[MD] Barbarian attack

[Platt Holden]

Scott: 

> 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.

Pirsig finds religion and rationality incompatible in the sense that 
the former is a social value and the latter an intellectual value. Like 
other levels, each fights to dominate the other. I mention this to 
point out your disagreement with Pirsig. Personally, I'll take  
Pirsig's view over yours. No offense. :-)   

> 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
> :)

My criterion for a superior culture is one that protects intellectual 
values and allows free discourse such as we are engaged in at the 
moment.

> 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?

I would claim that some cultures are better than others in enhancing 
and protecting intellectual values, rejecting outright multicultural 
political correctness that punishes one for judging one culture better 
than another. 

> 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?

No. But a culture that condones flying airplanes into buildings in a 
surprise attack killing 3,000 innocent civilians is spoiling for a 
fight.

> 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.

The write up about Turkey in Wikipedia doesn't quite paint the picture 
of dictatorial force that you do. Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong.

> > 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"?
 
I would ask, "Since you violated international law by invading us do 
you not see why we will occupy this land in self-defense? Do you not 
understand that you brought this on yourselves by illegally initiating 
physical force against us?" 

Platt