounds.

>>6566565
>It may in fact be a credible book, but you haven't convinced me of its importance to my views on liberalism in general, its main target, and Chomsky I'm particular, who is one of many targets, yet*
I'm on my phone, these omissions get by me easily.

It doesn't matter.

>>6566517
I knew you'd find a way, champ!

>>6565656
i do agree with that, whatever you've been trying to say.

>>6566529
When a man charges thousands of dollars to tell a group of people
>Corporations are evil and the military is evil and you should never, ever work for them. Oh, and rich people should pay a lot of taxes!

All while making millions working for the military and corporations and shielding his riches in trusts and tax shelters - yeah: he's a lying conman.
And he will proudly admit to all of that.

>>6566625
There's a difference between lying outright and concealing the truth, don't you know anything about Jews?

>>6566625
>And he will proudly admit to all of that
Again, you have yet to provide a *source* of this actually happening, aside from an email exchange wherein he very much didn't proudly admit it. He had it forced out of him. You're misrepresenting what happened, as well as the significance of what's in that book and the actual context of the content.

>>6566565
You keep repeating the same things
>SURE the book was a NYT bestseller! SURE Chomsky admits the allegations made in it are completely true! SURE plenty of outlets were willing to republish it without fear of being sued beause they also confirmed the facts! SURE, I'll *GLADLY* admit Chomsky is a hypocrite!
>But the book is OLD! And CONSERVATIVES like it! And I will NEVER research it myself unless someone gives it to me FREE!
>And just because I, MYSELF, admit Chomsky is a hypocrite; just because I, MYSELF am forced to admit he is, essentially a liar and conman, I am NOT willing to write off the lying, hypocritical things he says!

I bet you DO pay money to by the hypocrite's books, right? No free PDFs of ol' Normy, huh? Cash on the barrelhead for they guy you can't deny is a hypocrite, right?
I mean, at least CONSERVATIVES don't like Chomsky! Ick!

>>6566607
>I knew you'd find a way, champ!

Thanks for believing in me. You are the wind beneath my wings.

He's a handsome devil.

>>6566644
OMG!
This again?
IN ADDITION to all of the sources mentioned but not linked-
Did you follow the link to the fucking WIKIPEDIA article?
I know you didn't follow it to the Chat with Chomsky article I posted yesterday!
NOT ONLY did the author of the book email Chomsky before AND after the book was published to give him a chance to reply rebut leading Chomsky to confirm in writing that yes, it is all true in the Chats for Chomsky when asked about trusts, etc. he says variations of 'sure'.
Know why? That shit is public record, baby.
Maybe, just *maybe*, if you took Chomsky's dick out of your mouth for a minute to read any of the many things provided you'd realize what everyone else does - this is all true
>you'll reply with some variation of "well, sure, I can't deny he's a hypocrite, but...' or 'the various books, newspaper articles, interviews, wikipedia quotes, etc. aside, you haven't given any *proof*
>Or both
>again

>>6565249
Are you retarded? that isn't what he claimed at all. A better example of what he said is this;
>you kill a man because you hate him
>A man dies by your direct actions, and you knew this would happen, but your intention was not to kill him but to do something else.
In those cases they are equal in the eyes of Chomsky, or well, the second is worse in the eyes of Chomsky. Because you valued your own personal goal above the human life of a person that is completely unrelated to that goal.

>>6566656
Repeating my arguments like that isn't actually a valid way of refuting them. If you're actually on the high ground you want to be on, please address my points instead of reminding me of things I freely admit to thinking.

I've never bought a single book by Chomsky. I've watched him speak on YouTube but he's never gotten a dollar out of me. You're just being too loud.

This book may contain all kinds of interesting facts about the hypocrisy of liberals, but so what? Why should I buy it? I have literally no reason to do so. You've been enough of a jackass to me that I'm not going to do so on your recommendation alone. On top of that, I'm sure it won't tell me anything I don't know: liberals lie, cheat, and steal just like everyone else, and Chomsky is no different.

Inb4
>of COURSE you X
>of COURSE you Y
And all your other favorite condescending rhetorical techniques that fail to address the content of my claims.

>>6566680
It isn't about the existence of the proof, it's about the form. Please stop being so dense.

>>6566697
And it isn't even that I don't believe what you're saying, you just haven't convinced me that that's reason enough to disregard the man's entire life's work. Would you take the same attitude to every other person featured in that book? Why do you single out Chomsky?

i'm pretty sure other moral theories fucked up when i came to intent as well. too many

>>6566656
>>6566680
I'm not going to read these posts. They are a little long, and there's lots of greentext, capital letters, and explanation points. They don't look particularly informative or entertaining, and I'm immediately noticing several basic spelling errors.

If you calm down, rephrase your argument in a clear and concise manner, and lay off the greater-than signs, I will pay attention to you and your thoughts. Otherwise...

>>6566506

Most of you everyday activity is done without thoughts in mind.

>>6566691
Let me be blunt
You aren't making an argument, you are repeating nonsense.
Let me break it down for you.
-You admit Chomsky is a hypocrite
Great! You are agreeing with the main point; Chomsky is a hypocrite. There is a great deal of evidence for this
Since that was my point, it looks like we are in total agreement.
But you ALSO keep saying things like, well
>>6566565
Which is, essentially
>I am not convinced that this book WHICH AGREES WITH ME is credible

When I, and others, point to reviews, wikipedia articles, quotes by *Chomsky* all stating or admitting that the book is accurate your reply is like this one
>>6566697
I must admit - Chomsky *himself* saying [paraphrase]
>"Yeah, the book is accurate; I DO use a trust fund to shield myself from taxes. I AM a millionaire and I DID make most of my money as a defense contractor and as a consultant to corporations"
is the 'wrong form of proof'.
You aren't making an argument, you just keep DEMONSTRATING that you are rejecting the book because it is "Conservative" (as if facts have a bias).It is just like your repetition
>Well, sure, Chomsky doesn't believe anything he says about x, y, and z but I find a lot of wisdom in what he says about x, y, and z
Yeah. That was clear the first time you said it.
Idiotic, but clear.
No, you repeating that isn't an argument, either.

>>6566666

fives, hos.

