[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
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]
"Volunteered anything positive"? You either have the shortest-term memory of
anyone I've met, or this is another example of distortive rhetoric. You keep
trying to make your absurd notion that I "bash" America at every turn, while
continuing to demand uncritical cheerleading of the state. Of the three
possible stances (1) America has done no wrong, (2) America has done good
things and bad things, and (3) America hads done no right, you attempt to
conflate 2 into 3 to make everything look as foolish as your support of 1. This
is no surprise, and is a common radio talk-show rhetorical maneuver. "See, Arlo
hates America. You can't trust what he says. He's a 'radical leftists'. He
won't fight to protect us. He doesn't value what others have died to give us.
America is wonderful. America can do no wrong. Hoorah hoorah." How THAT is a
valid, or even meaningful, response to "blind obedience to the state (or
church) has historically always led to atrocities and immorality", evidences
only that being "blindly obedient" is a "value" of the right.

[Platt]
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. 

[Arlo]
Are you suggesting that each man should NOT define his own morality?
Interesting. But I've already addended my argument to say that the Islamic
terrorists are exactly examples of blind obedience to static social patterns.

[Platt]
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]
By "heard", I met of course a willingness to give legitimacy to, and also to
move towards a mutual solution. But damn those "left-wingers in Hollywood", eh?

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

[Arlo]
No. Bringing up the Indian Wars was an example of the atrocities that have
occured historically due to "blind obedience to social structures". Just like
Pol Pot. And its important because its one example that shows that even
"morally superior America" can, and has, acted immorally. Sorry if that
offended the cheerleader's need to believe that America has never done anything
wrong.

[Platt]
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]
No one's asking you to. But it is important to remember that we are NOT immune
from immorality stemming from "blind obedience". Without recognizing this,
doing nothing but cheering irrelevant masturbatory patriotism, will only have
us repeat past mistakes. 

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

[Platt]
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.

[Arlo]
Fair enough.

[Platt]
Ten points for an open-ended, undefined, generalized statement, e.g., "immoral
orders."

[Arlo]
As I said, good men must define their own line. You would obey an order to
exterminate 140,000 people out of a belief that it would "end the war", I would
decline such an order.

By the way, you offered an answer a few posts back that you would kill a little
girl on the street, in battle, if ordered to do so because she might be
carrying a bomb. What if you later learned she was not? That she was on the way
to the market to get something for her father for dinner? Would the fact "you
were only following orders" absolve your actions of immorality? Would that
assuage any guilt you might feel?

[Arlo previously]
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 aquicker end to the war, maybe
save millions of American lives? Seems to be it meets all your criteria for
"moral".

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

[Arlo]
Except this is not "raising absurdities". I can understand why you attempt to
avoid the questions though. You should award yourself points for that, since
you're trying to conflate everything into as an absurd position as your own.

Why would it be wrong to use atomic weapons in the war with "Islamofascists"?
Why, if they have germ warfare capable of easily retaliating, have they not
used it? You can try using clever rhetorical devices to avoid the questions,
but its obvious why you do so.

[Platt]
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?

[Arlo]
Sure, in the same way I reject capistocratic principles and the inane reference
to taxes as "immoral forced redistribution of wealth". As for Rush, I'm sure
you've listened enough to know if you can recall any time you've ever disagreed
with him. Will you offer that now?