[MD] S/O and Morality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Maybe so, but to be concerned about the possibility of atomic warfare 
represents a justifiable doomsday scenario IMO.

[Arlo]
Disagree. I think it represents a valid, and important, concern, and 
something that should be part of the modern dialogue with regards to 
international affairs, policy, and diplomacy. However, I think using 
it as a "doomsday device" only servers power brokers and nightmare 
politicians. Some ways to spot this include "distance", that is how 
far removed from the proposed "threat" does "complete atomic 
destruction" lie? If someone says, e.g., "if Clinton/Huckabee is 
elected, get ready for an atomic war" is simply moronic fear 
rhetoric. Another way is those proposing "one solution", e.g. when 
someone says "unless we do exactly this ONE thing, the world will end 
in an atomic barrage". A third is in proposing that "YOU and ONLY 
YOU" want to prevent the event, e.g., "conservatives want the world 
to be polluted" or "liberals want to see American soldiers killed".

All these tie into elaborating specific problems, articulating 
specific solutions, and accepting that a solution may be one  other 
than what you have proposed. This is the type of clarity, for 
example, that is completely lost in the "illegal immigration" 
dialogue. It is one thing to say "if we do nothing to alter our 
present policies, we will face a 200 billion dollar additional 
deficit in 10 years" and then listen to solutions to this specific 
concern, and quite another to say "if we do nothing to alter our 
present policies, America will cease to exist in 10 years, and the 
only solution to this is the one I propose". The former lays out a 
concern intellectually, the latter is an attempt to use fear to 
garner power for a specific interest group.

[Platt]
Further, a return of the genocides of the 20th century are a 
legitimate doomsday concern for the populations at risk.

[Arlo]
Which is why more people should read and study history, to look at 
the events (both national and international) that contributed to 
these. It is not enough, I'd say, to simply say "we are prepared to 
kill anyone who does anything like Hitler did", we must say "what can 
be done to minimize the possibility a Hitler will ever rise to power 
again?" We must understand why Henry Ford received the highest 
foreign commendation from the Nazi Regime, why the events following 
WWI (not to mention the reasons for WWI) laid a foundation that 
enabled not only the genocide, but the patriotic fervor and 
acceptance of the German Folk for the Nazis.

We can kill all the Hitlers, and all the Al Qaeda members, we can, 
but we will never see a world without them until we understand and 
accept the reasons for their being, and couple our legitimate and 
moral military responses with reasoned, intellectual foreign actions 
that undermine the foundation these despots stand on. Simply saying, 
"they hate us for our freedom" is about the most moronic thing one 
could say. All dialogues have two voices, and we must accept what 
ours has said, and think about what we want it to say.

[Platt]
Sometimes fear-rhetoric is required to arose people to real and 
present dangers, just as sympathy and similar emotional rhetoric is 
justified to right social ills.

[Arlo]
Fear rhetoric devoid of intellectual substance is never required, 
except by politicians and ideologues who are more concerned with 
using fear to manipulate people than with articulating concerns and 
discussing solutions. I have no trouble with the role of emotional 
rhetoric, indeed, as I say repeatedly, we are social beings. But 
there is a difference between evoking Rosa Parks as part of a speech 
outlining racial injustice, and fortelling the end of America if we 
don't build a giant wall along our souther border. Nor do I, as  I've 
said, have any problem with meeting social-level anti-intellectualism 
with social-level condemnation.