Noam Chomsky is just plain wrong.
Offline Here's Chomsky's article on the death of Bin Laden:
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/
Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.
Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis.
- Login to post comments
Offline Just bored I guess. It's been a little slow around here. Maybe we should get Gauche and luca plane tickets to the mideast and they can give all these terrorists all the american trials they deserve.
Thanks, but I respectfully refuse. I'm not much of globetrotter. Also, I could be killed.
Personally if I don't post much it's because I can't.
nor does it truly give someone a real reason to be spared death that one's murder victims had no choice but to accept.
Don't you think that with this claim you have condemned all the american soldier too? If they don't "ask" before they kill, they are assassins so they deserve to die.
Think how much you could go deep with this: are the insurance company guilty of not giving money to save the lives of their clients? So we should kill them without thinking too. And the american president? He could be responsible, right? Kill him too.
Quote:If a death caused the beginning of a nuclear war and in the process the end of all life except bugs on this planet surely that death (maybe not an innocent death) would be prevented by many.
WTF?! Surely, you must be grasping at straws...
If you tried to understand me you would see I'm not the enemy, as they say. I was just extending your "lack of rational objection", which I sort of agree with.
Quote:Human life has a value for every individual, I don't care for anything else.
Well I don't care for the life of a murderer, myself.
See? Refer to precedent point. I said everyone cares about HIS life, if you want to die then you could kill yourself, I couldn't stop you.
So, next, I'm arguing: if with a little comprehension you understand that everyone cares for his life you could care for other lives too.
And yet, there are fewer reasons to let him live than to have his body without a beating heart.
To be fair, it also matters how this reasons are strong, not just how many there are.
Probably because you aren't here to understand anything but repeatedly assert your morality to the rest of RRS and toss out emotional appeals as to why anyone should value your morality.
They are more questions that assertions. I wanted to estabilish a dialogue, not to write absolute claims. I'm sorry if it did not came out right the first time.
I agree that the universe doesn't particularly care about a small form of life on a lost planet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about ourselves. Is this an appeal to emotions? I would call it "instinct for survival".
Oh, you don't? You speculate quite a bit on it with so little (claimed) knowledge.
Speculations, speculations... I just want to know if OBL deserved to be killed AND if it's really his fault 3000 americans died (and what impact has this fact).
So I understand it's like arguing about the difference between mass murderer and mass "homicider": a lot of killings are implied, but the motivations, in the extreme, change something.
Yes, it is, and I could indeed. You can't justify a crime of violence from provocation alone.
OBL killed people, I'm not denying that. Morals grow with society, but this doesn't justifies killing, even when it perpetrated on large scale (as is "everyone does it").
What would you do if you were being beaten out of your life? Would you react? Would you let yourself die? I'm asking if this is a valid analogy for what happened to OBL when troops invaded Iraq and environs.
Without US support or Jihadi support? In the case of...
Ok, but "why" is what I'm asking. In the case either of "not a whole lot" or "simply destroyed some local targets instead" what was the reason, expecially removing the troops invasion and the exploit of the oil?
I'm not being moralistic, simply very pragmatic: what he has done could or could not be what the majority of muslims would have done in his place, which means "kill everyone who doesn't agree with us"? Would there have been a necessity of someone special to resolve the situation in a less bloody way?
In the end, Kapkao, what you say is subject to rules too: if you didn't value human life (what a sick emotional appeal, eh?) then why stop Osama? Why not let him kill some people?
And if you get him, why punish him? The damage is done, and supposing he doesn't kill anymore, there's no reason why he should be considered responsible, no "rational objection".
You know why punishment (expecially capital punishment) is wrong? Because it's emerging that people could be cured, that is, understand them and explain them things. Like in religion, you know, "you don't believe my religion, you can't understand me", so or you an elect (and believe) or you have to die (and suffer a lot after that).
In case you didn't know, prison is said, in the law, to be oriented to rieducation, or "adjusting broken people", and letting them reintegrating in the society, not letting them rot until they hate society more than when they entered it.
