Re: Hegemony or Survival

Dan Clore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Constantinople wrote:
> > Dan Clore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
> >>Constantinople wrote:
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (G*rd*n) wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >>>>"torresdD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 
> >>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  
> >>>>>>If we don't listen to Noam Chomsky we will regret it.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Paul Cassel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Yeah, how sad the world didn't listen to him in the past. If we had,
> >>>>>we'd all be happily living (and dying) under Pol Pot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This guy is so far wrong that he fools those likewise unable to
> >>>>>think well. 
> >>>>
> >>>>So, as you see it, it's U.S. world empire, or Pol Pot?  It's not
> >>>>clear exactly what you're objecting to.
> >>>
> >>>Chomsky, I'd guess. While he has his followers, among others it's
> >>>gotten to the point where if he says something, that's evidence that
> >>>it's false. 
> >>
> >>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". 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Presumably you wouldn't bother to mention this alledged 
> status as evidence unless you believed it to be rather 
> strong.

  Well no, you can't presume that.  If somebody saying something
is evidence that it's wrong then it doesn't have to be strong 
evidence to be significant.  This is because we implictedly 
accept that somebody saying something is (weak) evidence that it
is right.  If all you knew about my sister was that I told you 
she exists you would tend to believe she exists in the absence 
of other evidence.  If I was so unreliable that the fact that
I claimed to have a sister made you suspect I was an only child,
that's significant enough to mention, even if the suspicion is 
not strong.

> So of the things listed, I'd estimate you must hold 
> the opposite position (to Chomsky) in say 90-95% of the 
> cases.

  Non sequitur.

> Now where did I leave my ten-sided dice?
> 
> -- 
> Dan Clore
> 
> Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
> http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
> Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
> News for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
> 
> "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
> *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
> -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
> _Detective Comics_ #608