blatham wrote:
I'm not just sure where you get the notion that Chompsky gains/needs an identity as a dissident.
I
don't think he needs it. I actually think he could do without it.
Quote:He is one, but I don't know how you can draw a personality flaw from that.
Not personality, perspective. I am contending that his arguments seem driven by ideology more so than being driven to ideology.
Quote:His reputation as a scholar was established early, through his linguistics work, and that work has influenced and changed ideas in many related fields, cognitive science, education, sociology, etc.
Ok.
Quote:His comments on Cuba which you took exception to weren't of the 'look out! this is imminent!' variety, and they aren't completely whimsical (he does compare to Grenada, though I'm not sure you remember that one).
Cuba's been tried, the incident he referenced was a PR strike at Carter, and represents no danger to Cuba. Cuba has never been safer from the US since the revolution.
Quote:I do like the fellow.
That's why I'm avoiding superlatives.
Quote:Though he is strident, I believe there are times and causes for stridency.
I agree, irrational extremism on one side needs it's equivalent on the other.
Quote:And I certainly consider that the worldview he 'describes' is far closer to being true than to being false.
I expected as much. Takes all sorts. ;-)
Quote:Is it possible you didn't want to find him compelling?
I have no reason to desire leftists whose arguments I disagree with. Frankly I wish all the people who make me cringe in debates held ideologies I disagree with. I'd much rather the offkey singer was from the other choir.
Is it possible that you want to?