[MD] Bill's Intellectual Level

[Platt Holden]

Ant launches into a political polemic, but first quotes Steve:

> > Honor is a
> >social pattern in the MOQ because it is about social recognition and
> >respect. It is also is a good word for describing Rigel’s values.
> 
> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> Very true, Steve.  Moreover, thinking of the desert island illustration
> that I gave to Dan recently, a person stranded on their own can’t be
> honourable.  It would be a useless concept because, like money or saying
> excuse me after sneezing, it needs at least two people (i.e. a society)
> to have any relevance.

Scout oath: "On my honor, I will do my best"-- a pledge to one's self. 
On a desert island, the survivor must honor (respect) the environment 
that supports him. 

> Platt’s assertion that “Seems the author and I are on the same page” in
> regards to the intellectual level only appears correct if the section he
> quotes is not read in its full context.  When the sentence Platt refers
> to is read in its proper context, it can be seen that the “author”
> (Phaedrus) is not agreeing with Rigel but actually questioning the
> latter’s high regard for honour i.e. as I noted in my post of June 21st,
> the “author” states:

"Proper" context is a judgment call. After Rigel describes the troubles 
Jim suffered because of his affair with Lila, "'That's really bad,' the 
author said, and looked down at the table." 
 
> So to return to Bill Clinton and the neo-cons (who I’m sure have never
> engaged in adultery, drugs, etc), I was fortunate to recently view
> programme 2 of the “Powers of Nightmare” TV series that Arlo mentioned
> last month.   Note the following from the transcript where David Brock
> (the journalist at the centre of the Arkansas Project which was the
> neo-con campaign set-up to discredit Clinton by any means) now admits
> that the attacks on Clinton went too far, and, in fact, corrupted
> conservative politics:

And so begins the political polemic.

> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> Unlike Bennett, I’d say the failure of Clinton’s impeachment was
> evidence of the American public’s ability to place intellectual values
> over social ones. 

First, Clinton's impeachment wasn't a failure. He was impeached. 
Second, during Clinton's reign and subsequently the American public has 
indeed placed intellectual values over social ones by electing 
Republicans. :-) 

> It seems to me that as long as the majority of people keep supporting
> intellectual values (and the politicians/leaders promoting the latter)
> rather than the myths and social values promoted by right-wing
> "religious" extremists then things should work out just fine
> (politically speaking). 

Yes, as long as they keep supporting conservatives rather than the 
socialists, things should work out just fine.

> However, matters aren’t helped by people such
> as Platt who not only confuse social values with intellectual ones (to
> support their own political biases) but also uncritically accept and
> parrot the fundamentalist myths (with the latter’s self-fulfilling
> prophecies of doom).  That's not Quality.

However, matters aren't helped much by people such as Ant who promote 
failed socialist policies such as espoused by the perjurer Clinton and 
his sycophants, but who also uncritically accept and parrot the myths 
of Marxism, multiculturism and moral relativism. That's not Quality.

Best regards,
Platt