1. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191201 by _riverrun_ on June 10, 2008 at 11:18 am

Quetz: If I look back and see that I've inadvertently dropped some work of mine in a pile of shit, it behooves me to address the matter.

2. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191194 by _riverrun_ on June 10, 2008 at 11:08 am

It's been fun to watch the hasty mythologizing grow around me (accompanied by the usual slurs and distortions). I notice the phrase 'Chomsky's Catamite' still being thrown around by al-rawandi, and the hilarious accusations made against someone called lastgreekstanding, that he is indeed me!

*leaves playground*

3. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176503 by _riverrun_ on May 7, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Al-Rawandi: You argument is as absurd as saying that in 1933 there were holocaust deniers, but 12 yrs later there weren't.

4. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176166 by _riverrun_ on May 6, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Al-Rawandi:

And now he will do the only productive thing he has managed on this thread, he shall disappear.

No I won't Commissar Rawandi, I've only just started with you.

From this point on you're going to receive the treatment you deserve.

To reiterate, most of my comments on this thread have not been about Chomsky, but about other topics. Some are listed above, most of which, you have not responded too. Perhaps this is down to your current electrifying and passionate love/hate relationship with your blow up "Chomsky doll". You know, the one you found when you were at your last NASCAR race.

You have certainly given "Chomsky Doll" a good pounding. Go easy or he might rip.

There is a car wreck here, and it's of your making. You are the one who has de-railed this debate, repeated egregious claims of known liars and frauds, made fatuous remarks to your buddies, and filled the air with grade one horse shit, using the poison pen mummy gave you, the one that's strangely crayon shaped.

I'm happy to hear that you are satisfied with your conclusions, so satisfied that it would be mere bluster to attempt a refutation of them, a demand you call for, that bares no relevance to this thread, or to the conversation in general, which, you may have not noticed, has moved on whilst you are still shocking yourself and tearing your hair out at the pure vindictive evil of Chomsky.
Whatever floats your boat baby.

You assert as your central point that Chomsky "exceeds the mandate granted by truth". I'm really lost here. Can you give me an example of someone who has not exceeded 'the mandate granted by truth?' What precisely do you mean? Who is enforcing the mandate? And since when did truth grant mandates?

I might add, in fact I will, and with great relish: Who the fuck are you to make such a grandiose claim? You have not demonstrated even the most minimal standards of scholarship. This points to a level of hubris of cosmic proportions.

Do you have manic episodes?

You bring up three charges claiming their originality, one person here appears to have been simply awe struck at the "sheer weight and calibre of criticism", without, it appears, the slightest comprehension of your utter contempt for the facts.

Hence my derision of your infantile quote mongering of hoaxers, falsifiers, frauds, and liars. Brockes being the least notorious.

I have not witnessed a single original argument regarding the 3 claims you repeat. You begin one statement pointing out, with great fervor, that one phrase attributed to the New York Times has no footnote, though ignoring the hundreds of others that do.

What kind of idiot starts an argument this way. If someone doesn't footnote every single quote in their book then they are what? Frauds? Liars? I really can't understand this. By your logic Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens should be despised. Sam Harris especially for false attribution, a serious offense, in scholarship, but a mere loyalty test when it comes to getting invited to the right cocktail parties.


These claims have been circulating the web for years, especially the last two. You are arguing the position, I think (it's hard to tell amongst the jibes, barbs and petty slanders), that Chomsky is not "all knowing"? Not a god?

Dude, I've heard some weird shit in my day from theists, but that takes the proverbial biscuit.

Note: Your words, not mine, parroted by annabanana (who seems to me to be a far more honest person).

So you are asking me to demonstrate that Chomsky is not omniscient?

Sam Harris and I have enjoyed ecstasy over the years, but damn I would love to know what shit you are on.

Can you show even one syllable where I backed, made or asserted this? No. There are none, therefore the entire case you have constructed has only two people in the court room. You and "Chomsky Doll".

Perhaps asylum would be more accurate.

1) Chomsky praised a genocide denier (Johnstone) without mentioning the denial of Srebrenica.

Actually scholars debate whether or not it was a genocide, but that is a separate issue.

The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), case 91, International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgement returned on February 26, 2007. Here is it's verdict:

(1) by ten votes to five,

Rejects the objections contained in the final submissions made by the Respondent [Serbia] to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction; ...

