Wikipedia:
“Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.”
Please show me where I stated anything about you. In fact, not only did I say nothing about you, all I did was restate what you have said. I mean, if what you have to say “poisons the well”, uh, I’d say that’s on you pal. (People really should learn what the logical fallacies really are before they start accusing people of committing them. Another user was just commenting the very same thing (about the very same fallacy) in fact.)
- Chomsky’s presenting new ideas? All I’ve ever heard him spout are the same ones that have been debunked for centuries. Like when he said if the Venezualan socialists are successful “they would be seeds of a better world.” Or when he said “The consistent anarchist should be a socialist” and that he [the consistant anarchist] will “oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers”. Or when he said that when Thomas Jefferson argued that dependence will lead to “subservience and venality”, and will “suffocate[s] the germs of virtue”, Jefferson was talking about was talking about “wage labor”…which (according to Chomsky) was considered an abomination under classical liberal principles.
Or how about when he said “we’d be a lot better off if we were higher taxed, and it was used for proper purposes.” What is a “proper purpose?” Apparently we know what that is. Chomsky says we do: “We know what those [purposes] are. I mean, for example, for women taking care of children. You know, it makes sense to pay them for that work, they’re doing important work for the society.”
Take a lot of money (even more than you already do) from everyone by force, and hand it over to women to have children and “take care of them.” We’d “be a lot better off” if that happened. Yes. Smart man indeed. Amazingly novel, insightful ideas. I’ve never heard anything like this before. Must be just “close-minded”.
I especially like when he defended the Khmer Rouge and refused to believe reports that Cambodian communists would genocide 30 percent of their nation’s population…when in fact that’s exactly what they were doing at that very moment. The very intelligent man “didn’t know” this was going on. (Hey maybe he was “tricked”. I mean, not into physical prostitution, but intellectual. Ever heard the term “useful idiot”? …oh, but that would mean…uh..)
- Who the hell said anything about Rothbard?