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

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Platt]
So conservatives do make cogent arguments?

[Arlo]
As much as liberals do.

[Platt]
No problem with conservative thinking? This from guy who explained why 
liberals dominate university thought by saying "exposure to diverse strands of
thought at the university level instills liberal-minded thinking." 

[Arlo]
Its one possible explanation. Makes as much sense as the Great Liberal
Conspiracy where colleges and universities work together in deceptive ways to
keep honest, good-hearted conservatives from infiltrating their ranks.

But, like I said, most people I know in the academy are not dichotomized by
party politics. And its the blind loyalty to party, the hypocritcal attention
to one part while turning a blind eye towards "one own", that combined with the
radio talk show tactics most "conservative" kids come into the university
belieiving should work in the academy, it is these things that present the
barrier you should be attacking. 

[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"?

[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.

[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. 


[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.

[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". 


[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

Arlo