From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun May 01 2005 - 15:15:32 BST
On 1 May 2005 at 8:43, Platt Holden wrote:
> msh:
> What difference does it make if you use gas chambers or napalm or
> atom bombs or Cruise Missiles? And there was abuse of POWs on both
> sides, as always in war, as recent history quite clearly reveals.
>
> Besides, I reject as obscene your insistence that a few million
> murdered is somehow not as bad as 6 million. If the American
> bombing of SE Asia had continued long enough to kill 6 million, would you
> have suddenly turned against it? This seems highly doubtful. It's clear
> that, to you, the numbers killed are not as important as WHO is doing the
> killing.
I reject as obscene your blindness to the difference between fighting for
freedom and fighting to enslave. It's not a question of WHO, but WHY.
msh says:
Your assumption that the USG always and forever uses aggression to
fight for freedom is what is being challenged in part by my Nuremberg
example, as well as by almost every political discussion you and I
have ever had. As long as you refuse to examine and discuss evidence
against your assumption, your position is dogmatic, not
philosophical.
msh before:
> But, rather than make me read the whole thing, why don't you pick out what
> you consider to be Cohn's most convincing argument against Chomsky, and we
> can talk about that. And, if we must, let's do it in a different thread.
platt:
Funny. You want me to read the whole of Chomsky, but when it comes to a
anything that exposes your hero as a fraud, you'll read nothing. That's
what I call fair and balanced. :-)
msh:
I've read quite a bit of Cohn's work, and most of the essay you
offered, and have found to it be the usual misrepresentation and
distortion of Chomsky's ideas. But if you can point to an argument
you find convincing, I'll be happy to discuss it.
But why should either of us have to read secondary interpretations of
Chomsky's work when the source writing is so easily available?
You've made numerous accusations against Chomsky's scholarship, and
yet are unable to offer any primary evidence in support of your
claims.
Nothing personal, but the only fraud I see here is you pretending to
be interested in politics and philosophy.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why,
why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he
understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
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 : Sun May 01 2005 - 15:41:00 BST