Distorted Morality -Noam Chomsky

[INAT]

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=4054523048548733881



Chom-tastic!



Noam chomsky gives a speech about whats happening today
http://server40136.uk2net.com/%7Ewpower/images/product_images/9781902593760.jpg

[Bia]

Brilliant man.
My opinion many of his hopes and desires for a better mankind are literally impossible... we're too savage.

I once wrote him, was very surprised he replied with an in depth reply.

[One Man Gang]

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Distorted Morality = Noam Chomsky?"

[markjh]

The Top 200 Chomsky Lies....

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/

[maw]

thanks for sharing.

[LineDoggie]

The Top 200 Chomsky Lies....

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/

Interesting stuff, thanks for that

[DS73]

Brilliant man.
My opinion many of his hopes and desires for a better mankind are literally impossible... we're too savage.

I once wrote him, was very surprised he replied with an in depth reply.

Chomsky came from anarchism and he actively promotes anti american views (whatever subject or point: like defending Pol Pot because americans wanted to go there). With his partisan, politically biased and extremely active contributions he damaged his working field called "linguistics", and apparently does not want to stop there.

His attempts to use "rational thought" are laughable and never hold close scrutiny-- "asking about facts" comes very handy if you check his works.
His way to use the worst examples and generalize them to country wide behavior is especially repelling.

INAT who obviously is anarchist him self, no doubt should find all candies in Chomsky works.
Have fun.

[3rdMillhouse]

Noam Chomsky is the largest, living, breathing, pile of feces I've ever seen in my life. I've never seen a such famous person being such an active detractor of democracy, capitalism, and worshipper of communist democidal dictatorships and dictators. He has an special hard-on for Pol Pot.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I can't stand the guy, he's just so full of it. It would be one thing if he actually believed what he was pedaling in his books/lectures - I can respect somebody who holds a particular view even if I disagree with it. But he thinks we're so dimwitted that we won't notice that he doesn't live his own life according to the rules that he's trying to tell us we should live by.

[Gleipnir]

I must say I was always confused by his deep fascination for Pol Pot, especially considering that this regime disposed of academics and intellectuals. If Mr. Chomsky would be happier working on the farm with his new 'family' and having People's re-education sessions after work then by all means I would have no issue with the man. I always thought of the concept of anarchy in America as mostly an academic, institutionalized pursuit (outside of teenagers and college students who enjoy behaving like homeless people)

[Jobu]

Chomsky is not famous for being an intellectual, he's famous for having a ridiculous imagination.

[WarriorMonk]

Brilliant man.
My opinion many of his hopes and desires for a better mankind are literally impossible... we're too savage.

I once wrote him, was very surprised he replied with an in depth reply.

EXACTLY.

There is hope, but then again, it is an illusion. Mankind are still animals deep down, no better and no worse. Act like there is hope, and you're still beating against the cage bars.

[non]

3rdMillhouse:I've never seen a such famous person being such an active detractor of democracy, capitalism, and worshipper of communist democidal dictatorships and dictators.

"Active detractor of democracy"...really?


3rd Millhouse:He has an special hard-on for Pol Pot.
I think you've got one for talking out of your...
Show us where he avidly supports or defends the genocide in Cambodia. He does however criticise the media coverage of post-US involvement and it's aftermath compared to generally nothing mentioned by the same media when similar events occur in US friendly nations under US friendly regimes. Bit of a difference from wearing a Pol Pot tee shirt, though, but f*ck details.


DS73:Chomsky came from anarchism and he actively promotes anti american views .


I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0205/30/ltm.01.html
No offence, but "anti-american" is somewhere between nebulous and glib.


DS73:With his partisan, politically biased and extremely active contributions he damaged his working field called "linguistics",
Many might argue that Chomsky's own work in the field of linguistics are sullied by his political opponents, e.g., 'this man is a Maoist, fascist, satanist in a sweater' or something blowhardy like that might cast doubt on his linguistic theories, but on a whole, much research has profitted from some of Chomsky's work as providing an approach towards language acquisition and post-structural linghuistical studies. That's more than you or I have done for the field.



DS73:His attempts to use "rational thought" are laughable and never hold close scrutiny--
Actually, in an academic world that has seen post-structuralism, post-modernism, comparative whatevers up the wazoo, I think Chomsky has practiced a stern fidelity to Rationalism and 'enlightenment' philosophers/social theorists/economists.

