[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [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.

Simple closed question my foot. "Any order" is wide open.  

> 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?

Another wide open question. What one finds morally repugnant has an infinite
and thus, unanswerable range of possibilities.

> 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?

The question had no relevance to "success in battle." The implication? Platt
is a Nazi. (Shades of "Bush is Hitler," the rallying cry of the radical left wing.)

> 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 ?

Again. Irrelevant. Abu Graib was a prison, not a battlefield.

> 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?

Wide open question -- "ordered to do something." Like what? Give me a specific
question and I'll give you a specific answer.
 
> [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.

That is the clear implication of Arlo's question. In fact, you answered directly
that you would not have piloted the Enola Gay, risking a firing squad instead.
Now THAT's a straight answer. 
 
> 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.

Again, a wide open question --"any order." Arlo implies that it is "my" U.S. and
that to call it the "land of the free" is worth a snicker. Thus, my comment. 

> [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?

If you want to insult people go right ahead. I agree with Pirsig. It's evil. 

> 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.

Nonsense. You talk about the "state" as if it were some abstract entity. You
live in a state as does everyone, and the state you happen to live in is America.
You attempt to divorce your question from reality is both laughable and sad.

> 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.

Another wide open question, nothing straightforward and clear about it --
"ever done anything immoral?" Like what, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima?
And again, the all encompassing, all infinite "any soldier," "any social
structure," "all orders," . . . from the man who time and again has condemned
all or nothing, absolutist thinking. 




 


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