Noam Chomsky

Chomsky is almost always right and anyone who wants to understand how states and institutions actually function should listen to him.

Who is this guy? I don't...

I don't...
I don't NOAM

>>35580177
Just another leftycuck. Has some good things to say every now and then.

>>35580043

King of linguistics. One of the top ten smartest people living in the world today.

>>35580043
>I would much rather listen to someone who can dumb things down to a level that I can understand such as Stefan Molyneux or Alex Jones

go back to /pol/ but actually pretty good bait

>>35580043
I know him for his work in mathematics. Apparently linguistics involves combinatorics

>>35580043
>don't understand it
>therefore it's incorrect.

not every professional should dumb down their work to laymen-level just to save their fucking reputation from being ruined by misguided people who don't know the intricacies of academic text.

>>35580043
My dad likes his shit and wants me to read it.
I refuse.

>I would much rather listen to someone who can dumb things down to a level that I can understand such as Stefan Molyneux or Alex Jones

lol chomsky is dumbed down
also I likenhww you pick the most hack fraud right wing mouth pieces rather than anyone respectable

File: 1486359880659.jpg (83KB, 707x767px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 707x767px

He knows lefties about to get it

>>35581165
His grammar isn't that great for a professor.

>>35580376
>Apparently linguistics involves combinatorics
Can you explain?

>>35580043
Dumb anarchist typical Jew

File: imgres.jpg (14KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 259x194px

>>35581165
>"wrong in principle"
>implying there's a universally defined (objectively true) moral code
wew lad

>>35581165
who is mitch lake

>>35581350

As Chomsky has pointed out, to even raise the question, you need some a priori notion of what "moral" means, so there you go.

>>35581402
>you need some a priori notion of what "moral" means
What did he mean by this? Is it not established that that which is good and that which is good is moral?

>>35581490
>Is it not established that that which is good and that which is good is moral?
Fucked that up. Correction:

Is it not established that that which is good is moral and that which is moral is good?

>>35581352
Noam literally responds to emails from randoms all day long

>>35580043
fuck off with this old faggot (intellectual means FAGGOT)

>>35581582
>intellectual means FAGGOT
Why so anti-intellectual?

>>35580093
This may be true but he is still a kike

A highly intelligent man. My disagreements with him are more moral than they are factual.

>>35581219
Linguists study language as a series of patterns. They use mathematics to identify things like the syntax and grammar of a language. Imagine if English was a programming language and each sentence was a line of code.