[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
First, I did not deny or filter out this one "fact" that you seem to feel 
is more important than 98% of everything else Pirsig said about the 
Indians. I responded to it as it is, a statement about the "biological 
savagery" of man. What other "facts" can you provide from Pirsig that 
challenges what I said? What other "facts" about the Indians have I 
filtered or denied? Hmmm... And I never said only I present a "fair and 
balanced critical view", I am open to discussion on what I wrote. But all 
you want to do, of course, is bang on and on the drums of fear, the ad 
hominem attacks, and the Party Wurlitzers that offer nothing of substance 
to what I wrote, but only serve to distort and distract. But, hey, like I 
said, that's the Party Jester way.

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
Which is simply what I said twice now, and many times over the years. You 
see nothing but an idiotic, distortive dichotomy. I predicted this, really, 
in my original post, and again in my response to Scott. "Any MENTION of the 
Indian value is IMMEDIATELY followed by Wurlitzers and fear about Marxists 
and gulags and guns and millions dead." Bingo. Quite predictable. Party 
dribble, never anything more.

And, given that every mention of "social equality" I made, was in direct 
quote of Pirsig's at length discussion on Indian values, if you feel *I* 
didn't define it, its maybe because I expected people on this list to be 
familiar with Pirsig. Or at least, do more than ignore everything in favor 
of one or two soundbites that support their continual, 
do-nothing-but-trumpet-party-propaganda nonsense.

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
More ad hominem. Typical rightist reply. But, of course, since 90% of my 
post was quoted at length using Pirsig's words, I find your sneering 
condescension quite funny. Perhaps you'll care at some point to do 
something more than attack me or toss back tired Party Propaganda?

Now, I assume you're next response will be nothing but Party Propaganda, 
and if it is I'm just going to ignore it. If you have something of 
substance to say, or show me, using Pirsig, where I am in err, then we can 
have a dialogue. Otherwise, dealing with the Fear-Distort-Wurlitzer rather 
than the substance of what I wrote only further shows that you have nothing 
at all to say but trumpeting endlessly distorted Party Rhetoric.

Arlo