refute

▸ verb:  prove to be false or incorrect
▸ verb:  overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof

“…You have implied that I am a part of a problem rather than of a
solution…” – gruff

Yes, I have and retain that view. So far I see no actual refutation of
this view.

“…You have implied that I am a tea bagger…” – gruff

That was an extension to the previous comment, was hyperbolic
association and an attempt at levity. This I had hoped to be clear
with the use of the emoticon [ ;-) ]

“…You have implied that I support fascism, totalitarianism and other
(similar) ideologies…” – gruff

If you read it that way, such an interpretation was not intended. My
actual words were: “In the sense of the way Chomsky defines anarchy, I
would say that I am proposing it as being a preferable stance than
that of supporting and participating in fascism, totalitarianism and
other ideologies.”  I retain my stance.

My guess is that you do lean toward these and other ideologies more
than you lean towards Chomsky’s notion of anarchy or perhaps even the
principle of universality. I don’t know for sure about the latter.
What you write about Noam seems to support (be evidence for) my guess.
Of course, you admit to not knowing his view(s) of anarchy, so the
discussion breaks down from that point on. To help us discuss this
more extensively, I ask that you read this short decade old interview
with Noam about anarchy. I resonate with most of the views expressed
therein. Then perhaps you could with more information provide evidence
against his view(s).
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm

“…You have implied that I do not wish to explore "the truth" which I
take to mean your truth…” – gruff

Well, the ‘truth’ in context included the following: “…that they are
quite different”. Here we were talking about the terms ‘right’ and
‘power’. The confusion might be caused by my not having gone into
detail enough. I will do my best to remedy that a bit now. I meant to
imply that a ‘right’ is something innate and a ‘power’ is something
granted. I used the Declaration of Independence to support this view.
Specifically, the following excerpt, often quoted, seldom studied:

“…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed…”

Note how the terms are differentiated in this context. A ‘right’ is
assumed to be innate. A ‘power’ is something consented to. This is and
was the totality of my truth of differentiation of the two terms in
our current context. If you still disagree, I will await your
evidence.

“…You have implied that my logic and reason are not only false but
childish and irrational..” – gruff

You will have to provide evidence about the ‘childish and irrational’
part. I used the term ‘logic’. Again, in the context and given my
understanding of the terms used as evidenced by the document quoted
above, until evidence is provided, I stand by my contention that the
terms are different and any attempt to exchange them *in this precise
context* would not have the same meaning as was your contention.

“…You have implied that I am naïve…” – gruff

You will have to show evidence of this gruff. The one time I used the
term ‘naïve’ I was applying it to my own thinking, not yours.

“…You have implied that I do not know the simple definition of words…”
– gruff

Again, you will have to provide evidence for this argument. I have
suggested that in specific circumstances, as mentioned above, two
words have a specific and unique meaning when used in the specific
context we are discussing. There was no generalized suggestion that
you do not know “the simple definition of words”. I did also suggest
that you falsely argued that appeasement meant the same thing as not
keeping a standing army. So far I see no evidence to change this view.

“…You have implied that I have conducted a "takeover" of the original
theme of this post…” – gruff

 The original theme of the topic (not post) was and remains *”Her”
Objectification*. We have gone far afield from any discussion
associated with Slip’s first post:
“The newest mustering of contempt for flagrant expressions of male
perceptions concerning females as sexual objects opens yet another
door to deeper insights into this age old dilemma within a era of
modernist interpretations….” – SD

QED

“… And you have implied that I am in favor of force over agreement…” –
gruff

I do not accept that characterization without evidence.

“…I contend that you have no basis for these contentions and that
perhaps you are merely being a contrarian or an instigator…” gruff

See above.

