Gaza Crisis: Are we morally wrong?

[Gary Childress]

Ok. I just looked back. I see now why you are confused. I wrote a comment thus ''No country has a 'right to exist' and no country doe not have a 'right to exit'. They just exist''. It has mysteriously disappeared. Perhaps when I was flung off the site mid sentence, which has started happening again.

Thank you for your candid answer. I appreciate it.

Fair enough. If it's a consistent belief pertaining to all countries, then we have to live with that belief as it pertains to our own countries as well. That would mean that Israel cannot appeal to a right to exist if tables turn, nor can any other. Would you agree?

If it lost then that would be the result. As I said, 'rights' don't come into it. Who is going to 'bestow' it? The UN? Yeah right. How would it be enforced? Constant world wars? Would the US have a 'right to exist' stamp? Canada? Australia? Countries change hands all the time, sometimes multiple times. Germany didn't exist in the time of Mozart. Russia went out of existence for a while and appeared again. If Israel lost it would cease to exist and the region would become another muslim shit-hole. Then there would be an actual genocide, and wokedom of course would be silent. It was never about concern for 'palestinian children' or any other children. Have you actually LISTENED to wokies being interviewed? I saw one the other day where they thought Israel was a muslim country. They also didn't realise that gay people are persecuted in Gaza (they were 'queers for palestiners'). FFS.

Actually I think I worded it a bit differently. ''Every country has a 'right to exist' and no country has a 'right to exit'. They just exist.'' Same sentiment.

Israel is going to defend itself and fight for its own existence. Is anyone going to tell them they have no 'right' to do that? I have a feeling they won't take any notice...

If we hold to the position that "rights" are purely a fabrication and don't exist, then it seems true that we cannot say that Israel does not have a right to defend itself either.

I suppose it would take a lot of worry out of some of our minds (mine for example) to just set the whole issue aside and let fate or God or whatever sort it out. \_('_')_/

[accelafine]

Thank you for your candid answer. I appreciate it.

Fair enough. If it's a consistent belief pertaining to all countries, then we have to live with that belief as it pertains to our own countries as well. That would mean that Israel cannot appeal to a right to exist if tables turn, nor can any other. Would you agree?

If it lost then that would be the result. As I said, 'rights' don't come into it. Who is going to 'bestow' it? The UN? Yeah right. How would it be enforced? Constant world wars? Would the US have a 'right to exist' stamp? Canada? Australia? Countries change hands all the time, sometimes multiple times. Germany didn't exist in the time of Mozart. Russia went out of existence for a while and appeared again. If Israel lost it would cease to exist and the region would become another muslim shit-hole. Then there would be an actual genocide, and wokedom of course would be silent. It was never about concern for 'palestinian children' or any other children. Have you actually LISTENED to wokies being interviewed? I saw one the other day where they thought Israel was a muslim country. They also didn't realise that gay people are persecuted in Gaza (they were 'queers for palestiners'). FFS.

Actually I think I worded it a bit differently. ''Every country has a 'right to exist' and no country has a 'right to exit'. They just exist.'' Same sentiment.

Israel is going to defend itself and fight for its own existence. Is anyone going to tell them they have no 'right' to do that? I have a feeling they won't take any notice...

If we hold to the position that "rights" are purely a fabrication and don't exist, then it seems true that we cannot say that Israel does not have a right to defend itself either.

I suppose it would take a lot of worry out of some of our minds (mine for example) to just set the whole issue aside and let fate or God or whatever sort it out. \_('_')_/

Bringing superstition into it isn't helpful to anyone.
They are too gutless to come out and say that Israel has no right to defend itself, so they instead make up bullshit about 'genocide'--a deliberate tactic with the use of that particular word.

