Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

[Fan of Science]

Noam Chomsky is a proven liar, and a fool. He is only endorsed by the Left because he is a self-hating Jew rampant with anti-Semitism. But then the Left can irrationally claim because the anti-Semitic statements are coming from a Jew, named Chomsky, that the statements must not be anti-Semitic. Take away the fact Chomsky is an anti-Semitic Jew and no one would ever pay attention to his insanity when it comes to political claims. Chomsky, however, does help to explain why the Left is infatuated with Islam --- both share a common hatred for Jews.

[Burning ghost]

Liar? Fool? Let others judge your assessment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo70D4bmrSY

[Fan of Science]

There is a website, which started off as the 100 lies of Noam Chomsky, and it had to be amended to the 200 lies of Noam Chomsky. If the site were current, we would be well into the thousands of lies by now. Chomsky's opinions are absurd when it comes to political and economic topics. They are quite childish. Basically, he makes any excuse imaginable to support totalitarian leftist and anti-Semitic claims, including the absurd claim that Holocaust-deniers are not anti-Semites, while bashing the USA for everything. He's a linguist, not an historian, not an economist, not a sociologist, biologist, etc. He even engages in outright science denial when it comes to evolutionary biology, when applied to human behavior. He simply claims one can ignore the science, without giving any coherent explanation for why this should be the case. He's an ideologue, and if science gets in the way of his ideology, he'll deny the science. Not surprising since he has throughout his life denied any basic facts that undermine his opinions.

-- Updated July 6th, 2017, 2:21 pm to add the following --

Here is just one example of Chomsky's anti-Semitic lies. In 2004, he said this: "By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population. You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are marginal." Evidence, please? The claim that the Jews in the USA are "the most privileged and influential part of the population" is nothing less than an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Strange then how no Jew has ever been elected president of the USA if the Jews are the most powerful and privileged group in the USA. Strange that they are a minority in Congress. How are they the most privileged group? Are there special laws that only apply to Jews and give them special rights over other Americans? If there is then name these laws.

Chomsky is a delusional, lying, self-hating Jew, and that is the only reason he is a so-called "intellectual." The Left needs a self-hating Jew to provide a cover for their rampant anti-Semitism, and, in the self-hating Jew Chomsky, they have the person they need.

[Burning ghost]

That sounds little less than a balanced view of things. Yes, I certainly don't agree with everything he says. I can honestly say most of what you've written above is infantile rubbish though. He "denies science" to push his own ideology? Laughable. Your source is a site "dedicated" to showing his lies. Does that sound unbiased to you?

Manny people make the distinction about anti-Zionism, anti-Semite and anti-Israel. Many also confuse these and tread in very dangerous grounds.

The only conspiracy above is your one against Chomsky (for some reason?) and "The Left" whoever they are? I have taken the time to listen to critiques of Chomsky and his explanations of some of the things he's been accused of (largely being taken out of context). He says some things I may find to be naïve, but I still at least find them worth considering.

If he had a degree in social sciences would you then be accusing him of not knowing anything because he didn't know anything about linguistics? Come on! That is just silly and you know it. Not to mention that linguistics is a very broad field and that evolutionary biology, as in our DNA, is not the only source of human behavior. He would no doubt be referring to the environmental factors that include cultural traditions intermingled with language (or maybe not, maybe he is a fool?)

The argument of this thread is bizarre to say the least. Sympathetic? Nope. People are sympathetic toward minority cultures.

I would criticize Chomsky for focusing too much on the past and the effects of colonialism. What is apparent is western countries feed terrorism, and the US has a vested interest in the middle east for oil. It is no secret. We could argue that if Islam was not in the middle east there would be lese (or no) suicide bombers. I am not sure we could conclude this convincingly though. What we can conclude is the whole area has been kept in a state of instability (purposefully or not depending on your take on the messy situation) due to western interference.

I am sympathetic towards people who have their countries invaded and their lives destroyed because of actions taken out by people they no nothing about nor agree with.

The main reason Chomsky gets a lot of flak is because he does something very un-American. He actually looks at the bad things and asks why it is happening. The US thrives on a culture of building up its heroes and patting each other on the back for being so great. When you have someone in your midst doing the opposite people are bound to get irked.

If you come across a wild animal and start throwing stones at it you should consider that your doing so may just provoke the animal to bite you. To keep asking what is making this animal attack me is damn silly if you look at every available piece of information such as the colour of your shirt, your smell, your posture, and ignoring the fact that your threw stones in its face. To ignore the stone throwing is to ignore one of the main causes of the problem. If you look at this before moving deeper into the situation you may just find a workable solution.

I guess we all live in our own little bubbles to some degree though.

Without a doubt the weak prey on sympathy. This should not stop us from being sympathetic because there are people out there in genuine need of our understanding who are being marginalized by the media and these extremists. They want us to divide, that is their singular goal, it is a very obvious divide and conquer tactic. They will lose though because people only put up with so muchshit before striking back.

