[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo previously]
Would you obey an order to rape?

[Platt]
No, nor would any American military authority issue such an order, unlike 
the Islamofascists or other third-world savages.

[Arlo]
Besides the funny use of IMP (I'll just abbreviate "irrelevant masturbatory 
patriotism", since you're hitting a point where you're including it in 
every segment), it is good to know you'd disobey an order you found immoral.

[Arlo previously]
I insinuated that "blind obedience" to the state is what led to dropping 
gas pellets on Jews. There is a time when good men must say "no" to immoral 
orders.

[Platt]
Define "immoral orders."

[Arlo]
Good men must act on their own definitions, Platt. On this, good men can 
also attempt to dialogically construct (or co-evolve) culturally-sanctioned 
practices. The Geneva Convention was an attempt to codify what constitutes 
"immoral" activity during war.

[Arlo previously]
Oh, yes, I forgot about them dreaded "radical left-wingers". I better check 
under my bed tonight, just in case.

[Platt]
Maybe you'll find Rosie O'Donnel or Barbara Streisand. Speaking of giant 
intellects.

[Arlo]
And maybe I'll find those "giant intellects" of "radical right-wingism" as 
well, such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

[Arlo gave as historical examples of blind obedience to the state]
The Inquisition. Pol Pot. The genocidal actions against the Indians and the 
Jews. Those are the obvious historical examples when men blindly obey 
social static structures.

[Platt]
None of the above occurred "in battle." They were deliberate policies of 
the authorities in question, like the current Islamofascist policy to kill 
all Americans and wipe Israel off the map.

[Arlo]
Ignoring more funny IMP, the atrocities of the Indian Wars did "not occur 
in battle"? You're right, however, it is not just "during battle" that 
immoral atrocities evidencing blind obedience to the state can occur. They 
can occur during "peacetime" and as the result of foreign policies. Thanks 
for reminding us of that.

[Platt]
You seem to have an inordinate guilt complex about being an American a la 
Noam Chomsky. Do you think we ought to pay reparations to blacks?

[Arlo]
I have no guilt complex, at least not one I have to assuage with IMP. There 
is much good about America, and also many problems. We have acted morally, 
and we have acted immorally. Sorry such a thing offends universal 
apologistic sensibilities. As for reparations, no.

[Arlo previously]
So, there are conceivable orders you, as a US soldier, would decline if you 
were stationed at Abu Graib?

[Platt]
As a soldier doing guard duty or patrolling the San Francisco waterfront as 
an MP, sure. But, in battle, no. Anyway, the hi-jinks at Abu Graib was 
vastly overplayed by the leftist media.

[Arlo]
Oh that damned "leftist media". But, glad again that there you are no so 
blindly obedient as you initially appeared.

[Arlo previously]
You're sure that all of those 140,000 people would kill you? How omniscent 
of you.

[Platt]
The Japs would have defended their country to the last man, woman and 
child. They were brainwashed to believe the Americans would torture them. 
Read up on your history of the invasion of Okinawa.

[Arlo]
Apparently, the "Japs" were not the only ones brainwashed.

Since, however, you skirted the issue, let me bring it back.

On the atomic bombs. You've suggested that our use of them was moral 
because it "saved lives" and "ended the war".

Suppose that Japan had developed the bomb prior to us. Suppose that Japan, 
seeing the war was dragging on and no end was in sight, decided to 
atom-bomb San Francisco and Los Angeles in order to force a ceasefire. 
Suppose that in this ceasefire, Japan made no claims on America, all it 
wanted was an end to hostilities. Would the bombing have been moral?

[Arlo previously]
Oh drop the idiotic "no moral difference" crap, Platt. You're not Rush 
Limbaugh and this is not the EIB network. No one else buys this insipid 
accusation.

[Platt]
So, your views are based what everyone else buys? How independent and 
critical thinking of you. You blindly fall in step with the postmodern, 
left-wing moral relativism, moral equivalence crowd.

[Arlo]
Hm. I reread my post and could not find where I said "my views are based on 
what everyone else buys". I'm just saying that you're attempt to convince 
others I "see no moral difference" is inane. But, its a great radio 
talk-show tactic. As is the inane reuse of "postmodern, left-wing moral 
relativism, moral equivalence crowd". Why knock postmdoern

[Arlo]
I object to those who cry about taking what they so readily dish out.

[Platt]
Evil must meet evil on its own terms.

[Arlo]
If you relied on insults only in retaliation, maybe you could say such a 
thing. Since you don't, its just hypocritical of you to whine when you get 
back what you dole out.

[Platt]
I'm glad you agree you would fight to protect America from its enemies. My 
doubts arose from your refusal to obey orders in battle.

[Arlo]
Right. Kindly point out how refusing to disobey immoral orders equates to a 
complete unwillingness to fight. Another great talk-show tactic. I should 
give you a few points here for the distortive rhetoric, but you've 
accumulated so much recently, I may have to rethink what things are worth. 
But, I'll give you 3 just because.

[Arlo previously]
So, if we start an ebola outbreak in Iraq "to win the war", you'd find no 
objections to this?

[Platt]
Not smart. Too easy for the enemy to retaliate.

[Arlo]
Explain how use using ebola would make it easy for the enemy to retaliate? 
How about atomic weapons? Should we use these in Iraq?

I'll cut your ongoing attempts to shift this away back into that "Arlo is 
an Evil Marxist" land of yours. Since we've had THAT discussion several 
times, it seems pointless to recount it. Especially since your latest round 
of allegations are all things I've already responded to.