>>6566742
>rejecting the book because it is "Conservative"
No, again, I'm not rejecting the book. I'm not convinced that it's something a) interesting per se to be worth paying for or b) ground-shaking enough to make me completely change my views on Chomsky. I'm pretty sure I've already read online the chapter about the email exchnge, anyway, and I'm still making these arguments.
Maybe it's repetitive, but you're dense enough that I have to repeat myself.
I admire him for his dedication to raising awareness about conflicts and exploitation around the world and his methodological superiority over other leftist intellectuals. The fact that he's a millionaire who worked for the government doesn't negate those aspects of him. I'm not going to read that book because I already know how I feel about it from the relevant section I've read. Wikipedia and Goodreads aren't the *ideal* way to back up your claim that this book is authoritative; reminding me that Chomsky admits he's a millionaire won't, either.
Are you still mad?

>>6566773
>authoritative
By which I mean, reading it will make me radically reconsider political stances I've held for my entire life.

>>6566712
>Why do you single out Chomsky?
Let me direct you to the fact that this thread is about Chomsky

>>>6566712
>you just haven't convinced me that that's reason enough to disregard the man's entire life's work
I'm sure some of his work on Linguistics might be OK.

Here's a tip: many people tend to not look to the words of a man who freely admits he doesn't, himself, believe what he is saying for wisdom

>>6566738
LOL!
"I'm not going to read that"
"Why not"
"It is full of spelling errors"
"How would you know if you didn't read it?"
You are a poor liar.
>I will pay attention to you and your thoughts
Another lie.

Listen, you agree with my point
>Chomsky is a liar
You just keep calling me varieties of bad because I actually point to evidence he is a liar.

>>6566806
>wisdom
But that's just the thing, he doesn't claim to be wise, and I don't look to him for wisdom. I just think his activism has done some good independent of his intentions.

>>6566816
You're only proving his point, mate

>>6566773
So you went from
"I don't think the book is credible"
to
"I am not sure it is authoritative"
?
Maybe you looked up what 'credible' actually means?

>>6566816
Hmmm
One spelling error, halfway through one post

>>6566625
>And he will proudly admit to all of that.

This is what I'm saying, though. That makes him the exact opposite of a "lying conman" - it makes him a truthful conman. No?

It seems pretty clear, too, that you're simplifying and distorting Chomsky's output in order to shoehorn it into the narrative of his hypocrisy. I very much doubt, for example, that Chomsky considers a McDonald's cashier to be acting immorally by doing that job, even though he (presumably, as an anarcho-syndicalist or whatever) regards McDonald's as a bad actor.

As for his finances, meh. Warren Buffet also calls for higher taxes on the very wealthy while taking advantage of what loopholes there are. Only butthurt right-wingers feeling the cognitively-dissonant sting of a hallowed JOB CREATOR advocating higher taxes give a shit about that. Why should I consider this any different? When I was a socialist, people sometimes gave me grief for having a bank account, and I thought they were all morons. You advocate for what you think is best, you don't try to bring it about by behaving as though it's already in place. That's some magical-thinking voodoo shit.

>>6566680
>Did you follow the link to the fucking WIKIPEDIA article?

lol

>>6566844
What?
That's he's worthy of mockery?

Here, let me give you an example
Anon: 'Did you know that Chrles Manson didn't kill anyone himself, he just ordered murders?'
Fuckwit: 'Well,I'm going to need a source on that'
Anon: 'Sure! 'Manson in His Own Words' is well-researched and Charles himself states it is accurate'
Fuckwit: 'I can't find any mentions of this book on google except for one. I don't think it is credible'
Anon:' Huh? There are tons! There are articles about it in mainstream papers, reviews, a number of other interviews with Manson where HE says it is accurate. There are tons of links!'
Fuckwit: "Well, of course I agree that Manson didn't kill anyone himself, obviously, but I really have a problem with that book because the evidence it is accurate is spotty'
Anon: "What? Look, you're agreeing with my point and Manson himself talks about how the things in the book are factual'
Fuckwit: 'I have a real problem; it was only an NYT best seller because it was mentioned on a show. And I don't think it will radically change my opinion of Manson (even though I admit that I agree with the book's premise). And you really haven't *proven* that the book is credible. You keep giving the wrong kind of proof'
Anon: 'WTF are you talking about? I mean, seriously? This is the exact same nonsense you were giving yesterday. If you agree with a book's premise and admit there is proof that it is factual and accurate, why are you arguing like this? Are you retarded?'
Fuckwit: 'If you were to rephrase your argument I might find it compelling'
etc.

I am really getting a kick out of fuckwit arguing against a book he *agrees* with as if it is some moral crusade. Especially since he descended into 'nuh-uh' and 'I'm not listening' some time ago

>>6566856
I've never disbelieved the proposition Chomsky misleads the public about his own wealth and past. I've been contesting mostly you, your bad attitude, your inability to understand what my basic argument has been (partly my fault, I'm on my phone) and the proposition that Chomsky's misleading the public invalidates him and his life's work entirely. I've been asking you for sources *other than the book* that would convince me that Chomsky is worse than I've already accepted that he must he, given that he's a millionaire lying to the public. You've failed to provide these sources, and since you've failed to provide links to any authority but Wikipedia (Goodreads is not an authority, a single review on Goodreads cannot be taken as an adequate indicator of a book's quality, and every reference to the incident that shows up on Google relates to the book and is hosted on a poorly designed website that praises the boom for exposing Chomsky as an enemy of America I something I am not quite convinced that he is) to beef up your arguments, all of which are ultimately based on an email exchange I HAVE NEVER DENIED TOOK PLACE (did the capitals help?) and the book to which they correspond, WHOSE THESIS I HAVE NEVER DENIED, I don't know what else you can do to convince me that Chomsky isn't a worthless human being-which is what my position ultimately is.

>>6566890
>Only butthurt right-wingers feeling the cognitively-dissonant sting of a hallowed JOB CREATOR advocating higher taxes give a shit about that.
The Democratic Party called; they said you're being too much of a bedwetting pussy

>>6566911

The insult factory called and said they'll be happy to give you a full refund.

>>6566905
>That's he's worthy of mockery?
No, that you're mad and you keep on being mad

>>6566905
>Here, let me give you an example
>Anon: 'Did you know that Chrles Manson didn't kill anyone himself, he just ordered murders?'
>Fuckwit: 'Well,I'm going to need a source on that'
>Anon: 'Sure! 'Manson in His Own Words' is well-researched and Charles himself states it is accurate'

I think this demonstrates your opponent's point. You may accept Manson In His Own Words as authoritative, but we do know that Manson personally committed murder.