He's an anarchist. I don't think his politics hold water.
In the end, however, I think he is two things: a stubborn moralist in an amoral world and a comfortable academic with tenure.

I also don't think most posters on this thread have actually read any of his works. JMO.

[Eye]

EXACTLY.

Mankind are still animals deep down, no better and no worse.
Wrong. You can behave like an animal, but you can behave like a human. You have free will and choice. Animals don't have choice. They are only able to behave like an animals.

[Adux]

Ayn Rand owns Chomsky any day any time! lol!

[Gleipnir]

"Active detractor of democracy"...really?

Show us where he avidly supports or defends the genocide in Cambodia. He does however criticise the media coverage of post-US involvement and it's aftermath compared to generally nothing mentioned by the same media when similar events occur in US friendly nations under US friendly regimes. Bit of a difference from wearing a Pol Pot tee shirt, though, but f*ck details.

Two essays on Cambodia
After the Cataclysm Volume 2

I will agree with you that his main motives for commenting on Year Zero were to criticise the media coverage of such events, but even years later when more and more details became clear concerning what happened in Cambodia, Mr. Chomsky made no efforts to modify his initial positions on the regime. In fact he continued to defend his initial position that US involvement in the area preceding Year Zero was still to blame for the massive genocide that decimated Cambodia's middle class.

I will admit an initial interest in Chomsky when I was younger but I was eventually turned off by his blatant support of Communist dictatorships,eg. defending the Cultural revolution in China, for example- choosing to support what he considered positive against the horrible death toll and lack of regard for human life.

My biggest problem with Mr Chomsky as well as with most anarchists and Commies is the fact that they view human beings in terms of statistics, merely as workers, as oppressed and oppressors as us and them.
They don't allow any room for pluralism or complexity into their rigid world views just a constant stream of binaries which I think is not of this time.
It is very easy to offer criticism without providing solutions or suggestions.

I am not against cultural critics being valuable in society, sure, we need debate- debate is healthy, dialogue is healthy- but in my own opinion I have formed surrounding Mr Chomsky I find his defence of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge regime difficult for myself to validate.

I recall the film Salo by Passolini. One of the characters remarks at one point "Fascism is the truest form of anarchy" at one point- (forgive me if it is not worded precise, it is from memory) and yes, for the ones in power that holds true because one can go about treating the oppressed however one wishes, executing 'enemies of the people' etc. Having the total freedom but round of young men and women and do whatever one likes to them without consequence, with abandon.
It always amazes me how pro-Communist so many students and young people who live in Democratic countries are-
It all does sound rather appealing until you are in a situation where people start disappearing for no good reason and one is forced to start self policing and self censorship. Leftists like to use the panopticon as their classic example of why suburbia, and other structures one finds in democratic societies, is the ultimate form of controlling a populace, etc. but c'mon, really?
Try telling that to some one who spent time in a gulag.



I also don't think most posters on this thread have actually read any of his works. JMO.

Maybe so, but as someone who has read Chomsky I have to say I find him to be the same as most radicals- be it on either side of center- a blatant reductivist.
he regards the population as units, masses to validate his theories in disregard for their individual attributes and backgrounds.
Shapeless statistics that he is giving a voice, when they have their own voices already.
I am sure that when his type of revolution succeeds he will be one of the oppressors, telling people what they should be really thinking, re-educating them as to what is best for the party, telling them that from now on he should do the talking for them as they clearly can't do that for themselves.




Ayn Rand owns Chomsky any day any time! lol!

Ayn Rand sucks. e.g. her book Capitalism.
She claims that the reason why we are not fulfilling our potential as a society is because we are too altruistic.
I don't think so.
And what is wrong with altruism?
Especially if it is reciprocal?

[Ordie]

Chomski has nothing original to say.
To me he just re-states the obvious with a populist spin.

[WKD]

Hmmmm, Chomsky. Semantic arguments that lawyers can only aspire to.

[Midav]

Brilliant man.
My opinion many of his hopes and desires for a better mankind are literally impossible... we're too savage.

I once wrote him, was very surprised he replied with an in depth reply.

The truth is out!! Bia is anti-American and probably hates freedom fries, too!

I kid.. I kid p-)

Back on topic, I don't have anything to add to Chomsky's opinion which hasn't already been posted by others.

