[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Platt Holden]

> [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.

I can't remember the last time you actually volunteered anything 
positive about America, probably because some of your friends on the 
left would accuse you of  being patriotic.

> [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. 

If each man can define his own morality, I see nothing to prevent an 
Arab from defining his morality as death to infidels like you and me. 
I'm glad to see, however, you siding with the current administration's 
position to deal with Islamic terrorists "milatarily." As for allowing 
concerns over our actions to be heard, that's all we hear from the left-
wingers in Hollywood, the colleges and the mainstream media every day 
of the week. 

> [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.

Bringing up the old Indian Wars is an example of Masturbatory Bashing 
of America or MBOA.. 
 
> [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. 

It's absurd to keep knocking your head against the wall for past supposed
sins of which you played no part and cannot change 

> [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?

Yes, but your supposition that Japan would make no claims on America is
so unrealistic as to make your hypothetical worthless. In other words, 
I reject the "setting" as being irrational.
> 
> [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.

No, it's the principle that all cultures are morally equal, a principal 
opposed by the MOQ. I guess Pirsig scares left-wingers who think 
everyone in the world is part of one big global happy family. Anybody 
for a rendition of Kum-bay-ya while a Muslim slits your throat? 

> [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?

Not a problem. Why do whine about MBOA?

> [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"

Ten points for an open-ended, undefined, generalized statement, e.g., 
"immoral orders." I'm sure you know some refuse to fight on religious 
grounds, considering any order to fight immoral. Without specific 
examples of "immoral orders" your question goes begging. And since you 
persist in comparing what I say to talk show rhetoric, I will accuse 
you when appropriate of using moveon.org rhetoric. As you say, I give 
what I get.

> [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".

50 points for raising absurdities. Like asking  why don't we all just 
surrender to the Islamofascists and save millions of lives.

> [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.

Ask me what Rush says and I'll tell you whether I agree or not. And by 
the way, I don't recall you ever saying flat out that you summarily 
reject the Marxist principle of "From each according to his abilities, 
to each according to his needs." Will you do so now?