: : I confess, this potshot was aimed at you, and also exxagerated for effect. However, you have thrown around terms like "cancer" to describe the bougies & cappies, and you have engaged in inflammatory rhetoric about the death penalty and "fighting," but...I concede, you're no Pol Pot. :)
: Ending what appears to be an apology for a potshot with yet another potshot. 'No, you're no Pol Pot, I just like to put his name and yours in the same sentence...' Ask Hank about this technique borrowed from Chomsky. It's sleazy. At least when I accuse somebody of something, I'm direct.
Right, Mr. Stoller. Your accusations direct and in many cases wrong. For the last time, Chomsky did not accuse Skinner of advocating police states, concentration camps, prison labor, gas ovens. He rails against Behavioralism/Skinnerism--which by definition takes the objective evidence of behavior as the only concern of its research and the only basis of its theory--because AS A METHOD OF INQUIRY, AS AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTION there is nothing about it that is incompatible with a police state, prison labor and gas ovens.
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW CONCERNED SKINNER ACTUALLY WAS WITH ENDING MISERY OF THIS SORT, okay Stoller?
It's too bad Skinner's name enters into it at all, but that's what happens when your name becomes an abbreviation for a school of thought.
To borrow some of your words, Stoller, I think you should quit sniveling in other posts and either accept my positions or take me on where I stand. My point is this: Behaviorism/Skinnerism cannot account for first language acquisition or the creative use of language. Got any replies to that? Put 'em up top, tough guy.
(Oh, and P.S., your analysis of the American election is quite good. I pretty much agree with you in this case.)
And, by the way, I know you're no tax-and spend ecological liberal who wants poor people to have less oil for heating their homes...