[Gary Childress]

If it lost then that would be the result. As I said, 'rights' don't come into it. Who is going to 'bestow' it? The UN? Yeah right. How would it be enforced? Constant world wars? Would the US have a 'right to exist' stamp? Canada? Australia? Countries change hands all the time, sometimes multiple times. Germany didn't exist in the time of Mozart. Russia went out of existence for a while and appeared again. If Israel lost it would cease to exist and the region would become another muslim shit-hole. Then there would be an actual genocide, and wokedom of course would be silent. It was never about concern for 'palestinian children' or any other children. Have you actually LISTENED to wokies being interviewed? I saw one the other day where they thought Israel was a muslim country. They also didn't realise that gay people are persecuted in Gaza (they were 'queers for palestiners'). FFS.

Actually I think I worded it a bit differently. ''Every country has a 'right to exist' and no country has a 'right to exit'. They just exist.'' Same sentiment.

Israel is going to defend itself and fight for its own existence. Is anyone going to tell them they have no 'right' to do that? I have a feeling they won't take any notice...

If we hold to the position that "rights" are purely a fabrication and don't exist, then it seems true that we cannot say that Israel does not have a right to defend itself either.

I suppose it would take a lot of worry out of some of our minds (mine for example) to just set the whole issue aside and let fate or God or whatever sort it out. \_('_')_/

Bringing superstition into it isn't helpful to anyone.
They are too gutless to come out and say that Israel has no right to defend itself, so they instead make up bullshit about 'genocide'--a deliberate tactic with the use of that particular word.

The issues in Gaza seem very complex and not straightforward to solve.

[Pistolero]

Scott Ritter : Can the Gaza Genocide Be Stopped?

[accelafine]

If we hold to the position that "rights" are purely a fabrication and don't exist, then it seems true that we cannot say that Israel does not have a right to defend itself either.

I suppose it would take a lot of worry out of some of our minds (mine for example) to just set the whole issue aside and let fate or God or whatever sort it out. \_('_')_/

Bringing superstition into it isn't helpful to anyone.
They are too gutless to come out and say that Israel has no right to defend itself, so they instead make up bullshit about 'genocide'--a deliberate tactic with the use of that particular word.

The issues in Gaza seem very complex and not straightforward to solve.

It's not actually that complex at all. Truth and facts never are. People like pisspot try to make it that way as a deliberate tactic. This is why nothing he says makes any logical sense. The so-called 'trans' lobby uses the same tactic. They all depend on people being lazy, gullible idiots who can't think critically.

[Gary Childress]

Bringing superstition into it isn't helpful to anyone.
They are too gutless to come out and say that Israel has no right to defend itself, so they instead make up bullshit about 'genocide'--a deliberate tactic with the use of that particular word.

The issues in Gaza seem very complex and not straightforward to solve.

It's not actually that complex at all. Truth and facts never are. People like pisspot try to make it that way as a deliberate tactic. This is why nothing he says makes any logical sense. The so-called 'trans' lobby uses the same tactic. They all depend on people being lazy, gullible idiots who can't think critically.

It's not complex if the situation is solved with force. That's easy and simple if you're the stronger. What is complex is solving the problem with diplomacy so that there is lasting peace, safety, and a feeling for everyone that they are walking away with something they can accept. That's the hard and complex way. The problem with force is that it creates resentment and ill will that can cause the same problems to resurface later.

[accelafine]

The issues in Gaza seem very complex and not straightforward to solve.

It's not actually that complex at all. Truth and facts never are. People like pisspot try to make it that way as a deliberate tactic. This is why nothing he says makes any logical sense. The so-called 'trans' lobby uses the same tactic. They all depend on people being lazy, gullible idiots who can't think critically.

It's not complex if the situation is solved with force. That's easy and simple if you're the stronger. What is complex is solving the problem with diplomacy so that there is lasting peace, safety, and a feeling for everyone that they are walking away with something they can accept. That's the hard and complex way. The problem with force is that it creates resentment and ill will that can cause the same problems to resurface later.