[Kilgor]

He meets and praises Hezbollah. Its obvious which side his bread is buttered. The hard left, anti western, anti jewish world.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Altruism and selfishness to the extremes disgusts me with their destructive power. I prefer a wise use of both to arrive at a win/win trade between individuals, an investment so to say based on earned trust and respect of individual independence not the coercive win/lose that leads to corruption and dependence, the divide, conquer and enslavement cycle. This thinking puts me at odds with both Rand and slightly more so Chomski.

I’ve read both Rand and Chomski and found them technically correct in some of their logic yet terribly flawed with most having missed subtle steps that would have opened logical doorways to true enlightenment. Both seem to me to have suffered such a perceived slight by the opposing philosophy that they can’t analyze it clearly. Well, one seems to outright refuse to while the other dances around difficult, seemingly painful, concepts.

Nobody’s perfect, mistakes happen. We all have our inner demons clouding our perception, coloring our reason but I’d recommend both to people searching out their own answers. Think as both writers as training wheels that you can remove from your own philosophical bicycle when you’re ready. Just don’t ride around with one only or you’ll end up going in useless philosophical circles or busting out your teeth on the handlebars.

[kamaz]

I've read his "Rogue States" novella on how the only rogue state in the world is apparently the US. His work makes sense only if the reader shares in the same kind of pathologically misconstrued and twisted idea of what 'justice' and 'freedom' means. He makes interesting points on some aspects of US foreign policy, and I would actually agree with him on some of those, but then he goes and declares the regime of Bashar Assad or the Iranian-controlled Hezbollah as good and beneficial examples of non-westerners governing themselves.

it is as if he admires any group, leader or movement, no matter how horrific, as long as its in some form or way, anti-western, and in his mind, anti-imperialist. Nevermind that we are way way past the stage of imperialism or the old 18 century terminology for those conflicts.

He is a fraud of the basest kind, and its evident to any clear thinking person after reading just 5 pages of any of his political work (I havent read his speech/language works, so I cant comment on that)

[tea drinker]

Brilliant man.
My opinion many of his hopes and desires for a better mankind are literally impossible... we're too savage.

I once wrote him, was very surprised he replied with an in depth reply.
Lucky you. I have enjoyed a lot of his books. It's good to hear a dissenting voice - even if you don't agree with him - if you have to stop and think why, you're better for it.


EXACTLY.

There is hope, but then again, it is an illusion. Mankind are still animals deep down, no better and no worse. Act like there is hope, and you're still beating against the cage bars.

Yeah, the animals and stuff, I find that interesting. We have got where we are today by building communities, and having a primitive neighbourhood watch and justice system, where we could shape the communities, and select the indivduals and traits we find appealing. Well that and a whole lot else.
Given that today you see rapists, murderers, drug dealers etc etc breeding very successfully, (we are cultivating these traits) - one can make negative assumptions about where society is going. Throw in materialism and self obsession - fvck it - self worship - another nail in the old coffin for progress.

OTOH, we have made great strides in medicine, care for sick people and live much longer lives. We largely have the luxury of choice - we aren't forced to be nasty to each other in order to have that slice of bread. So maybe aggression and materialism is being bred out?
One could argue that, if we got to where we are through natural means - whatever they are, then that same trend could continue - we become more distant from our animal cousins?

[Marshall_Nord]

My opinion many of his hopes and desires for a better mankind are literally impossible... we're too savage.

Yes, some of us are Barbarians; innately skilled to build cultures, we also possess the savagery to destroy them. Yin and Yang. p-)

[Walter Sobchak]

He's an elitist academic who's never done a day's work in his life, and outside of the comfortable place where he can endless contemplate his naval and hold court in front of people who think he's the infallible embodiment of enlightenment, he's lost!

[Gleipnir]

Given that today you see rapists, murderers, drug dealers etc etc breeding very successfully, (we are cultivating these traits) - one can make negative assumptions about where society is going. Throw in materialism and self obsession - fvck it - self worship - another nail in the old coffin for progress.


Abnormal behaviours evoked by abnormal environmental living conditions as a type of coping method. Pacing, over-grooming, self-mutilation, withdrawal- stereotypic behaviours, ones that seem to have no natural adaptive function. Animals in captivity also begin to exhibit abnormal behaviour such as this, although they do not appear in the 'wild'.