“…That said, I will attempt to rebut much of what you say or at the
very least explain my reason and logic more clearly for your
edification. First and foremost, I am very much in favor of peace on
earth.  Yet
however much we pay lip service to that phrase, there is no evidence
whatsoever in our entire past nor in our contemporary world that such
a condition is currently possible and with that lack of evidence or
even inclination on the part of the world, recommending that we
disband our military and lay down our arms seems to me just plain
foolishness….” – gruff

Gruff, I am very glad to hear that you are in favor of peace on earth
or at least give lip service to the phrase. Maybe we could start a new
topic on it since this is the first time the phrase has been used in
this topic by either of us?

Are you recommending that we ‘disband our military and lay down our
arms’? I know I have not done so.

“…As an aside and regards your criticism of my argument through asking
questions, was this not the highly regarded method used by
Socrates?...” – gruff

The fallacy of argumentation:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#question

nor the fallacy of the rhetorical question:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#rhetorical_...

have anything to do with representations of Socrates’ methodology
except perhaps for the question mark.

In the current context, I mean more precisely to point out that you
are not doing either: 1) making a clear argument nor 2) asking a
Socratic question. I contend that your answers are more along the line
of rhetorical questioning as the link above addresses and that they
are leading a person *who has not nor is apt to agreed with your
contention* to your point of view.

I will add that it is my opinion that when you asked:

“Isn't that as much a form of status discrimination as any caste
system?  What if you wanted to live in east LA, or Oakland, or
Chinatown?  Wouldn't you feel set upon by foolish and irrational
prejudices?” – gruff

…these questions could be interpreted as being Socratic in nature.

However, when you directly asked me:

“Do you really think we'd still be here had we de-militarized at any
time during the Cold War?  Do you really think that we'd have gone
unscathed had we de-militarized at any other time since?” – gruff

…I found the questions to be disingenuous in the sense that they at
once included your answer in them and little room for an opposing view
and that they to me implied that I was suggesting the very things you
were asking me to defend. In this case, one of the fallacies
associated with methodology is the fallacy of changing the subject:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression

I find this tactic annoying at best.

“…It also works very well in the practice of law…” – gruff

Uhh, in the context of law, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘works very
well’. In fact, IF you are contending that ‘it’, the use of questions,
works well in our interaction too, I will say that they might. It
would depend on many factors. One of which is what the goal is of the
one posing the question. If it is to misdirect, yes, such use of
questions can ‘work well’. IF it is to expand the understanding of
those in discourse, as Socrates did, it can work well too. Again, this
is the case only if the question is well intended, open ended to some
extent and not meant as a means to unduly persuade or misdirect.
Regardless, I prefer open and honest discussion to legalistic
machinations. I also use questions to learn and seldom if ever to
obfuscate or misdirect.

“You confirm that “…Laws are the glue that holds society together and
allow us to live with each other in reasonable certainty of making it
to tomorrow…” is true, then ask what my point is and state that it has
nothing to do with rights and freedoms.  Let me point out that every
law, every rule, every regulation is a limitation on individual and
societal freedom and rights and without such limitations we would have
chaotic anarchy.” – gruff

Here I was echoing your use of the two terms ‘rights and freedoms’
which you attribute to Ben Franklin, a direct correlation I had not
made. Perhaps you were not implying that I had. Regardless, in the
current context, I was addressing the earlier point about motor cycle
helmets. My intention was to point out that there was more freedom if
there was NO law about using a helmet. One would have the freedom to
either wear one or not wear one. Your response to this argument was a
non sequitur. It also was the fallacy of generalization:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#generalize

…thus my albeit ironic question about what your point was. IF you wish
to refute my specific argument about motorcycle helmet use, please do
so. If not, OK.

“… I have no idea how Chomsky defines anarchy but I do know he
declares himself to be an  adherent of libertarian socialism.
Socialism requires extensive laws, rules and regulations.  Where is
the freedom and anarchy in that?...” gruff

The short interview I presented above goes into both of these points.
I do not wish to be an apologist for Noam thus let his words speak for
him. I find that your misunderstanding of the use of the term
‘anarchy’ in this context has led to unwarranted assumptions and
rhetorical questions.

