[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[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.

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

[Arlo]
Skipping the rest of your dismissal out of recognition that its patently obvious
that "any order" is hardly "wide open". It is a straight forward hypothetical
question. Either you can conceive of an order that you would disobey or you can
not.

[Arlo had asked previously]
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?

[Platt]
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.)

[Arlo]
Besides framing this question in direct repsonse to another one of your insipid
insinuations (which you repeat here, 10 points for consistency! Kudos!), the
question of "blindly obeying orders" has direct connetion to the acts of the
Reich (see Craig's recent post on the post-Nurnberg rethinking of military
engagement).

My point, which you continue to try to paint as some "leftist, moral-relativist"
stance, is that no soldier, for any state should be "blindly obedient". You
apparently disagree, believing that our soldier's should be "blindly obedient".
History makes obvious the result of your way of thinking.

[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 ?

[Platt]
Again. Irrelevant. Abu Graib was a prison, not a battlefield.

[Arlo]
Hardly irrelevant, indeed quite so. You've stated that in battle there is no
order you would disobey, what about in this case? I can see why you want to
avoid the question, but you go on pretending its because its "wide open".

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
You're damn straight its a straight answer. Even IF there was general agreement
that the bombings "ended the war early", this is still retrospective. There you
are, sitting in the cockpit, having NO IDEA about what the result of what you
are ordered to do could be. Maybe Japan would retaliate in kind, maybe they had
a secret atomic program. Maybe it would force an ongoing conflict. All you'd
know is that your were ordered to kill 140,000 innocent people. Sorry, my moral
fiber wouldn't take that. Glad to hear you would so willing press that button
and exterminate 140,000 people just because you had hopes that it MIGHT end the
war.

And, here's another question. Let's suppose that Japan DID have an atomic
program. And let's suppose that Japan decided to bomb Los Angeles *for no other
reason than to force a ceasefire agreement*. Would it have been moral for them
to do so? Would this act, if it had indeed forced the US into a ceasefire, not
also have "ended the war" and "saved millions of lives"?

Or is killing 140,000 people in hopes of ending a war only moral when we do it?
I know your answer, of course, and I could rephrase it already as "it is moral
BECAUSE WE do it".

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

[Arlo]
Aww... I forgot how quick Platt can dole out insulting labels, and how quickly
he cries fowl when he gets hit himself with one. At any rate, my "irrelevant
masturbatory patriotism" stands. It was all three things. And if that "insults"
you, then maybe you show me how much by stopping with all the insipid
accusations and insinuations you toss out to me.

[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.

[Platt's Irrelevant Masturbatory Patriotism]
You are sadly mistaken to think America is not morally superior to many  other
states.

[Arlo then said]
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.

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
If there is anything "laughable and sad" here, it's the accusation that I
divorce "my question  from reality". My comment is such, "no soldier, no matter
what state they pledge their allegience to, should give up his/her moral
stances and obey orders that violate their sense of 'what is right'". Your
continuing implication in all this has been that this type of "blind obedience"
is ONLY problematic when it occurs in OTHER states. That's simply more
masturbatory patriotism. As Jefferson wrote, "The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance." Just because we may be "freer and morally superior to many states"
does not absolve the state from potential immoral activity. 

[Arlo previously]
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.

[Platt]
Another wide open question, nothing straightforward and clear about it -- "ever
done anything immoral?"

[Arlo]
Its hardly "wide open". But I understand your reasons for pulling this
rhetorical tactic in order to avoid answering it. Don't worry, its obvious to
everyone what Platt's answer to this would be. Indeed, that's why I put it in
quotes. For others to ask. Your unwaivering apologist stance is quite clear.

[Platt]
Like what, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima?

[Arlo]
Well, that would be one example in my opinion. Any at all in yours? (That was
rhetorical too, I know there ain't).

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
Yes, how ironic that the "Marxist" is arguing for disobedience to the state, in
favor of individual morality. And the right-winger is arguing for blindly
killing 140,000 "for the greater good". As for the absolutes, its a dead
argument. The whole "there are no absolutes is an absolute" has already been
discussed. I love paradox.