Are you seriously claiming that it’s wrong to have a legal age of consent? That it’s somehow a bad thing to try and protect adolescents from being sexually exploited? Do you actually believe that money is the only form of power?
Apparently you think it’s okay for adult men to manipulate girls. As long as they aren’t making money at it, all is okay. That is shameful, and you don’t have to be a liberal to recognize that.
Noam Chomsky is famous for being a "libertarian socialist" who constantly harps on "authoritarian socialism", now he's been revealed to have a very close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
To what degree? Did Noam know these things? What facts you know about their encounters? You just imply because one guy's a scumbag that's an indictment on anyone he dealt with in knowledge of his crimes? Shitty ppl will appear to be good ethical ppl to others as a public front for self interests.
I can claim that because Jeffrey Epstein was literally convicted of it in 2008. It was public knowledge. Chomsky continued to be his buddy and talked to him all the time and hung out with him.
You are arguing based on emotions. Epstein was released from jail and traditionally it is believed that when someone has been released from prison it means that their crimes have been settled and that's it. This is also what Chomsky has said. He didn't do anything wrong.
The critique should be directed at the discourse itself, without the need to divert attention to someone’s personal life; but it is also true that political positions become visible in practice.
Thus, for example, Kropotkin ended up supporting the First World War, and Heidegger’s philosophy—which is a restoration of metaphysics, despite appearing so far removed from his ideology—nonetheless has a correlate in his adhesion to Nazism.
So yes, criticism must be grounded on rational bases, on what the author himself says. But also this: that he fraternizes with pedophiles and millionaires says a great deal about an ideology which, although presented as radical, is compatible with its opposite.
Chomsky has already explained why he was associated with Epstein and there is nothing special about it. Everyone in the entire world have probably worked with someone who has committed crimes, so who cares? Epstein helped Chomsky with some financial matters, and that's about it. He doesn't owe any explanations to anyone. There is youtube video about this.
[removed]
Are you seriously claiming that it’s wrong to have a legal age of consent? That it’s somehow a bad thing to try and protect adolescents from being sexually exploited? Do you actually believe that money is the only form of power?
Apparently you think it’s okay for adult men to manipulate girls. As long as they aren’t making money at it, all is okay. That is shameful, and you don’t have to be a liberal to recognize that.
What do you mean? Sorry if im dumb.
Noam Chomsky is famous for being a "libertarian socialist" who constantly harps on "authoritarian socialism", now he's been revealed to have a very close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Old news btw. He defended his relationship with him and Woody Allen years ago
So then one should assume something about the dynamics of that relationship? His political ideas are tainted by speculation on his knowing epstien?
He was buddies and regularly communicated and hung out with a convicted rapist, sex trafficker and pedophile.
To what degree? Did Noam know these things? What facts you know about their encounters? You just imply because one guy's a scumbag that's an indictment on anyone he dealt with in knowledge of his crimes? Shitty ppl will appear to be good ethical ppl to others as a public front for self interests.
Yes he did know.
Ok what do you claim he knew?
He knew he was a rapist, sex trafficker and prolific pedophile at the very least.
I'm sorry but I don't know how you can claim that. Many ppl knew Cosby and thought of him as an upstanding guy.
I can claim that because Jeffrey Epstein was literally convicted of it in 2008. It was public knowledge. Chomsky continued to be his buddy and talked to him all the time and hung out with him.
You're just making things up no. You are not interested in rational conversation.
You are arguing based on emotions. Epstein was released from jail and traditionally it is believed that when someone has been released from prison it means that their crimes have been settled and that's it. This is also what Chomsky has said. He didn't do anything wrong.
The critique should be directed at the discourse itself, without the need to divert attention to someone’s personal life; but it is also true that political positions become visible in practice.
Thus, for example, Kropotkin ended up supporting the First World War, and Heidegger’s philosophy—which is a restoration of metaphysics, despite appearing so far removed from his ideology—nonetheless has a correlate in his adhesion to Nazism.
So yes, criticism must be grounded on rational bases, on what the author himself says. But also this: that he fraternizes with pedophiles and millionaires says a great deal about an ideology which, although presented as radical, is compatible with its opposite.
“So i saw John McAfee had a whole privately owned island so i said to myself ‘Why not get one as well!’”
Chomsky has already explained why he was associated with Epstein and there is nothing special about it. Everyone in the entire world have probably worked with someone who has committed crimes, so who cares? Epstein helped Chomsky with some financial matters, and that's about it. He doesn't owe any explanations to anyone. There is youtube video about this.
The new Epstein File releases show their relationship was far deeper and more intimate than Chomsky let on.
in what degree mrs nazbol? vagueness is not a good thing when we're talking about such a big issue.
"I am sure you believe everything you say. The point is if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting in that chair."
~ Noam Chomsky