[MD] Intellect battles the[historical] barbarians

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Platt]
> Now that's funny. On one hand Arlo says his point is "not to point blame." 
> Then in the next breath he says we should "accept blame where blame is due."
> 
> [Arlo]
> Note. Entire historical reference to US involvement in Iran and Iraq avoided.
> 
> So you're suggesting we shouldn't accept blame where blame is due?

I don't accept that blame is due. But, of course, like you said, you don't want
to point blame, do you?

> [Platt]
> That hilarity aside, note that Arlo thinks "hypocrisy" is a great sin.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Its evident that you don't think hypocrisy is wrong at all. No surprise 
> coming from one who's position and philosophy are based in it as opposed to 
> rational thinking.

So hypocrisy has something to do with rational thinking? Pray tell, what?

> [Platt]
> But failure of a society to defend itself against biological level 
> barbarians? Now, that's real MOQ sin!
> 
> [Arlo]
> A real MOQ sin is attempting to justify everything the US has done with 
> some blanket cry to "social over biological".

"Everything the US has done." Talk about distortion!

> I think we disagree on whether supplying weapons to two sides, one a brutal 
> dictator the other a fundamentalist regime, enabling one to use chemical 
> weapons inside and outside its borders, and ignoring human rights 
> violations while thousands are slaughtered, all to preserve our economic 
> interests is "society defending itself against barbarians".

You mean none of those things would have happened if we had stayed on the
sidelines? 

> [Platt]
> Didn't Arlo say at one time that he was against of gun control? But, I 
> could be wrong.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Arlo is against selling guns to criminals and violent predators, yes. To 
> law-abiding citizens, no. People who sell guns to murderers, sit by and 
> watch as others are killed, and then complain when someone in their family 
> are killed are blind. Those who can't understand why others who lost 
> friends to the murder would hate them are stupid.

So the attack on the twin towers was justified because we got involved in
the war between Iraq and Iran? Is that where you're going with this cockamamie scenario?

> [Platt]
> So we're to blame for trying to stabilize and bring democracy to the Middle 
> East?
> 
> [Arlo]
> We have our share of blame for how this "noble goal" was actually acted. 
> Those who truly believe this to be our "noble goal" would be better served 
> reading history. Unless you consider arming a brutal dictator against world 
> outcry, providing him with the means to deploy chemical weapons, ignoring 
> human rights violations as thousands die, then arming the "other side", a 
> fundamentalist regime with the sole goal of destabilization while countless 
> die "bringing stability and democracy". I call it barbaric economic 
> exploitation.

Guess that applies also to what we did to Germany and Japan in WW II with
the help of a brutal dictator.

> [Platt]
> Maybe Arlo wants to feel guilty about our trying to extend intellectual 
> values. But, I don't, not for a minute.
> 
> [Arlo]
> "Extending intellectual values". Hehe. That takes the cake. I am reminded 
> of Malachi in Steven Spielberg's Children of the Corn, standing there with 
> a sickle in his hand dripping with blood as he is about to attack yet 
> again. He looks at the camera and says with a diabolic smile "We've come to 
> give you peace."

Right. And we should have surrendered in WW II to the Germans and the Japs, and 
to the Chinese in Korea because intellectual values just aren't worth fighting and
dying for. Why am I not surprised?

 



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/