Chomsky's reply to the first question demonstrates a failure to understand the basic moral arguments associated with the animal rights position. It's one thing to disagree with the philosophical arguments for animal rights and quite another to simultaneously be sneeringly dismissing and demonstrably ignorant on the topic - and on related topics in ethics. Look up moral agents vs. moral patients to see why this argument fails.
The logical conclusion of his position would be a moral community that deemed people with severe developmental delays, babies, and young children as having unequal rights to the rest of us, given that they do not have equal responsibilities to the rest of us.
Seems like the closest thing to debate i have seen from him since Buckley... he did well there. Why quit on a streak? Did he say the US should support Assad?
Chomsky is one of my heroes but I wish he would read more animal liberation philosophy. I think he's a little confused about what 'animal rights' entails.
Huge thanks for the upload.very interesting and inspiring. About 10 years ago Chomsky's articles inspired me to do my Master thesis on Kosovo conflict. Though I since work in commercial law area, that had been a wonderful experience.. PS:I have absolutely nothing against gays, but the moderator made me laugh as hell.,
"we can't redistribute IQ, hieght, good looks..." Wrong. Actually we are pretty close to the stage where we can do it with height and good looks, maybe even talent. (surgery and genetic engineering) I agree on IQ.
This is damn too short.
4:11 the really nerdy looking guy in the front-right after chomsky bashes IQ LOL
Have you not seen his debate with Dershowitz? He was excellent. Highly recommended.
am i the only one annoyed by the smile on the face of the guy behind Chomsky?
He was too twitchy and distracting.
Thanks for the upload! Spot on!
notable, como siempre
Y Marta?
Chomsky's reply to the first question demonstrates a failure to understand the basic moral arguments associated with the animal rights position. It's one thing to disagree with the philosophical arguments for animal rights and quite another to simultaneously be sneeringly dismissing and demonstrably ignorant on the topic - and on related topics in ethics. Look up moral agents vs. moral patients to see why this argument fails.
i think the full lecture is is on the right there in the sidebar, 1 hour and 3 mins ...
The logical conclusion of his position would be a moral community that deemed people with severe developmental delays, babies, and young children as having unequal rights to the rest of us, given that they do not have equal responsibilities to the rest of us.
Seems like the closest thing to debate i have seen from him since Buckley... he did well there. Why quit on a streak? Did he say the US should support Assad?
Why do they ask him questions they must have heard him answer a million times?
Chomsky is one of my heroes but I wish he would read more animal liberation philosophy. I think he's a little confused about what 'animal rights' entails.
Outstanding lectures by Prof. Noam Chomsky . I love all video .
Read Tom Regan's The Case for Animal Rights for more on this topic.
Huge thanks for the upload.very interesting and inspiring. About 10 years ago Chomsky's articles inspired me to do my Master thesis on Kosovo conflict. Though I since work in commercial law area, that had been a wonderful experience..
PS:I have absolutely nothing against gays, but the moderator made me laugh as hell.,
"we can't redistribute IQ, hieght, good looks..." Wrong. Actually we are pretty close to the stage where we can do it with height and good looks, maybe even talent. (surgery and genetic engineering) I agree on IQ.
"Wrong"
"Pretty close" ...
So, you meant "Right"?