>>6566911
Kek, is that your best? Go to bed, Mr. O'Reilly.

>>6566923
>we do know that Manson personally committed murder.

We do? Not that guy, but I was under the impression he rather famously didn't. Was this after the Tate killings and so on?

>>6566909
No matter how many times you rephrase it I don't understand why you keep repeating it
>Sure, Chimsky is a liar and a hypocrite, but I like him
OK
That has always been fine with me
Sure, you're a moron for doing so but - OK.
You admit that Chomsky admits the book is accurate.
Great!
so why do you keep arguing about the book?
Why do you keep yelling at me about it?
I think a lying hypocrite is someone you shouldn't listen to, you think he is a great guy.
OK!
Repeat it all you want.
I will, at the end of the day, still be convinced you;re a moron because of it.

BTW: I do love how the entire thing started with you claiming there was no evidence the book was credible and ends with you admitting you know that it is

>>6566918
I didn't know 'being mad' involved laughing so hard people ask me if I'm OK and wanting to read what I am reading.

>>6566933
here is a cut and paste of the original post
>Did you know that Chrles Manson didn't kill anyone himself, he just ordered murders?'
Complete with spelling error

Learn to fucking read

Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate any of his arguments.

>>6566923
Actually,
>>6566933
is correct - he didn't

>>6566944

Dude. No-one types that much who's amused.

>>6566952
>Learn to fucking read

Here is a cut-and-paste of the post I was responding to, complete with correct spelling:

>we do know that Manson personally committed murder.

See? The post says, contra "Chrles Manson" guy, that Manson personally murdered people, as opposed to simply having them murdered. But I'm pretty sure that that's not true. So I mean, SOMEBODY needs to learn to read, and I'm fairly sure it's not me.

>>6566937
You're not even worth responding to at this point but here I go.

That book is a non sequitur. This incident is a non sequitur. You're making it sound like something that should end Chomsky's political career, but really it isn't. What's wrong with being successful and profiting off of that? Who else would a brilliant communications expert do research for but the government? There really aren't that many options for the latter, and for the former, I really can't fault him for making money off of what he does. Everyone has to make a living. Chomsky makes a living going around shouting his opinions, occasionally being a hypocrite, but he's better or at least not worse than many of the others like him who do so. Are all the political figures you like paragons of every virtue they promote?

>>6566969
>Dude. No-one types that much who's amused.
*I* do, obviously! I am an outgoing voluble sort and it gets worse when I am amused.

And I hope the 'learn to read' guy was being funny

>>6566990
>I am an outgoing voluble sort and it gets worse when I am amused.
Sounds an awful lot like autism.

>>6566983

Leftist agitators are subject to special rules, though. If they aren't Jesus times Buddha to the Gandhi-eth power then every word from their mouths is worthless.

>>6566990
>*I* do, obviously!

Mmm, nah. Nah, you don't.

>>6566742
What party are you affiliated with?

>>6567005
>Leftist agitators are subject to special rules, though.
Which is another problem with the Left.

>>6567012

No, it's a problem with the right.

>>6566983
>That book is a non sequitur. This incident is a non sequitur.

Please observe my first post in this thread
>>6565467

Please observe the first response to that post
>>6565498

Someone, probably you, asked for a source for my comments.
I mentioned the well-footnoted, well-researched NYT bestseller that Chomsky states is accurate as a source for my statements.

non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Since the reference to the book must be relevant, you are incorrect.

I WOULD, though, argue, that your response to that, found here,

>>6565547
IS a non-sequitur

>>6567016
That, too.

>>6565467
So Chomsky (and other leftists) are "intlectually bankrupt" because they live under global capitalism like everyone else?

>>6567019
You mean the long thread consisting of me asking you to substantiate your claims and you doing so by posting links to conspiracy theory websites Goodreads, and Wikipedia while misunderstanding where I was coming from the whole time? That seems like a non sequitur.
But my actual point was that the fact that Chomsky is a millionaire who worked for the Pentagon is a non sequitur, not that your pointing it out was a non sequitur. Way to not actually read my post.

You seem either mad or autistic. Possibly both.

>>6566983
>>6567005
Chomsky does not have a political career, he has a career as an academic and as a speaker.
I have no problem with anyone making money in any legal manner.
The issue is this
While Chomsky makes millions from the military and corporations and shelters his money from taxes he *also* charges thousands of dollars to tell people that working for the military and corporations is evil and that you shouldn't shelter your money from taxes.

And you seem to forget what I actually said - I freakin' ADMIRE him for it! I think it is not just hilarious but AWESOME that he is doing what he is doing.
I'm not trying to 'ruin' anything, I hope he keeps going! It is like watching a three card monte game - I love watching the rubes get conned.

>>6567006
The Patriotic Union, why?

>>6567036
No, he's intellectually bankrupt for selling ideas he doesn't believe

>>6567046
In Colombia?

>>6567042
This sounds like defamation of character, however you want to phrase it. Your rhetorical flourishes and admiration don't change the fact that you meant to point out the fact of his hypocrisy to make him look bad. Your amusement doesn't seem very constructive to me and it doesn't carry much argumentative weight.

>>6567037
>That book is a non sequitur
>OK, no, that's not true. Chomsky being a hypocrite (which I admit is true) is a non-sequitur
>posting links to sites that confirm what you say is accurate to confirm a fact that I agree with is bad
I don't think I'm the one sounding autistic

>>6567046
FARC?

>>6567058
>>6567066
No! Liechtenstein

>>6567065
>Chomsky being a hypocrite (which I admit is true) is a non-sequitur
Is your point that truth and non sequitur are the same thing?
>posting links to sites that confirm what you say is accurate to confirm a fact that I agree with is bad
Are you implying that all websites are equally credible?

Again, rephrasing what I say to make it sound like you want it to doesn't actually count as an argument.

>>6567072
So you're a monarchist?

>>6567063
So, let me get this straight
1) You readily admit that Chomsky is a hypocrite
2) You are forced to concede that he, himself, has publicly admitted to being a hypocrite (the well-documented email exchange; the various matters of public record such as trust funds, etc.)
3) You think me talking about that in admiration that he still get's people to pay him is defamation of character

Well, it is a real shame about that NYT best seller, then, isn't it?