We seem to be on completely different wavelengths. I thought your 'complex' bit was referring to the 'issues'-- not a solution. There is no solution, unless you adopt the 'solution' of the likes of pisspot, which is the destruction of Israel and annihilation of its people. Plasticians will continue to commit atrocities against Israelis as they have been doing since the beginning. And no, Israel is not 'genociding' the Gazans. I'm pretty sure their population is about the same as it was just before they attacked Israel and deliberately provoked it into retaliating. Berlin was flattened during WW11. They rebuilt. Brick by brick. They didn't look for other countries to take them in so they could live off welfare for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps they could live in those miles of tunnels they've been busy building for the past couple of decades

[Gary Childress]

It's not actually that complex at all. Truth and facts never are. People like pisspot try to make it that way as a deliberate tactic. This is why nothing he says makes any logical sense. The so-called 'trans' lobby uses the same tactic. They all depend on people being lazy, gullible idiots who can't think critically.

It's not complex if the situation is solved with force. That's easy and simple if you're the stronger. What is complex is solving the problem with diplomacy so that there is lasting peace, safety, and a feeling for everyone that they are walking away with something they can accept. That's the hard and complex way. The problem with force is that it creates resentment and ill will that can cause the same problems to resurface later.

We seem to be on completely different wavelengths. I thought your 'complex' bit was referring to the 'issues'-- not a solution. There is no solution, unless you adopt the 'solution' of the likes of pisspot, which is the destruction of Israel and annihilation of its people. Plasticians will continue to commit atrocities against Israelis as they have been doing since the beginning. And no, Israel is not 'genociding' the Gazans. I'm pretty sure their population is about the same as it was just before they attacked Israel and deliberately provoked it into retaliating. Berlin was flattened during WW11. They rebuilt. Brick by brick. They didn't look for other countries to take them in so they could live off welfare for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps they could live in those miles of tunnels they've been busy building for the past couple of decades

Well, people who support the Palestinians refer to them as the "resistance". Their view is that Palestinians, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China are "resisting" Western imperialism and colonialism. BRICS was created as an alternative to the European Union on the premise that if 3rd world countries manage their own economic affairs without American and European intervention, then they are more likely to achieve economically successful societies that will get them on par with Western civilization technologically and in terms of infrastructure. There have been intellectuals who have proposed independent development of the underdeveloped countries, arguing that Western interference and manipulation keeps the third world poor and inferior to the West. That if they resist Western control, then the 3rd world would be on par with Western civilization.

If it is true that the West is holding the 3rd world back from economic and political equality with the West and keeping the 3rd world dependent on the West then it seems like a scandal. Frantz Fanon wrote a famous book years ago called The Wretched of the Earth in which he proposed that the 3rd World was being exploited and abused by 1st world nations and that 3rd world nations needed independence from that in order to thrive. Apparently, there are rumors or speculation that the CIA played a part in his death somehow. Not sure how true that is but it seems to be the habit of organizations like the CIA during the Cold War to stop communism and support "free markets".

Noam Chomsky is famous for his political writings where he compared trends and similar situations in US foreign policy that suggest that the real motivator of Western economic tutelage was to benefit corporations and help with the exploitation of 3rd world countries for their resources and cheap labor. As far as I know, Chomsky's analyses are considered to be the standard picture of the Cold War Era by many in academia. I've heard that he is the most quoted author in the world.

If Chomsky and Fanon are right, then we in the West are guilty of exploitation and a lot of dirty dealing. Of course, it's easier to be a critic of US foreign policy living in the US than it is to be a critic of Russian foreign policy (for example) living in Russia. Critics in Russia tend to disappear mysteriously or get poisoned. Chomsky, OTOH, has had a stellar career in the West while being a harsh critic and dissident. So there is that. But, unfortunately,y Chomsky's writings have been used by corrupt leaders around the world to justify "resistance" of Western influence. Chomsky himself has stated that his writings are meant for readers in Western countries so that we can know what our own leaders are doing and know these scandals so voters in the West can vote them out of power if they are corrupt. In much of the 3rd World, people are killed for exposing inconvenient truths.

That's why I posted my lamentation a while back about whether Liberal Democracies that allow dissent can survive against totalitarian regimes that suppress dissent. Lately, the tide seems to have shifted in favor of places like Russia, China, North Korea, etc., substantial numbers of people in the world seem to feel that the US and Europe are greater threats to peace and civilization than countries like Russia, China, or N. Korea.

