[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Scott is right. The Marxist critical thinker following his usual practice 
of selecting facts to fit his socialist agenda omits Pirsig's comment about 
Indian savagery:

[Arlo]
As I addressed to Scott, Pirsig's "comment" was about the "biological 
savagery" inherent in MAN. Unless, you'd care to make the argument of how 
the Indian was biological savage, but the European was not. Also, of 
course, this is the "one comment" that omits 98% of everything else Pirsig 
said about the Indian. Even if I do "omit" one comment in favor of 98% of 
everything else, I find that far less heinous that omitting 98% in favor of 
the continued repition of "one comment". But, hey, such is the Party Jester 
way.

[Platt]
Then the Marxist's long song and dance about social equality was merely a 
cover up for what his real agenda is -- economic equality which requires 
forcibly taking from winners (from each according to his abilities) to 
bestow goodies on losers (to each according to his needs) so as to gain a 
large, government-dependent voting block in perpetuity.

[Arlo]
Which says nothing to the content of what I wrote, ignore everything Pirsig 
said, and responds only with the typical Fear-Distort-Wurlitzer. Although I 
asked you not to simply rehash your tired old Party Propaganda in your 
criticism, I really expected nothing more. And, of course, that's all I 
got. Thanks.

[Platt]
Finally, who is more guilty of Victorian verbosity, the 22-paragraph 
Marxist or the 2 paragraph plain-spoken Scott? But, let us not be too 
critical. When you're associated for years in an academic setting, the home 
of today's elites, long-winded, florid, involuted speech becomes second 
nature.

[Arlo]
Or Pirsig, who wrote an entire book. Let's condemn Pirsig for his 
verbosity, too, eh?

As for the rest, when you can't comment on the substance, the Party Jester 
relies on the usual rhetoric of ad hominem. Expected, really, but always 
disappointing.

Arlo