(2) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(3) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(4) by eleven votes to four,

Finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(5) by twelve votes to three,

Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;

(6) by fourteen votes to one,

Finds that Serbia has violated its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by having failed to transfer Ratko Mladić, indicted for genocide and complicity in genocide, for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and thus having failed fully to co-operate with that Tribunal;

(7) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has violated its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court on April 8 and September 13, 1993 in this case, inasmuch as it failed to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995;

(8) by fourteen votes to one,

Decides that Serbia shall immediately take effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to punish acts of genocide as defined by Article II of the Convention, or any of the other acts proscribed by Article III of the Convention, and to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any of those other acts for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and to co-operate fully with that Tribunal;

(9) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that, as regards the breaches by Serbia of the obligations referred to in subparagraphs (5) and (7) above, the Court's findings in those paragraphs constitute appropriate satisfaction, and that the case is not one in which an order for payment of compensation, or, in respect of the violation referred to in subparagraph (5), a direction to provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, would be appropriate.

Johnstone never denied there was a massacre, and if you have read her work you will know this. Since you call her a genocide-denier, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. First hand sources only please.

What she did argue was the following: that the media were artificially distorting the numbers.

Brockes (who you eagerly quote) is a "showcase interviewer". In this art form, the interviewee is simply the prey for the interviewer who plies him with trap questions and then rewrites the whole thing to make him look like an idiot compared to her clever self.

Sound familiar?

Quoting Johnstone: "In her write-up of the interview, Ms Brockes interprets Chomsky's defense of publication of my book as a "defense of those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated" and drags in the ITN-Living Marxism (LM) controversy, confusing the facts just as in Vulliamy's article. She lauds "my colleague, Ed Vulliamy", as one of the "serious, trustworthy people" who disagree with Chomsky. So it is not far-fetched to see Vulliamy's influence in the Brockes hatchet job.

The above citation from the Vulliamy article misrepresents the ITN-LM case, as does Ms Brockes. The issue raised by LM had to do with the way photographs taken at Trnopolje camp, by focusing on a thin man on the other side of a wire fence which in reality did not surround the Muslim inmates, but rather the ITN crew itself, was used to create the impression that what was happening in Bosnia was a repetition of a a Nazi-style Holocaust.

I corrected that misrepresentation in my response to The Guardian, which was published by CounterPunch, but not by the Guardian. I pointed out then that the judgment of the court was based solely on the subjective issue as to whether or not the ITN journalists "deliberately" set out to deceive the public.

Moreover, in reality, nobody denied the "existence" of the camps, which Vulliamy claims to have "discovered", although he was led there by Bosnian Serb guides. There are other misrepresentations in his article. For example, I have never made any claim as to the number of victims in Bosnia, but simply pointed to the fact that among various estimates, the media has preferred to accept and repeat the highest, which was offered without any evidence by the information ministry in Sarajevo. Since my book was published, a serious study by Norwegian experts for the Hague Tribunal has estimates the overall number of casualties of the Bosnian war at 102,622 persons, of which 55,261 were civilians and 47,360 militaries at the time of death (no ethnic breakdown). That is a lot, but it is not "over 200,000", as Vulliamy and others go right on repeating, usually with the implication that all were Muslims ... In reality, trying to be fair and analytical does not at all preclude feeling sympathy for victims, and other human emotions. But for some writers, their emotional commitment seems to exclude all fairness and reasonable analysis. Whatever the political aims of such writers, a matter I cannot judge, their militant rejection of dispassionate analysis can only play into the hands of political powers who cloak their military interventions in the rhetoric of humanitarian imperatives."

http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone11142005.html

Until you present evidence that Diane Johnstone denies there was a massacre, again, your points are null and void.

Your statement is this:

Chomsky praised a genocide denier (Johnstone) without mentioning the denial of Srebrenica.

But it should read:

Chomsky praised the work of someone who never denied the massacre (but accurately critiqued the figures generated by the mass media), without mentioning something untrue.

Finally, on this point, here is what an Intelligence Officer from NATO has to say about Johnstones work: "As an intelligence officer from a NATO country who spent three long, and two short tours in Bosnia, I must say the information provided in this book is disturbingly accurate."

3) Chomsky has a broken moral compass when it comes to anti-semitism and the Holocaust.

Do you feel the same venom against Christopher Hitchens defending the writings of David Irving?
And the same way about Christopher Hitchens' praising of a number of his works? Yes or no?
Have you read his, and Chomsky's, defense of Freedom of Speech, and did you read what I said about it?