(not including rape which can be argued to be a natural behaviour observed in wild animals in their native habitats. Necrophilia has also been observed.)

[philbob]

Brilliant man.
My opinion many of his hopes and desires for a better mankind are literally impossible... we're too savage.

I once wrote him, was very surprised he replied with an in depth reply.

Post the letter and reply

[Ought Six]

k:
"it is as if he admires any group, leader or movement, no matter how horrific, as long as its in some form or way, anti-western, and in his mind, anti-imperialist."If you remove the "as if" from that statement, it pegs Chomsky perfectly. He is an anti-American/anti-western/anti-Israeli ideologue with pseduointellectual pretentions. That is aside from being a festering sack of rancid pig crap.

[DS73]

"Active detractor of democracy"...really?

Actually he is, this example taken directly from his site:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20080630.htm
" CHOMSKY: We have models right in front of us. Like pick, say, Bolivia, the poorest county in South America. They had a democratic election a couple of years ago that you can't even dream about in the US. It's kind of interesting it's not discussed; it's a real democratic election.
A large majority of the population became organised and active for the first time in history and elected someone from their own ranks on crucial issues that everyone knew about Ð control of resource, cultural rights, issues of justice, you know, really serious issues.
"
That is the example he praises now. The guy, who won elections with small margins in controversial way, who deals with opposition using guns, and who installs tribal socialistic order. The "democracy" in Chomsky taste.
Before he praised Mao Tse-tung. With the same way of wording and enthusiasm.



He does however criticise the media coverage of post-US involvement and it's aftermath compared to generally nothing mentioned by the same media when similar events occur in US friendly nations under US friendly regimes.
No he isn't. He happily used forged "report" by Hildebrand and Porter (that is the person who preaches careful approach to press reports) and takes Pol-Pot as somebody who resisted against imperialism.
He actively denied reports about atrocities, later when they were proved, he denied its' scales, meantime trying to shift responsibility from Pol-Pot regime to american administration.



No offence, but "anti-american" is somewhere between nebulous and glib.
Is it? Guy consecutively challenges basically all basic rules and actions of american government and society using all available methods.
There is constructive criticism, and destructive.
Learn the difference.



DS73
:With his partisan, politically biased and extremely active contributions he damaged his working field called "linguistics", Many might argue that Chomsky's own work in the field of linguistics are sullied by his political opponents, e.g., 'this man is a Maoist, fascist, satanist in a sweater' or something blowhardy like that might cast doubt on his linguistic theories,
Examples of such "sullying". Or stfu.

He used Harris works and shaped these results into attractive, though irrelevant to reality, idea of "universal grammar". His claim, that grammar is an instinct, has very important social implications as it shapes believe that all people think in the same logical structures. For example using his theory he criticizes ideas about accelerated development (something that is now proven, and got right to existence eventually) and he attacked multiple times industrial, managed by ivAl state, approach to education and child development.
Not surprisingly (see all his works) he never bothered to look for actual evidence.


but on a whole, much research has profitted from some of Chomsky's work as providing an approach towards language acquisition and post-structural linghuistical studies.
No it isn't. Instead of continuing to evolve in a normal way (observation->theory->observation...) linguistics suffered greatly from his "works", and only now in 2000s after continuous and hardcore debates this science returns were it belong--between human and neuro science. And cognitive science finally started to develop in a normal, scientific way outside of idiotic religious debates.

That's more than you or I have done for the field.I wonder if you use these things automatically (because you are undereducated asshole), or you're using some checklist.
If I didn't have good friends poisoned by this "Chomsky god" sh*t, I wouldn't bother answering and just reported you for bigotry.



Actually, in an academic world that has seen post-structuralism, post-modernism, comparative whatevers up the wazoo, I think Chomsky has practiced a stern fidelity to Rationalism and 'enlightenment' philosophers/social theorists/economists.
Can you show examples of such rationalism and 'enlightenment'?


Academic world is big and amorphous, obviously there are places full of "dirty waters" (especially in social science). Chomsky, pretending to be a major critic, uses exactly the worst mechanisms still existing in social science and he definitely presents nor "rationalism" neither "enlightenment" in his works.



In the end, however, I think he is two things: a stubborn moralist in an amoral world and a comfortable academic with tenure.
He is an amoral hypocrite, who happily enjoys exactly things he criticizes so much. And money is just small part of them.
He easily lies whenever he gets an itching doing that, he disturbs true or misquotes whenever necessary. He uses nontransparent fonds for travels, and his university position as authority. This list can continue for pages.

