I do find it kind of amusing that someone who feels that “the benefit of the work should go to those who did the work” {or words to that effect} has the audacity to plagiarize stuff.
That’s quite ironic.
Henry B
I see that you have since retracted from the impassionate defense you made of “our brave Chumpsky” in light of the overwhelming evidence of his misdeeds. However, I feel it’s necessary for me to explain what led me to post my original accusation, as I was well aware of the repercussions. Ruing a person’s reputation – here or elsewhere – is not something I take lightly.
Number one. As I had already mentioned in my first post, despite the fact that I’ve enjoyed reading many of Chumpky’s posts, I had begun to be bothered by the changing “tone” of the writer. If you’ll notice, many times he’d fluctuate between the “I,” “they,” and the “we,” form when levying or defending accusations, all the while speaking from the same perspective – his. Granted, not altogether unusual, but a bit for a red flag for me anyway. Which leads to my next point…
Number two. Although I am perfectly aware that we have any number of extremely bright and qualified people on this board – some, I am sure, qualify as “geniuses” – it is extremely suspect for someone that often claims to be posting “from work” to be able to sustain the kind of scholarly output (right or wrong in its views, but erudite, well-written and chockfull of factual information) that he did. I am willing to bet that each of those essays and articles he plagiarized, had a lot of hours of research and brainpower behind them. It is simply not the stuff one puts together in a ten-minute work break.
Number three. Even after I confirmed my suspicions, I weighed my options, even considering letting him know of my findings in private. See, I too saw a bit of the ‘Brave Chumpsky’ in him…but in the end, that wasn’t enough, for I took into account my own feelings of deception, the legality of the matter and perhaps more importantly, the overall integrity of the SDMB. Which is what ultimately keeps me coming back for more. I take what I read here quite seriously (if written in that vein), and have gotten to “know,” if only in writing, many of the outstanding posters here. And while I might agree or disagree with their position on any number of issues, but precisely because of the fact that they’ve earned their stature, I always try to learn a thing or two from their writings.
Tied-in with the above, what Chumsky did goes against everything I feel this Board stands for. So, in essence, upon weighing my options, I realized the decision was already made for me.
You know the rest…
RedFury, you did the right thing. We were being lied to and it would not be fair to not tell us.
What baffles me, RedFury, is that I went to the first post you exposed and Googled passages from it myself (I wanted to make sure you weren’t taking us for a ride here – I woulda felt really bad accusing Chumpsky of plagiarism if you were pulling our leg). And while the paragraph you cited was indeed plagiarized, I couldn’t find copies of any other phrases from that post on any other Web page. I googled about half a dozen promising-looking phrases, but they all appeared to be either original or from sources not available online.
I could understand what was going on if Chumpsky were stealing whole essays from other places. But plopping down a plagiarized paragraph in the middle of an original essay is just baffling.
There’s no question but that it’s plagiarized. I just don’t understand why it’s plagiarized, if he can write eloquent passages himself.
Daniel
Chumpsky was not the first: curious george, to name one. Nor will he be the last.
I call it Chomsky Disease. Chomsky has amazing powers to control the minds of the young and disaffected. I think it has something to do with youthful exuberance and not-yet-developed BS detectors.
If social justice and the overthrow of the capitalist system is your goal - casualties be damned - it is hardly surprising that capitalist tools used to oppress the struggling masses (copyright laws) would be ignored. Who benefits from copyright laws anyway? The corporate oppressors, that’s who! [sub]Sure, nobody would write anything if it was just going to be stolen. Dammit!, who cares! Writers of the world unite, throw off the shackles of your copyright oppressors. [/sub]
Oh well, color me not surprised. Another “not brainwashed”* leftist extremist who cannot germinate an original thought.
*You know, like we all are.
RedFury, Sailor, DanielWithrow, Monty, Beagle and others, I naturally agree with that it was the right thing to do.
Just to jump to something that is quite related, even if I tell here a totally other story:
The whole ‘telling from sources’ is a very complex thing.
Let us assume that I want to tell a point. I go through different sources.
I take here as an example Madeleine Albright, saying something like “Yes the sanctions did kill 500.000 children in Iraq. Yes, I , we think it was worth it.”
You can find this by Googling. It is really said so in a transcript etc.
But, You can also find a study that shows that it was not 500.000, but most likely 350.000. (I once found this and I believe it is true).
So now You have two facts:
- She said it.
- The real number.
