Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: pillowtalk on May 20, 2009, 06:14:27 AM
-
What do the 'Get-owned' crew think of this intellectual, giant ??
20 min documentary on the history of 'Noam Chompsky'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=676452061991429040&ei=qAAUSvWtPIP3-AbZn6W2Dg&q=noam+chompsky+
Watch the 'DOC' & see what you make of him, that is if you are not already familiar with his work.
-
What do the 'Get-owned' crew think of this intellectual, giant ??
20 min documentary on the history of 'Noam Chompsky'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=676452061991429040&ei=qAAUSvWtPIP3-AbZn6W2Dg&q=noam+chompsky+
Watch the 'DOC' & see what you make of him, that is if you are not already familiar with his work.
Noam has some valid points and some I disagree with. Kind of sick of Noam for politically unrelated reasons.
-
Like him.
-
Noam has some valid points and some I disagree with. Kind of sick of Noam for politically unrelated reasons.
what, he got to much airtime thanks to Bush? :D
-
what, he got to much airtime thanks to Bush? :D
No. He is called the father of linguistics, stuff most people know nothing about. But since I study that stuff I have to deal with and I don't agree with all the premises he has for syntax. Some political stuff I think is a bit screwy as well.
-
No. He is called the father of linguistics, stuff most people know nothing about. But since I study that stuff I have to deal with and I don't agree with all the premises he has for syntax. Some political stuff I think is a bit screwy as well.
what is your beef politically with him?
-
No. He is called the father of linguistics, stuff most people know nothing about. But since I study that stuff I have to deal with and I don't agree with all the premises he has for syntax. Some political stuff I think is a bit screwy as well.
Can you out-line some points for us ??
As your field is linguistics, I will defer to you on the subject.
But that is not to say - that I will agree with you..................... ..
-
No. He is called the father of linguistics, since I study that stuff I have to deal with and I don't agree with all the premises he has for syntax. Some political stuff I think is a bit screwy as well.
Tell you what, I will start the ball rolling.
Is any-one going to watch a little 'Chompsky' & make a comment on who has been responsible for the vast amount of, terrorist, activates, since the bombing of civilian targets in S.Vietnam (US military).
They did this because they did not want the indigenous, population, giving food/support to the 'VC'
KILL THEM ALL, LET GOD SORT THEM OUT (quote from the Vatican at the commencement of the Albigensian crusade - In 1209 - to wipe out the Cathars)
Only they killed every-one, Cathars & all, why ?? because the Pope said (when asked by 'Simon de Montfort')................
The commander of the crusade, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, pointed out that not everybody in the city was a heretic, some of them were good Catholics, so how should they treat the inhabitants when they captured the city ?? A monk who was actually present at the siege recorded the answer of the 'Papal Legate' to the Crusaders, Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, as "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet." ("Kill them all. God will know his own." ) So the Crusaders followed his advice & killed everybody they could find in Beziers.
This is what I mean when I say "the Catholic church are Evil fuckers" - History has the 'Vatican' drenched in Blood !! oh, & alms (LOLOLz)
So, terrorism - 'Chompsky' any-one.
Some of you are supposed to have an IQ over 140 !! come on 'GB's' intellegencia........... ........................ .
This is why I have the 'SIG' that I do, those who know that it is Portuguese will know that it translates to "we are all un-believers"
You will understand after the first 8mins of the lecture, as to what I am referring.
'Noam Chompsky' - talking on Theology/ ideology/hypocrisy/Israel/US-foreign policy/terrorism & definitions of all the afore mentioned............
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4054523048548733881&ei=pbcSSvimHYKG-Qay4q2MCQ&q=noam+chompsky+
I recommend the whole lecture 'THB' - but the main points are made fairly quickly !!
'Noam chompsky'
"There was a huge anti-German sentiment in the US after WWI, the philharmonic orchestra could not play 'Beethoven' for example/other examples.
Although ironically, Germany, was seen during the period after WWI as the model to follow, by the administration as far as democracy"
--
PT -- nós somos todos os unbelievers.
-
I love Noam.