Why in the world he has such position in the MIT, is beyond my understanding. Apparently the academic system in US sucks no less than in EU. "Most loud get it all".


I also don't think most posters on this thread have actually read any of his works. JMO. Don't make ASSumptions, if you don't know for sure, ask.

[DS73]

Given that today you see rapists, murderers, drug dealers etc etc breeding very successfully, (we are cultivating these traits) - one can make negative assumptions about where society is going. Throw in materialism and self obsession - fvck it - self worship - another nail in the old coffin for progress.

Why do you think that "rapists etc breeding very successfully"? What scientific base do you have for that?
Don't you think you're jumping to conclusions here?



OTOH, we have made great strides in medicine, care for sick people and live much longer lives. We largely have the luxury of choice - we aren't forced to be nasty to each other in order to have that slice of bread. So maybe aggression and materialism is being bred out?
Ethology.
You don't have to look too far.


One could argue that, if we got to where we are through natural means - whatever they are, then that same trend could continue - we become more distant from our animal cousins?Is there god?:roll: Your question has the same load and motivation.

[non]

Actually he is, this example taken directly from his site:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20080630.htm
" CHOMSKY: We have models right in front of us. Like pick, say, Bolivia, the poorest county in South America. They had a democratic election a couple of years ago that you can't even dream about in the US. It's kind of interesting it's not discussed; it's a real democratic election.
A large majority of the population became organised and active for the first time in history and elected someone from their own ranks on crucial issues that everyone knew about Ð control of resource, cultural rights, issues of justice, you know, really serious issues.
"
That is the example he praises now. The guy, who won elections with small margins in controversial way, who deals with opposition using guns, and who installs tribal socialistic order. The "democracy" in Chomsky taste.
Before he praised Mao Tse-tung. With the same way of wording and enthusiasm.

No he isn't. He happily used forged "report" by Hildebrand and Porter (that is the person who preaches careful approach to press reports) and takes Pol-Pot as somebody who resisted against imperialism.
He actively denied reports about atrocities, later when they were proved, he denied its' scales, meantime trying to shift responsibility from Pol-Pot regime to american administration.

Is it? Guy consecutively challenges basically all basic rules and actions of american government and society using all available methods.
There is constructive criticism, and destructive.
Learn the difference.

Examples of such "sullying". Or stfu.

He used Harris works and shaped these results into attractive, though irrelevant to reality, idea of "universal grammar". His claim, that grammar is an instinct, has very important social implications as it shapes believe that all people think in the same logical structures. For example using his theory he criticizes ideas about accelerated development (something that is now proven, and got right to existence eventually) and he attacked multiple times industrial, managed by ivAl state, approach to education and child development.
Not surprisingly (see all his works) he never bothered to look for actual evidence.
No it isn't. Instead of continuing to evolve in a normal way (observation->theory->observation...) linguistics suffered greatly from his "works", and only now in 2000s after continuous and hardcore debates this science returns were it belong--between human and neuro science. And cognitive science finally started to develop in a normal, scientific way outside of idiotic religious debates.
I wonder if you use these things automatically (because you are undereducated asshole), or you're using some checklist.
If I didn't have good friends poisoned by this "Chomsky god" sh*t, I wouldn't bother answering and just reported you for bigotry.

Can you show examples of such rationalism and 'enlightenment'?


Academic world is big and amorphous, obviously there are places full of "dirty waters" (especially in social science). Chomsky, pretending to be a major critic, uses exactly the worst mechanisms still existing in social science and he definitely presents nor "rationalism" neither "enlightenment" in his works.

He is an amoral hypocrite, who happily enjoys exactly things he criticizes so much. And money is just small part of them.
He easily lies whenever he gets an itching doing that, he disturbs true or misquotes whenever necessary. He uses nontransparent fonds for travels, and his university position as authority. This list can continue for pages.

Why in the world he has such position in the MIT, is beyond my understanding. Apparently the academic system in US sucks no less than in EU. "Most loud get it all".
Don't make ASSumptions, if you don't know for sure, ask.
Quoted for insecurity and insanity.