I heard the quote above. Have you any idea of the context he said it in or did you just pull that from your "Chomsky lies" website? Do you have the full speech to hand?

[Fan of Science]

If anyone is childish here, it's you. Chomsky is on record as denying the science of evolutionary psychology. Based on what? Not on any science, but merely his ideological claims. It's not childish of me to point out that Chomsky is, therefore, a science denier. The fact is that evolutionary psychology has a great deal of evidence supporting it. It's doubtful Chomsky knows anything about the science being done in this area. He certainly did not reference any of the actual science in writing it off. But, of course, lefties always claim that all is environment, and they can't handle the fact that there is also a biological component to behavior.

It's not my conspiracy, it's your Jew-hating conspiracy at issue. Go check out any anti-Semitic hate site, and you will see that they all claim the Jews are controlling the globe, and certainly the USA. When Chomsky lies and claims that the Jews are the most privileged and influential group in the USA, he is engaging in the same exact conspiracy non-sense as the hate-sites promote.

Where is the actual evidence to support this claim? There is none. People like Chomsky love to lie and claim that the Jews are in control of US foreign policy when it comes to Israel. Really? This completely ignores the facts that a majority in the USA are Christian and many Christians support Israel. Rather than look at the facts that a large percentage of Christians are responsible for US foreign policy regarding Israel, people like Chomsky deny those basic facts, and simply cling to the myth that the Jews are controlling it. It's pure nonsense, from an empirical standpoint, a minority cannot control politics in the USA, especially not a minority that makes up less than 2% of the population and has diverse viewpoints within that minority group.

I'll stick to reality, and refuse to hero-worship a lunatic like Chomsky. He is a man who knows that he has made a political career by being a self-hating Jew. The fact he could engage in such a career, shows the Left for what it is --- a delusional anti-Semitic POS group, no better than the far right. That's why I am a centrist, where most Americans are. It's the far-right and the far-left where all the crazy people hang out with one another.

[Burning ghost]

I think I get the idea. I'll leave you to it.

[Fan of Science]

I'll note for the record that you could not produce any evidence supporting Chomsky's claim that the Jews are the most privileged and controlling group in the USA. Neither has Chomsky. I'll further note that you have produced no evidence that justifies writing off the entire scientific discipline off evolutionary psychology, and neither has Chomsky.

It must be lovely living in a world where delusional claims against Jews and science qualify a person as an "intellectual."

[LuckyR]

I'll note for the record that you could not produce any evidence supporting Chomsky's claim that the Jews are the most privileged and controlling group in the USA. Neither has Chomsky. I'll further note that you have produced no evidence that justifies writing off the entire scientific discipline off evolutionary psychology, and neither has Chomsky.

It must be lovely living in a world where delusional claims against Jews and science qualify a person as an "intellectual."

But if he could, would that change anything? Chomsky aside, Jews in the US are perfectly fine in the wealth acquisition and influence departments. Whether they as a group are #1 or not matters little. Can you really blame any group for fully utilizing an advantage that they have access to? Circumstances have handed American Jews a big one. Any other group in a similar position would likely respond similarly.

[Fan of Science]

Chomsky made a specific anti-Semitic claim regarding Jews without a shred of evidence to support it. There are in fact a number of minority groups in the USA who have above-average wealth, including Swedish Americans, and other Asian groups. Are you going to claim they are also "privileged"? A group that has success due to hard work is not "privileged" in any way. It's simply a group that works hard, which explains why there are certain minority groups in the USA who are more successful than average.

However, we also know from probability theory that this is likely to occur, by pure chance. The reason why small cities have the highest incidents of cancer? It's the same reason some small cities also have the lowest incidence of cancer -- it's because they are small. Toss a fair coin ten times, and it may come up heads 8 times. Toss it a million times, and it's highly unlikely to come up heads 800,000 times. Extreme values are associated with small sample sizes. So, mathematically speaking, small minorities are likely to have extreme values regarding wealth and income, without any reason for this other than their small size.

There are a number of reasons why Jewish success does not in any way provide evidence for Jews being the most privileged group in the USA. Chomsky's anti-Semitism explains his delusional statement regarding Jews. The anti-Semitism of the Left, explains why so many on the Left support this anti-Semitic statement from Chomsky.

Talk about putting your foot up your own ass.

[Burning ghost]

You missed my point. I am not making the claim he said any such thing, you are. If he did say it SHOW ME WHERE, WHEN AND THE CONTEXT. By this I expect to see the question posed to him and the full reply.

He most certainly does say some strange things. I have not heard him say anything against Jews only against Israel and US backing of Israel.

[Togo1]

As a scientist, I also doubt 'the science of evolutionary psychology'. So do many other neuroscientists.

I'm getting the impression that the main reason you dislike Chmsoky is that you don't actually understand the claims he making. Certainly it's very easy to get upset with him, as he makes a practice of not refraining from criticising groups he identifies with.

