[MD] moq_discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 23

[Platt Holden]

Hi Amirman,  

[Platt}
> > Babies experience pure DQ. So morally they are at
> > the top. That's why 
> > abortion is such a travesty. 

[Amirman] 
> Babies also need the static quality in which to thrive
> and realize their dynamic quality. There's no such
> thing as one superceding the other from the MOQ
> perspective. They may be at a different level, but
> they're both necessary for the other to exist.
> Pirsig explains this when he says something to the
> effect that without static quality, dynamic quality
> would simply fizzle into chaos and would never bear
> any real fruit.

Right. But each higher level is more moral than the last.

> I'm not defending democracy here. I realize its
> limitations. I was just pointing out that the West
> calling Middle Eastern bombers "terrorists" is the pot
> calling the kettle black and a case of hypocrisy at
> its worst based on their past (and present) behaviour.
> I'll get to your support of hypocrisy later, but for
> now I'm still waiting to hear if you define the
> dropping of the A-bombs on Japan as a terrorist act. 

No. It saved millions of lives by shortening the war.  

Definition of a terrorist:
> > "One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and
> > intimidation to 
> > achieve political objectives, while disguised as a
> > civilian non-
> > combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on
> > operations exempts 
> > the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva
> > Conventions, and 
> > consequently if captured they are liable for
> > prosecution as common 
> > criminals." From:
> > http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm 
 
> By this definition government spies would be
> considered terrorists.

Spies don't generally blow up civilians en masse at random.

> But its source is the airlines.
> Find me a definition that has a place in law as it
> applies to political institutions.

I'm not a lawyer. Are you suggesting we cannot prosecute terrorists?

> >the U.S. being the shining 
> >example of the result in producing a higher standard
> >of living than any 
> >other economic system in the world, bar none. 
 
> If you look at the per capita income you may be
> correct about the US, but as someone said, "man does
> not live by bread alone". That rate is distorted by so
> much wealth being concentrated in so few hands. The US
> ranks amongst the worst in quality of health amongst
> the G8 and pictures from Katrina should be a lesson
> that disparity of wealth is a better measure of the
> "quality" of a society than the per capita income may
> lead you to believe.

The U.S. isn't perfect, but if you know of better country, go to it.

> >Personally I don't find hypocrisy to be immoral. It's
> >a disguised form 
> >of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem whereby the
> >person making an 
> >assertion is judged rather than the validity of her
> >assertion. The 
> >alcoholic who advises her children not to drink
> >excessively is being a 
> >hypocrite, but her advice is valid.

> You seem to divorce assertions and ideas (the
> intellectual realm) from the pragmatic world of
> reality (the social and biological).

The intellectual realm is just as pragmatic and real as the social and 
biological realms. Otherwise, humans wouldn't have survived a day. 

> In the example you give above, how valuable is the
> alcoholics advice not to drink if she facilitates and
> promotes in every way possible the value of drinking?

But she doesn't. Her drunken behavior is easily recognized as low 
quality. 

> Or if she doesn't give her children an alternative and
> in fact threatens to beat them if they don't drink?
> Her advice to "not drink" is meaningless (as it should
> be) to the children without a supportive environment
> to implement that option. I would add that that advice
> in that context has absolutely NO value whatsoever
> because it promotes a dichotomy between thoughts (the
> intellectual realm) and actions (the social and
> biological realms) and promotes falsehood.

You lost me. Her actions when drunk support her advice when sober.

> In the political context, that's even more apparent
> when the US says one thing in public and does another
> in private. 

Like people governments are ultimately judged by their actions, not 
their words. That's why "trust but verify" is sound policy. 

Cheers,
Platt