[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Platt Holden]

> [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.

Since you like to knock the U.S and every opportunity, I will follow 
your lead and call it "masturbatory bashing of America," or MBOA for 
short.  

> [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.

Do you consider Islamic terrorists "good men?" They are acting on their 
own definitions. 

> [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.

I'll take Rush and Sean over Rosie and Babs any day. 

> [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.

Well, that's a different argument in which you are bound to engage in 
lots of MBOA. 

> [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.

A little MBOA jerk there, but we agree on no reparations.

> [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?

No. There's a moral difference between the U.S. and Imperial Japan that 
you continue to ignore in dreaming up your unrealistic hyptheticals. 

> [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

What's "inane" is your refusal to acknowledge the obvious. Ever heard 
of "multiculturism?"

> [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.

You seem blind to your insults and insinuations.

> [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.

If you insist of playing childish games of assigning points to rhetoric 
you don't like, I will reciprocate in kind. Here, 10 points for   
changing the subject..

> [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?

Germ warfare is relatively easy to employ, or have you forgotten what 
Saddam did to the Kurds. Your question about using the atomic bomb in 
Iraq can't be serious. 

> 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.

Is that any different than "Platt is a stupid Limbaugh clone?" You like 
to play that game, but whine when the other guy joins in.

Platt