If I didn't have good friends poisoned by this "Chomsky god" sh*t, I wouldn't bother answering and just reported you for bigotry.
I don't know you or care about you either way. How could I be a biggot toward you?
BTW, I'm not a Chomsky fan boy. There are quite a few things in your treatise(ahem, very long) that are hysteria and flat out wrong. I'm actually sad that we couldn't take up some of the issues, especially considering, some of it might not be flat out wrong and could be a point worth taking. Sadly, you react like a little girl. Bye little girl.

Your post is reported.

[DS73]

So what about examples of "rationalism" and "enlightenment"?


There are quite a few things in your treatise(ahem, very long) that are hysteria and flat out wrong.
What about an example?


Your post is reported.
LOL.

[tea drinker]

Why do you think that "rapists etc breeding very successfully"? What scientific base do you have for that?
Don't you think you're jumping to conclusions here?

.......

Pick up a newspaper - any newspaper. Read the articles, see how many of these young guys have kids. The bigger an asshole they are the easier it is to have kids. Most guys think twice before having kids, with these guys it's just convenient consequence free ***.

How about this successful guy from todays news?
A Nigerian immigrant who raped and murdered a Belfast mother-of-one has been told he must serve at least 22 years of a life sentence before even being considered for release...........................
...
After the hearing, Ms Moore’s daughter Lori described the terrible moment, at the age of 16, when she discovered her mother’s body She told off the terrible loss she has endured as a result of the rape and murder of her mum.
Fighting back tears, she said: “I went in and saw her but I couldn’t go back. I ran out screaming. I remember it, I just don’t think about it.
....
....
Turning to Alauya's background, the judge revealed that the Nigerian had tried to claim asylum after arriving in Dublin and that while there, had married an Irish woman, become addicted to cocaine, fathered four children by four different women and had attacked and robbed two taxi drivers at gunpoint.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/monster-who-raped-and-murdered-mum-gets-22-years-in-jail-14162647.html

[DS73]

This is complet OT :D. I hope mods don't mind it.



Originally Posted by DS73 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3877414#post3877414)
Why do you think that "rapists etc breeding very successfully"? What scientific base do you have for that?
Don't you think you're jumping to conclusions here?

.......

Pick up a newspaper - any newspaper. Read the articles, see how many of these young guys have kids. The bigger an asshole they are the easier it is to have kids. Most guys think twice before having kids, with these guys it's just convenient consequence free ***...

I am sorry but there are very few things more stupid than conclusions based on newspapers reports.
Anyway the problem of immigrants coming from countries with accepted p2p violence is separated story and goes beyond "breeding rapists".

There is no actual evidence that modern western societies breed "rapists", as a matter of fact, countries with aggressive total education (Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark etc.) passified their "white trash" population greatly reducing number of violent crimes (and somehow reducing percentage of "white trash" altogether).

More of it: there is no actual proof that children of some criminal definitely have criminal tendencies. Growing in some criminal family or being nurtured (educated) by some notorious criminal is of course completely different story. Please don't mix it.

[11 Bravo]

It's rather amazing to me to see anyone whom claims an average or above intelligence that would in any way not see chomsky for the twisted **** he is. But I guess I could make allowance for an elitest segment of liberalistas... the 'superior to thou type' that think they are thinking outside the box into the enlightened zone of huggy feely smarmy goop collectivism.

[tea drinker]

[
This is complet OT :D. I hope mods don't mind it.



I am sorry but there are very few things more stupid than conclusions based on newspapers reports.
Anyway the problem of immigrants coming from countries with accepted p2p violence is separated story and goes beyond "breeding rapists".

There is no actual evidence that modern western societies breed "rapists", as a matter of fact, countries with aggressive total education (Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark etc.) passified their "white trash" population greatly reducing number of violent crimes (and somehow reducing percentage of "white trash" altogether).

More of it: there is no actual proof that children of some criminal definitely have criminal tendencies. Growing in some criminal family or being nurtured (educated) by some notorious criminal is of course completely different story. Please don't mix it.
I printed a big reply, the internet ate it, but suffice to say that most people form day to day opinions from newspapers, you'll find the broadsheets a lot more reliable than TV. It's elitist to say we need to read a "scientific study" or even read Chomsky, in order to form an opinion.

A genetic link to robbery was apparently found in a "scientific study" some years ago. Of course - these studies are often wrong, and can be turned on their head with a newer study, which begs the question: how relevant are they?

Mods: please note keyword in bold :)