[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [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.

I would not obey an order to kill myself. How absurd do you want to be with your
"any order" question?
 
> [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).

If you review the correspondence, you will see that "battle" was the operative
word. As for insipid insinuations, you insinuated that I would drop gas pellets 
on Jews. I hear the same sort of insinuation from radical left-wingers. Putting
the two together isn't difficult.
 
> 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.

I repeat, in battle, yes. Specify the "obvious result" in history. The obvious
result I see is that America is still free, and you ought to get down on your
knees every day and thank those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines
who have protected and preserved your right to speak your mind freely, among other
freedoms you enjoy at the intellectual level.  

> [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".

Abu Graib was a prison, not a battlefield. Can't you tell the difference?
 
> [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.

You're damn straight I would press the button to kill those who, if they had
the button, would kill me.

> 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"?

Don't think for a minute they wouldn't have nuked Los Angeles if given a chance.
And it would have been immoral, just as their war against us was immoral. My direct
question to you, "Aren't you glad we got the bomb first?"

> 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".

You repeat what you have said before. You see no moral difference between America
and Imperial Japan. Hard to believe, but there it is for all to see and shake
their heads in wonderment.

> [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.

It was Pirsig who said insulting people was evil. You object to his label?

> 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.

All justified. Like you said, calling a spade a spade.

> [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:

See above.

> 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. 

It is not immoral to fight to protect the American Consititution from those
who would overthrow it. As Goldwater rightly put it, "Extremism in the defense of
liberty is no vice." 

> [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.

It is indeed ironic. You wouldn't be arguing for disobedience to the state if
immoral forced redistribution of income was the issue. And funny in that although
you believe that absolutes don't exist you call on them with regularity, using "all,"
"any" and "every" in wildly absolute general statements. Whatever happened to your
objection to black and white absolutist dichotomies and generalizations? Methinks
you speak with forked tongue.







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