-
I love Noam.
Yeah, but is he - an intellectual or - a philosopher/both ??
-
Yeah, but is he - an intellectual or - a philosopher/both ??
I should watch the video..... lol
But from what I've read of his: Intellectual
-
what is your beef politically with him?
He is too utopian. People are motivated by self-interest and he tries to get round that fact. He envisions 'collectivist libertarian' societies and the like which I see as not only unworkable but incompatible with large scale society. Another thing is he is really big on science and biology but ignores many of the premises that one would have to draw from the sciences in his political discourse. Quite good on foreign policy though.
-
He is too utopian. People are motivated by self-interest and he tries to get round that fact. He envisions 'collectivist libertarian' societies and the like which I see as not only unworkable but incompatible with large scale society. Another thing is he is really big on science and biology but ignores many of the premises that one would have to draw from the sciences in his political discourse. Quite good on foreign policy though.
Nice summation.
-
gatekeeper
-
No. He is called the father of linguistics, stuff most people know nothing about. But since I study that stuff I have to deal with and I don't agree with all the premises he has for syntax. Some political stuff I think is a bit screwy as well.
More with Pinker than Chomsky?
-
Another thing is he is really big on science and biology but ignores many of the premises that one would have to draw from the sciences in his political discourse.
Can you give some examples ??
Quite good on foreign policy though.
With all due respect (I, honestly, mean that) do you realise how 'arrogant' that sounds from an un-employed individual ??
-
More with Pinker than Chomsky?
On what issue?
-
gatekeeper
oh dear god... at this point you should probably take a shuttle craft to a distant moon so you're safe from everybody on earth :D
-
Can you give some examples ??
With all due respect (I, honestly, mean that) do you realise how 'arrogant' that sounds from an un-employed individual ??
I work part time as a full time student and in a few months time will be going back to work full time. What does my employment status have anything to do with this? ??? Work and foreign policy? huh?
I already mentioned the problem. Human nature is one made up of inherent self-interest, in our biology and psyches. The kind of collectivism he advocates defies that nature and is incompatible on a large scale.
-
I work part time as a full time student and in a few months time will be going back to work full time. What does my employment status have anything to do with this? ??? Work and foreign policy? huh?
I already mentioned the problem. Human nature is one made up of inherent self-interest, in our biology and psyches. The kind of collectivism he advocates defies that nature and is incompatible on a large scale.
We are a social species and have only survived as a result of collective tribalism with group interaction and reciprocation. If hominids were only operating under self interest by individualism, hominids alike would have been extinct millions of years ago.
You should not put limits on what YOU think comprises human nature. Instead, take a look at how and why homo sapiens have been able to survive and flourish. You will NEVER find an instance of individual mass nomadicism for any length of time.
-
We are a social species and have only survived as a result of collective tribalism with group interaction and reciprocation. If hominids were only operating under self interest by individualism, hominids alike would have been extinct millions of years ago.
You should not put limits on what YOU think comprises human nature. Instead, take a look at how and why homo sapiens have been able to survive and flourish. You will NEVER find an instance of individual mass nomadicism for any length of time.
Yes, but society, service and exchange is based on self-interest. Self-interest does not necessarily exclude cohesion or cooperation. I am not dividing them along totally separate lines.
-
Yes, but society, service and exchange is based on self-interest. Self-interest does not necessarily exclude cohesion or cooperation. I am not dividing them along totally separate lines.
Group Sustainment and Preservation is the goal of society, service and exchange. I fail to see how this operates or can operate solely on self-interest. In fact, there is no such thing in our society as Self-Interest as you will always benefit someone else, no matter what action you take since this is how humans have organized themselves. All hominids and primates have also organized themselves with a basic altruistic or reciprocative structure.
Now for a silly example, but an example nonetheless:
If you use whatever means to make 10 millions dollars lets say, and then spend that 10 million buying cars, houses, jewelry, whatever you deem worthwhile to fulfill your desires, you are not only directly helping those in the industries listed, you are providing them with monetary flow or in this case, the ability to exchange goods and services which trickles into society and revolves around again and again.
