[MD] U.S. Values: the Jones

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
It's "Do as I say, not as I do" with Arlo -- like so many other liberals, 
documented in the book of the same name, subtitled "Profiles in liberal 
hypocrisy."

[Arlo]
Hm. By your reasoning, although I support gun ownership, but don't own a 
handgun myself, I am a "hypocrit"? Is that right?

[Platt]
Glad to hear it. I take it then you against Jesse Jackson's call for a ban 
on the word "nigger."

[Arlo]
Gee, I've said this many times over. Yes, Platt, your freedom to say 
"nigger" is safe with me. What's telling, here, is that although I posted 
two free speech issues, one involving a beer producer to market his beer 
with a label of a drunken Santa, and the other a Denver woman to display a 
wreath shaped as a peace sign, the one that has you most in teethers is an 
attempt to ban the word "nigger". Why is that?

[Platt]
Are you saying Pirsig sympathizes with Marxism? I mean, do I have to repeat 
what he said in Lila about the free market compared to socialism?

[Arlo]
Marx and Pirsig were critical of the valuistic foundation of the market. 
There criticisms parallel in many ways. Commodity fetishism is but one. 
Again you are conflating criticisms of the values underlying the market 
with the market itself.

Remember that in 1850 the "free market" had no qualms whatsoever about the 
buying and selling of black people as chattel. Criticizing slavery was not 
a criticism of the "free market", and in the same way criticizing modern 
pathologies like commodity fetishism is also not a criticism of the "free 
market'. In ZMM Pirsig called for a foundational change in our value 
structure, by introducing Quality to counter the ill-effects of modern 
production and SOMist reason.

[Platt]
Yes. Repost them if you wish to again defend the barbaric religion of 
radical Islam and its treatment of women.

[Arlo]
Okay, so you are back to two issues. First is countering the forcible 
concealment with forcible disconcealment. Neither offers the "individual 
freedom" you pay lip service too.

Second you are back to the veil as it relates to the subordination of 
women. Are Catholic nuns also immorally subordinated? Should we ban by law 
Catholic garments? And is it also not immoral to force a woman to wear a 
top in the same context a man can go topless?

Finally, in the same vein I assume you'd support a ban of Jewish caps, 
Bindis and WWJD braceletes? If not, why?

[Arlo previously]
As for banning religious dictums, does that mean you favor erasing "In God 
We Trust" from public currency, and that you think Christmas displays 
should be banned from public grounds? Why wouldn't these things be a "blow 
in favor of intellect"?

[Platt]
Why? Because the Christian religion does not demand the subordination of 
women to men among other barbaric dictums. Your implied defense of such 
practices is heartwarming.

[Arlo]
You master deceiver! I never once said I support the "subordination of 
women", indeed everything I have said has been about a woman's right to 
choose, to wear a veil or not, to wear a top or not, irrespective of the 
male power structure that wishes to force her to do one or the other. It is 
you who have simply moved from one cultural subordination to another. Nice 
right-wing tactic though.

As for the rest, really, you said that Intellect should ban "religious 
dictums". Are you now suggesting that the ONLY religious dictums we should 
ban are those that subordinate women? Like the forced concealment of the 
female breast?

[Platt]
You still haven't explained how the intellectuals at Temple and Penn State 
got "bullied" into establishing an academic freedom policy.

[Arlo]
What's so hard to understand about bully tactics?

Check out 
http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=43&Itemid=25

[Platt]
It's interesting to note that you are not in favor of such policies, yet 
claim to espouse individual freedom. Hypocrisy yet again.

[Arlo]
The policy has nothing whatsoever to do with "individual freedom". It has 
to do with intellectual relativism, the forcible use of law to lend 
legitimacy to intellectually untenable propositions. As I said, "individual 
freedom" is your right to say whatever it is you wish. But you wish to 
extend this to include formal recognition that any old hogwash you espouse 
is as intellectual valid as anything anyone else says.

By the way, nice right-wing tactic on the "hypocrisy" Wurlitzer. Maybe if 
you say it ten times in the next post a few people might believe it. After 
all, that's the right-wing way. Even though its clear to anyone reviewing 
this thread, and the archives, that the only hypocrit among us is you.

[Platt]
How many languages are the College Boards written in besides English? 
Polish perhaps? If not, hypocrisy strikes again.

[Arlo]
Now this is just idiotic, Platt, even for someone wholly dependant on such 
blatantly deplorable tactics. I have non control over the College Boards, 
so whatever form they are presented in has nothing whatsoever to do with 
what form I think they should be presented in. Should they be presented in 
multiple languages? Sure, I like that idea.