FACT:

FACT:
an old Ukranian jewish weakling with a weird haircut has repeatedly debunked every aspect of Sup Forums's shitty right-wing masturbations

Good luck trying the discredit him
>Hard Mode: no ad hominem or other logical fallacies

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr#Firefight_and_capture
youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro
youtube.com/watch?v=JgJ2BmO6e6k
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

No, he didn't.

You can't prove the Chomsky wrong
Which is why this board is but a fucking meme for insecure braindead manchildren

source?

post one of his arguments???

he debunked nationalism?

pfft

Everything a jew says is a self-serving lie. Accept the jew devil into your life at your own great peril. The red-pilled among us know better than to invite the pestilence into our house.

Chomsky on Gun Control

From "Secrets, Lies and Democracy" - Noam Chomsky Interviewed by David
Barsamian. Published by donian Press, Tucson AZ, 1994.


Gun control

Q: Advocates of free access to arms cite the Second Amendment. Do you believe
that it permits unrestricted, uncontrolled possession of guns?


It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit
people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments
to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of
the times interprets them as permitting.

But underlying the controversy over guns are some serious questions. There's
a feeling in the country that people are under attack. I think they're
misidentifying the source of the attack, but they do feel under attack.

The government is the only power structure that's even partially accountable
to the population, so naturally the business sectors want to make that the
enemy--not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable. After decades
of intensive business propaganda, people feel that the government is some
kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.

It's not that that doesn't have its justifications. The government is
authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population. But it's
partially influenceable--and potentially very influenceable--by the general
population.

FACT:
a middle-aged Austrian statesman with a weird moustache has repeatedly debunked every aspect of your shitty left-wing masturbations

Good luck trying the discredit him
>Hard Mode: no ad hominem or other logical fallacies

My grandfather always told me this:

"There's only one thing worse than a Jew in this world. And that, my boy, is a self-hating Jew."

I like Chomsky, but he is wrong on sociobiology or human biodiversity, and maybe on global warming, too.

He also doesn't mind if third world people replace Europeans, which is something we disagree on.

Why doesn't he get a hair cut? Jesus fuck

How are businesses unaccountable? If they fuck up they lose business. Government is just a giant leech full of thieves.

Watch one of his talk/conference or whatever
It's never about arguments. It's about common sense and global vision
Something Sup Forums ideological idiots deeply lack

He's a retard I've watched a few hours of his stuff, let me sum it up:
Big biz=bad
Big gov=ok
Everything in the world is America's fault
Everything is blowback
Islamic imperialism in the past 1300 years doesn't exist and I won't ever talk about it
Please cuck my shit up
Jewish degenerate leftist ideas

>goverment is not the enemy, corporations are.
>lets ignore the constitution completely

Yeah, cause who cares about arguments, when you have a global vision?

pretty much this

next arguement

The golden days of pre-internet era when you could spew bullshit for 2 hours with concerned face and no one would would question your crap.

I use to listen to that kike a decade ago. He's on par with Alex Jones and Jordan Maxwell. GTFO out here with Chomsky's shill shenanigans.

The corporate system is not unaccountable. It can and does get healed into court in the form of individual defendants all the time. People go to prison for financial crimes. The SEC exists and does its job.

Oh, I get it. It doesn't do the job that Chomsky wants done.

His argument is factually flawed, but beyond this, he seems like an insecure man baby who is mad at the system that he isn't going to admit he's a part of.

So Bobby Fischer is not awesome? I think your gramps was senile, mate

I still hate Chomsky, though. Filthy commie

*haled into court

>Ukraine

Chomsky is an anarchist

>Bobby Fischer
a person, when presented with facts, switches off from reality
as entertaining as he was (and extremely intelligent) he was completely out of touch - as are many really smart people

a old guy with a opinion . good for him. the problem is really old people wont ever see eye to eye with younger people. that old guy probably thinks radio rots your brain and he probably calls it something ghey like a phonography or some shit

>He was also responsible for amazing Pizza Ovens.

People still take Known Chumpsky seriously?

>he's old
>also he probably has wrong ideas on some random issues

That made me chuckle

>After decades of intensive business propaganda, people feel that the government is some
kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.

If he is so critical against those who don't take the Constitution literally, why does he go on to imply that people shouldn't feel that it is important to be ready to defend against a tyrannical government when that is what it literally says in the Constitution?

Thomas Sowell called him and his ilk out as the "intellectuals" they are by speaking about topics that are outside their domain of study.

Basically Chumpsky said people are idiots and can't think for themselves, but he knows what they're thinking and feeling better than they do, people are delusional and think they're under attack by the government.
Chumpsky thinks government is held accountable, meanwhile there's rarely oversight and accountability in much of what the government does, publicly listed companies have more transparency than government and are held accountable to shareholders.
Chumpsky claims big corp propaganda somehow made the people mad at big government, it's not that government is a behemoth that can wreck everything and there's no accountability like with big corps.

So he basically made corps out to be unaccountable, which is a lie, and government knows best, even though its rarely held accountable or any oversight and transparency. He basically just pumped out a bunch of bullshit and tried to make things seem the way they aren't, but why wouldn't he, he insults people can't think for themselves, Chumpsky is the delusional one who claims to be able to see what people feel and think.