Think of it like this. Spend a dollar today. Then imagine where that dollar is spent again and where that same dollar is spent again and again and so forth and how many people that will end up benefiting.
-
I think Chomsky has some very valid points.
He's been critical of the media for years, and devoted lots of time to describe how the propaganda works.
(Propaganda model)
-
I work part time as a full time student and in a few months time will be going back to work full time. What does my employment status have anything to do with this? ??? Work and foreign policy? huh?
You sounded (intentionally or not) very flippant "oh, & yeah he is OK at 'FP"
He has been doing this for over 40 years, you are not even 35 yet !! show some respect.
That is all.
-
Why is this Pillow idiot spamming the boards with his Noam Chomsky rubbish? Every thread its the same old bullsh*t anti Jew propaganda and then as if it makes him intelligent he quotes Chomsky or copy and pastes some DIS-information.
-
oh dear god... at this point you should probably take a shuttle craft to a distant moon so you're safe from everybody on earth :D
hahaha I knew you would like that one ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
hahaha I knew you would like that one ;D ;D ;D ;D
;)
-
I already mentioned the problem. Human nature is one made up of inherent self-interest, in our biology and psyches. The kind of collectivism he advocates defies that nature and is incompatible on a large scale.
In your opinion, yes ??
When these models have been implemented & failed, you may commence your gloating from the roof tops !!
Until then you really are a - NO-BODY - when standing next to professor Chompsky.
As for his politics that you find (to use toy words) "a bit screwy" WTF are you on about.
You also continue to sound extremely, arrogant allow me.
Another thing is he is really big on science and biology but ignores many of the premises that one would have to draw from the sciences in his political discourse.
To which I asked "Can you give some examples ??" to which you responded with (by arrogantly expecting every-one to understand your chosen field of study)
I already mentioned the problem. Human nature is one made up of inherent self-interest, in our biology and psyches. The kind of collectivism he advocates defies that nature and is incompatible on a large scale.
But you had failed to make the distinction tixt the two, arrogantly expecting ever-one else to be on the same page as you.
Neither do I agree with your hypothesis, as out-line earlier in this post.
-
In your opinion, yes ??
When these models have been implemented & failed, you may commence your gloating from the roof tops !!
Until then you really are a - NO-BODY - when standing next to professor Chompsky.
As for his politics that you find (to use toy words) "a bit screwy" WTF are you on about.
You also continue to sound extremely, arrogant allow me.
To which I asked "Can you give some examples ??" to which you responded with (by arrogantly expecting every-one to understand your chosen field of study)
But you had failed to make the distinction tixt the two, arrogantly expecting ever-one else to be on the same page as you.
Neither do I agree with your hypothesis, as out-line earlier in this post.
If people were not permitted to criticise the prominent, there wouldn't be much criticism, now would there. I am not disputing his fame or his intellect, merely disagreeing with him. It has nothing to do with arrogance. If you disagree with a prominent intellectual, you are 'arrogant'? Strange.
Essentially, the pure democratic model he seems to advocate is tantamount to the classic mob rule in a sports coat that is 'democracy' where 52% make decisions and 48% have to suck it up. I think that a constitutional republic is much better because it is a force of less imposition. What he advocates is a form of collectivism, which I personally don't like but which I also believe does not provide for widescale contentment.
-
Noam Chompsky
Manufacturing consent.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&ei=UlkVSvaUBYPV-AbXxKikBA&q=noam+chomsky+media
With-in 20 mins it is fairly clear, that what he is describing is a part of the 'Hegelian Dialectic' at work in the modern societies of the West.
-
The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers
-
He should have stuck with linguistics and not gone beyond what he is competent in doing.