Let’s assume that You find a assumption that is not a fact, but maybe it is?: That the xxx-organisation could have avoided this from happening. (This third example is just speculation, please have this in mind). So it would have been “the third fact”.
Now is the question: How to present these facts?
If the xxx would have been a Saddam health organisation or if it would have been the Red Cross? (Just not true, I put it here as an example).
So the whole thing becomes a moral question.
- If You put just the Ahlbright comment, fine, You have made a point who the culprit was.
- If You put also the later examinations, showing that there was “only 350.000 deaths”, You are more near the truth.
- If You put all the three, I think You have found the ‘technical truth’, but
You should also get to know if Ahlbright knew that the xxx-organisation could have saved these children. That would obviously make the sanctions “less guilty”, do You agree?
The probably truth is that the sanction-makers did not have any idea what the outcome would be.
Now let’s go to mass-media. How do You think they report this?
Even knowing the complexility of the question, having all the facts?
Most probably they write a headline: "Albright says: “It was worth to kill 500.000 children!!!”
But You will probably not have to see this kind of headline ever, in the more “not so liberal press”, except outside USA.
If it would have been, let’s say Quadaffi, Saddam or some Palestinian leader, not Albright, You would get it with pictures, old and new, for a month or so. And it has not to be 500.000, nor 50.000.
500 would have been enough.
Do You agree?
That is one reason why I ask everyone to cross-check everything.
Naturally I always try to tell my sources,
but
if I want to play devils advocate and find a source that only partly agrees with my axiom, political agenda etc. I have Google as the devils helper:
- I put something in the Google and make my (satanic) picks. And then I give the sources etc.
Everything well or is it?
It is maybe hard to follow my thoughts but, let us take one example of the last outcries from some threads;
About how many people Stalin killed?
- thecnically, if we speak about trials and executions our brave friend Chumsky was right. The figures was relative low.
- then if we add there the starving to death, diseases etc., we can put a lot on Josef Stalin, but not all.
- but here is the rub: Stalin and his followers arrested people put them in wagons, and they had to work as slaves.
They worked just as in nazi-camps: if the working quota could not be filled, the daily bread ranson became smaller. Obviously people died and there is need of more people.
Just some examples:
- I worked in Wartsila, a former Gulag, two years ago. The old book was still there: A guy stole a small pig = 15 years hard labour.
- My friends grand-fathers brother was a director of a kolhos. He gave some grain to the starving kolhosniks. Result = Gulag, never came back.
- One other friend told about his grand-father: Lived in a kolhos, got a room. The floor was unpainted boards, so he painted it (with his own paint).
Inspection; painted floor = destruction of state property = gulag, never came back.
Next: - The apparatchik collected all the seed from a kolhos.
- One week later he came back asking how do they live, if they gave him all the seed? No answer was sufficent for him.
- The apparatchik came again with lorries to the kolhos and said that all the grain has to be given to the state. The kolhos refused and told that they have to eat in the winter and needs seed for the next season.
The apparatchick answered that, he knows that they have stolen from the state enough to survive and to have seed in the spring.
Stealing from the state = a criminal act.
The kolhos refused.
The apparatchick commanded the solidiers to put 12 men on the lorry, and told the people that they will be back next day.
The next day they took again tvelve men, but the third day they got all the grain.
Useless to say that the 24 men never returned. No trials needed, they had obviously stolen from the state, the grain given the last day was a proof of that. And how did the kolhos survive? The teller of this everything, Arvo Poika Tuominen, was not there anymore the next spring. And he was working for the apparatchik, so I think we can trust in his testimony. Unfortunately his books has never been translated to English.
Now if someone wants too Google about this, do so, if You do not find it there, come here and I will show You.
The main point, however, is, that Chumsky was right.
If we speak about trials and executions.
But it is also true that the missing millions are not find in the books, nor archives in Moscow. But go and look into the archives of the gulags, gulags like Wartsila.
We have to remember that the times has been changening slowly, but changening, the last 50 years.
There are better and worse jails and gulags here nowadays.
But it is also true that Chumsky presents many facts that are not found in The Wall Street Journal, New Your Times, CIA Handbook, nor BBC. And they are facts.
That is why I always ask people to cross-read all kind of literature.
If You think that Siberia is the only back yard in the world, You are wrong, terribly wrong.
And there is nothing wrong in defending the rights of the workers in e.g. Bolivia, Iraq, USA nor Finland.
There is nothing wrong to remember who created the 40-working hour per week etc.
