[MD] Ham unlike you I will not crreate false idols

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> I feel sad for the present state of higher education, which is why a number of
> state governments are considering legislation to assure diversity of thought on
> campus which is so obviously lacking.
> 
> [Arlo]
> And again, despite having no firsthand knowledge of this, you choose to accept
> the propaganda of radio show hosts. Since you seem to favor "legislation" to
> ensure "diversity of thought", perhaps you'd answer my question as to whether or
> not that legislation should also provide equal time and representation to other
> ideologies, such as nazism, communism, tribalism, oligarcy, monarchy, or
> holocaust revisionist theories. Should we pass a law requiring teachers to teach
> that these are "all equal"?

Ah yes, the old slippery slope argument. Better to allow discussions of all 
ideologies than restrict them to just one favored by professors.

> [Arlo previously]
> So, we applaud (or at least accept) the purveyors of filth because
> they are only "trying to make a buck", but we condemn "intellectuals" who
> say there is nothing wrong with pornography (even though every intellectual*I*
> know condemns pornography as destructive, demeaning and socially immoral).
> 
> [Platt]
> But won't censor it or demand that it be taken off the market because it is
> socially destructive. Like cigarettes. Intellectuals huff and puff but the evils
> of smoking, but won't make selling tobacco illegal.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I would rather see a cultural value system that precludes people from "wanting"
> to produce stuff like this, because they value things other than "profit". But,
> as I've said repeatedly, as long as profit is the unassailable Goal of human
> activity, people will produce whatever they can, at whatever the cost, just to
> make a buck. If you make it illegal, it will show up on the black market. As
> long as people know they can profit off it, it will continue to exist. In my
> opinion, the key is not using government to "ban" something, but to work towards
> cultural values that give people reason to value things higher than profit. Only
> when individuals choose NOT to produce filth, even though they know they can
> make a profit, and combined with consumers who make value selections based on
> greater considerations that "what's in it for me", will these things every
> really be eradicated.

What are the greater considerations than "what's in for me" that you find so 
appealing.  Recall what Pirsig said about criticizing the motives of others.  
"There's an ego thing in there, too. They use the morals to make someone else 
look inferior and that way look better themselves." (Lila, 7)  
    
> [Platt]
> There are laws against drug dealers in case you haven't noticed. But 
> intellectuals by and large do not take an active role in supporting  the war on
> drugs. After all, tripping out is considered mind-expanding.
> 
> [Arlo]
> The war on drugs is a societal joke. I think most people have seen it to be a
> failure, and are ready to pursue other suggestions. Locking Joe Schmo up for 10
> years for smoking a joint, while Bob Snee gets loaded on single malt scotch
> while smoking a pack of cigarettes, hardly seems like anything other than
> haphazard, and ill-conceived policy. Consider, that you could spend time in jail
> for seeking to have the same experience that led to Pirsig's insights. 

Yes, you've expressed the intellectual's viewpoint very well. Apparently little 
has changed since Pirsig wrote about intellectuals in Lila.

> [Arlo]
> Well, aside from the fact that I've used you inability to criticize any
> activity done towards "making a buck", I've also offered as an example the
> success of Walmart, 
> 
> [Platt]
> The success of Walmart is immoral? Why? Give me one good Pirsigian reason..
> 
> [Arlo]
> I have, several times. These parts of ZMM you simply dismiss, in favor of
> canonical adherence to one or two quotes from Lila.

Sorry. I meant give me a good Pirsigian reason based on the evolutionary moral 
hierarchy he set forth in Lila.

> [Platt]
> You mean you want GM to go broke so everybody who works there
> will be out of a job?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I don't think I recall CEO's being asked to "cut" their "golden parachutes" let
> alone their health-care. Seems to me that someone earning hundreds of millions a
> year might think that maybe a small reduction in his salary could keep hundreds
> of employees' health care active.
> 
> Actually, the best argument I could make for universal health care is GM. But
> you'd rather see people without health care, because it means some people get
> "more profit". 

I've looked at universal health care as practiced in Canada and Europe and want 
no part of it. We've been around that block before. 