-
The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers
Noam is right on this. I have personally never thought Bush had the actual wit or balls to plan this shit. He's a usefull puppet. A Manchurian candidate. Place the right people around him, set the scenario and you have your outcome exactly as planned. Bush was/is a total dullard. Not even looking at what I just said, Noam has good reason for not jumping on the Bush/9/11 bandwaggon. You know the same things have been said of Amy Goodman. But seriously, if Amy had picked up that ball, she risks a lot and for what? She has a great respect for what she has focused on through the years. Why risk losing that and all the good she does in so many other areas to me mocked as another 9/11 nut? Even more so for Noam, he's in the twilight of a very long and productive career. Why would he risk that for what he, you and I fully know will never, ever be uncovered as truth. The things these guys focus on are the things they can tangibly prove. Jumping on the 9/11 bandwaggon for these two would be an easy in for their harshest opponents. In their shoes I wouldn't touch it either. They have their causes, why jeopardize those... Why would Noam want or need to fill the shoes of Alex Jones and others... It's a no win on several levels for them.
-
Noam is right on this. I have personally never thought Bush had the actual wit or balls to plan this shit. He's a usefull puppet. A Manchurian candidate. Place the right people around him, set the scenario and you have your outcome exactly as planned. Bush was/is a total dullard. Not even looking at what I just said, Noam has good reason for not jumping on the Bush/9/11 bandwaggon. You know the same things have been said of Amy Goodman. But seriously, if Amy had picked up that ball, she risks a lot and for what? She has a great respect for what she has focused on through the years. Why risk losing that and all the good she does in so many other areas to me mocked as another 9/11 nut? Even more so for Noam, he's in the twilight of a very long and productive career. Why would he risk that for what he, you and I fully know will never, ever be uncovered as truth. The things these guys focus on are the things they can tangibly prove. Jumping on the 9/11 bandwaggon for these two would be an easy in for their harshest opponents. In their shoes I wouldn't touch it either. They have their causes, why jeopardize those... Why would Noam want or need to fill the shoes of Alex Jones and others... It's a no win on several levels for them.
And he is right, theoretically you can make a conspiracy theory out of a traffic accident.
-
He is too utopian. People are motivated by self-interest and he tries to get round that fact.
I hate to say it dude, but that is not true. Depends on the place and the time. Chomsky's point of view on the subject is like that of anarchical communists: Humans are by nature and generally communal beings (much like the immense majority of lifeforms on this planet) and that in a society stratified by privilege, like ours, it is very difficult to see yourself as part of one (politicians have been able to mold this sense of belonging into patriotism for many years).
He envisions 'collectivist libertarian' societies and the like which I see as not only unworkable but incompatible with large scale society.
Not true either. What Noam contends is in getting rid of all the overhead layers of government and keep it all at the communal level, with no one above that. Needless to say your "collectivist libertarian" societies have been tried out and worked. Some better than others, but worked. One good example of it are the kibbutz, or what happened in northeastern Spain during their civil war or the collectivism that is ingrained in northern Italian's blood (one of the riches regions in the world). Many part of Asia.
I mean if you use the "large scale society" argument then we can pretty much say that democracy or authoritarian communism or capitalism does not work. I mean, they do work for a couple decades and eventually die out in massacre and revolution. If this is your perception of a workable system then...
Another thing is he is really big on science and biology but ignores many of the premises that one would have to draw from the sciences in his political discourse. Quite good on foreign policy though.
Name some.
You see, to me it's no argument. Unless you can back up what you're saying with facts then your word is basically opinion. And when it comes to opinion 99.99999% of the people will back Noam's.
To me it's no argument: I did a case study on him in graduate school in which we were given an excerpt from one of his books and asked to find misrepresentations, misquotes, mistakes, et cetera. And no one found anything. That is how tight his case is. That is why many sane human beings avoid having to debate him: Because he will demolish you with facts.
I invite ANYONE who agrees or disagrees with his comments to prove him wrong.
-
I hate to say it dude, but that is not true. Depends on the place and the time. Chomsky's point of view on the subject is like that of anarchical communists: Humans are by nature and generally communal beings (much like the immense majority of lifeforms on this planet) and that in a society stratified by privilege, like ours, it is very difficult to see yourself as part of one (politicians have been able to mold this sense of belonging into patriotism for many years).