“…Human beings are excellent practitioners of the seven deadly sins
and without laws, rules and regulations (i.e., anarchy) we'd be at
each others throats with every weapon we could find at hand…” – gruff

I have covered the term anarchy above. And, this is an assertion and
not a refutation nor is there any evidence provided.

“…Chomsky believes that science is a good way to understanding history
and social affairs and goes on to say that science is a way of
learning what argument means, what evidence means and what makes sense
to postulate as well as what is going to be convincing.  I've always
been quite open to being convinced of something through argument and
evidence but I've yet to see either one in the postings you've made,
and I do believe I have a fairly firm grip on both argument and
evidence since both were tools of my profession for many years…” -
gruff

I guess I missed reading about this aspect of Noam. Would you please
provide a reference so I can learn more about it? Thanks. After I read
it, I will be informed enough to know how to respond intelligently.

I will say that when you say that you have seen neither argument nor
evidence from me, I am perplexed. Please let me know if you are using
Noam’s notions of the terms or not. If not, since you seem to be
asking for both, I would like to be able to oblige with whatever your
standards are. Normally, I prefer discussion and not argumentation as
you may know. However, since argument and evidence is strongly
suggested by this group’s set of standards, I do my best to oblige
when requested. In this case, when we both appear to be discussing our
opinions and seem to be talking past each other a lot, some clarity in
how to proceed with you would be welcome indeed! I have no doubt that
you have experience here yet question your intention(s) and goals in
our discussion. IF you only wish to ‘win’ the ‘debate’, you may. IF
you wish to influence, so far little has been the result. I wish to
share my thinking, present things as I see them…see if we can find
agreement somewhere…perhaps help to learn from each other etc. What do
you expect?

So far, since Chris likes using them, I’ve been peppering commentary
with a few fallacies where I believe they apply. Perhaps this is not
appropriate for the type of intercourse you are looking for?

“…Orn, probably much to your displeasure, Chomsky does not present an
end-all, be-all solution to the world's problems.  He has been
challenged quite successfully by many notable thinkers, among which
are as Jean Piaget, Michel Foucault, William F. Buckley, Jr.,
Christopher Hitchens, Richard Perle, Hilary Putnam, and Alan
Dershowitz.  Chomsky believes in justified power yet feels that any
wage earner is a mere slave and that workers should own and control
their own workplace, which does nothing to reduce his contention that
earning a wage is slavery whether the slave owns the business or not…”
– gruff

Uhhh, IF you are suggesting that I hold anything like a belief that
Noam “presents an end-all, be-all solution to the world’s problems’,
nothing is further from the case. IF you read the one link I posted
here about his views on anarchy, you will see his own words of what he
believes he can provide. I saw nothing of this type of claim at all.
In fact, I saw him be more humble and incapable in such an endeavor
than either you or I appear to be!

While I have read a couple of the challenges you mention, I wasn’t
impressed so far. If by appealing to authority you believe you can
influence, it doesn’t work for me in this case…especially without
specifics. The people you mention are bright. Their arguments are
complex. That is about it.

Your reasoning about wages and slavery would need to include
references for me to know how to respond to no evidence. Even so, on
the face of it, I just don’t get your claim. Sorry, I really do wish
and hope we can at least communicate clearly here.

“…Chomsky has made some partially valid criticisms of society
including his indictment that the mass media is largely propaganda but
fails to mention anything about an educated populace being able to
sift through that propaganda to discern truth, and that there are also
some media which work very hard to present a balanced and honest
portrait of various aspects of the world.  I offer The Christian
Science Monitor as but one example.  Another favorite of mine is The
Financial Times…” gruff

We do agree with his criticisms about the media being largely
propaganda. I have found that his observations about things like 9/11
and the Middle East to be quite cogent too. I guess you have ceased
your refutation here unless by suggesting that Chomsky should focus on
an ‘educated populace’ and should mention a few media you appreciate
you believe that you have made some point about him. First, I have not
read his 100+ books so do not know the veracity of what you suggest he
has omitted being the case. I wonder if you have. So, without direct
evidence here, I will just wait for more information.