Another way of looking at it is that the West has largely behaved better than totalitarian regimes because dissidents have kept our leaders on their toes and called out their scandals. Therefore, I still believe that Western Civilization is in some ways "exceptional" compared to countries that have totalitarian regimes. We are generally more self-correcting and self-aware of our own country's behavior than the citizens of totalitarian nations are of theirs.

It saddens me to see people turn against the 1st world and call their actions "resistance", thus creating animosity against 1st world nations. It seems like it would be better if we all cooperated and worked together on things like sustainable energy and keeping nuclear weapons production under control instead of fight and kill each other.

TLDR:

In other words, I am not suggesting that the 3rd world should resist the 1st world in all matters, just in bad policy matters, but that the 1st world needs to mind our foreign policy behavior better. I believe Chomsky would agree with that stance (though he's notoriously misunderstood by many who haven't read as many of his political writings as I have).

[accelafine]

It's not complex if the situation is solved with force. That's easy and simple if you're the stronger. What is complex is solving the problem with diplomacy so that there is lasting peace, safety, and a feeling for everyone that they are walking away with something they can accept. That's the hard and complex way. The problem with force is that it creates resentment and ill will that can cause the same problems to resurface later.

We seem to be on completely different wavelengths. I thought your 'complex' bit was referring to the 'issues'-- not a solution. There is no solution, unless you adopt the 'solution' of the likes of pisspot, which is the destruction of Israel and annihilation of its people. Plasticians will continue to commit atrocities against Israelis as they have been doing since the beginning. And no, Israel is not 'genociding' the Gazans. I'm pretty sure their population is about the same as it was just before they attacked Israel and deliberately provoked it into retaliating. Berlin was flattened during WW11. They rebuilt. Brick by brick. They didn't look for other countries to take them in so they could live off welfare for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps they could live in those miles of tunnels they've been busy building for the past couple of decades

Well, people who support the Palestinians refer to them as the "resistance". Their view is that Palestinians, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China are "resisting" Western imperialism and colonialism. BRICS was created as an alternative to the European Union on the premise that if 3rd world countries manage their own economic affairs without American and European intervention, then they are more likely to achieve economically successful societies that will get them on par with Western civilization technologically and in terms of infrastructure. There have been intellectuals who have proposed independent development of the underdeveloped countries, arguing that Western interference and manipulation keeps the third world poor and inferior to the West. That if they resist Western control, then the 3rd world would be on par with Western civilization.

If it is true that the West is holding the 3rd world back from economic and political equality with the West and keeping the 3rd world dependent on the West then it seems like a scandal. Frantz Fanon wrote a famous book years ago called The Wretched of the Earth in which he proposed that the 3rd World was being exploited and abused by 1st world nations and that 3rd world nations needed independence from that in order to thrive. Apparently, there are rumors or speculation that the CIA played a part in his death somehow. Not sure how true that is but it seems to be the habit of organizations like the CIA during the Cold War to stop communism and support "free markets".

Noam Chomsky is famous for his political writings where he compared trends and similar situations in US foreign policy that suggest that the real motivator of Western economic tutelage was to benefit corporations and help with the exploitation of 3rd world countries for their resources and cheap labor. As far as I know, Chomsky's analyses are considered to be the standard picture of the Cold War Era by many in academia. I've heard that he is the most quoted author in the world.

If Chomsky and Fanon are right, then we in the West are guilty of exploitation and a lot of dirty dealing. Of course, it's easier to be a critic of US foreign policy living in the US than it is to be a critic of Russian foreign policy (for example) living in Russia. Critics in Russia tend to disappear mysteriously or get poisoned. Chomsky, OTOH, has had a stellar career in the West while being a harsh critic and dissident. So there is that. But, unfortunately,y Chomsky's writings have been used by corrupt leaders around the world to justify "resistance" of Western influence. Chomsky himself has stated that his writings are meant for readers in Western countries so that we can know what our own leaders are doing and know these scandals so voters in the West can vote them out of power if they are corrupt. In much of the 3rd World, people are killed for exposing inconvenient truths.