You might need a larger barrel to carry all that water

>>6567075
I'm just pointing out that you don't know what 'non-sequitur' means, obviously

>>6567079
Of course. I am in the PV

>>6567079
And proud of it

>>6567084
>You think me talking about that in admiration that he still get's people to pay him is defamation of character
No, I think your admiration of him despite his being below his own standards is a sign of either moral immaturity on your part or sarcasm. I like that he's raised awareness of global conflict and exploitation while admitting that he's not all he could be because he doesn't meet his own standards. You admire him for making millions of dollars by misleading the public about his own lifestyle while claiming that this invalidates all the potential good that may come from his actions, as a consequence of his not meeting his standards. What you approve of him for doesn't seem very ethical, and your desire to make him seem irrelevant seems overzealous. It may not be defamation of character, but it's either shit-flinging or immaturity, and its source is you, not Chomsky.

>>6567092
No; you missed my point entirely is what happened, but that's nothing new.
>>6567109
Kek, you're one to fucking criticize, then. How do you justify such a terrible political stance? Are you EvolaKid?

>>6567127
>while admitting
I mean here that I'm the one doing the admitting, not Chomsky.

>>6565253
Only... isn't that wrong?
The notion of intention arising in the mind does indeed change the outcome.
That the intention occurred may be a preordained occurence,
although that sort of talk is redundant in the first place.

>>6567109
What is your socioeconomic background?

>>6567149
>>6567149
>The notion of intention arising in the mind does indeed change the outcome.
So what? This is a question of the moral value of lives.

>Cleveland, Miss.: Are you really so much of a stereotypical "say as I do, not as I say" liberal icon that you deride tax shelters and trust funds, all the while setting up one of your own, or is the story that's been a hot topic on the internet the past few days a lie?

>Noam Chomsky: A person who issues that charge that someone adheres to the principle "do as I say, not as I do" (the actual charge) has three options: (1) produce an example; (2) withdraw the charge; (3) take the coward's way out and slink away silently. So far, no one has provided even a single example (if you can find one, I'd be glad to know about it and correct the practice). Thzt leaves (2) or (3). The examples you mention obviously won't work unless you can produce a statement of mine saying that others should not do exactly what I do. You'll find no such statement, either in the literature to which you are referring, or elsewhere. I'm omitting the many pure fabrications that accompany these charges.

Seems like he might not be so hot-to-trot, vis-a-vis "admitting it", in terms of tax shelters/trust funds, at least.

>>6567109
>>6567079
>mfw he turns out to be a monarchist after all that

>>6567174
Meant to include link:

www.chomsky.info/debates/20060324.htm

>>6567174
>The examples you mention obviously won't work unless you can produce a statement of mine saying that others should not do exactly what I do.
This. He doesn't really claim to want people to live the way he does.

>>6567127
>You admire him for making millions of dollars by misleading the public about his own lifestyle
I never stated or implied this at all
>while claiming that this invalidates all the potential good that may come from his actions
I never stated or implied this at all
>your desire to make him seem irrelevant seems overzealous
This directly contradicts my actual statements

I stated, very clearly, exactly what I think of Chomsky ion my very first post. Here is a C&P

>If there is any single person that demonstrates just how intellectually bankrupt Leftists are it is Chomsky

I admire him for exactly what I stated I admire him for. No matter how much evidence there is that he is a hypocrite, no matter how often it is proven even by his own confessions, that he does not believe what he, himself, says, people line up to defend him and pay him money.

That is why you amuse me so very, very much:; it is as if I said,
'I love Chomsky because of the way he makes people give me ice cream'
and you started throwing ice cream at me.

>>6567166
Inherently the notion of a life has no superior value.

>>6567139
The European monarchies are all in the top rankings of freedom of citizens, safety, wealth, economic mobility, etc.
I don't need to worry about the NSA, the IRS, the CIA, Ferguson, corporate cash buying politicians, how many billions of dollars are being spent on a race for president or prime minister, taxes being increased to appease a rich corporation, etc.
You are one of those Americans who believes that you are 'the freest people in the world', right?
Yeah, I met a lot of you when I went to university in the US.
You should travel more.

>>6567200

Which European monarchies don't have prime ministers (or presidents or suchlike)?

>>6567193
Not according to either Chomsky's or Harris' logic (the only standards that matter in this debate) and only according to ethical theories that don't have much widespread theoretical or practical acceptance in discourses worth taking seriously. That's a very edgy proposition that begs quite a few questions to which I'm sure you don't have excellent answers.
You're a worse poster than OYTIS. I don't understand how people can have opinions like this or assert them in such ridiculous ways.

>>6567175
You Americans!
I am a Monarchist and a Social Democrat.
me thinking that Chomsky is great for exposing the credulity of people has nothing to do with my politics.
It is like saying 'if you are in the Labour Party of the UK you cannot like Hugh Jackman as an actor'

>>6567193

No superior value to what? And whither 'inherently'? We're clearly talking about the overlap (to the extent it exists) between Chomsky's and Harris' respective ethical frameworks. 'Inherent' value is irrelevant here.

>>6567212
>I am a Social Democrat

Just stop.

>>6567209
>That's a very edgy proposition that begs quite a few questions to which I'm sure you don't have excellent answers.
I know what I know.
Why would I presume some thing based on pieces of information that are yet to be absorbed?
You are free to enlighten me, as I always say.
Or, alternatively, you are using rhetoric to maintain pretense.
I can not know.

>I don't understand how people can have opinions like this or assert them in such ridiculous ways.
You do not need to understand it.
It happens.

>>6567200
>You are one of those Americans who believes that you are 'the freest people in the world', right?
Once again you're being presumptuous and jumping to conclusions while hoping the rest of us will follow your rhetoric wherever you want it to lead us.
No, I'm not. As a staunch defender of Chomsky, I don't think America is particularly free. I just don't think that monarchy is a sensible system of government, especially in this century, and it doesn't seem like someone advocating monarchy in the first place is even in a position to make arguments based on freedom.
Your politics are unconscionable.

>>6567216
>No superior value to what?
Death.
I am not knowing the effect of others dying and until I do it is irrelevant.

>>6567208
Monaco is the closest to what you probably mean; the actual power of elected bodies in European monarchies varies widely

>>6567221
>I know what I know.
What do you know, exactly?
Again, what does this have to do with the debate between Chomsky and Harris? Why are you such a bad poster?