I can assure You that it was not the bourgeois, nor the petty-bourgeois. They did not fight for the paid summer- and winter-vacations, nor the paid vacation for a mother with a new-born child.
On the contrary, they were they who were stoning the ranks of the workers at every fight for more social equality. But today they are most happy about the achivements the workers created, stilll spitting on the working-class.
I wrote earlier this week about Russia now. The thread went down like a stone, but You find it on page 2 in Great Debates: The ex-Soviet Union by Chumsky.
Henry
Well well well. Where to begin?
Let’s start with this:
Is that so? Which posts, in particular, do you feel have been plagiarized? As DanielWithrow has pointed out, the sentences you pulled out that were from Alan Maas were the only sentences out of a rather large post that were taken from somebody else. I have already stated that I took those words from Maas, and, like I said before, I apologize if that was misleading. I fully admit that was a mistake, and pointed out the situation in which it occured. Like I said, I was searching for some quotes from Marx, and came upon the Maas article. In one of the paragraphs, Maas said exactly what I wanted to say at one point, so I wrote it in the same words. No deception was intended, but I can see how this was a mistake.
My other posts, though!? I MUST PROTEST! Which other posts of mine do you feel are plagiarized? Even the post that contained this paragraph from Maas was my creation, with the exception of that one paragraph and the quotes from Marx and Engels.
The other example RedFury claims (apparently convincingly) were plagiarized are these sentences of mine:
as a plagiarism of this:
Let us examine this claim. First off, suppose you had remembered that these companies had collaborated with the Nazi war machine, and that instead of being prosecuted for treason, they had been compensated for the sums of $27 and $33 million, respectively. How would you phrase that sentiment? I mean, is it possible that if you were to phrase it in such a way as to have maximal impact, that you might put it in much a similar fashion? Without plagiarizing! Really, try it and see what you come up with.
Furthermore, consider the full context. I wrote:
Whereas, Craven wrote:
Is that plagiarism? Since three sentences are similarly worded? Come on!
Furthermore, RedFury writes, “I feel decieved.” And, “I’ve enjoyed reading many of your posts up to this point, but I can’t help but feel more than a bit disappointed by this discovery.” I find this extremely hard to believe. As I have pointed out, he apparently could not be bothered to say so before this point, finding this an opportune time to point out said fact. How credible is that?
Also, and most importantly, what, exactly, is the deception? Let me point out to you that this is an internet message board where ANONYMOUS posters are writing their views. Exactly what is it that you think I am pulling on everyone by these acts of plagiarism? What do you think I am getting out of this? Seriously, think about it! Why do people plagiarize? What are the possible motives for plagiarism? Well, isn’t it nothing other but than to claim someone else’s work for one’s own? FOR ONE’S OWN BENEFIT? But, what benefit do I get on the SD message board? Am I going to obtain millions in royalties by plagiarizing Alan Maas on the SD message board? What?
I don’t know what your all’s motivations are for posting here, but for me it is in testing out ideas, and exploring new ways of thinking. I make posts on subjects where there are multiple ways of looking at things in order to see if my point of view can stand up to attack, and to see if there is something I have missed. I don’t even know what motivation could lead somebody to go around the net plagiarizing everybody. Especially not in the way RedFury suggests, which is in post after post! Just think about the effort that would require! Try and go around the net finding appropriate responses to the variety of posts made on this board. See if you can do it!
Now, of course, in any wide-ranging discussion of events, you are going to pull in resources from a wide range of sources. I think I have a pretty good track record in posting references. One can examine the thread on Kosovo, which is linked to below, for example, to get an idea of the effort involved. What is this for? What am I trying to accomplish here? The only purpose for myself, is as stated above, namely to test out ideas in controversial areas.
I once had a very good experience on another board where a poster challenged my ideas on some core beliefs. This led me to examine those ideas more fully, and after much thought and research, eventually to discard them. Of course, this is a bit of an over-simplification, but this was one example of where such a discussion has been immensely useful to me. In trying to test out an idea, I not only found out where I had been wrong on that idea, but where I had been wrong on a whole series of assumptions. Eventually, my entire outlook was changed. This is why I post–not to try to decieve people into thinking whatever it is RedFury thinks I am trying to get them to think. Although, I still don’t understand exactly what deception s/he thinks was involved.