>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns.
the jews just cant stop lying

every time they open their mouths they lie.

>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns

The eternal Jew strikes again.

there is literally zero reason to take anything chomsky says seriously

the man's linguistics aren't even good either

Sup fellow south african fag

Chris Cararra
An Anarchist Case Against Gun Control
Anarchists envision a society without government, a world where individual people, sometimes on their own and sometimes in cooperation with others, take care of themselves, their needs, their desires. One can expect that in such a libertarian society, with no restrictions on peoples freedom to engage in whatever non-coercive productive and commercial activities they choose, and the absence of oppressive political institutions and laws, there will be far fewer incidents of theft and physical attack than there are today. While changing the world to eliminate poverty and institutional violence may be the ultimate solution to the problem of violence and robbery, until that time non-coercive people need a means of defense against those who are not as peaceful as they are.

Most people now look to the armed forces of the government, whether police or military, for such protection. However, not only do police and military personnel do an abysmal job of protecting individuals, they are often themselves the perpetrators of coercive violence. In light of this, people need to look to themselves and their chosen communities for self-defense. Such a strategy of self-defense must include the freedom to own and use handguns without putting oneself at risk of arrest and/or violence by agents of the government.

That's the number one Jewish trick: telling you that black is white and white is black, describing every problem as the exact opposite.

What is Chomsky's position on the biological reality of race?

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”


― George Orwell

>be a genius with an extremely high verbal IQ
>can argue very cogently/effectively
>abuse this to push your kike ideology on goyim
ugh

Awe mei laanie.
Tell me something, how safe are we when browsing/posting on here?
Are our incompetent government spying on us and shiet?

He's a Jew, take a fucking guess. Pro tip: it's anti-white.

I heard him say once that "even if IQ differs between races, a true egalitarian would not care, it would not bother him, because everyone should be treated equally anyway."

I highly doubt we have anything to fear from South African cyber police.

Besides everything I post is satire anyway. Only an absolute imbecile would construe the opinions I share here as legitimate.

Those familiar with pro-gun activists know that they love a good quote. Do some surfing on pro-gun websites and you will find a cottage industry of quotations from American leaders and other voices of wisdom from throughout history. Some are legitimate, and some are completely bogus, but all are cherry-picked and presented entirely without context to suggest that their subjects hold the same pro-gun beliefs as Ted Nugent.

Even history’s greatest proponents of nonviolence are not immune from such treatment. This includes Mohandas Gandhi himself, whose words appear on countless pro-gun websites as follows: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

Pro-gun activists frequently use those words to suggest that Gandhi supported individual gun ownership both as a means of defending oneself and as a tool to violently resist government tyranny. But are these assertions true?

In that passage, Gandhi references India’s Arms Act of 1878, which gave Europeans in India the right to carry firearms but prevented Indians from doing so, unless they were granted a license by the British colonial government. The full text of what he wrote is: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”

We are relatively safe. Just dont release (even by accident, it happens) private info e.g location.
The blacks are crazy nowadays and if the ANC catches wind of an easy target those fucking coons will try kill anyone related to National Socialism/White supremacy. Stay safe

jewish lies.

/thread shill scums.

Same here. Only satire from me, i mean this is Sup Forums

Oh, this is an easy one: open any of his books not concerning linguistics, find the footnote supporting his claim, then see if that source supports his claim, or actually even exists. That was a big wake-up for me and a big part of leaving the Left. Chomsky is a well-known, well-documented manipulator and liar.

My favorite is his outright lies about the cricumstances of Omar Khadr's capture.

>they attacked his village and poor little omar was just defending it
Nope. The US walked in as guests of the federal Afghan government under the authority of a UNSCR. Khadr is a Canadian citizen, and his ethnic origins are in Pakistan. It is not his village and he had no more right to be there than any of you. This is a much more honest account of what happened: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr#Firefight_and_capture

When you apply Chomsky's own standards for moral international conduct—that an act meet the approval of the UN, that it adhere to international law, etc.—you find that the US often does meet these burdens of legality, and he chooses to omit, distort, and lie outright to always cast the US as the villain and everyone else as eternal victim.

Seriously, just get any of his books, or watch any of his lectures, then compare his claims to the known, documented facts, like I did in the Khadr incident. He's a lying piece of shit.

He just made case for both sides to be true.
It's was intellectuals do. Present a lot of stuff we already knew and make it more confusing but no solutions.

>i-it's all a joke, guys
>don't put us in a f-firing squad!!

faggots, you deserve to be lined up and gunned down if you can't stand behind your convictions.

Sup Forums is just satire. No one takes it seriously.

Right?

try bringing in someone who is not a jew op they have no credibility here

Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[72] In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[73]

One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".[74] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[75] as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:

[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[75][76]

>a jew supporting globalism
Wow what a surprise

NOAM! Do you still feel that it doesn't matter who did 9/11? Because all roads seem to lead to (((the usual suspects))). Noam? Can you feel me, Noam?