>>6567200
>muh monarchies

Fuck off

>>6567227
>the actual power of elected bodies in European monarchies varies widely

Can you elaborate on this at all? Fair warning: I am actually European and you sound like you're talking gibberish.

>>6567218
What is the problem?

>>6567229
>What do you know, exactly?
In relation to what?

>what does this have to do with the debate between Chomsky and Harris?
I replied to a comment some one made in the thread. It may have nothing to do with said debate.

>Why are you such a bad poster?
I am not knowing myself to be nor am I knowing why this may be the case.

>>6567226
>I am not knowing the effect of others dying and until I do it is irrelevant.

Which of these is false?

>Smoking causes lung cancer

>Not all smokers develop lung cancer

>>6567224
>Your politics are unconscionable.
Why? because I disagree with you?
What would you replace Liechtenstein's current constitutional monarchy with? The system which Chomsky campaigns against in America? The anarchy Chomsky so very, very softly peddles to you as pays his tax attorneys?

>>6567244
>Smoking causes lung cancer

Why?

>>6567231
Ah.
The famous American form of discourse

>>6567241
>In relation to what?
In relation to the moral value of life amd everything else. How is that not obvious?

Why are you in a position to say that life has no particular moral value based on a claim to knowledge?
>It may have nothing to do with said debate.
It doesn't, but in its context, what you said made no sense at all.

As for the third part of your post, well, everything you've done so far ITT is evidence.

>>6567250

So you believe there has never existed a person who contracted lung cancer, who would not have contracted lung cancer had they not smoked?

>>6567235
So you think the parliament of Liechtenstein has as much power vs. the royal family as, say, the parliament of the UK? You think Monaco, which has a Minister of State from a list supplied by France is, effectively, in its systems than, oh, the Danish government?

>>6567246
Well, I honestly haven't seen a good argument for monarchism that hasn't been outdone by ten better ones against it.
I'm not absolutely committed to any political stance, but I'm something like a socialist. Social democracy is harshly limited, though.

>>6567273
>so you [strawman]?

No, I don't [strawman]. Either you can elaborate or you can't. No skin off mine if you can't.

>>6567258
>In relation to the moral value of life amd everything else.
Seems overly vague.
My life may have value or it being gives me the ability to evaluate.
Others I am unsure of.

>How is that not obvious?
I am not knowing.

>Why are you in a position to say that life has no particular moral value based on a claim to knowledge?
I did it. The position seems irrelevant.
A claim to knowledge?
Who cares? I said some thing as opposed to not.

>As for the third part of your post, well, everything you've done so far ITT is evidence.
I am not knowing that to be true.

>>6567259
Yes, but smoking does not cause lung cancer.
Smoking can cause lung cancer.
Jogging can also cause lung cancer.
Chess can cause lung cancer.

>>6567285
>but smoking does not cause lung cancer.
I'm the other guy you're replying to, but this sentence is the reason I'm not going to be replying to you.
Get better at English and stop being such a bad poster.

>>6567298
>this sentence is the reason I'm not going to be replying to you
Then do not.
Why did you reply with said post?

>Get better at English and stop being such a bad poster.
No.

>>6566666
man fuck you summertripfag you're the worst

>>6567285
>Yes, but smoking does not cause lung cancer.
>Smoking can cause lung cancer.

This is contradictory. For example, the statement "George tells lies" is not a claim that everything George ever says is a conscious falsehood; only a claim that the number of conscious falsehoods issued by George is greater than zero. Similarly, "Smoking causes lung cancer" is not a claim that every instance or progression of smoking results in lung cancer; only that the the number of such instances or progressions is greater than zero. That number's being greater than zero is sufficient to establish that "smoking causes lung cancer".

So, now that we've established that it is both true that smoking causes lung cancer and that not all smokers contract lung cancer, we can begin.

Reasoning by analogy from your stance on lives, we can see from what's been established that you do not know the effect of smoking on any one individual. My claim is that you cannot, therefore, by your own reasoning, make any recommendation for or against smoking. You do not know the effect of smoking in any one instance, and until you do know, its effect is irrelevant.

My claim is furthermore that the above has brought us to an absurdity and that the reasoning you have presented regarding lives is therefore debunked.

I will elaborate: You cannot KNOW the effects of any given death or deaths, but, at a minimum, you can very reasonably suppose there to be a high chance of grief and hardship caused to third parties as a result. Since not all killings are created equal, you can even discriminate in the likelihood of this you ascribe to individual acts of killing. A set of indiscriminate killings, such as the Sudanese bombing, for example, is inexpressibly unlikely to helpfully confine its effects to hermits with no living relatives or dependents. The odds are astronomically in favour of numerous bereavements and hardships arising from such an act, and your plea of moral paralysis regarding them is thus a nonsense.

>>6566996
the fuck? no it does not
pretty much completely unrelated to autism

>>6567367
>thinking a charge of autism implies actual autism
>being this autistic

Remember when everyone you didn't like was a hipster? Remember when everyone you didn't like was a fedora? Remember when everyone you didn't like was a brony? Remember when everyone you didn't like was a furfag? Remember when everyone you didn't like was on reddit? Etc.

>>6567367
Takes an autist to know

>>6567334
>That number's being greater than zero is sufficient to establish that "smoking causes lung cancer".
But then chess and jogging also causes lung cancer.

>>6567409
If there are recorded cases of that happening, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with the proposition.

You should get better at English.

>>6567425
>If there are recorded cases of that happening, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with the proposition.
I play chess every day.
I smoke every day.
The church tells me chess is satanic.
I get a satanic tumor.
Chess gave me cancer.

>You should get better at English.
I am not aware there is necessity for this.

I have noticed you have a tendency toward witty sarcastic responses.

>>6567449
>The church tells me chess is satanic.
>I get a satanic tumor.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc and a highly dubious assertion. Can't accept that, mate - the data on the link between smoking and cancer are unambiguous, this rubbishy hypothetical anecdote is, well, rubbishy and hypothetical and anecdotal.

If you have a real response, I'll be happy to read it, but any further fol-de-rol about smoking and cancer will be taken as an admission of defeat. Only so many hours in the day, you know.

>>6567282
You don't know what straw man means, obviously
He was asking you a question; your failure to answer speaks volumes

>>6567449
That argument is valid, and iff that's actually what Church teaching says (the proposition 'Cancers caused by Satanic things are themselves Satanuc' must be included in its set of beliefs) and iff Church teaching is correct, sound.

