[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt claimed to SA]
Their statements and questions were not clear to me.

[Arlo]
Let's recap some of these "unclear" questions.

Ian: Is there any order from your US (Land of the free) commanding officer 
you would not obey ? Simple closed question.
Arlo: Should the members of the Armed Services be "blindly obedient"? Or 
should there be times when we expect someone to decline/disobey when they 
are ordered to do something that find morally repugnant?
Arlo: And, I take it that Platt, if ordered, would have dropped the gas 
pellets on the Jews, being "blindly obedient" in order to "ensure success"? 
If not, why not?
Ian: You (Platt US citizen) are at Abu Graib fighting for that democratic 
freedom you (we) hold so dear. Is there any order from your US (Land of the 
free) commanding officer you would not obey ?
Arlo: Then there ARE times when its conceivable that an American soldier 
would be ordered to do something immoral (in his/her judgement)? If that 
were you, would you do it?

[Platt claimed the writer must make himself clear and to respond to 
questions the reader asks without insulting the questioner]

[Arlo]
You mean like this?

Arlo had asked:
It is the "blindly obedient" who  would exterminate a civilian population 
"because they were ordered to".  Otherwise, one is not "blindly obedient", 
rather "obedient to a degree". No?
Platt's direct reply:
I take it that Arlo, if ordered, would not have piloted the Enola Gay over 
Hiroshima, ending WW II and saving millions of lives on both sides.

Or this?

Ian had asked:
Is there any order from your US (Land of the free) commanding officer you 
would not obey ? Simple closed question.
Platt's direct response:
Et tu, Ian? You don't consider the US the land of the free? Seems you too 
may have difficulty making a moral distinction between totalitarian and 
democratic governments that guarantee individual rights and free markets.

[Platt laments]
... without insulting the questioner by calling him "morally bereft," 
"ignorant," "idiotic," and a "patriotic masturbator."

[Arlo]
Arlo did not call Platt a "patriotic masturbator", he questioned Platt's 
"needs to preface everything that is said with irrelevant masturbatory 
patriotism". Besides, I thought you hated "political correctness". Or are 
only "conservatives" allowed to call a spade a spade?

To wit, the "irrelevant masturbatory patriotism" is this:

Arlo had said:
I prefer soldiers who say "no, that is immoral" than those who just do 
whatever is ordered of them, telling themselves that because the order came 
from THEIR state, it can't possibly be immoral.

Now, you'll notice there is nothing defacing or promoting "America". It is 
a condemnation of those who believe that THEIR state can do nothing 
immoral. "Irrelevant masturbatory patriotism" is when the reply is:

Platt:
You are sadly mistaken to think America is not morally superior to many 
other states.

Now, did I say anything of the sort? No. Does it serve any purpose OTHER 
than masturbatory patriotism if I would have said:

Although America is morally superior to many other states, I prefer 
soldiers who say "no, that is immoral" than those who just do whatever is 
ordered of them, telling themselves that because the order came from THEIR 
state, it can't possibly be immoral.

This may stroke the patriotic egos of those who wrap themselves in the "my 
state can do no wrong" apologist rhetoric, but serves no logical purpose. 
Hence irrelevant. Hence masturbatory patriotism. A spade is a spade.

To get at the fundamental "ground" I mentioned to Ben, consider this question.

"Has America, in its foreign policies or military engagements, ever done 
anything immoral?"

Perfectly straight forward and clear. And when you get an answer to THAT 
question, you'll uncover the reason for the venomous need to challenge my 
condemnation of ANY soldier, for ANY social structure to blindly obey ALL 
orders.