From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu May 06 2004 - 22:35:53 BST
Hi Mark H,
> And Chomsky
> certainly doesn't need me to defend his positions. If you want to
> know what he thinks, ask him. He's very good about answering
> correspondence, both inky and electronic. He's easy to reach at
> MIT.
Why not ask him if he's read ZMM and Lila?
> Or read one of his books, all the way through, and verify
> references for yourself. Start with something small, say 9-11, if
> you'd like to find out what he really thinks about that event.
Direct quote from 9/11: ". . . the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as
are its clients."
> My guess is that you don't want to know what he thinks, really, and
> why. Unfortunately, no one is going to hold you down and pour truth into
> your brain.
For one who supposedly deplores ad hominem attacks, you're pretty good at
using them.
> Nevertheless, I intersperse, briefly, and finally, below:
"Finally" we can only hope. This is a site about Pirsig, not Chomsky.
> ph-5/5/04
> You brought up Chomsky and added an arguable assertion, not me.
>
> msh
> And you attacked him, ad hominem, and offered no argument.
See above and below about ad hominem attacks.
> msh-5/4/04
> >> Certainly you can agree or disagree with Chomksy, but to attack
> him ad hominem, and dismiss him as if he were some school child who
> hadn't done his homework makes you look ridiculous. Too bad.
Another ad hominem attack. You seem to thrive on them.
> ph-5/5/04
> By your lights I'm in good company because no one looks more
> ridiculous than Chomsky when he asserts that America is "a leading
> terrorist state." Too bad, indeed.
>
> msh
> Again, ad hominem attack. No argument.
See quote from 9/11 above.
> There are plenty of people
> besides Chomsky who take this position, William Blum, Michael
> Parenti, Howard Zinn, Chalmers Johnson, John Pilger, on and on. All have
> presented solid cases, backed by historical record. Take a look.
There are plenty of people who believe Chomsky to be a Communist flack
including Anders G. Lewis, J.D. Cassidy, Keith Windschuttle, Nick Cohen,
Pejman Yousefzadeh, on and on. All present solid evidence.
> There, he clearly states that the 9-11 attacks were
> horrendous crimes, perhaps the greatest nearly instantaneous murder of
> innocent civilians ever, outside of war. (He doesn't say it, but I will:
> since the WWII firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki.)
It was a crime to end World War II and save millions of lives? What sort
of moral standards do you subscribe to? Maybe you should reread Lila,
especially the section on the morality of the Civil War.
> He then suggests that if the US government is really
> interested in eliminating terrorism, it should first stop engaging in it.
> Third, it might be a good idea to find out the real reasons for the
> attacks, and address any legitimate grievances. (Read Blowback and Sorrows
> of Empire by Chalmers Johnson.) This is just common sense.
What 'redress of grievances' does your 'common sense' suggest? How about
freeing Iraq from the torture chambers and killing fields of Saddam
Hussein? Sounds like a good place to start to me.
> Sadly, if the number of lives lost is the measure, crimes of similar
> and even greater magnitude have occurred and continue to occur
> throughout the world. For example, even conservative estimates place the
> number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion of that all-
> but-defenseless country, at more than 10,000.
I wouldn't believe for a minute any estimate of casualties by anti-war
groups like Amnesty International.
> nac via msh
> > We all do so, necessarily, but we should always
> > be willing to face challenges to them and revise them if we
> > cannot meet those challenges. Religious beliefs don't have
> > that property: they are held whatever the facts.
>
> ph
> Note the irony. Chomsky holds so-called 'facts' higher than
> religious beliefs even though 'facts' (like religious beliefs) arise from
> a belief system based on uncertain premises--a 'fact' Chomsky concedes.
>
> msh
> In your cut and paste job you conveniently left out the relevant
> first paragraph, where he contends that "in the empirical sciences
> there are varying degrees of plausibility, in some cases extremely
> high" and that this may the best we can achieve. His point, in what you
> paste above, is that plausibility is apparently irrelevant to religious
> belief. And... see below...
Again, Chomsky's 'plausibility' is based on facts which, like religion,
arise from uncertain premises.
> nac via msh
> > That's not unique to religion. Unfortunately, it's a large
> > component of the intellectual culture, at the "highest
> > level" -- what Hans Morgenthau, the founder of realist
> > international relations theory, called "our conformist
> > subservience to those in power." It's enough to read the
> > morning's newspaper or intellectual journals to find plenty
> > of examples, which in my opinion at least, are far more
> > dangerous than belief in resurrection.
>
> ph
> What's sauce for the goose . . . Many consider Chomsky's views far
> more dangerous than belief in resurrection.
>
> msh
> Well, this is probably a good place to leave it. This time, rather
> than argument, an appeal to unreferenced authority. Anytime the
> legitimacy of power is questioned, the powerful, and those who
> serve them, smear the questioner as crazy, deluded, dangerous. It's an
> old frame.
Another ad hominem attack against Chomsky's critics. Oh well, I agree,
let's leave Chomsky out it. What I'd like to know is what you think about
Pirsig's moral structure of reality, especially the moral necessity of
social level patterns keeping biological patterns under control and
killing them, like germs, if necessary?
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 06 2004 - 22:33:53 BST