“…Chomsky has claimed that the United States remains the greatest
country in the world then turns around and contradicts himself by
saying that such evaluations are senseless…” – gruff

Where are you getting this stuff?

“…He is an avowed anti-war activist but then claims that WWII was
justified…” – gruff

First, I don’t remember reading the latter although it may be the
case. I just don’t know. Perhaps you can provide quotations? However,
in either case, I see no contradiction where you seem to see one.
Perhaps this is just a good example of an ambiguous assertion?

“…He is anti- capitalism and and avowed unionist, the latter part of
which has been the cause of many of this nations jobs moving to other
countries. Unions have raised the cost of labor so high that it is
impossible for heavily unionized companies from making a profit….” –
gruff

Is there a point here about Chomsky? Is this an attempt at a
refutation? Perhaps it is just a claim you are making. We have gone
around and around in the past about such things with little success at
either agreement or in my view even understanding. Perhaps this is a
failure to state? I do know that the subject is much more complex than
that which you present. Is this a purposeful debate tactic of yours?
To me there are too many fallacies to even take what may be just your
opinion seriously. I do agree that unions have worked historically to
attempt at helping to assure a living wage for their members among
other things. I do know that prior to unions in the US, working
conditions sucked big time here. I do know that today there are
precious few unions left. I do know that unions did not ask for
multinationals to give jobs to those in other countries. Personally, I
find a few issues here of interest including: the discussion and work
on environmental issues in most other countries are all but non-
existent. As a result, the costs here to help keep the planet
inhabitable are higher than where there are few or even no such
provisions. I will assume that you are not suggesting that ‘we’ (USA)
dismantle environmental protections. I do know that most other
countries in the above context allow child labor and in general treat
the workers as slaves. If you are suggesting that this is either
acceptable or even worse, is preferable, we do disagree. If anything,
unions should be a global thing and should return to prominence and
power here in the USA. And, we both know what good ‘shoulds’ do! Hehe
Oh, as an aside, the choices are not as simple as unionization/
profitable. There is no evidence of this and some for the opposite.
And, my personal view is that corporations in general are anathema to
humanity. You didn’t mention corporations, so I won’t assume you meant
that stock holders should have preference over those who actually do
the production.

“…Years ago I began advising investors I knew to avoid putting their
money into companies that were so unionized because they would
eventually go bankrupt…” – gruff

OK. Out of date, but OK.

“…Chomsky is a radical socialist claiming libertarian principles which
do not comport with much of what he says…” – gruff

I will await the quotations. The link I provided above, using mostly
his words clarifies and refutes your claim.

“…He claims status in the left wing of U.S. politics yet many of his
critics are liberal and progressive and he gives solid foundation to
all conservative critics….” – gruff

Again, I will await the evidence of his claims. What I have read of
Chomsky goes much deeper when it comes to right/left, the meanings of
which are not single issue nor engraved in stone. In fact, they have
interchanged somewhat over the years and more than once. We are both
old enough to know this.

I don’t understand if/what your assertion is about his critics. IF you
are saying that people of different political views have disagreements
with Noam, I wouldn’t expect otherwise. If you are claiming more, you
need to do so.

“…My personal opinion is that he should stay in his initially chosen
field of linguistics in which he has received the majority of his
accolades and stay out of politics….” – gruff

Noted. I disagree and would guess, based on his popularity when it
comes to speaking in public about all types of things there are many
others who disagree too. His topics are not limited to politics
although he is much appreciated there because of his vast recall and
in my view ability to have a bigger picture of situations than almost
anyone I know of in this context. Also, he speaks truths and about
facts that are not found in most venues. Personally, I haven’t had the
inclination to read even the one book he recommended to me about
linguistics yet…maybe before I die, maybe not.

“… I think you make a huge and incorrect leap of logic when you say
that by my interchanging the words power and rights "(you) could
interchange any words at all and it would have the same meaning." That
statement makes no sense on its face within the meaning of the
Constitution….” – gruff

I recognize your claim gruff. While it was a bit of the hyperbole, I
did so intentionally to make my point. Apparently I failed in your
case.