Truly, no deception has been intended. To prove this, let’s take a look at the other example RedFury has mined to prove acts of deception on my part:
There are several interesting points here. First of all, notice that in this thread that caught RedFury’s eye, I was completely alone in putting forth my views against an array of hostile posters. Yet, neither RedFury, nor anyone else, had a word to say in support of my position. So much for RedFury’s claims to having “enjoyed reading many of your posts.” The thread on Kosovo is the one that I put the most time and effort into. I spent hours and hours writing those posts, doing the research, and so forth, to back up my points. Yet not a single one of the posters who now claims to have previously admired my posts, or some other such tripe, could be bothered to post a word of support. This is not to say that I expected anything like that–I realize that my views are unpopular–it is just to point out how absolutely duplicitous these posters sound when they claim to be deeply hurt at these new revelations. Get off it.
Furthermore, go ahead and click on the link to the Kosovo thread RedFury references above. Scroll up two posts to the post right before MEBuckner’s, which is also my own. About halfway into that post is this sentence:
“Lastly, the entire conflict could easily have been resolved if NATO had accepted the Serb offer. From this site:”
Click on the link from “this site.” Also, on page 2 of the same thread, the third post down, is another post of mine. After the first sentence is another link, which is the same link as the one from “this site,” namely this one. Got it? OK, now click on the link that RedFury found to Robert Bowman’s website on Kosovo. What do you see? IT IS THE SAME SITE!
So, I posted links to that site both before and after the quote RedFury quoted. Furthermore, I made every effort to try to get people to check out this site, referencing it THREE MORE TIMES AFTER the quote! If I was trying to decieve people by passing off Bowman’s work as my own, why would I post links, both before and after the paragraph in question, and try hard to get people to check out the link! Did RedFury, or anybody else, go to the trouble of checking out that link when I posted it? Notice, especially, that Bowman’s paragraph is the second paragraph on his web site, and appears in full on my browser when I click on the link. If I was really trying to use Bowman’s work, and hide where I got it from, I wasn’t doing a very good job!
Truly, I say again, no deception was ever intended.
The most distressing thing about this whole event, and the only reason I have come back to post, are statements being thrown around like this from RedFury: “I am willing to bet that each of those essays and articles he plagiarized…” A lot of posters who have had obvious enmity toward me have jumped on this with obvious glee in an attempt to discredit everything I have ever written. Indeed, it has already been used in another thread to prove that I am a liar, and that therefore anything I have to say is automatically discredited before it is even considered. RickJay, for example, in another fine thread, “Go to Hell, Chumpsky,” has replied to a statement of mine with, “Reecent events would suggest that they weren’t your words to start with, plagiarism-boy.” This is in response to a completely unrelated post, mind you, but the implication is obvious, and has been jumped on by a number of posters here.
I find this sort of attitude here exceedingly strange. It leads me to think about what the point of these message boards are. If there is any forum of discussion where you would think that peoples’ motivations would center around discussing ideas, this would be it. We are all anonymous here. You don’t know me and I don’t know you. So, what could possibly be the motive to destroy a reputation of an anonymous poster on an internet message board? Well, one motive would be to discredit the ideas of that poster, to shut off debate in a certain direction. Are there any others? I don’t think so.
Anyway, I don’t know that this message board is really serving the purpose of fighting ignorance, as it claims to be. I have noticed an incredible amount of personal animosity between posters, something which seems completely illogical to me. Instead of trying to explore ideas and test out unfamiliar concepts, a number of people seem dedicated to shutting off discussion and twisting the words of posters beyond recognition. The experience with regard to Stalin is a case in point, but it is more widespread.
I initially posted on this board when I got involved in the movement to stop the war in Iraq, to try to find out if arguments against the war could stand up, to test these out. I found that to be a good experience, and learned a few things. Then, I continued posting about some other ideas, and found that there are certain things, certain ideas, that bring out some very ugly tendencies in human beings, chauvinistic, nationalistic tendencies that you would think would be somewhat muted on an anonymous message board like this. (I am not the only one to notice this, by the way.)
Ahh well. It has been a learning experience! Hopefully, I will be able to avoid jail time, RedFury. My only hope would be a hope that I always have, namely that people will take ideas seriously, and not simply reject them out of hand before they are tested.
Good day!
I just have to say it:
In Soviet Russia, website plagarizes YOU!
God, Chumpsky, stop whining.
In response to your Craven defense, I’m kind of stunned that you didn’t argue that you two apparently used the same source material. How else do you explain how you AND Craven decided to list the exact same four companies (out of the hundreds that “profited from fascism”)?
Btw, I didn’t admire your earlier posts. I tend not to support mad ideologies or their supporters.
