Re: MD Noam Chomsky / "biological crime"

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 17:18:06 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society."

    Hi Anthony McWatt,

    Thanks for taking the trouble to send us Noam Chomsky's recent talk. It
    confirms what some have said about him, that he deals in distortions, half-
    truths and outright lies. As an example of the latter, he claimed "an
    increase of horrendous terrorists acts all over the world." The U.S. State
    Department's annual terrorism report published April 29 this year shows a 45
    percent decrease in such attacks since 2001.

    More relevant to those still interested in discussing the MOQ is Chomsky's
    attack on intellectuals who, according to him, are mere "acolytes of the
    systems of power." Compare that to Pirsig's general praise of intellectuals,
    especially those who established the rights of free speech, freedom of
    religion, trial by jury, etc.

    Although Chomsky condemns a so-called "doctrine of change of course," whose
    founders and supporters are never identified (a conspiracy among
    intellectuals I presume), and points to supposed historical "facts" to
    blaspheme current leaders, he is hypocritically reluctant to talk about his
    own past, such as his support for the Hippie movement of the 60s. No need to
    remind moq.org readers of Pirsig's analysis of that sorry period in American
    history.

    Finally, Chomsky fails one of Pirsig's tests of truth--logical consistency.
    (Never mind his appeal to polls which is a blatant case of the logical
    fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum.) On the one hand, he takes the reports of
    intelligence agencies as true that the Iraq invasion would increase the
    threat of terror. On the the other, when intelligence agencies concluded that
    Saddam had WMDs, Chomsky says "there was never any reason to believe there
    was a particle of truth in that." There must be another logical fallacy in
    there somewhere, like "using a source when it fits your agenda but ignoring
    the same source when it doesn't." But, I guess I'll have to settle for
    "double-talk," or "he speaks with forked tongue" as American Indians were
    purported to say on occasion.

    I'd be interested in your analysis of Chomsky's worldview vis a vis the MOQ
    if you have time.

    Thanks and best regards,
    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 : Fri May 28 2004 - 17:16:55 BST