What do you not agree with in Christopher Hitchens campaign to not have Irving sentenced in Austria, as sentencing people for their views is profoundly anti-libertarian? Have you fascist leanings? (if you know what that means, since you obviously switch socialism for communism without a seconds notice. Fun fact: words with the same number of letters don't always mean the same thing).

I recommend you read Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, for starters.
[edit* As an aside: The statement: George Orwell, a socialist, spent the years from 1936 on condemning Communism, must cause severe cognitive dissonance for you.

As would the statement: The end of Communism was a triumph for Socialism.]

Hitchens didn't just write an introduction on freedom of speech, for an obscure French writer. He wrote openly and publicly defending Irving's right to his views.

You cannot, given what you wrote, believe this. Though you must also consider Chomsky anti-gay, anti-gypsy, and anti-Jehovah's Witnesses, as well a Jewish anti-Jew for having defended freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that you support it for people who you profoundly disagree with.

If someone tried to shut you up on here, even with all the bullshit you have been hurling around, I would be the first to defend your right to say whatever the fuck you want.

The following two arguments are ancient news. Covered in massive detail elsewhere by numerous scholars, as you already know, being the careful scholar you claim. Francis Wheen (a socialist) and Oliver Kamm (a fraud, and a stupid one at that), for example, have made these precise claims, can you tell me what is original in them?

2) Chomsky made dishonest comparisons in regards to Cambodia and Pol Pot.

It appears that I am some kind "defender of Chomsky" in your mind. The very first points I made demonstrated you absolute ignorance of both Chomsky, and common political terminology, which was my focus. Since this is true in only the imagination of the imaginer, I really cannot see or understand what you think I need to defend.

It may surprise you to know, not that you asked, that I disagree vehemently with Chomsky on many issues, and have asked him to clarify many positions. But you are doggedly determined to create a caricature and it seems your mind cannot be moved.

You write: "He has probably forwarded your post to Chomsky himself, and he will post the wild accusations of the deranged man here shortly." What kind of a vacuous assumption is this? Since it is not true, the very least you can do is apologize.

Your rantings, increasingly self-congratulatory tone, and school yard demands seems to have begun around the point that I called you out on your absurd characterization of kibbutzim as 'communist', which involved some hilarious sophistry, and the realization that you can't tell the difference between simple terms of political discourse. And your pathetic use of the word 'seem', not much different that Fox News' "Some people say!"

Your oleaginous morphing of the word 'communist' to 'socialist' was also noted. And probably not for the last time.

The back-peddling as I helped dig you out of your own hole, over your quote mining of documents that are known frauds by known distorter's (Brockes etc.), is something you should thank me for. I could have let you play with Chomsky Doll more at this point, but, since it had already turned into a gang bang with Oliver Kamm, and Francis Wheen spit roasting your beloved Chomsky Doll, I thought I'd better step in, before things got out of control.

The 'waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy better' rant over Faurisson, as though this was some deep mystical revelation, was particularly enlightening, as it clearly demonstrates your willingness to grab from any source you possibly can to cobble together a gratuitous piece of writing. Take the time to review the case carefully, and we can have a sensible discussion about Freedom of Speech.

You have twice called for a direct debate with Chomsky, so as to cut out the middle man (an "errand" boy), who had the audacity to demand of "Dr. Chomsky" what you asked of him. Insults and shit-stirring, the largest part of your tool chest, are here reduced to insanity.
Calling someone names because they take time to try and get a real response from the person being discussed. I mean, are you fucking joking?
Of course, no apologies.

Since that moment you have since devolved off on some hysteric rant, that I've paid little attention to, as it bares absolutely no relation to any of the points or issues that interest me, and does nothing but parrot tired old lies from right wing hacks and slanderers. Behind it all lurks some need to caricature, to throw out numerous ad hominem's, displaying the most self-satisfied and pompous declarations on your own position, which isn't even yours!

But lets not let facts get in the way of things.

They have all been dealt with elsewhere, in great detail, as you will know, again, given your careful scholarly approach. Your hysteric demands that I provide evidence against things I have never defended, only makes sense if your eccentric and wild straw play thing "Chomsky Doll" bore any relation to reality.

I think, at this point, a separate thread should be established, as you have moved so far off topic. Do you agree? I will be more than happy to debate specifics on anything there, regarding you points. We can go through each and every one of your claims, in great detail.

Edit: The Catamite dig, was pretty damn funny, I'll give you that.

5. Investigating Atheism

Comment #171669 by _riverrun_ on April 28, 2008 at 5:00 pm

UPDATE: As some of you may have noticed, I have emailed the contact for the "Investigating Atheism" site on April 24.

[Comment 85, on page 2 here]
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2502,Investigating-Atheism,Cambridge-University,page2#167962

I have heard *NOTHING* from them.

6. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168695 by _riverrun_ on April 25, 2008 at 9:46 am

@ stuart paul wood (comment 106)

Here is the quote you reference in #106:

"I [Richard Dawkins] was on a television panel with Swinburne, and also with our Oxford Colleague Professor Peter Atkins. Swinburne at one point attempted to justify the Holocaust on the grounds that it gave the Jews a wonderful opportunity to be courageous and noble. Peter Atkins splendidly growled, 'May you rot in Hell.'"

- The God Delusion, P. 89. Dawkins. [paperback edition]

I wish Swinburne great suffering in life, as it provides him, in his own words, "the opportunity to show courage and patience".

7. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168686 by _riverrun_ on April 25, 2008 at 9:33 am

@ mixmastergaz (comment 101)

Nothing yet, but I will keep you updated, and also post the response on the forum.

@ suffolkthinker (comment 104)

Great email. There is so much wrong with that site I would have to dedicate a day or two, too respond to it all. My email (comment 85) covers some important aspects, and yours covers those and others. I encourage everyone here to email them. I'm also considering a different tactic, as highlighted by a number of people here: To write to an official body at Cambridge University and lodge a formal complaint. Perhaps signed by members here who are concerned. If anyone here has details of the best route (or person to speak to) do let me know, I haven't had the time to research it yet.


@ stuart paul wood (comment 106)

"Impossible? No. Highly unlikely? Yes but why! If you're going call this page Atheist Argument then at least present the argument! This is the strongest of all arguments against God yet we only get fifty-odd words dedicated to it. Unforgivable."

Exactly. It was this specious little page of 3 paragraphs that enraged me, resulting in the email I sent them.

8. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167962 by _riverrun_ on April 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm

I've sent the following email to 'investigatingatheism@divinity.cam.ac.uk'

To whom it may concern.

I've just spent an hour reviewing the University of Cambridge, Faculty of Divinity website Investigating Atheism.

Below are a few observations and criticisms which I felt obligated to submit, regardless of the very real possibility that heat death will consume the Via Lactea.

At the sites ideological core are a series of non sequiturs, including a fear the not believing in a creator god, (who belatedly intervened in an obscure part of the middle east, after approximately 98,000 years of watching human suffering with folded arms) will ineluctably lead to nihilism and despair. That atheism leads to Hitlerian Nazism (a crypto-pagan cult which relied on many sources including millenarian, messianic, gnostic and occult writings) and Stalin, ignoring what they believed, their political ideology, and the well documented ties between the Catholic Church and Fascism). The churches role in undermining social progress in Spain, and it's use of a complex web of Monasteries to ferret away Nazis is, for example, discussed at some length in Michel Onfray's Traité d'athéologie : Physique de la métaphysique (Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). Interestingly General Francisco Franco is rarely discussed within this framework, for reasons that need no explanation.

I can think of many well argued rebuttals of all of these claims, and I'm more than happy to provide you with them, upon request. The purpose of this email, however, is to correct some specific misinformation and ideological bias noted on a number of the site's pages.

The introductory text on the home page claims that "the purpose of this site is to set these contemporary 'God Wars' in their historical context, and to offer a range of perspectives (from all sides) on the chief issues raised by the 'new atheists'". [emphasis mine]

Having reviewed the list of contributors I am keen to know which, if any, are presenting the atheist position [A cursory glance at the contributor page reveals that all are of a theological Christian bent. David Goode, who is the registrar of the website "[goes to] Little St Mary's church, and [is] a member of the Society of Mary, the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, the Guild of All Souls, and other societies and guilds of the Church of England"]. I would also like to know whether you accept articles and contributions for publication on the site, or intend to have a more open site that includes, perhaps, a forum for discussion.

Below I list some of my concerns:

- The arguments page consists of 3 short paragraphs, and offers nothing more than an assertion that both sides have "equally ably defended" their positions. It would be more useful if an attempt was made to enunciate the actual arguments. On the atheist side, I would include those of David Hume, George H. Smith, Robert Ingersoll; of contemporaries including Dennett and Dawkins, and many others, such as the 16th century freethinker Giovan Domenico Campanella who took a courageous stand against the Catholic Churches treatment of Galileo. Not easy at a time when heresy could result in death, and not a quick one either.