Wow. What a load of crap. For the record I’ve never respected you and thought that you were a hyperbolic, half-blinded, rabid pit bull. You can try to spin all you want, but quite frankly the evidence is stacked against you.
I will note that just because Redfury hasn’t posted on your side in a debate automatically means that he is against you. Plenty of people lurk here to learn from others, and it’s entirely possible that Fury was lurking to learn from you. Ask yourself this question: if Fury just wanted to have you banned because he disliked you or your opinions why would he even bother to go through a charade of acting like he liked your positions and respected you personally if he felt he had such damning evidence?
Furthermore I would have to say that no one here has destroyed your reputation other than yourself. When you first appeared on the board you immediately set about calling anyone a liar whose information contradicted your own and you even started a GD thread stating that you wanted to hear other people’s opinions and then immediately came after anyone who posted them with ad hominem style attacks. If you think this is all because of your political views think again; Diogenes and Olentzero are both posters who have political views that are far from being popular on this board, and there are plenty of others, and yet no one has accused them of plagiarism or mounted any other substantial charges for their banning simply because there are none.
Here’s a question: if you weren’t trying to pass other people’s works as your own then why didn’t you credit them? The prime motive for plagiarism is taking credit for other people’s work. While yes that could mean money, on an internet message board it could mean an increase of respect (and before you whip off a whiney “But no one here likes me anyways!” I said respect, not liking). You do make a half-way decent case for the similarities between Bowman’s comments and your own, but quite frankly the rest of your arguments suck, the way you phrase your sentences is far too close to the sources quoted to be coincidental (IMNSHO).
Considering your posting history that’s just fucking ironic.
>> I have already stated that I took those words from Maas
If you did it was after you were caught and put under some pressure but I must have missed it because what I see in a previous post of yours is:
>> I totally deny that I plagiarized the sentences regarding ITT and GM. This was simple coincidence
It is amazing how you twist the language. You live in a surreal reality and you are a pathetic liar. I just wish you would just go away and stop wasting everybody’s time here.
Or testing Allan Maas’s ideas.
Plagerizing is hardly a new way of thinking.
As to why people plagerize? Some do it for profit. Some do it for fame. Some do it just to make themselves look good (or better, at least). Anonymity not withstanding.
No one has a problem with you using Maas’s words to bolster your position. But when you do, link to the source or otherwise let us know you are quoting from a source. Don’t pretend they are your words. That is all.
I think You guys a re not fair to Chumsky.
You are not attackin his arguments, but him.
He appologized for his error, so what can he do more for You?
Is someone here the Ultimate Knight in Shining Armour?
Never failed?
Stand up please! I have a question to You:
So, You have never been mistaken? Are You sure that You will never fail in the future?
If You are not a “two sentense poster - glee, glee-poster”, I can tell You right now that You will. Sooner or later.
And I also second him in this, that in a forum You can learn a lot.
Things that You did not know before, things where You have been wrong.
If You use the forum to show that “I know everything” and “I am never wrong”, I think You will not in the long run give us others very much.
I think still positive about “our brave Chumpsky”.
But we see later in the thread I promised You.
Henry
Chumpsky,
**
Obviously, the three that I’ve presented – being disingenuous does not constitute an effective defense for your actions.
**
Go back and read your original response. That is not at all what you said and did.
First you floundered, “I suppose I must reply to this,” next, you questioned my own integrity, “Although, I must say, that for someone who claims to “honestly like the passionate idealism” I present, I find it odd that this is the first time you have chosen fit to post in any thread I have participated in. This is literally the FIRST thread you have ever posted in which I have participated” and lastly you came up with an absurd excuse, “Anyway, regarding the plagiarism claim, I suggest that people read my entire post, and then read Maas’ essay, and decide for themselves if this is an example of plagiarism. If you really think that is plagiarism, well, we have different opinions on what constitutes plagiarism”
And yes, yes, I think that was an example of blatant plagiarism. Hardly what I would call a “a difference of opinion.” So, your answer was dishonest – to put it mildly.
**
For a smart guy, you seem a bit slow on the uptake. Took you a whole paragraph to answer your first question – and then, only partially. How about the other two examples I presented? Despite your “protestations,” as has already been explained by others in this thread (DanielWithrow, in particular, does an excellent job of it), the odds of coming up with an almost identical paragraph from memory are beyond infinitesimal. Mind you, I do believe it could happen, just not bloody likely. And for it to happen at least twice – while finally and reluctantly admitting that the third example was, indeed, plagiarized – is beyond what a skeptic such as myself is willing to attribute to “coincidence.” You may as well try to convince me that pigs can, indeed, fly.