>You should get better at English.
>I am not aware there is necessity for this.
This conversation is happening because of a misunderstanding on your part of the way certain English words ('to do' and 'can') operate in relation to each other. It is in your best interest to become a better English speaker so that this kind of mistake doesn't happen in the future.

Give him a break, he's old as fuck.

>>6567473
>highly dubious
This does not mean any thing.

>an admission of defeat
In regards to what?

>Only so many hours in the day, you know
Then cease to do what ever it is that you are wasting your time on.
I am not interested in sustaining your feeling of self worth.

>>6567487
>This does not mean any thing.
You keep saying this to things that mean more than anything you've been saying.

>>6567484
>This conversation is happening because of a misunderstanding on your part of the way certain English words ('to do' and 'can') operate in relation to each other. It is in your best interest to become a better English speaker so that this kind of mistake doesn't happen in the future.
I inferred the poster implied that the one is objectively true and the other is not and I am under the impression that you also understand this and are obfuscating the actual state of things but the line which this conversation has taken suggests you will obfuscate on a higher level with the next post so it is irrelevant what I say it either way.
I will post nonetheless, as I have no reason not to.

>>6567475
>He was asking you a question

So you beat your wife?
You think you know what a 'straw man' is, but evidently have an incomplete understanding of the concept?
You're a faggot?

Questions can posit information; questions used for that purpose are termed 'rhetorical questions'. His 'rhetorical questions' (I'll try not to blind you with science, son) imputed to me a range of opinions which I had not expressed and which were not implicit in the question I had put to him, not by the least charitable stretch conceivable. He was therefore ascribing to me a false position not held by me, in order to attack that false position and present his refutation of it as a refutation of me; you may or may not recognise this as the aforementioned 'straw man' fallacy.

>>6567490
>You keep saying this to things that mean more than anything you've been saying.
What is your argument precisely?
As far as I can recollect, my argument is that I am not knowing the death of some others to have any higher or lower value.
That is the extent of it.
Whether it is dubious or not is irrelevant, as far as I am aware.

>>6567492
A strawman is a weak form of an argument that doesn't reflect its actual nuances or strengths. He asked you a legitimate question about the relationship between modern parliamentary democracy as it's generally practiced in Europe and monarchy. There are a lot of opinions implicit in voting for a monarchist party that really can't be brushed off that easily, friendo.

>>6567487
>This does not mean any thing.

Does too.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22dubious+premise%22
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22highly+dubious+premise%22

Go forth and learn.

>In regards to what?

The proposition that you are unable to make a judgement about killing due to imperfect knowledge of its consequences.

>>6567500
>He asked you a legitimate question

No, he didn't. He threw out a number of rhetorical questions to avoid elaborating on his statements about European monarchies (which are monarchies in name only).

>>6567499
>Whether it is dubious or not is irrelevant
No, it's not; you haven't supported your claim very well, so the grounds on which you've made it are pretty dubious, to use just one word. Why is it dubious? See >>6567334, which spells it out logically and succinctly.

My argument is that you jumped into an ongoing debate with a comment that made no sense in context.

>>6567513
Are you the monarchist?

>>6567519

No. Go back up the chain.

>>6567501
>Does too.
Yes, I am aware there are words which have definitions.

>Go forth and learn.
Unnecessarily sarcastic.
Perhaps you find it funny but it is a waste of time to be snarky all the time.

>The proposition that you are unable to make a judgement about killing due to imperfect knowledge of its consequences.
Enlighten me, otherwise.

>>6567514
>you haven't supported your claim very well
I have no intention of doing so.

>My argument is that you jumped into an ongoing debate with a comment that made no sense in context.
I am not knowing myself to care.
Your argument was non existent.
My inference is that you simply were amusing yourself in being a sarcastic know it all.

>>6567513
>the actual power of elected bodies in European monarchies varies widely

>Can you elaborate on this at all? Fair warning: I am actually European and you sound like you're talking gibberish.
Followed by a legitimate question about power relations in modern parliamentary democracies that are simultaneously monarchies.

I don't see what you're talking about.

>>6567522
My bad, it's confusing. Disregard >>6567534.

>>6567529
>Yes, I am aware there are words which have definitions.

My point is that it's a PHRASE which has a definition. You posited a verbal argument which can be reduced to a syllogism; I have stated that at least one premise of any formulation of that syllogism will be highly dubious. Agree or disagree, I don't really care, but stop pretending the claim is meaningless.

>Enlighten me

Re-read
>>6567334

It's all there.

>>6567541
No worries.

>>6567550
The notion is based on an emotional reaction.
Why should I absorb it?

>>6567553
Because emotions matter, obviously

>>6567553

The notion is based on the ethical premise that ceteris paribus, outcomes resulting in less suffering are preferable to outcomes resulting in more suffering.

If you don't accept that premise, then you shouldn't accept the argument, of course, but absent literal misanthropy or a genuine condition of moral crippledom, the premise is tough to reject.

But if you reject it, you reject it. No reason for me to care.

>>6567577
>outcomes resulting in less suffering are preferable to outcomes resulting in more suffering
I do not agree with this.
It is irrelevant.

No, not misanthropy, just indifference.

>moral crippledom
Sounds archaic.

>But if you reject it, you reject it. No reason for me to care.
Okay.

>>6567590
>No, not misanthropy, just indifference.

Moral crippledom it is.

>>6567594
Are you marxist?
It is pure pretense on which you run,
is my inference.

Actually, probably some sort of Foucault influenced language game.

>>6567282
he's asking you to clarify your position, not ridiculing you unnecessarily. afaik

>>6567378
god this board
god 4chan
god humanity

Jews gonna Jew

>>6567599
>Are you marxist?

No.

>It is pure pretense on which you run

No more and no less than the next man.

>>6567610
>Actually, probably some sort of Foucault influenced language game.

He swings, he misses.

>>6567642

Once you understand that European 'monarchies' bear little relation to what a self-identifying political 'monarchist' would favour, the exchange is much clearer. The guy may be an idiot but is presumably just a troll.

>>6567722
>but is presumably just a troll.
He seems pretty serious about Chomsky.

>>6567728

Given /lit/'s rep - accurate or not - as a hive of leftist scum and villainy, we should expect its trolls to be moderately accomplished in the fine arts of seeming pretty serious about various leftists and aspects of leftism.

