Re: Hegemony or Survival

Dan Clore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >>Okay, Constantinople tells us that s/h/it considers
> >>Chomsky's saying something as indicating that that claim is
> >>likely to be false. Accepting this premise, we can deduce,
> >>using the above interview with Chomsky, that Constantinople
> >>finds it most unlikely that "Osama bin Laden is a murderous
> >>thug", or that he "should be apprehended and tried for his
> >>crimes right now".

Constantinople wrote:
> > I only said it's evidence. If all I knew about Osama was that Chomsky
> > said he's a murderous thug, then I would have doubts about whether Osama
> > was really a murderous thug. However, we have plenty of independent
> > evidence that Osama is a murderous thug.

Dan Clore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Presumably you wouldn't bother to mention this alledged
> status as evidence unless you believed it to be rather
> strong. So of the things listed, I'd estimate you must hold
> the opposite position (to Chomsky) in say 90-95% of the
> cases. Now where did I leave my ten-sided dice?


Talking about evidence, based on what's been said so far I
don't think any of the people complaining about Chomsky actually
read the article.  Otherwise we would have seen some quotes or
references followed by their objections or derision, instead of
objections to the mere existence of the individual.


-- 

                (<><>)         /*/
       }"{   G*rd*n   }"{   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   }"{ 
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't