- Login to post comments
I understand believing someone should be denied a fair trail for the good of society and I understand thinking a person should be punished because they deserve it, even though I don't agree with either of those.
What I don't understand is combining them. Why should fair trials be denied for the benefit of society but not punishment? Why is it so important that people receive the punishment they deserve but not the fairness they deserve? That's paying lip service to two incompatible ideas just to satisfy yourself.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I don't remember saying they should be "combined" he just happens to have fit the bill.
This does not "satisfy myself" btw. If he had been under my jurisdiction personally I might have kept him in a cell with his legs hanging out and tickled his feet with a weed whacker on a daily basis. That's my first thought on "satisfying myself" I probably wouldn't go through with it in reality though. It's a problem that wont get better, remove the tumor.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
This is why I don't like retribution. It turns people into extreme advocates of revenge. I think it's because it sets the behavior of the wrongdoer as the standard by which to act.
Retributivism tells people that their problems can be resolved and they can gain satisfaction from hurting and killing people and it's okay because they deserve it anyway. Not only is that probably not right but it's the same thing a murderer believes.
You say Bin Laden should be executed with no trial for the good of society but if OJ needs to be acquitted for the same reason then fuck society because giving people what they deserve is what really matters. Unless what they deserve is a fair trial then we can go back to the good of society again until it might allow someone to escape revenge.
If you really cared about the welfare of society then you would say the US should just bug out and call it even. That'd be great for society.
EDIT: And another thing, fuck the people in the world trade center anyway. You act like they were in there making soup for homeless people and raising stray cats.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
What exactly do you know about the beliefs (motives) of a murderer?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I didn't say OJ should have been aquitted, I mentioned OJ as an example of our fucked up legal system so quite the opposite of what you are inferring.
As far as the US bugging out, I have said that so often I just haven't mentioned it here. I think we should get out and leave these people alone. Let them do their own damn thing.
Are you making soup for the homeless and um "raising stray cats" .. ?
Your "Edit" threw the whole thing from the scope of any cohesion it could have had, not to mention the inferencing you play with, are you actually siding with the terrorist leader and his protoges over the people who were working at the world trade center? Telling me I enjoy retributivism while you are being so amazingly quick to judge the 3000 folks who died? /scratches head
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I know you don't want OJ - or anyone else probably - to be acquitted for the good of society. That's the inconsistency I'm point out. You only seem to care about society when it can justify revenge.
The difference is that I don't believe the people in the world trade center deserved to die and even if I did I wouldn't think they should be killed for that reason. I'm saying fuck them because they weren't technically innocent civilians but you act as if they were saints doing something noble.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
So you have to be a "saint" doing something noble before you deserve to live?
It's not a justification purely for any revenge, I already stated that us holding mr Laden prisoner would instigate yet more harm for which he would have very plausible reason to take credit for. I dont like how the OJ thing was handled. He should have gone to the pen or the chair or whatever. I don;t think he skipped punishment to save us a few riots. Releasing a murderer back onto the streets is a criminal act in it's self imo.
If we had mr Laden and tried and convicted him to a death sentence what exactly do think would be different today?
Suppose we tried him and he managed an OJ and we had to let him go, what do you suppose the consequences would be?
Can you think ahead or are you stuck in the present through a lack of foresight based on previous knowledge?
Your argument seems to be falling apart.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
You will notice I form much of my "debate" in a questionnaire form. This is an attempt at making you think rather than just spewing out what you are so quick to prefer.
It's much easier to change a mind or at least make it see another side when it must consider rather than give a plain and often generic rebuttal to a "statement" it may or may not agree with.
It is also an easy way to keep it more civil as humans are more prone to enjoy giving answers they have thought out as opposed to giving a potentially defensive and often automated type of response.
-Protips and opinions from a hick.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
What sense does it make to ask me if people deserve to live when I just said they don't deserve to die? If you want to make me look bad for being unsympathetic then at least get it right.
The question is why shouldn't OJ be acquitted for the good of society not whether he actually was. If your position is consistent then explain that in a way that doesn't contradict what you've already said because right now it seems like you start with the conclusion and work your way back using whatever excuses you can find even if it's internally inconsistent.