[Woodart]

The issue here I think that Fan of Science bring up is anti-Semitism. Is it real in the US and around the world today? I think it is real today and has been for a long time. Well, why is it real? The reasons are many and sometimes complex and other times simple. The first reason I think is because Jews are the people of the book. What this means is most all males could read and write over much of their history. This gave them an advantage. There is resentment over this fact. In western civilization Christians do not like the idea that Jesus was a Jew – in fact he was a Rabbi. This rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Additionally Jews deny that Jesus was the Messiah – Many see this as a slap in the face and an attack on their religion. Since Jews are people of the book and therefore smart – they do well in commerce, science, literature, art and so forth. When they did well – whether it was modest or on a grand scale – throughout history – their property was stolen and the Jewish people were either killed or exiled or both. Why are there less than 16 million Jews in the world today? Look no further than the previous sentence. Have any of these reasons gone away in modern times? NO.

Earlier in this thread I wrote – “Since 1901 there have been 579 Noble Prizes – of which 22.2% have been awarded to Jews. Jews make up less than one tenth of one percent of the world’s population.” This is a fact. Jews as ethnic/cultural group are the smartest people on this planet and contribute the most proportionally. The resentment towards them is real and unfounded. It is an ignorant, jealous mind that hates Jews. Should we listen to many of the leaders of Muslim States to wipe out Israel? Yeah, let’s get rid of the best and brightest among us – good idea.

[Spectrum]

As a scientist, I also doubt 'the science of evolutionary psychology'. So do many other neuroscientists.

I am a supporter of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology. I agree evolutionary psychology is not pure Science but it attempts to stick to the Scientific Method as close as possible.

Generally a scientist will prove the correlation between one variable [cause] to another [effect] and at most can handle perhaps involves two, three or a few intermediary proven links. This is the limitation that had prevented early scientists from studying the brain and its depth, problem understand the weather and many other problems that involve the linkages and combination many variables.
However these days we have very powerful computers and the field of knowledge has even revealed the whole human genome and is moving towards mapping more of the human brain. These advances will in future strengthen the science of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.

One limitation of evolutionary psychology is it has to deal with many variables in combination laterally and vertically. These may involve up to hundreds of variables.
Why do people run from danger [flight] or fight in various situations and circumstances?
For this we have to trace human behaviors back to our 'ancestors' the first one cell living things that used their set of 'cilia' to steer away from dangers to the limbic system of animals and humans.
Why do some people seek certain type danger where the majority fear dangers.
Again we have to dig deep to understand this variation.

To understand human behaviors [normal, abnormal and contradicting] we need to link up to hundreds of variables. This is best done with an effective flowcharts and each link must be assign justified weightages. I always use flowcharts to support the critical points and weakness are noted and qualified.
Because of the complexity involved we also need to use Philosophy to reinforce the findings from evolutionary psychology.

I think it is not intellectually honest to be anti-evolutionary psychology [abandon it] just because it cannot be studied as rigorously as the common science. Evolutionary psychology is new and developing with continual improvements. I believe it has a future for with the expansion of knowledge via the mapping of the brain [Connectome Project] and computer technology where the results can be easily tested.

[Burning ghost]

Fan of science is clearly relying on "evidence" from which he fails to understand the main source.

As far as I am concerned he has written lies above, intentionally or not.

[Togo1]

As a scientist, I also doubt 'the science of evolutionary psychology'. So do many other neuroscientists.

I am a supporter of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology.

No doubt, but is what you support the same as what I and Fan of Science are referring to? In the context of arguing about Islam, 'the science evolutionary psychology' is generally code for some variation on theories of genetic racial superiority. You appear to be referring to evolutionary ideas being incorporated into psychological models, which is generally quite uncontrovertial.

I agree evolutionary psychology is not pure Science but it attempts to stick to the Scientific Method as close as possible.

Generally a scientist will prove the correlation between one variable [cause] to another [effect] and at most can handle perhaps involves two, three or a few intermediary proven links.

I'll note that it's not actually possible to prove whether a link is causal. Many scientists used far more than a few links. Broadbent would incorporate 20 steps or more into large flowchart models, and he was operating in the 1970s.

Why do people run from danger [flight] or fight in various situations and circumstances?
For this we have to trace human behaviors back to our 'ancestors' the first one cell living things that used their set of 'cilia' to steer away from dangers to the limbic system of animals and humans.
Why do some people seek certain type danger where the majority fear dangers.
Again we have to dig deep to understand this variation.

We do, and it's valuable to understanding the whole system, but this kind of digging is not emperically testable. You can test the parameters of an adreanal system and look into it's role in non-human species, but testing the 'why' of human behaviour is notoriously difficult compared to testing the 'how'.

I don't think we actually disagree very much on this point, but it is possibly getting away from the topic of the thread.

I think it is not intellectually honest to be anti-evolutionary psychology [abandon it]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I think we're just talking about different things.