Not true either. What Noam contends is in getting rid of all the overhead layers of government and keep it all at the communal level, with no one above that. Needless to say your "collectivist libertarian" societies have been tried out and worked. Some better than others, but worked. One good example of it are the kibbutz, or what happened in northeastern Spain during their civil war or the collectivism that is ingrained in northern Italian's blood (one of the riches regions in the world). Many part of Asia.
I mean if you use the "large scale society" argument then we can pretty much say that democracy or authoritarian communism or capitalism does not work. I mean, they do work for a couple decades and eventually die out in massacre and revolution. If this is your perception of a workable system then...
Name some.
You see, to me it's no argument. Unless you can back up what you're saying with facts then your word is basically opinion. And when it comes to opinion 99.99999% of the people will back Noam's.
To me it's no argument: I did a case study on him in graduate school in which we were given an excerpt from one of his books and asked to find misrepresentations, misquotes, mistakes, et cetera. And no one found anything. That is how tight his case is. That is why many sane human beings avoid having to debate him: Because he will demolish you with facts.
I invite ANYONE who agrees or disagrees with his comments to prove him wrong.
Many of my issues with him are limited to linguistic claims, which I could go into, but what would be the point on a politcal board?
Some people are communal. I am not. I am a loner. I have no community and I like my freedom. In the world he envisions I would be forced to give up my ability to make choices about my own life and submit to the will of the mob. I think 'collectivist libertarianism' is an oxymoron. The minute you have to submit your will and choice to a majority and do something you do not want to do is also the minute you have lost your freedom.
-
Many of my issues with him are limited to linguistic claims, which I could go into, but what would be the point on a politcal board?
I think you mean to say that you have issues with his theories in linguistics. When you say that your "issues with him are limited to linguistics" gives the false impresion that you are intellectual equals and that you two are actually engaged in some sort of debate. He's the one with the theory. Your part in all this is relegated to interpreting it. When you develop your own theory let us know and please do enlighten us.
Some people are communal. I am not. I am a loner. I have no community and I like my freedom. In the world he envisions I would be forced to give up my ability to make choices about my own life and submit to the will of the mob.
And since when does your commune force you to do things you do not like? What mob are you referring to? The Bush/Cheney mob? I mean, I understand we're all peculiar in our little ways, but no one is talking about sacrificing anything here. When I was in college and my buddies and I went out we always decided what bars to go to. Sometimes I liked the bars sometimes I didn't, but I went anyway because that's where my group of friends, as a whole, wanted to go. I had to sacrifice very little. That's not to say that life is a night at the bar, but you get the point of where I'm trying to get at. Hopefully.
I think 'collectivist libertarianism' is an oxymoron. The minute you have to submit your will and choice to a majority and do something you do not want to do is also the minute you have lost your freedom.
Yes, but it beats having to submit to a minority, which is what you and I do nowadays: I get told what to do at home and I get told what to do at work, with VERY LITTLE freedom in between. What is your point?
-
I think you mean to say that you have issues with his theories in linguistics. When you say that your "issues with him are limited to linguistics" gives the false impresion that you are intellectual equals and that you two are actually engaged in some sort of debate. He's the one with the theory. Your part in all this is relegated to interpreting it. When you develop your own theory let us know and please do enlighten us.
And since when does your commune force you to do things you do not like? What mob are you referring to? The Bush/Cheney mob? I mean, I understand we're all peculiar in our little ways, but no one is talking about sacrificing anything here. When I was in college and my buddies and I went out we always decided what bars to go to. Sometimes I liked the bars sometimes I didn't, but I went anyway because that's where my group of friends, as a whole, wanted to go. I had to sacrifice very little. That's not to say that life is a night at the bar, but you get the point of where I'm trying to get at. Hopefully.
Yes, but it beats having to submit to a minority, which is what you and I do nowadays: I get told what to do at home and I get told what to do at work, with VERY LITTLE freedom in between. What is your point?
Give me Ron Paul's vision over Chomsky's any day. As I said I think he is spot on concerning foreign policy. Never claimed to be the intellectual equal of Chomsky but people have a right to criticise theories and ideas.