Chomsky and Horowitz actually have a lot in common

Post #13,627 by JayMehaffey 10/16/01 3:59:39 PM Reply	Chomsky and Horowitz actually have a lot in common Both are highly radical writers that are both usually interesting, and occasionally delusional. Oddly enough, they both have the same delusion, just in mirror opposite political alignment. For Chomsky any action by US against a foreign power is an illegitimate use of force, for Horowitz, it's always the justifiable use of force for the good of democracy, the US and the country attacked. Reality isn't anyplace near the extremes portrayed by either of these men. Both are usually right at some level, but both are masters of picking the one or two points that support them while ignoring the many against them. Of the two Horowitz tends to irritate me more though, because of his pathological inability to avoid personal attacks. Jay
Post #13,648 by Ashton 10/16/01 5:28:44 PM Reply	One word for that commonality might be 'scale' That is, unawareness of scale or intentional warping of a thesis via a change in scale of an argument - a la so-called Jesuit argument (?) Ex: I give you a lousy haircut and and you complain. You reply, "isn't it fortunate that hair grows?" I counterthrust, "isn't it fortunate that everything grows?" It's everywhere.. ad hominem being the final cop-out. Why don't we teach 'debate' to the cheeldrun, no more? (Me? Guilty as charged.. but at least I know when I'm cheating :-\ufffd A.
Post #13,693 by boxley 10/16/01 10:12:29 PM Reply	request for nit clarification that everything he has written is a lie, including the "ands" and "the\ufffds." shouldnt that be that everything he has written is a lie, including the "ands" and THE "the\ufffds." thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #13,702 by Ashton 10/16/01 10:57:11 PM Reply	Heh.. think it's about style It's raining cats and dogs. Frenchlish: Eeet is raining ze cat and ze dog that everything he has written is a lie, including the "ands" and "the\ufffds." shouldnt that be that everything he has written is a lie, including the "ands" and THE "the\ufffds." I'd guess it's a crap shoot as, "the birds and bees / the birds and the bees". Often enough the rhythm of a sequence determines options, though.. (Maybe I'd vote for "the the's" / but it's close) Notice the common '3' items in such cutesy sentences, though (thought to be the max most homo-saps can retain in memory all at once?) - "We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them in the streets. We shall never surrender!" (Winnie natch) Much more effective than, "We shall fight them on the beaches, in the streets and, we shall ..." No? Nit above, the apostrophe posse might.. say that the plural of 'the' is 'thes' -- but I think common sense overrules here: [thes] = huh? [the's] = well it ain't "the property belonging to 'the'" ... but it's clear-er with apostrophe. My 2 shillings. A.
Post #13,749 by screamer 10/17/01 11:37:46 AM Reply	It's elementary my dear Ashton... "It's everywhere.. ad hominem being the final cop-out. Why don't we teach 'debate' to the cheeldrun, no more?" Cause then they'd be arguin with us all the time... Just a few thoughts, Screamer The Other Man Who Knows Fucking Everything "God is dead" Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead" God "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones "Proove to me that I X is"
Post #13,790 by Ashton 10/17/01 2:34:12 PM Reply	Ummmm.. ____________________________Yeah! ..but it'd be evrsomuchmore Interesting than - Why? Because. But..WHY? Because! ..and just maybe a bit fewer, when asked - "Whaddayaywanna be?" Might not say, with bright gleams of expectation: Oooh. Ooooh. A consumer! "Can I major in Consumption, Daddy? Huh huh - Can I?" (worth a try)

Welcome to IWETHEY!