[MD] Barbarian attack

[Scott Roberts]

Platt,

> 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.

Platt said:
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.

Scott:
Since I don't consider religion and rationality to be incompatible, I guess 
in your sights I am unable to judge a superior culture  My criterion for a 
superior culture is one where everyone has the same rational/religious 
outlook as I do. Of course, it would be very boring :)

Nevertheless, note that the MOQ is a product of our culture. How would you 
answer someone who claims that you are judging your ability to judge 
cultures by criteria peculiar to your own culture?

> 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.

Platt said:
Thanks for the recommendation[ of Armstrong's *Islam*].
 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.

The book indicates that no, the majority is not spoiling for a fight. 
However, the book also indicates that what is happening is that there is a 
clash of civilizations. From your question, are you saying that if a culture 
does not want to live as Westerners do they are spoiling for a fight?

> 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?

Platt said: 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?

Scott:
For much of the last 80 years Turkey was a dictatorship. I'm not sure I 
would say Ataturk and the generals were "bad guys", or no worse than other 
dictators. What I would say is that I prefer persuasion to force.

> Scott:
> I will point out, though, that you didn't answer the
> question. Military occupation is one thing, settling Israelis in
> occupied territory is another.

Platt said:
IMO its a distinction without a difference.

Scott:
You see no difference between violating international law and not violating 
it? Or if you aren't a stickler for rules, do you see no difference between 
"we are going to control this area until you are not a threat to us" and "we 
are going to take choice pieces of your land from you"?

- Scott