Ronnie: can google but can he read?

[ranxer]

have you even read any chomsky?

did you even read the cut and paste smears you sent up?

i like what i read about bush at:
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2667151

Critic Accuses Media of Aiding U.S. War Propaganda
bush:

counts his ignorance as a virtue and regards his lack of curiosity as a sign of moral strength

[Ronnie Raygun]

Sure I've read him.

I'm pretty sure most people here have.

I have two questions for you.

What does Google have to do with this?

What is wrong with the Bush quote?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Ranxer is thinking what I'm thinking, and Ronnie side stepped it. There's a shock.

[VinceZeb]

Ranxer, what does reading Chomsky have to do with anything? Do I have to read Mein Kamf to know that Hitler was a racist, genocidal demon? Do I have to read Peter Singer's books to know he is a evil human being? Do I have to read that asshole Brooks' books from MIT to know that it is WRONG to want to replace humans with cyborgs?

[ranxer]

well bud, there's such a thing as disinformation, if you are not familiar with a persons beliefs, writings, statements, and you come across someone slamming those beliefs, writings, and statements then you simply have no ability to understand what the truth might be. ignorance is used as a tool.
chomsky's writings almost require a history degree, and his footnotes and references are monstrous, i've prefered his lectures over the years.

[VinceZeb]

Chomsky's writings almost require a degree? Wow. Please edit and erase that statement.

First off, Chomsky's entire doctorate is questionable. He is a PH.D. in a bullshit field of study, his studies are full of elistist "he did so much crazy shit that we can't find any real work behind but it looks nice so we wont question it" garbage. Also, time and time and time AGAIN he has been proven to be an Ivory Tower idiot.

But you don't have to read about someone to understand them. I understand that Hitler was nuts, that Stalin was a murderer, that Pol Pot was an evil bastard. I don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that. I can see the body counts.

[Jeanette X]

First off, Chomsky's entire doctorate is questionable. He is a PH.D. in a bullshit field of study...

Why is linguistics bullshit vince?

But you don't have to read about someone to understand them. I understand that Hitler was nuts, that Stalin was a murderer, that Pol Pot was an evil bastard. I don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that. I can see the body counts.

I've yet to see Chomsky murder anyone...

[VinceZeb]

Chomsky doctorine relied on the "research" that everyone has the ability to understand the same base language at birth. So basically everyone can learn english. It was proven to be bullshit. It is a lot more detailed than that but I don't want to spend the hours finding the research.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Vince, can you elaborate on how Peter Singer is an "evil" human being...?

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

First off, Chomsky's entire doctorate is questionable. He is a PH.D. in a bullshit field of study, his studies are full of elistist "he did so much crazy shit that we can't find any real work behind but it looks nice so we wont question it" garbage.

Well, if you're going to dismiss his work, you can't just dismiss him, you have to dismiss EVERYONE in his field, who "somehow" seem to get what he writes about. That includes ALL linguists, both Liberal and Conservative, who don't all necessarily agree with Chomsky's political views.

This is very typical of someone like you, though. You haven't read Chomsky, you allow others like that idiot David Horowitz (and you have the gaul to chastize Ranxer for citing quacks) to read him and perceive things for you. You're worse than David Horowitz, because you're not wrong or slanted, you're just lazy and ignorant.

Also, as far as the "nobody challenging his theories" bullshit, this is QUITE common in all realms of science, both hard and soft (perhaps more so in hard). Folks like Newton didn't have their theories and data challenged until the 20th Century, because they were these larger than life individuals. You can't blame Chomsky for this, blame the nature of the beast. Chomsky is certainly more open and approachable than Newton was, that's for sure.

Also, time and time and time AGAIN he has been proven to be an Ivory Tower idiot.

Wanna give some examples? How's that crushing response on Cuba coming along?

But you don't have to read about someone to understand them. I understand that Hitler was nuts, that Stalin was a murderer, that Pol Pot was an evil bastard. I don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that.

Right, you shouldn't read them. It's better to be a lazy, pompous ass and allow others to determine your opinions for you.