Or he could just be legit.

>>6567722
>European 'monarchies' bear little relation to what a self-identifying political 'monarchist' would favour
I know this, so >>6567200 is very confusing.
He doesn't seem to understand what 'monarchist' means

>>6567750
True. I tend to think of /lit/ as equal parts Tumblr and /pol/r9k/mu/a/v/. Either possibility is equally likely. He might be nobility, too, if he's actually from Lichtenstein and voted for the monarchists.

>>6567054
I think he believes those things, he just doesn't live by them.

>>6567183
>I admire him for exactly what I stated I admire him for. No matter how much evidence there is that he is a hypocrite, no matter how often it is proven even by his own confessions, that he does not believe what he, himself, says, people line up to defend him and pay him money.
Immaturity on your part it is, then. That isn't something g to be admired, doing that is a negative character trait.

>>6567750

i am not trolling when i ask this:
what place in the world cares enough that /lit/ exists for this board to have a reputation anyway?

>>6567610
would you look at that...
i guess the M.O. around here is to let preening little faggots post their shit-eating one liners without a proper dicking in return... /lit/ never fails to disappoint me lately...though pretense has always been the diseased backbone of this old cow, that we've now milked way the fuck deep into the grave, but well keep sucking, until our bellies are filled with dirt and worms.

ya know, bud,
matching important sounding concepts with important sounding names was never an easy task begin with, i'll grant you that, the hardship of it compounded by the amount of inscrutability that one desires for one's vagueness, insofar as insulating themselves from actual attack is a priority, and seeing as that you're doing just that, i'd say that despite your being a low born coward deserving of immediate castration, at least some points for effort are due.


cunt:

what exactly do you mean by "foucault influenced language game"?,
explain that to me both as a standalone pastiche of a sentence and as applied to the OP's post.

>>6567845

No place, but a loose community comprising those aware of /lit/'s existence.

Ask yourself the same question of /pol/, or of the site as a whole for that matter.

>>6565246

Yams

>>6565556
>http://www.newsofinterest.tv/politics/media_issues/chomsky_nwo_asset.php

They accuse Chomsky of being a deep covet CIA agent who never talks about the 'globalist' agenda kek

>>6565246
>>intentions don't matter

Okay, I don't like Chomsky, but to be fair I don't think he was saying this. Well, come to think of it I'm not sure what he was trying to say; it was all a little evasive, but to be fair I don't think he was saying this.

>>6567851
>though pretense has always been the diseased backbone of this old cow, that we've now milked way the fuck deep into the grave, but we'll keep sucking, until our bellies are filled with dirt and worms.

Where the hell would you have us go then asshole?
Fucking /pol/?

>>6568178>>6568178
stay the fuck where you are and contribute to the organism. you've got enough shit in you to feed generations of newcomers. that same shit will then be recycled and re-fed to even newer newcomers, its foul stench being diluted each time it goes unchallenged and swallowed whole, until they're so used to it that it becomes part of the 'cuisine', a staple of the usual main course of shit and throwup that these ass-to-mouth patched up monkeys thrive on, or, at the very least, survive on.

i for one enjoy this human-centipede experiment that /lit/ has become.

/lit/ still cares more about people than ideas

Sam Harris threads are the new Ayn Rand threads.

>>6568432

>ideas

there was once a hrhrhrhrhrhrhr that was Rome.

"make us believe it again", they said, and heroes rose,
and morale started to build,
and for a solid good year actual "words" were "said",
i've seen em myself i swear,
and people listened and said some more things, and those things were insightful at first, and then interesting, and then smirk-worthy, and then only semi-retarded,,,and all seemed to be sustaining, if not going down hill a bit.

But then, suddenly, grunts were heard in the distance, and load audible queefs, booming, devastating queefs, followed by dry heaving, and then by retching, and then the unstoppable shitstreams and the re-thrownup-throwup drowned out the voices, the ideas. and morale was sapped to its skeleton

horror descended on the board, culminating with joaquin fucking phoenix strangling that poor idealist cunt for good by holding his poor wrinkled head tightly against his crotch. and so rome was dead.

but at least he did it out of love. and thats counts for something.
and thus, a cycle was born.

you start with hope, get an idea, strangle it with love, grind it into meat pies and feed it to the swine. then you collect the manure, and shovel it back into the feed, until we are all fat and ripe for slaughter.
repead ad infinitum,


there is no future,
there are no more ideas,
no more ideals.
everything has been said, and everyone should shut the fuck up.
instead of this maddening reversion, this constant looking back, constant re-hashing of dead-to-the-world concepts that exist only within the the colon-bound-neurotic mind, and no where else, hypocritically claiming an ideal through its very destruction.
but that is our nature,
,and so we beat on,
boats against the derp,
derp derp ceaselessly into the derp

>>6565526
>implying racism is bad

>>6568362
This. Let's not get soft and let what happened to /mu/ happen to us. Stay confrontational, /b/ros.

>>6568841

Implying something resembling rigor can ever be established when dealing with an influx of first year community college undergrads

>>6567722
>No more and no less than the next man.
No, one makes the distinction based on some thing being more or less than some thing else at the time of reviewing the situation.

>He swings, he misses.
I would prefer if you stopped with the witty macros but you are under no obligation to do so.

>>6567851
I wasn't referring to the original post.
I was referring to who ever I was referring to,
I just did not quote him.
He was claiming me not thinking external lives have knowable value was dubious, but not explaining exactly why.
I am under the impression that Foucault suggests using language which supports leftist ideas, even if the language and phrases you use are not true.

>>6568809
...this is a very strange kind of rusing.

>>6569380
>not explaining exactly why

Jesus. >>6567334

Bump

>>6569423
Yes, I am aware that post exists.
Do you have any thing else to add?

>>6570244
>Do you have any thing else to add?

Just that it does in fact "explain exactly why" (you got bogged down in futilely disputing the premises, and never challenged the reasoning). But take the last word, if it means that much.

>>6567155
>>6567006
Notice how the Leftist focuses on the political stance and economic background of the person he is talking with rather than actually addressing the points.
This is actually key to Chomsky's success. His books and lectures boil down to;

"War is bad. Poverty is bad. Something should be done."

He is very careful to say he has no idea what should be done, just that Something Should Be Done. It is an emotional appeal.

