[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Platt Holden]

> [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.

What's "heinous" is the Marxist thinker's absurd claim that he and only 
he presents a fair and balanced "critical" view of an issue when, as 
demonstrated time and time again, he filters out (and/or denies) 
pertinent facts.

> [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.

Since the Marxist thinker never defined "social equality," expecting 
the reader to somehow read his mind to discern precisely what he meant. 
Given the proclivity of Marxists to call for the transfer wealth from 
the rich (ability) to the poor (needy), the presumption that social 
equality means economic equality is a reasonable deduction.  

> [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?

Now the Marxist thinker has the unmitigated gall to compare his 
verbose, involuted, florid writing to Pirsig's tight, straight, 
crystalline prose.  Wonders never cease.

Platt