I already told you what the benefits of due process are. They are the same irrespective of the outcome.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Just so you don't think I'm dodging questions I'm going to answer your questions more fully.
I don't think you have to be good to deserve to live but I never said they deserved to die anyway.
If Bin Laden were executed with a trial then we could argue about why capital punishment is wrong. As it stand we can't do that because you can't even get due process right.
If he were acquitted then either he was innocent so good or he wasn't in which case that's the way the cookie crumbles. It would be better though that a guilty person go free than an innocent one be condemned so fair trials are still the best way to go.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
What analogy are you trying to draw between OBL and your hypothetical "guilty" person, to come to the conclusion that a bullet between the eyes without a trial for his 'justice' to the nearly 3000 civilians who died on 9/11, is some kind of 'breakdown' of 'due process', or 'civility'??
I have zero criticism for how the US went in and took out the trash.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
You would argue capital punishment as well. What are you going to do try to reform this lost individual? Make him say he is sorry and promise not to kill more people? That's awful sugary sweet of you but it wont happen and it wouldn't fix what has been broken anyway. Let's dont bother to talk about the message it would send to the others who would hate and kill and use our own fine law against us to acheive said goals.
You sound like a christian. Turn the other cheek, beg forgiveness and all is atoned for. Oh snap theres reality LOOK OUT! He is not sorry, he will never be sorry and whatever action you take will have a reaction. We can only hope to perform an action that will cause the least reaction and I think the prez did fine. Do not pretend that I am saying this about every individual because you know very well mr Laden was a "special" case. He was not a common murderer or thief.
You better get to cryin because nothing will ever be perfect. No system you can dream of will be perfect and suit everyone. Try and argue that one.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Wow, that's quite a strawman there and I see that you are still ignoring all questions you can't answer but I'll address what you said anyway.
Okay, all of this right here was invented wholecloth by you. I didn't say anything about reform. Some can be reformed some cannot. I don't care if people are sorry. I didn't say anything about fixing "what has been broken" and I don't believe in that in the retributive sense only in the reparative sense.
This is the worst kind of slippery slope argument not only is it supported by nothing but it's an argument to have no ethics, standards, laws or rules at all if they could be used against you. It's a true argument of cowardice.
Strawman, cite me anywhere, ever, saying that people should be forgiven because they apologize.
That's your opinion. I was more interested in the combination of utilitarian and retributive arguments you used to form it.
You mentioned two other people just in this thread that you want murdered in an extra-judicial way are you sure it's that special?
You want to make it even less perfect.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
It wasn't an analogy. He is the person I'm talking about.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Noam Chomsky Is Just Plain Right
I'd rather talk about Noam Chomsky than be accused of being a terrorist sympathizer who's soft on crime
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Did you forget to make a post?
What questions? Pose them plainly.
I'm just making assumptions as you have been.
Not a strawman, another assumption unless you wish to extrapolate on what you want by giving a trial and leniency towards Mr Laden besides the basic "everyone deserves a trial no matter what" theory.
I never said anything about wanting to murder anyone. It could be inferred that I said that about mr Laden but who are these other two I wish to murder. This hasn't gone on all that long so quotes would not be out of the question.
As for the last that is your opinion.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
hmm?
Noam Chomsky would help write the book on how to empower your enemies through political correctness.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I take it I'm not the only one who thinks there's nothing left to be gained from this thread except a few laughs?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Just bored I guess. It's been a little slow around here. Maybe we should get Gauche and luca plane tickets to the mideast and they can give all these terrorists all the american trials they deserve.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Sounds fun.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Fun can be got in more effective ways, though maybe not from a hospital bed. As for being too serious, well... most people come here with a particular objective in mind.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Atheism - Disbelief in any god or gods.
If anyone means something else when they say "atheist," like 'open-minded, scientific naturalist that is opposed to religion and totalitarianism,' they need to make that clear.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Yep, I take all the fun I can handle usually.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin