It seems likely that you are an imbecile. Thanks for letting everyone know that you agree with everything the review says about Chomsky despite the fact that you haven't actually read Chomsky.
One can still have a conversation about a subject without having much depth in the subject. If you haven't read Taming of the Shrew, you can still understand the story if I give you a quick version, and we can talk about that meta-story, because there are things in the text (via my description) that we both understand. However, it's difficult to have a conversation with much specificity or depth having not both read the text.
You'll note that javert's posts here lack both specificity and depth. It's probably best to just leave it at that note.
Thanks for letting everyone know that you agree with everything the review says about Chomsky despite the fact that you haven't actually read Chomsky.
You're welcome. I think that's the intellectually responsible and honest thing to do. And it gives people a chance to point out what I am misunderstanding and educate me, if they really think I've gotten it wrong.
It seems likely that you are an imbecile.
I gave an explanation for why I haven't read his actual literature in another comment. I mean, I don't read the Quaran in order to learn about science, either. Does that mean I can't criticize those who do? Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm not an imbecile.
"And it gives people a chance to point out what I am misunderstanding and educate me, if they really think I've gotten it wrong."
Just a friendly note that this notion will cause you much grief.
I used to think that it was the best way to quickly get to the point and figure out what is what in the matter. What happens instead is that people will call you an imbecile and go off on tangents about subjects they have recently read a story about instead of addressing the core issues, of which they know less about.
In reality most people do not know much about these complex issues and you will not really learn anything by trying to make them educate you. They are not able to.
You will need to investigate the issues yourself, including reading a lot of literature by those you think are wrong. Eventually you will be able to understand where those opposing viewpoints are coming from and if you are lucky you will learn something that can adjust your own views and you will no longer have the "us vs them" feeling and instead think of it as "those who are wrong on this point and those who are wrong on this other point".
Getting to that place is impossible by imploring others to educate you. They will at best try to convert you, which is entirely different.
I mean, it's not my primary motivation in making comments, for other people to "educate me" in a broad sense.
I meant something more like, "If I happen to have misunderstood some particular concrete thing, people can provide a citation that shows the opposite."
Which, indeed, didn't happen this time. Instead, as you said, there was just a bunch of very high-level disagreement without any "meeting of the minds" on some important lower-level details.
Anyway, my real motivation for posting on the Chomsky stuff was because I feel compelled to call out truly evil pseudo-intellectuals, as I see them, when I see them. Chomsky advocates "anarcho-syndicalism," which is just low-level rule by gangs. He wants to dismantle civilization, which he preaches hatred for. To me, he is in the same moral standard as the intellectuals that came before and enabled the likes of Stalin and Hitler.