That's why I posted my lamentation a while back about whether Liberal Democracies that allow dissent can survive against totalitarian regimes that suppress dissent. Lately, the tide seems to have shifted in favor of places like Russia, China, North Korea, etc., substantial numbers of people in the world seem to feel that the US and Europe are greater threats to peace and civilization than countries like Russia, China, or N. Korea.

Another way of looking at it is that the West has largely behaved better than totalitarian regimes because dissidents have kept our leaders on their toes and called out their scandals. Therefore, I still believe that Western Civilization is in some ways "exceptional" compared to countries that have totalitarian regimes. We are generally more self-correcting and self-aware of our own country's behavior than the citizens of totalitarian nations are of theirs.

It saddens me to see people turn against the 1st world and call their actions "resistance", thus creating animosity against 1st world nations. It seems like it would be better if we all cooperated and worked together on things like sustainable energy and keeping nuclear weapons production under control instead of fight and kill each other.

TLDR:

In other words, I am not suggesting that the 3rd world should resist the 1st world, but that the 1st world needs to mind our foreign policy behavior better. I believe Chomsky would agree with that stance (though he's notoriously misunderstood by many who haven't read as many of his writings as I have).

There's no point in throwing Saint Noam Chompsky at me. I can't stand the man. Isn't he dead yet?

[Gary Childress]

We seem to be on completely different wavelengths. I thought your 'complex' bit was referring to the 'issues'-- not a solution. There is no solution, unless you adopt the 'solution' of the likes of pisspot, which is the destruction of Israel and annihilation of its people. Plasticians will continue to commit atrocities against Israelis as they have been doing since the beginning. And no, Israel is not 'genociding' the Gazans. I'm pretty sure their population is about the same as it was just before they attacked Israel and deliberately provoked it into retaliating. Berlin was flattened during WW11. They rebuilt. Brick by brick. They didn't look for other countries to take them in so they could live off welfare for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps they could live in those miles of tunnels they've been busy building for the past couple of decades

Well, people who support the Palestinians refer to them as the "resistance". Their view is that Palestinians, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China are "resisting" Western imperialism and colonialism. BRICS was created as an alternative to the European Union on the premise that if 3rd world countries manage their own economic affairs without American and European intervention, then they are more likely to achieve economically successful societies that will get them on par with Western civilization technologically and in terms of infrastructure. There have been intellectuals who have proposed independent development of the underdeveloped countries, arguing that Western interference and manipulation keeps the third world poor and inferior to the West. That if they resist Western control, then the 3rd world would be on par with Western civilization.

If it is true that the West is holding the 3rd world back from economic and political equality with the West and keeping the 3rd world dependent on the West then it seems like a scandal. Frantz Fanon wrote a famous book years ago called The Wretched of the Earth in which he proposed that the 3rd World was being exploited and abused by 1st world nations and that 3rd world nations needed independence from that in order to thrive. Apparently, there are rumors or speculation that the CIA played a part in his death somehow. Not sure how true that is but it seems to be the habit of organizations like the CIA during the Cold War to stop communism and support "free markets".

Noam Chomsky is famous for his political writings where he compared trends and similar situations in US foreign policy that suggest that the real motivator of Western economic tutelage was to benefit corporations and help with the exploitation of 3rd world countries for their resources and cheap labor. As far as I know, Chomsky's analyses are considered to be the standard picture of the Cold War Era by many in academia. I've heard that he is the most quoted author in the world.

If Chomsky and Fanon are right, then we in the West are guilty of exploitation and a lot of dirty dealing. Of course, it's easier to be a critic of US foreign policy living in the US than it is to be a critic of Russian foreign policy (for example) living in Russia. Critics in Russia tend to disappear mysteriously or get poisoned. Chomsky, OTOH, has had a stellar career in the West while being a harsh critic and dissident. So there is that. But, unfortunately,y Chomsky's writings have been used by corrupt leaders around the world to justify "resistance" of Western influence. Chomsky himself has stated that his writings are meant for readers in Western countries so that we can know what our own leaders are doing and know these scandals so voters in the West can vote them out of power if they are corrupt. In much of the 3rd World, people are killed for exposing inconvenient truths.