- In a number of places on the site you use phrases such as " [atheism's] strict negation of God's existence" and "perhaps the most obvious meaning to many people now is the belief that there is no God, or gods". Many thinkers, including Richard Dawkins, mentioned frequently on the site, would deny this, as you must know. Bertrand Russell's famous teapot analogy summarizes the position:. You cannot prove a negative. Contemporary parodies such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster highlight this position. The position held by most (if not all) atheists that I know is simply this: There is insufficient evidence to believe in the claims, if the evidence appears then we will re-consider.

None of the atheists that I know deny the existence of something they have no evidence for; this would be an absurd position. Christopher Hitchens has stated that he hopes it is not true, and outlines his position in God is Not Great. It's the wish to be a slave. We don't have to waken up each morning reminding ourselves that we are a-fairyists, or a-astrologers. The burden of proof always lies with those who make a positive claim (god exists), not the other way around. Atheism is *not* a belief, it is a lack thereof.

- Your 'who's who' of atheists includes just 33 names. I have included a more complete list at the end of this email, with more than 350 names, many of them remarkable thinkers, who have made contributions in numerous fields, and whose work must be taken into consideration in any genuine investigation. I trust you will take the time to update your who's who page accordingly.

- The following claim is made, regarding Jean Meslier: "Whether or not Meslier's views as expressed in the Testament strictly count as atheistic rather than deistic remains a matter of contention." I would appreciate sources for this claim. It is well known that Voltaire (a deist) edited the (voluminous writings) of Meslier in such a way that this led many to conclude Meslier was a deist. This is not supported by the original French document at all. Meslier wrote that religion is "but a castle in the air", and theology is "but ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system". Meslier denied the existence of the soul; he also dismisses the notion of free will. Furthermore he wrote "If God is incomprehensible to man, it would seem rational never to think of Him at all".

- The site also makes the following claim: "At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism." I am keen to see documented evidence of this, and would appreciate if you could provide a resource or source for this finding. The studies of scientists that I am familiar with, for example the study of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), conclude that 7% or less believe in god and immortality.

- You assert that Richard Dawkins is a Molecular Biologist, this is patent nonsense. Richard Dawkins is in fact a British ethologist and evolutionary biologist.


It would appear that genuine and unbiased presentation of the cases against theism are unlikely to find their way onto this site. I understand that intellectual suicide is not particularly rational, it would be the equivalent of Phillip Morris sponsoring and promoting an anti-smoking campaign, additionally it would not bode well for the Department of Divinity's long term funding.

I do hope that this is not the case and the site does not reveal itself as one of theological apologetics. I do hope you correct some of its assertions and present an intellectually honest account of the arguments. Atheism is not a philosophy, it says nothing about a person.

Looking forward to your response,

Tim Wilson.

9. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #166126 by _riverrun_ on April 22, 2008 at 7:14 pm

"Explore Evolution" is linked to from the pdf "Leaders Guide" published on the expelled website,

http://www.getexpelled.com/downloads.php

It tells us it explores the arguments for and against neo-darwinism, and it calls us to join in the debate.

http://exploreevolution.com/debate.php

The 'controversy' over Darwin is wonderfully illustrated.

10. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159296 by _riverrun_ on April 11, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Ugly and despicable people no doubt! But, and I say this as an atheist, secular state worship of the Harris / Hitchens kind has led to far more deaths than any of these individuals could hope to achieve. By constraining and framing the issue within such narrow terms, Foreign Policy Magazine(consciously or not) fulfills its typical criterion of condemning foreign crimes, whilst ignoring ones closer to home.

11. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #157813 by _riverrun_ on April 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm

If only they would admit to having Hitler's Birthday celebrated every year from pulpits throughout Germany, for their vile anti-semitism that directly fostered the cultural climate that enabled Nazi ideology to spread, for helping 100s of top Nazi officials escape war crimes by using their vast networks of property paid for by the credulous, or admit to their priests selling out the brave fighters against fascism in Spain in the 1930s.. I could go on.

Tim.

12. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #68082 by _riverrun_ on September 6, 2007 at 4:40 am

Realplayer file available here. BTW, there are many other interesting 3 hr in depths there as well. Check the archive. :)

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8532&SectionName=In+Depth&PlayMedia=No

13. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57005 by _riverrun_ on July 18, 2007 at 6:18 am

Ali knows which side her bread is buttered on. She's working the media very intelligently. She's an important voice in the critique of Islam, but her conception of America is extremely naive. American policy has killed thousands of times more than any country that espouses Sharia Law has, in the past 5 years alone.