Voters: lownotes pchimp jwalker wolfer middle_age_man shitbox tantrum coknurmowth
Reason: wrongheaded and boring / spurious

Wrongheaded?

You're the fukers he's casting aspersion upon.

Unrejected.

I till say his arguments are spurious. He doesn't agree with the philospher's conclusions, and so attempts to discredit him by attacking his credentials rather than the contents of his arguments. For shame.

I don't care what he thinks.
Though I also don't know who this man is, aside from his name.

Ahh Chomsky, #1 source for intellectual post-rock spoken word samples.

Essentially, Glassman is making the argument that people have a very narrowly defined set of expertise and straying from those would automatically result in a flawed outcome. The article can be easily condensed to; Chomsky is a linguist so he isn’t qualified to speak on any subject other than language. Spurious is exactly right.

^ i.e. wrongheaded

And the implied corollary of his argument, that having training in a field automatically warrants that your words be given more weight, is just as wrong-headed.

Bullshit

I know plenty of smart people whose opinions should be listened to regardless of the topic of the conversation

People are _NOT_ one trick ponys.

I agree with what you all say.

Everybody has one.

And they all stink.