[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
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]
Except I've said four times in five posts that America is a great place. So your
attempt here to reduce my position to the absurdity of yours is simply wrong,
but another good example of the classic radio talk show rhetorical style.

[Arlo previously]
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.

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

[Arlo]
Gee whiz, Platt. How many times do I have to post a reply to this before you
stop acting like my position is unclear? Briefly, yet again, I consider
"Islamic terrorists" to be evil people seeking power by exploiting perhaps
legitimate grievences about aspects of American hegemony. Their actions are
immoral, and should be dealth with militarily. However, we also have to step up
and allow legitimate concerns over our actions to be heard, rather that
pretending that the USA can never, never do no wrong. 

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

[Arlo]
I'm sure you will.

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

[Arlo]
Excellent rhetorical shift. 10 points for that. But as is quite clear, your
"MBOA" attempt is obviously nothing but wind.

[Arlo previously]
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.

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

[Arlo]
Yes, I can see that any statement that indicates America has done anything wrong
upsets the cheerleader. And so the need to caricature all positions by the
absurdity of the one he holds. Okay, whatever. 

[Arlo previously]
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?

[Platt]
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]
Given the above setting, please explain why not? It would have "ended the war"
and "saved millions of lives", wouldn't it have?

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

[Arlo]
Yes, its one of the big, bad boogeymen that right-wing pundits use to scare
people.

[Platt]
You seem blind to your insults and insinuations.

[Arlo]
I give what I get. And I don't whine about it. Again, you seem to have a problem
taking what you so readily and often dish out. Why is that?

[Platt had said]
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 replied]
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.

[Platt]
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]
Except I did not change the subject (nice try though). I simply pointed out your
use of typical talk-show rhetoric to take my position, that there must be a
point where a soldier will say "no" to an immoral order, and turned it into an
insinuation that I would no "fight to protect America". It works on your radio
programs, but is only annoying here. And, I'm still waiting for you to "Kindly
point out how refusing to disobey immoral orders equates to a complete
unwillingness to fight"

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

[Platt]
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. 

[Arlo]
If they possess germ warfare capable of responding in the way you suggest, why
have they not used it? And, sure, why would using atomic weapons in Iraq be
wrong? Wouldn't it kill the enemy, maybe bring a quicker end to the war, maybe
save millions of American lives? Seems to be it meets all your criteria for
"moral".

[Platt] 
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.

[Arlo]
Who's whining? All I said was that we had this conversation (Arlo is an Evil
Marxist) before. I recall that at the time I was able to give you many points
where I disagree with Marx. You, on the other hand, did nothing but hem and haw
when asked to point out where you disagree with Rush.