[MD] Barbarian attack

[Platt Holden]

Scott,
 
> Platt said:
> Sorry, I don't follow you. What culture do you think is superior to
> ours? An alien culture from outer space perhaps? How would you judge
> whether it was superior or not?
 
> Scott:
> That's the point -- from inside one's culture one is not likely to be
> able to judge that a superior culture is superior.

I thought that was what philosophy, and in a broader sense, a liberal 
education was for. I'm confident you would have little trouble judging 
a superior culture from an inferior one. In any case, one of the 
benefits of the MOQ is that it gives us ability to answer such 
questions on a rational, rather than an emotional or religious, basis.  

> Platt said:
> The only thing I see being threatened is a culture that supports
> biological terrorism, and that culture is limited to radical Islam
> represented by the Taliban,  Al-Qaeda, and the current governments of
> Palestine and Iran. There may be small splinter groups as well.
 
> Scott:
> If that's the only thing you see being threatened, then I suggest you
> expand your vision. Khaled recommended Karen Armstrong's *Islam* and I
> second that recommendation.

Thanks for the recommendation. But, can you tell me if the book says a 
majority of Muslims support the terrorists and are spoiling for a fight 
with the West? If so, a clash of civilizations seems inevitable.   

> Platt said:
> Last I looked, Turkey was a democratic constitutional republic, a
> member of NATO and being considered for a membership in the EU.
 
> Scott:
> So? Does that mean that Ataturk and the generals didn't force
> secularization on the Turkish people?

You suggest Ataturk and the generals were bad guys. Wikipedia tells a 
different story. Looks like the "generals" brought Turkey into the 20th 
century. Don't you think a republican constitutional democracy is 
better than a dictatorship?

> Platt said:
> I don't see in any of Pirsig's writing that the motivation behind
> criminal acts changes the biological nature of those acts. If you can
> point to such a caveat, I would be happy to be corrected.
 
> Scott:
> In the first place, I don't agree that Pirsig would agree that political
> terrorism is biological. In the second place, if by chance he did, I
> would disagree with Pirsig.

Well, only Pirsig can answer that one. He does say the North was 
justified to go to war (political terrorism) to end slavery in our 
Civil War. And I presume from his reliance on soldiers and police to 
battle biological forces that he justifies terrorism in self-defense. 

> Platt said:
> No. I do not approve of the initiation of physical force except in self-
> defense.
 
> Scott:
> Which leaves wide open what counts as "self-defense", which sometimes
> looks more like "self-interest". But I'm not up to arguing over it.

To protect intellectual values is indeed "self-interest." 

> Platt said:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Israel was attacked shortly after its
> formation and extended its borders as an act of self-defense against
> further attacks. Even today, surrounding countries have as an official
> policy goal the eradication of Israel -- a violation of every
> international agreement known to modern man.
 
> Scott:
> That's assuming (which those countries don't) that Israel's
> establishment was legitimate. But, again, no point in arguing,
> especially as I'm ambivalent about it (I see both sides as defensible
> and attackable). I will point out, though, that you didn't answer the
> question. Military occupation is one thing, settling Israelis in
> occupied territory is another.

IMO its a distinction without a difference.

Platt