[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Platt Holden]

> [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.

20 points for filibustering in an attempt to avoid the issue. A couple 
of instances when you voluntarily praised something specific about 
American (not a generalized "it's a great country") was all that was 
necessary.

> [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.

It's my understanding having read Lila that morality is direct 
experience prior to intellectual abstractions and thus beyond 
definition.  
 
> [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?

How can I give legitimacy to the likes of Rosie O'Donnel and Babs 
Streisand? 

> [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.

You just can't help doing an MBOA can you? Atrocities? Most Indians  
died of diseases that were inadvertently carried to the New World by  
Europeans.

> [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. 

Who is this "we" and "us"? Not me, not you. Guilt by association I 
guess.   

> [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.

At least an unambiguous and honest disagreement.

> 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?

I would certainly feel bad about the mistake. 

> [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.

I would use the bomb if and when I thought it would kill all 
Islamofascists and other terrorists that threaten Western civilization. 
Obviously it would not. They are not concentrated in one spot. As for 
germ warfare, be careful what you wish for. It's a lot easier to poison 
the water supply of a city than set off an atom bomb. 

> [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".

Is that a positive rejection of forced redistribution of wealth from 
the rich to the poor?

What are "capistocratic principles?" Principles of a free market?

I suggest you refuse to pay taxes to learn what force is. 

> 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?
 
Obviously you listen all the time. Tell me what he says and I'll tell 
you if I agree or not.

Platt