“… I never said that Chamberlain was evil….” – gruff

Nor did I gruff.

“… All I said was that his plan of appeasement was ill thought and
clearly didn't work…” – gruff

Perhaps we agree here about it not ‘working’ in the obvious sense.

“…Nor does appeasement equate with not keeping a standing army….” –
gruff

Good, I’m glad you agree with this criticism I voiced about your
earlier post.

“…In the case of Chamberlain it meant giving Poland as a gift to
Hitler with the hope that he wouldn't go any further.  Of course I
wasn't there but in hindsight it seems pure lunacy….” – gruff

Well, again your opinion is noted. I’m not that well versed in this
historical act, but it seems that the act of appeasement ("the policy
of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying
grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby
avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive,
bloody, and possibly dangerous.") has its merits. And, it seems that
the debate about whether he even had a choice or not continues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

“…Nor am I forgiving the ills and abuses of the military industrial
complex but that does not mean I am in favor of eliminating them
either…” – gruff

Ambiguous assertion. Sorry.

“…I do agree with you that if there were NO militaries in existence
there would likely be no wars…” – gruff

Cool!

“…But the fact is that virtually every nation on earth has a standing
military as do many corporations (i.e., security and mercenary forces)
and until such time as they all disbanded none should disband…” –
gruff

Interesting position. I am reminded of a bit of humor in the Readers
Digest from at least 40 years ago that is an analogy. I now forget the
name of the section, sorry. However, it related one of those still on
the book absurd laws that someone recently dug up. In this case, it
was about a State law from the 1800s that said that when two trains
come to a crossing (like an X), both trains must wait until the other
goes by!!!

Mexican standoff doesn’t even hold a candle to this view.

“…It also seems ill-informed to say that if we are not under direct
attack that we are at peace…” – gruff

In the context of having a standing army, the topic and point being
discussed, it was germane and in my view, not at all as you claim.

“…I have noted several examples of this in previous posts and will not
burden you with a repetition of them…” – gruff

Ambiguous assertion…

“…Nor do I find much value or substance in your contention that peace
reigns when one "side" has been disarmed.  All that means is that they
are under the power and control of the side that has not disarmed…” –
gruff

Uhhh, in the context of the peace vs war dichotomy we were discussing,
there was no other option given. If you wish to now insert some, by
all means do. Otherwise, I stand by my assertion.

“…Of course agreement is preferable to force, but until such time as
we have such agreement, a standing, trained and armed military is the
preferable stance… It certainly isn't laying down our arms and armies
unilaterally and without achieving agreement.” – gruff

I am very glad that we have another point of agreement…that about
agreement being preferable to force. And, having said this, your
addition of what appears to be a false choice (if no agreement, the
only options are laying down arms and having a standing military) is
unpersuasive. There are many other options. I will assume that you can
think of a few by yourself.  Also, there are countless little
agreements that occur all of the time. Somehow these need to be
factored in. I’m not sure I know how, but I think they should be at
least looked at.

A philosophical observation here is that there are constant cycles of
agreement and using force. This reality, along with any arguments to
the future being fallacious, shed yet another light on the subject.

Rather than continuing to talk past each other, shall we take smaller
bites, a little breath and discuss things point by point? Say, do you
agree that the fact that we had a standing army on 9/11 did not
prevent it from happening? Did you read either of my posts about the
Declaration of Independence? If so, do you see how the terms ‘rights’
and ‘power’ are differentiated?

Overall, I know this was a long post and a mixed bag. I also believe
that most ‘arguments’ here on Mind’s Eye include fallacies, mine
included. So, for me, just using any such ‘rules’ of debate are not
very interesting. Although, I must admit to some enjoyment in
providing Chris with a little entertainment! :- )

My historical experience with such back and forth with you gruff is
that it can all too easily lead to misunderstanding and even worse.
So, again, I would appreciate knowing how or even IF you wish to
proceed.