That's why I posted my lamentation a while back about whether Liberal Democracies that allow dissent can survive against totalitarian regimes that suppress dissent. Lately, the tide seems to have shifted in favor of places like Russia, China, North Korea, etc., substantial numbers of people in the world seem to feel that the US and Europe are greater threats to peace and civilization than countries like Russia, China, or N. Korea.

Another way of looking at it is that the West has largely behaved better than totalitarian regimes because dissidents have kept our leaders on their toes and called out their scandals. Therefore, I still believe that Western Civilization is in some ways "exceptional" compared to countries that have totalitarian regimes. We are generally more self-correcting and self-aware of our own country's behavior than the citizens of totalitarian nations are of theirs.

It saddens me to see people turn against the 1st world and call their actions "resistance", thus creating animosity against 1st world nations. It seems like it would be better if we all cooperated and worked together on things like sustainable energy and keeping nuclear weapons production under control instead of fight and kill each other.

TLDR:

In other words, I am not suggesting that the 3rd world should resist the 1st world, but that the 1st world needs to mind our foreign policy behavior better. I believe Chomsky would agree with that stance (though he's notoriously misunderstood by many who haven't read as many of his writings as I have).

There's no point in throwing Saint Noam Chompsky at me. I can't stand the man. Isn't he dead yet?

That's a shame. You are excluding yourself from the pulse of contemporary politics. A lot of things in the world might make more sense to you if you were more familiar with his political writings. Otherwise, you are missing a lot of nuance.

[accelafine]

Well, people who support the Palestinians refer to them as the "resistance". Their view is that Palestinians, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China are "resisting" Western imperialism and colonialism. BRICS was created as an alternative to the European Union on the premise that if 3rd world countries manage their own economic affairs without American and European intervention, then they are more likely to achieve economically successful societies that will get them on par with Western civilization technologically and in terms of infrastructure. There have been intellectuals who have proposed independent development of the underdeveloped countries, arguing that Western interference and manipulation keeps the third world poor and inferior to the West. That if they resist Western control, then the 3rd world would be on par with Western civilization.

If it is true that the West is holding the 3rd world back from economic and political equality with the West and keeping the 3rd world dependent on the West then it seems like a scandal. Frantz Fanon wrote a famous book years ago called The Wretched of the Earth in which he proposed that the 3rd World was being exploited and abused by 1st world nations and that 3rd world nations needed independence from that in order to thrive. Apparently, there are rumors or speculation that the CIA played a part in his death somehow. Not sure how true that is but it seems to be the habit of organizations like the CIA during the Cold War to stop communism and support "free markets".

Noam Chomsky is famous for his political writings where he compared trends and similar situations in US foreign policy that suggest that the real motivator of Western economic tutelage was to benefit corporations and help with the exploitation of 3rd world countries for their resources and cheap labor. As far as I know, Chomsky's analyses are considered to be the standard picture of the Cold War Era by many in academia. I've heard that he is the most quoted author in the world.

If Chomsky and Fanon are right, then we in the West are guilty of exploitation and a lot of dirty dealing. Of course, it's easier to be a critic of US foreign policy living in the US than it is to be a critic of Russian foreign policy (for example) living in Russia. Critics in Russia tend to disappear mysteriously or get poisoned. Chomsky, OTOH, has had a stellar career in the West while being a harsh critic and dissident. So there is that. But, unfortunately,y Chomsky's writings have been used by corrupt leaders around the world to justify "resistance" of Western influence. Chomsky himself has stated that his writings are meant for readers in Western countries so that we can know what our own leaders are doing and know these scandals so voters in the West can vote them out of power if they are corrupt. In much of the 3rd World, people are killed for exposing inconvenient truths.

That's why I posted my lamentation a while back about whether Liberal Democracies that allow dissent can survive against totalitarian regimes that suppress dissent. Lately, the tide seems to have shifted in favor of places like Russia, China, North Korea, etc., substantial numbers of people in the world seem to feel that the US and Europe are greater threats to peace and civilization than countries like Russia, China, or N. Korea.