[VinceZeb]

Please, Kevin, prove how I "havent read Chomsky". I have, sorry to say.

You would like me to elaborate on how Singer is a wicked creature? Hmmm... let's see now. He avocates being able to kill the crippled and elderly, but when it came to his own mother, he hasn't offed her yet. He lives a rich life bout is a socalist. He avocates euthenasia (or however you spell it). Should I go on?

And what the fuck are you taking about with Cuba? Is this about something I said with proving it is a shithole? Why don't you fucking ask the people that were excuted and detained just for rasing their voice. If you were spouting this shit in my face I would have already slammed your head into the table with my fist.

And I love how I am a "lazy, pompus ass" because I have not read books by Hitler. What is the fucking point? To know how much more crazy he fucking was? I think the death camps, mass murdering of Jews, Catholics, cripples, and others who were not "pure" should prove that.

I guess I can't have an opinon on Mao because I didn't read his little red book, huh? I mean, I am just a lazy ass who had his opinons "shaped" by the reports of the millions who died and had their lives destroyed by that pie-faced cocksucker. Man, they wouldn't know SHIT about Mao. And I bet ya a lot of them didn't read his books, so they are obviously idiots!

Hear that sound, Kevin? That is the sound of my penis popping out of your ass after my massive reaming of your anal cavity. Please lick me clean, because I do not like to walk around with a dirty dick.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Chomsky doctorine relied on the "research" that everyone has the ability to understand the same base language at birth. So basically everyone can learn english. It was proven to be bullshit. It is a lot more detailed than that but I don't want to spend the hours finding the research.

I took a developmental psych course, and I learned a fair amount about Chomsky's theories and other linguistic theories. And yes, there HAS been a lot of research done on lingustics, and the research that I have seen was far from "bullshit." Criticize Chomsky's political writings all you like, but don't attack an entire field of research just because Chomsky is lauded in it. If you can show me a website attacking not just Chomsky's theories, but the field of linguistics itself, I would be very interested in seeing it.

You would like me to elaborate on how Singer is a wicked creature?

Wha...where was Singer mentioned in this thread? Did I miss it? I mean, I agree with you that Singer is a twat, but I thought we were talking about Chomsky.

[VinceZeb]

I don't have a problem with his field of study itself. I mean I'm glad people are getting paid big bucks to do truly unimportant work. But Chomsky is a liar. I do not like him period.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I don't have a problem with his field of study itself. I mean I'm glad people are getting paid big bucks to do truly unimportant work. But Chomsky is a liar. I do not like him period.

Linguistics is not unimportant Vince. Language is the very key to human thought. The insight we have gained from the study of speech has been allowed for practical application in people's lives.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Please, Kevin, prove how I "havent read Chomsky". I have, sorry to say.

You yourself said it was unnecessary to read the works of those you dislike. I figured this logic prevailed with Chomsky as well.

You would like me to elaborate on how Singer is a wicked creature? Hmmm... let's see now. He avocates being able to kill the crippled and elderly, but when it came to his own mother, he hasn't offed her yet. He lives a rich life bout is a socalist. He avocates euthenasia (or however you spell it). Should I go on?

He advocates killing people against their will? Is that what he advocates, Vince? He sure sounds "evil" to me.....

And what the fuck are you taking about with Cuba? Is this about something I said with proving it is a shithole? Why don't you fucking ask the people that were excuted and detained just for rasing their voice. If you were spouting this shit in my face I would have already slammed your head into the table with my fist.

Such a lover of free speech you are....

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=1957&start=50

And I love how I am a "lazy, pompus ass" because I have not read books by Hitler. What is the fucking point? To know how much more crazy he fucking was? I think the death camps, mass murdering of Jews, Catholics, cripples, and others who were not "pure" should prove that.

Yes, you're right. But reading the crap written by these people allows us to develope a better understanding of why people like this did what they did, operated the way they did, and so on. It also makes us better adapt at not letting it happen again.

