Noam Chomsky on building 7
Basically shits on some dreadlocked stoner douche and proceeds to shut down any argument he could make before he even had a chance to present it. Lots of respect to this man, one of my favorite people to read and listen to regarding any issue.
[QUOTE]
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
Same goes for climate change and evolution deniers. Scientific consensus on those are also around 97% yet our culture of false equivalencies would have you think otherwise. People don't give a **** about facts anymore...everyone is an expert.
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
Problem is that their response to that is that the academics and professionals are working in a corrupt system that won't allow the "truth" to be heard.
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
[QUOTE=miller-time]Problem is that their response to that is that the academics and professionals are working in a corrupt system that won't allow the "truth" to be heard.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
[QUOTE=miller-time]Problem is that their response to that is that the academics and professionals are working in a corrupt system that won't allow the "truth" to be heard.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
[QUOTE=miller-time]Problem is that their response to that is that the academics and professionals are working in a corrupt system that won't allow the "truth" to be heard.[/QUOTE]
They are in some cases: just look at how the federal reserve has bought the economics profession.
Not that this grants that whackjob any validity at all - the guy should be on the street corner selling pencils from a cup.
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
:hammerhead: [QUOTE=Dresta]They are in some cases: just look at how the federal reserve has bought the economics profession.
[/QUOTE]
:hammerhead:
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc[/url]
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
Noam Chomsky is engaging in 2 fallacies:
1. He is contradicting himself when he is saying you should rely on the Scientific community and the educational department to dictate what the truth is. He has attacked both sectors [B][COLOR="Blue"]relentlessly[/COLOR][/B] in his philosophies before, so this position is from a position of a [B]contradiction.[/B]
2. He is sidetracking the question by not exactly explaining why it collasped in the first place. As a philosopher, he should have [B]at least [/B]a higher knowledge of [B]engineering and science than the best engineers in the country [/B]to answer the question outright.
Neg rep for Chomsky.
I think being a high target all these years and being harassed by the highest levels of government has made him soft. The young Chomsky wouldn't be so scared to give his honest opinion.
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
[QUOTE]2. He is sidetracking the question by not exactly explaining why it collasped in the first place. As a philosopher, he should have at least a higher knowledge of engineering and science than the best engineers in the country to answer the question outright.[/QUOTE]
That is why he didn't answer the question you fool. Also he is not a philosopher he is a linguist/activist. Sartre was a philosopher, Marx was a philosopher, Chomsky is not a philosopher. If you read any of his books or listened to any of his lectures you would understand the difference very fast.
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
[QUOTE=Hazard]That is why he didn't answer the question you fool. Also he is not a philosopher he is a linguist/activist. Sartre was a philosopher, Marx was a philosopher, Chomsky is not a philosopher. If you read any of his books or listened to any of his lectures you would understand the difference very fast.[/QUOTE]
Also this part is stupid.
[QUOTE]As a philosopher, he should have at least a higher knowledge of engineering and science than the best engineers in the country to answer the question outright.[/QUOTE]
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
I forgot, why did Al Qaeda attack us again?
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
Chomsky should know better.
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]I forgot, why did Al Qaeda attack us again?[/QUOTE]
They thought we had WMD
Re: Noam Chomsky on building 7
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]:hammerhead:
:hammerhead:[/QUOTE]Nice response asshole. Despite your desire to act high-and-mighty, you really are one of the most childish and idiotic posters on here.
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html[/url]
[url]http://econjwatch.org/articles/the-federal-reserve-system-s-influence-on-research-in-monetary-economics[/url]
'THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS NOT ONLY THE SUBJECT OF research by American monetary economists it is also a major sponsor of their research. The Fed (the Board of Governors plus the twelve regional Reserve Banks) employed about 495 full-time staff economists in 2002. That year it engaged more than 120 leading academic economists as consultants and visiting scholars, and conducted some 30 conferences that brought 300-plus academics to the podium alongside its own staff economists. It published more than 230 articles in its own research periodicals. Judging by the abstracts compiled by the December 2002 issue of the e-JEL, some 74 percent of the articles on monetary policy published by US-based economists in US-edited journals appear in Fed-published journals or are co-authored by Fed staff economists.1 Over the past five years, slightly more than 30 percent of the articles by US-based economists published in the Journal of Monetary Economics had at least one Fed-based co-author. Slightly more than 80 percent had at least one co-author with a Fed affiliation (current or prior Fed employment including visiting scholar appointments) listed in an online vita. The corresponding percentages for the Journal of Money Credit and Banking were 39 percent and 75 percent. The editorial boards (editors and associate editors) of these journals are even more heavily weighted with Fed-affiliated economists (9 of 11, and 40 of 46, respectively).' (90+% of journal editors affiliated with fed :roll: - what an even-handed system we have)
Those who go against the grain in regard to the fed thus cannot get published, and ruin their careers by doing so.
Not to mention that there is a literature on how easily economists are bought by job security and prestige that stretches back 100 years.
Not an economist by any chance are we? Congrats on being one of the biggest wastes of space on the planet if so.