>It's never about arguments.
Fuck him then. Fuck you too.

>the corporate "system"
>unaccountable

You can make any corporation account for itself by not buying their shit. That's the whole point of competition.

>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns.
How was this guy taken seriously at any point in his life

Right?

Claiming NONO IT'S NOT ABOUT ARGUMENTS sounds like something someone would say when they are losing an argument.

But hey, jews gotta jew fast.

That, and the fact that you simply can't engage with someone who doesn't support their position with arguments.

Thats actually a pretty measured and reasonable statement.

How is it reasonable.

Lower IQ instantly means lesser contribution, not because of lack of desire but because plain lack of ability.

So equality cannot ever truly be equal, because contribution dictates what you earn, be it in finances, love, anything material.

Equality is an illusion, a fantasy propped up to keep the lower IQ among you from rebelling against the higher IQ among us. Not unlike religion, preaching 'we are all equal' is the great panacea, which keeps you proles moving where we need you.

That quote about the Jew's debating tactics comes to mind.

Chomsky would actually agree with a shitload of things posted on Sup Forums.

Pol pot

youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

Please notice my thread

What was the IQ of people who got a brilliant idea of catching members of neolithic hunter-gatherer tribes, transport them over ocean and make them forcibly work into 18 century high-intensity industrial agriculture?

500 million worth of 2016 USD earned and 10 trillion wasted on civil war, affirmative action, chimpouts and extra police deployment.

not even giving sacha jew cohen 5 seconds of my time

>asks a question about 2A
>denies 2A even permits rights (he's partial right, it guarantees god-given rights)
>goes on a diatribe about corporatism and government

anarchywouldbesomuchbetterguys.jpeg

Jews did the transporting and selling of slaves, all over the world.

This isn't even disputable.

Everything that came after, particularly in the states, is the result of Jews riding the prevailing winds of change and adapting economic strategy to best benefit them, eg civil rights for niggers.

Dude it's we wuz kangs level of retarded if you are serious

Just for clarity
He used the old "2nd amendment is only collective ownership of guns in the form of a militia" argument, which Scalia fucking decimated in the DC v. Heller decision.

He's using bullshit bazaar haggling techniques common among people from the middle east, a lot of talk to manipulate and confuse to push the product he's selling, but if you sit back and ignore all the theatrics it's easy to see the bullshit. When you break down what Chomsky says, it turns ridiculous, it's a lot of long winded talk with lies sprinkled in that are pushed as fact directly or indirectly, like a merchant in a bazaar.

How? It's evident in literally everything here.

The states as a young nation needed slaves to grow. Once the population no longer needed them, or was strong enough to stand on it's own without slavery, Jews instantly did a 360 and began shilling rights for these subhumans.

>How do you best profit from an evolving scenario

Turn slaves into consumers.

>Jew
>That haircut
Is that you Shilly Wonka?

Actually they were Iron Age farmers & herders

Just saying

jew here with a high verbal iq. I spent linguistics class arguing Chomsky was bullshit. I get where he's getting his ideas but none of it is pragmatic and it does not work for anyone but him.

>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns.
Where's his argument though?

How does he have still have any credibility?

why would I listen to anything a subhuman Slav have to say?

That old man belongs in a wheat field or pigsty.

>It's never about arguments.
NOT AN ARGUMENT.

Nice meme leddit

There is no argument, just assumes its clear in a literal sense to the audience and fluffs it up, wraps packages and sells it with "it's pretty clear, that taken literally." Imagine a merchant in a bazaar showing off his tomatoes, he'd say to a passerby, "isn't it clear these are the reddest best tomatoes you have ever seen!" It's manipulation and if broken down what he tries to imply and suggest in his long winded talks, it falls apart.

>it's never about arguments
True it's usually just an obfuscating slurry of marxist buzzwords.

College kids fall for memes as long as they're popular
Chomsky is a left wing meme machine desu

It's pretty clear.
Being an educated European in an extremely cultured society should just, like, be able to see that. Is Americans need a philosopher like Chomsky to think for us. We are silly.

I've heard him argue before that the second amendment doesn't guarantee rights to individuals, only to the militia, so basically you can't own firearms for home/personal use according to the constitution in chomsky's kike mind. Justice Scalia put that argument in a body bag in the DC v. Heller decision (2008) which is worth reading if you have any interest in American law. Also this infographic Addresses it in the box.

>debunked

>subjectives

amazing!

also:
>no ad homs

>weird haircut

>shitty masturbations

i see

I couldn't have said it better myself.

youtube.com/watch?v=JgJ2BmO6e6k

>"It can sometimes be difficult for non-US citizens to gain an understanding of citizen rights in the US.
>rights
>real
I like you america, but this is nonsense.
[jewish noises intensifying]

You guys are ask fucking morons everything he says is brilliant

Source?

Look it up yourself faggot is not about argument is about vision

>No logical fallacies
>Opens with Appeal to Authority.

Good job retard.

Did that sound better in your head?

>Be a linguistics professor
>suddenly become an expert on all things political and philosophical because he tells his liberal students what they want to hear

The only way to beat jewish logic is by beating their lives out of them.