I guess I can't have an opinon on Mao because I didn't read his little red book, huh? I mean, I am just a lazy ass who had his opinons "shaped" by the reports of the millions who died and had their lives destroyed by that pie-faced cocksucker. Man, they wouldn't know SHIT about Mao. And I bet ya a lot of them didn't read his books, so they are obviously idiots!

TOO BAD DAVID HOROWITZ WASN'T AROUND TO INFORM THEM, THEN THEY WOULD'VE BEEN IN THE CLEAR, RIGHT!??

I wonder what David Horowitz thoughy of Mao back in the day. I wonder if he was ever apologetic about Mao's collectivist and relocation policies. He is, after all, a very consistent resource.

Hear that sound, Kevin? That is the sound of my penis popping out of your ass after my massive reaming of your anal cavity. Please lick me clean, because I do not like to walk around with a dirty dick.

Ooh, you know I LOVE it when you evade arguments by talking dirty to me, Vince.

[VinceZeb]

Dude, what are you wanting me to say about Cuba that I haven't already said time and time again? What is your fucking point? Jesus Christ, do you have a brain or do you like bring up something I said about Cuba time and time again. I have given my opinion on Cuba. And you keep avoiding my statements. You avoid them constantly and never confront my statements.

What the fuck does Horowitz have to do with my statement about China? Nothing/none/zilch. Just like the amount of sex you have, the amount of respect you would get outside of a internet message board, and the amount of people that will care when you die.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Dude, what are you wanting me to say about Cuba that I haven't already said time and time again? What is your fucking point? Jesus Christ, do you have a brain or do you like bring up something I said about Cuba time and time again. I have given my opinion on Cuba. And you keep avoiding my statements. You avoid them constantly and never confront my statements.

You are wonderful. A master at work. It's like being in the front rows when Mantle stepped to the plate.

You were going to outline all of my inconsistencies on Cuba, my claims about their health systtem for instance, and through FACTUAL, documented resources, dispute me. I'm waiting.

What the fuck does Horowitz have to do with my statement about China? Nothing/none/zilch.

My point was that you seem to worship an inconsistent twit like Horowitz, meanwhile, back in the day, he was probably (or possibly) apologizing for the tactics of Mao, because he was after all such a "heavy hitting Leftist," right?

You'd allow someone like him to explain Mao to you, rather than reading it yourself, and elaborating on him, w/o the crutch of a twit like Horowitz.

I'm not saying history doesn't speak for itself. Mao was clearly a bastard. But your adament refusal to even CONSIDER reading his writings imply that you might be scared of something. What? Are you perhaps frigtened that he may sway your views? Are you nervous that you might find yourself (gasp) AGREEING with something said by the terrible Mao Tse-Tung????

Just like the amount of sex you have, the amount of respect you would get outside of a internet message board, and the amount of people that will care when you die.

Isn't pre-marital sex a sin, Vince??? You're a Catholic, right?

As for respect, I'm not trying to winn the respect of anybody through my words. I prefer actions. And ultimately, there's only one opinion that matters, right Zebby???

[ranxer]

Chomsky's writings almost require a degree? Wow. Please edit and erase that statement.

ill edit so you can understand(maybe)..
first, i said ALMOST need a history degree.. and it translates to:
you need to know a TON of history to follow his POLITICAL writings, i'm not talking about his linguistics writings. Chomsky's political works are so thick with references that most people can't read it. its really too bad that most americans don't have the vocabulary or knowledge and that Chomsky doesnt 'dumb it down' for them and i did hold it against chomsky for a while.. i can see how that would piss you off and lead to many simpletons calling him names about being stuck in an 'ivory tower' etc.

as for proving you havnt read chomsky.. id say thats hard but vince, you don't sound like you've read anything but reviews of his works and that being from right wing fundamentalists(from my perspective) maybe you don't read anything but that(?)
i don't have waders tall enough to pick through your crap so i think ill move on.