> [Arlo previously]
> and a while back the deforestation and drilling for oil in public land.
> 
> [Platt]
> Yet you yell about high gasoline prices and oil company profits?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I don't care about the high cost of oil. I think the oil companies unnecassily
> gouged consumers, something Bill O'Reilly has been very vocal about. But, I'd
> rather have gas be $6 a gallon and have preserved natural lands and parks. I
> value those higher than "profit", you see.

It's the freedom to express such difference in values that makes Western 
civilization worth defending. I assume you agree.

> [Arlo]
> Just above I mentioned the production of pornographic materials with no
> concern for social outcomes, only a concern to "make profit".
> 
> [Platt]
> So you are are in favor of jailing Flynt?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I am in favor of cultural values that preclude Flynt from valuing "profit" over
> the effects of his product. I don't favor government jailing him.

OK.  But I think you'll find it an uphill battle to change human nature. 

> [Arlo previously]
> In several posts, I've talked about the dumping of toxic chemicals across the
> border in Mexico, not to mention the outsourcing of jobs to overseas markets
> where companies can pay two cents per hour for labor.
> 
> [Platt]
> Providing those laborers with a better life than they have ever known.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Taking advantage of impoverished regions by paying wages that do nothing more
> that perpetuate poverty, is hardly a good thing. Like saying turning homeless
> people into indentured servants is "noble". If we really cared about them, we'd
> pay them not only enough to susist in their poverty, but enough to overcome
> their poverty.

So you favor a guaranteed income for everybody in the world?

> [Arlo]
> I've also talked about Union Carbide and the mine fiasco at Hawk's Nest in West
> Virginia, where a desire for profit led to deliberately placing miners in harms
> way.
> 
> [Platt]
> Without providing any evidence.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Why should I have to? A simple web search will show the evidence, the court
> rulings, and the documents related to the case. The court found the company
> willfully and knowingly sent miners into silica without proper equipment, or
> even telling them it was silica. 

Courts have been known to err have they not? I would like to see what the other 
side had to the say. Anyway, I thought you required "first-hand knowledge" to 
justify one's beliefs.

> [Arlo previously]
> I've also, a few posts back, referred to the Ford Pinto, where a desire for
> profits led to the company avoiding replacing a defective part because
> replacement costs outweighed potential lawsuits.
> 
> [Platt]
> Without providing any evidence.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Again, why should I have to? This is public knowledge, admitted to by executives
> at Ford at the time.

I doubt it. But even if admitted, their motive could have been to reduce the 
court's punishment. 

> [Arlo previously]
> Why don't you spend a few hours a week in your local University?
> Enroll for a class, ask a professor if you can "sit in". Maybe do something
> other than listen to the idiotic propaganda coming out of talk radio.

The fact that liberals dominate universities is "public knowledge." Even you 
don't deny it.

> [Platt]
> Why don't you get out in the business world and learn first hand what it takes
> to meet a payroll? Then maybe your liberal ideas about business and the profit
> motive would change.

> [Arlo]
> I have worked in the business world, many years, in both IT and management. When
> was the last time you spent time in the academy? It was my experience in the
> "business world" that led me to believe that there is an overfixation on
> "profit". A trend that continues to grow. America's new slogan could be
> "America, Anything for a Buck".

What is IT?  What firm(s) did you work for? What did you find so immoral about 
IT (them)? How much profit is too much? 

> [Platt]
> You couldn't be more wrong. Conservatives did not act like today's liberals when
> Ginsburg and Breyer  were appointed by Clinton.  Oh, well hyperbole and
> distortion are par for the course in Arlo's academy.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Maybe you should listen to your radio a little closer. Even Sean Hannity last
> week was saying, with a guest whose name I forget but can look up tomorrow, that
> BOTH liberals and conservatives in the past have been "easy" about nominations
> coming from the opposition party. It has only been recently that
> party-obedience, and blind divisiveness has led to such theatre and hypocracy.
> What I said was "if the situation was reversed today". You see, you better learn
> your history. Liberals in the past were as accomodating as conservatives were.
> Today, both parties are caught up in idiotic party theatrics and propaganda. Oh
> well, deceptive rhetoric and distortion are par for the course in Platt's radio
> program.

Yes, "party obedience and blind divisiveness" practiced by Senate liberals like 
Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Leahy and their ilk. Surely you don't expect the victims 
of their attack to take it lying down? Or do you?  

Platt