Another way of looking at it is that the West has largely behaved better than totalitarian regimes because dissidents have kept our leaders on their toes and called out their scandals. Therefore, I still believe that Western Civilization is in some ways "exceptional" compared to countries that have totalitarian regimes. We are generally more self-correcting and self-aware of our own country's behavior than the citizens of totalitarian nations are of theirs.

It saddens me to see people turn against the 1st world and call their actions "resistance", thus creating animosity against 1st world nations. It seems like it would be better if we all cooperated and worked together on things like sustainable energy and keeping nuclear weapons production under control instead of fight and kill each other.

TLDR:

In other words, I am not suggesting that the 3rd world should resist the 1st world, but that the 1st world needs to mind our foreign policy behavior better. I believe Chomsky would agree with that stance (though he's notoriously misunderstood by many who haven't read as many of his writings as I have).

There's no point in throwing Saint Noam Chompsky at me. I can't stand the man. Isn't he dead yet?

That's a shame. You are excluding yourself from the pulse of contemporary politics. A lot of things in the world might make more sense to you if you were more familiar with his political writings. Otherwise, you are missing a lot of nuance.

That's not patronising at all. Of course. I need Noam Chimpsky to educate me on politics. You are so weak. You seem to be incapable of thinking for yourself. All you do is go with whoever you heard/read last.
ps. I would rather listen to the real Noam Chimpsky. I'm sure I would learn more.

[Gary Childress]

There's no point in throwing Saint Noam Chompsky at me. I can't stand the man. Isn't he dead yet?

That's a shame. You are excluding yourself from the pulse of contemporary politics. A lot of things in the world might make more sense to you if you were more familiar with his political writings. Otherwise, you are missing a lot of nuance.

That's not patronising at all. Of course. I need Noam Chumpsky to educate me on politics. You are so weak. You seem to be incapable of thinking for yourself. All you do is go with whoever you heard last.

I'm rational. I'm willing to listen to people and learn as much from them as they may learn from me. You should try it sometime.

[accelafine]

That's a shame. You are excluding yourself from the pulse of contemporary politics. A lot of things in the world might make more sense to you if you were more familiar with his political writings. Otherwise, you are missing a lot of nuance.

That's not patronising at all. Of course. I need Noam Chumpsky to educate me on politics. You are so weak. You seem to be incapable of thinking for yourself. All you do is go with whoever you heard last.

I'm rational. I'm willing to listen to people and learn as much from them as they may learn from me. You should try it sometime.

That's not the same as blowing like a weather vane. I know I can't stand him and certainly don't agree with him on Israel so why would I bother?

[Gary Childress]

That's not patronising at all. Of course. I need Noam Chumpsky to educate me on politics. You are so weak. You seem to be incapable of thinking for yourself. All you do is go with whoever you heard last.

I'm rational. I'm willing to listen to people and learn as much from them as they may learn from me. You should try it sometime.

That's not the same as blowing like a weather vane. I know I can't stand him and certainly don't agree with him on Israel so why would I bother?

You don't like Chomsky because you don't like what he says. However, speaking the truth is not a popularity contest. I don't like much of what he has to say either but he generally turns out to be correct whether I like it or not.

[accelafine]

I'm rational. I'm willing to listen to people and learn as much from them as they may learn from me. You should try it sometime.

That's not the same as blowing like a weather vane. I know I can't stand him and certainly don't agree with him on Israel so why would I bother?

You don't like Chomsky because you don't like what he says. However, speaking the truth is not a popularity contest. I don't like much of what he has to say either but he generally turns out to be correct whether I like it or not.

What a stupid comment. I 'don't like what he says' What else would it be? The size of his nose? Have you had a recent lobotomy or something? You seem to be declining in the brain department. Why am I obliged to like saint Chimpsky? It's weird the way he's idolised and how defensive people get when someone doesn't worship their hero. Just think for yourself. You only believe he's 'telling the truth' because you agree with him