Comments by "" (@charlesvan13) on "Sam Harris Embarasses Himself While Trying to Debate Noam Chomsky" video.

  1. If Noam Chomsky is supposed to be so brilliant and erudite then why does he get testy, defensive and evasive when having his positions challenged? If you talk to a real academic philosopher they enjoy the dialectic, argument, and will back up their positions.   Chomsky's just an ideologue.
    49
  2. Coos Oorlog Chomsky doesn't make argumentation.He and his sycophants all just jump to the false argument that he's the authority.   Why do you think he gets testy when someone questions him on a transparent issue, like the value of intent in morality.
    26
  3. Rob McCune No.  I read the emails.  Chomsky didn't explain his positions; he evaded any questions.   Only two issues were brought up 1.  the relevance of intentions in evaluating an action ethically, 2.  the relative atrociousness of the 911 attack and the Al Shifa bombing. But absolutely nothing was clarified.  I understand that Chomsky didn't like Harris because of what he wrote in End of Faith.  But if you don't respect someone, then it's more appropriate to not respond, rather than continue to write petulant, evasive emails.
    9
  4. Rob McCune Harris wasn't trying to argue that "US foreign policy is a pollyannesque exercise in benevolence.   Didn't you notice that Harris agreed that the Al Shifa bombing was a scandal?   The difference was that Harris didn't share Chomsky's absolute moral certainty in regard to that.  And Chomsky took that as a personal attack.  I'm only glad I read this fruitless exchange because the reactions I've read are so strange.   I realize that Noam has many loyal fans--perhaps you.   But I just feel his logic and reasoning are half-backed.   And the Nazi analogy was grotesque.   Even a naïve person knew their motives were sinister.  I think it was silly of Harris to post this, considering how it went.
    6
  5. chris lacock I already knew that about Chomsky.   Look up Monbiot's encounter with Chomsky.   Monbiot was a fan, who just wanted to know why Chomsky wrote the forward to a book that had blatant misinformation on the Sebrenicia and Rawandan massacres.   His reaction there was similar.  He was evasive, and got offended that his work would be critiqued.  He concluded by asserting that he didn't care how many civilians were executed in Sebrenicia and how many Tusi were killed in Rawanda--because his agenda was different.
    6
  6. Rob McCune We're both talking about Chomsky.
    4
  7. maninspired Notice how Chomsky and his followers don't like actual argument.  As soon as Chomsky is questioned he gets defensive that someone would dare question his authority.
    3
  8. MagicofAramis They knew Al Shifa was a pharmaceutical plant.  That's was no secret.  The cia and people in the Clinton administration thought it was being used to manufacture chemicals for chemical weapons, or precursors.  The cia found EMPTA, or O-Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid a VX nerve agent precursor.  They got some other tips, which may or may not have been accurate.  Both agreed that the missile attack was unwarranted, although they both are wrong that there was no evidence--just probably not nearly enough. Harris wanted to discuss with Chomsky why he equated this attack with 911.  This equivalence implied that intent was little relevant to ethics.  But that was an issue that Chomsky really didn't want to discuss. I think Chomsky has some kind of borderline personality disorder, where other people's motives are suspect and wicked.
    2
  9. ***** I don't think people who say things like that even know what a "neocon" is.
    2
  10. Rob McCune That's what I find strange about this.  Harris brought a very clear and relevant question, i.e. how does intent fit into Chomsky's moral evaluations.  Because he seems to disregard it altogether, leading to his judgment of Clinton be close to that of bin Laden.   But Chomsky just got prickly and never addressed the question.   The Nazi example just confused the issue, because there is no risk of a naïve person thinking their motives were benevolent.   And in fact I think that remark would be very offensive to someone from Poland or Nanjing.  Then Chomsky went onto suggest that acting out of indifference, was worse than actual malicious motives.  This is an example of a statement that's meant to sound profound and wise, but is really nonsense.   An obvious retort is that if Clinton's motives were malevolent, instead of just irresponsible, he would have sent the missiles into the factory during working hours killing 50 people.   So it would be worse by Chomsky's own criteria. Interestingly, considering his views on free-will, I think Harris probably doesn't consider intent to be a metric of morality as much as most people.   But I think Chomsky is just full of it.
    1
  11. Beau Jaco Chomsky reacted as a lawyer who's facing litigious or other legal action from an opponent.  It's kind of embarrassing that he gets voted "top public intellectual" by some people.   The only way you can view his reaction is that he considers his positions to be intellectually vulnerable, and thus had to fend off analysis.
    1
  12. santos D No.  Chomsky seems to imply more, though he would not clarify it.He seems to hold the position that it doesn't matter if Clinton intended to kill hundreds of Africans, the way bin Laden intended to kill hundreds of Africans in the embassies.  That brings up obvious ethical issues, but Chomsky wasn't open to a discussion.   For one thing, if Clinton intended to kill Africans, rather than just intending to blow up the plant, he would have bombed it at a time to maximize the body count.   So Clinton's bombing, done at night, killed one security guard while bin Laden's killed over 200, with hundreds more injured.
    1
  13. ***** The only way Sam Harris "embarrassed himself" in this exchange is by mistakenly thinking that he could have an open discussion, that moved the needle, with Noam Chomsky.  Chomsky is so dug in as an ideologue, that he gets petulant and angry at having his ideas questioned.   And I think Harris sincerely just wanted to understand where Chomsky was coming from ethically.  Chomsky resorts to obfuscation that's typical of lawyers.  Such as not making your premises and assumptions completely clear so you can later deflect any questions by slightly changing them.
    1
  14. Dario Colon That "thousands died" as a result of the bombing of al Shiffa is disputed.  People don't buy medicine from just one source.  Just because you live in Sudan, you don't have to buy medicine manufactured in Sudan.   The drugs you buy at a pharmacy likely come from Europe or China.
    1