[VinceZeb]

Yes, Kevin, I am sorry. I am going out to read up on Mao. Because to understand Mao, you have to read his book. Because, as we all know, reading a book on someone is how you understand him. Now, even though he initiated the "Great Leap Foward" which murdered millions and starved many others, I cannot begin to understand his feelings. He just may have been a young man who was rejected by a girl in his day. I mean, who are we to judge him? We all must read his book before we can form an opinion on the guy. If I see a guy on the news who has held up a bank and slayed 3 people, I can truly understand him unless I read his book. Because, to truly know what someone is about, I need to read about him and his feeeeelllliiinnnnggggsssss.

So, in other words, I can not say that Lucifer is the father of evil because I haven't heard "his side of the story". I can't just trust God, who created everything in existance. And I am an idiot, a lazy one in fact, becuase I trust God's views on His fallen Second In Command.

Am I clear on this or do you need to dumb it down for me?

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I don't have a problem with his field of study itself. I mean I'm glad people are getting paid big bucks to do truly unimportant work. But Chomsky is a liar. I do not like him period.

Well, his linguistic theories are the basis for a lot of modern computer parsing programs which allow you to spout your inane conspiracy theories. Imagine a computer parsing program that handles the job of sorting through your cyber-diarrhea ... that's a wonder in itself. :/

[VinceZeb]

As per usual, Kelly adds nothing to a conversation.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

As per usual, Kelly adds nothing to a conversation.

As per usual, Vince fails to confront a specific point. All in favor of moving on to new business?

[Vibecrewangel]

One world's butcher is another world's hero.

Vince, what Kevin is trying to say is that maybe reading their writings would give you and idea of what motivated them politically. Was it maybe a break a few eggs to make an omlett (sp) situation that got out of control? Was it the needs of the many over time outweight the needs of the few right now? Just a bad miscalculation? If you only look at the result but don't even consider what led up to it then you have absolutly no understanding of the situation.
Yes, Hitler was a maniac. But, he was also a charasmatic genius who was able to take a country give it's people someone to blame for all their problems.
Maybe if you actually knew how Hitler was able to do what he did, and why, you would see that short of genocide, Bush is following the same path for very similar reasons.


I am sort of amused that there is a legitimate field of study that expains something so simple to understand that a degree should be unnecessary. Sheesh, it's pretty obvious that the only reason Americans learn English first or Germans learn German first or French learn French first is because it is what you are taught from birth.
I'm going to have to read up on it to find out how much more in depth these studies go.

[VinceZeb]

Yes, vibe, bush is following hitler's path. Yep, because Bush has put big yellow cresent moons on Arab and Muslim peoples. Bush is creating huge camps across the land so we can put them in slave camps and murder them. Bush is just attacking countries to take them over without ONE single reason. Bush is out there burning books left and right. Bush is a socialist.


Are you for real are you just trying to piss me off? I REALLY hope its choice number 2.

[Vibecrewangel]

You just proved my point Vince.
You know what happened but you don't know why.

Yep, because Bush has put big yellow cresent moons on Arab and Muslim peoples. Bush is creating huge camps across the land so we can put them in slave camps and murder them.

I said short of genocide. Or did you not read that?

Bush is just attacking countries to take them over without ONE single reason.

Hitler had reasons. He was working to protect the German people. At any cost.

Bush is out there burning books left and right.

Control of the media my man.

Are you for real are you just trying to piss me off? I REALLY hope its choice number 2.

You should know by now that isn't how I work.


Vince, you really don't know why things happened. How can you make in informed decision if you only understand the effect and not the cause? I'm going to mention once again that questioning is a good thing. In this case, question why the attorcities happened. Sure, everyone knows they happened. But like you, many people don't know why.

[mburbank]

The core idea, and it's a pretty important one, is that the STRUCTURE of language is universal in humans and that it is hard wired into the brain.

You suck your thumb in the womb without being taught, because sucking is a basic survival trait you as a mamal will need in order to survive. Chomsky posits that the framework on which we hang laguage is hard wired into the brain and that only the form language takes (ie. different sounds and their arrangment) are learned.

The argument is that language is as basic and deffinitive to humans as sucking is to mamals.

Here's a brief list of things Vince has offered as being unworthy;
Linguistics
Museums
Gender studies


It's a short list, but it's a really good start.