We see the same thing in this thread

"I agree that what you say is accurate, but I demand that you provide proof it is accurate. And I will reject all proof you provide while admitting it is accurate. Why? because I am emotionally invested"

Is anyone surprised that a man who specializes in linguistics is very good at rhetoric?

>>6567492
The actual rhetorical trick is
>have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?
And that is a false dilemma, not a strawman.
His statement was
"The powers of various European parliaments in monarchies vary widely"
You asked what he meant (and tossed in some vague 'I'm european' nonsense, as if that matters)
His reply
'Do oyu think x is like y? Do you think A is the same as B?'
is not a fallacy, it is a rheorical device used to elicit a polite response.
He could have been aggressive and written
"Monaco is obviously very different than the UK, so you are obviously wrong'

This would have been accurate and led to hostility instead of discussion.

May I assume English is a second language for you?

>>6567519
He was trying to be snooty to the monarchist and, thus far, only proven himself a twat.

>>6565248
but Kant is right...

>>6567722
>a self-identifying political 'monarchist' would favour
The people of Liechtenstein recently gave Prince Hans-Adam more power; they do seem to have 'legitimate' Monarchists there.

>>6567769
Not that guy, but I am a monarchist, as well. There are more of us than you might believe and are fairly common in the Commonwealth and places like Lichtenstein

>>6570512
Have you ever actually read his arguments?

>you should never lie ever no matter what
>if everyone lied nothing would work

It contradicts itself! If you're not to lie because everyone lying would make nothing work, then you wouldn't lie and the egoist would, and they would benefit

>>6570512
Kant's ethics don't survive contact with reality.

They explode like theyr'e made of antimatter.

Kant was a brilliant autist who lived in a fantasy land.

>>6568443
underrated post

>>6570497
>The actual rhetorical trick is
>>have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?
>And that is a false dilemma, not a strawman.

Firstly, that specific question was one of a series demonstrating that questions can constitute claims.

Secondly, it's called a 'loaded question' (among other things). The false choice is something you appear to have tacked on yourself, as false choices need not be presented as questions, while loaded questions, of course, must. You appear to have memorised the canonical example and have now regurgitated it like one of Pavlov's dogs, even though in the context both false choices and loaded questions are not relevant.

>His reply
>'Do oyu think x is like y? Do you think A is the same as B?'
is not a fallacy

Yes, it is, as previously explained in more detail than strictly necessary.

Also,
>his

lol.

>>6570424
The person admitted their response was based on an emotional reaction.
The post you keep referring to is the posters' opinion and I have no interest in it.
There is nothing happening here.
Perhaps you like pretending you are arguing about some thing.

>>6570552
The question I proposed is, yes, a false dilemma. Purposefully.
Why?
A loaded question requires that the facts be presupposed.

At this point my presumption is that you know that the power levels of various european parliaments does vary a great deal, something that is obvious even to a casual observer, and would rather spend your time arguing over how a response was worded rather than admitting error.

>>6570586
>The person admitted their response was based on an emotional reaction.

An ethical premise isn't "an emotional reaction". If you just don't understand, then fine.

>>6570587
>A loaded question requires that the facts be presupposed.

Yes, and this presupposition can take the form of a purported view held by the addressee. This isn't tough.

>At this point my presumption is that you know that the power levels of various european parliaments does vary a great deal

You never did elaborate (I assume because you are talking absolute nonsense, as I suspected). At least you're not pretending not to be you anymore, that's something, I suppose.

And I mean, I know you're not going to do anything as silly as quantifying "power levels" and actually like, defining terms and suchlike. That shit gets in the way of pretending to have Big Boy Opinions like MONARCHISM and so forth.

>>6570477
>rather than actually addressing the points.
No one asked him about his politics until his points had been addressed for half a thread.

>>6570634
>If you just don't understand, then fine.
I have made an inferral.
I am aware this is true, and you are conflating my opinion with some thing imaginary.
It is an ethical premise, but it has no content,
or rather,
it simply posits itself with out any reason.
In the same way I can posit its negation,
considering there is no reason to absorb it.

>>6570634
So you think anyone who doesn't think you have a valid point musty be the same person?
I can see why you struggle

>>6571020

Nah, I think people with the same posting style, same manner of address, same tendency to typos and the same highly specific yet curiously ill-informed minority political point of view, who showed up ITT around the same time today and both started ineptly attacking me, are the same person.

>>6571098
Sorry, no. I'm just some guy wondering why a Noam thread went on for so long.
But you're both this guy >>6567235 and this guy >>6565498 ?
Do you have a job?

>>6571454
>Sorry, no

But secretly yes.

>But you're both

Funny guy.

>>6571638
No job, then

>>6565298
Yeah Chomsky represents anti-intellectualism, that's a fucking joke right?

>>6565246

He's obviously senile now, but he was good in his youth. Let's be fair no one is good forever, it's very rare.

>>6565318

Yup.

His defensive tone was embarrassing.

>>6565494

because he would be truly rekt.

>>6566494
I recognise this as a reference but can't remember what it's referring to

Wow, one of the world's most famed and respected intellectuals has better things to do with the few years that remain of his life than have an epic debate via email with a talking chunk of Daniel Dennett's afterbirth? What a poser!

>>6574437
It's probably from the move Airplane

Why does this thread still exist?

>>6566680
If you are living in a capitalist society, are very skilled and do not make sure you make money (which translates to keeping your family's future safe), you are just an idiot.

You can not like the system you live in but that doesnt mean you should live like a bum in the streets. You can hate someone but when he throws money at you you should take it, any other move is stupid.

>>6574681
To expand on this, if you for example hate the capitalist system/banking system/ corporations, you are out of luck in current society. Good luck doing something of worth in the USA without depending on corporations or the army.
You will either starve in the streets or deal with these institutions (or go live in northern alaska and hunt squirrels for the rest of your life or something). There is no honor in starving or passing up on power and money, there is no honor in letting your talents go to waste.

Whether Chomsky is a hypocrite or just taking care of himself in the best possible way within a system he tries to change I cannot say, but he makes one very valid point. Since American/European corporations + the army (+banks) pretty much rule the world, change has to come from within these institutions/societies.

>>6574454
Sniff.
this man- the most sober and with the longest beard- respected rabbinical sharpener of pencils- 4 time lovrani french riviera mockatwee order of merit crypto-german monarchist
is not [sarcasm] sarcaso lemardis IS NOT WOOOOAAHAAAHHHAHHAHAH [blatant]