**
This is getting beyond silly – to right down bizarre. But I’ll indulge you just this once. Just not with the “clever” attempt to obfuscate the plagiarized paragraph by inserting your own preceding sentence.
Craven:
Me:
Happy now? Perhaps you’d like to hire me as your ghost writer? Becuase I dare you to Google the hell out of my own paragraph and see if you can come up with one even remotely like it. It does however, convey the same message, does it not? You’re welcome.
Anyway.
**
Not hard to realize that I am mostly a reader (dislike the “lurker” bit, sound kind of shady to me) by my low post count. See, I run my my own set of forums and do most of my posting there. As it is, I spend too much time on the Internet, simply can’t afford to get actively involved here on a steady basis as well. However, I do spend time reading the threads I find of interest and stand by my original comments – you’re welcomed to believe whatever you wish, but them is the facts, Jack.
And you know what? I’ve already spent much more than my weekly allotted time to the SDMB in this whole fiasco, so, pardon me if I don’t reply to the rest of the dribble that ensues. If you think you have any legitimate complaints/charges you can use against me, please, please, do not hesitate to bring them up to the SDMB staff and/or Administration. I’ll be more than happy to accept their ruling on this matter.
And I trust you would too.
Actaully, he hasn’t. He’s hemmed and hawed about “definitions” of plagerism and how what he did didn’t fit that description, and ‘if I did, so what??’.
Plagerism of that manner is not unforgivable. If you cop to it when you’re caught, and apologize for it, you can rebuild your rep.
I have been factually mistaken on many, many occassions. Plagerism is not a ‘mistake’ though.
::looks around::
Am I wrong about this???
Hmm…having devoted so much time in this thread, might as well hit the double-century mark here. After all, it might be another year or so before I hit three hundred.
So…200!
There, another first for me. Post padding.
An honest mistake is one thing but Chumpsky has shown over and over that he is not an honest person. He does not debate honestly looking for the truth. He just ignores what doesn’t suit him and makes up whatever suits him. This is just one more indication of just how dishonest his is. He is a liar and he just wont face it or admit it. Anything he says is worthless.
Jeebus, if this were before Judge Marian Miliam right now, she’d undoubtedly be saying “Chumpsky, you are so out of gas”.
What you still, astoundingly, haven’t figured out is that is that if you treat everyone around you with contempt (and the fact is, you have attacked nearly every single poster who has raised even the slightest objection to one of your endless diatribes), they are likely to reciprocate. The other thing you seem to have trouble grasping is that it’s not your position on the political spectrum that has so many denouncing you, it’s your obnoxious, hectoring treatment of other posters, it’s your total lack of respect for any poster’s opinion but your own, your pig-headed refusal to recognize when a position you’ve taken is untenable, no matter how silly it’s demonstrated to be. Most of all, it’s your repeated lies; your twisting of the facts, and your weaseling evasions when said lies are pointed out. I’m sorry, it doesn’t matter how idealistic one’s motives may be: liars in the service of idealism are still liars, and lies must be resisted if we are to make any sense of life.
For several months you’ve done your level best to inform anyone here who does not precisely parrot your worldview that they are all stupid tools whose thoughts are not their own, and yet you act surprised when no one leaps to your defence after being caught in a CLEAR, INDISPUTABLE CASE OF PLAGIARISM. It’s completely beyond me why you haven’t been banned for this, and instead of making mealy-mouthed non-apologies and whinging about how unfairly you’ve been treated, you ought to be fucking grateful you still have a forum in which to spew your particular brand of hatred. You are reaping what you’ve sown, me bucko. Deal with it.
By RedFury
Idealism? I’m not sure about that…
However, I am sure Chumpsky, being a socialist much like myself, is a materialist.
Human behaviour is determined entirely by material circumstance however predictable or unpredictable that behaviour might be. If you are implying socialism is an unachievable flight of fancy, or a departure from material reality, you are mistaken. I not only believe a socialist and participatory democracy is possible, I believe if we are to survive as a species in the long, long term, it must be inevitable. The capitalist system carries within itself the crisis that stimulates, even necessitates, the continuing struggle for more democratic alternatives.
I wonder if RedFury actually knows what Idealism is, or if his choice of words is the result of some vague awareness of popular and negative connotations.
His arguments have been addressed in their own threads and he has never even attempted to argue rationally. This is not the place to rehash other debates. The Pit is where we come to attack his stupidity and dishonesty.