[MD] S/O and Morality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
"Nationalistic blindness" or "national defense" are debatable viewpoints.

[Arlo]
Another fine example of the moronic rhetoric this thread began by condemning.

Your rhetorical association between "nationalistic blindness" and 
"national defense", as if the two are merely two viewpoints on one 
approach, is not only outrageous, but when said in response to 
everything I had written shows only the blatant distortion wielded by 
those who attempt to use social-level talk-radio rhetoric to attack 
and break down any reasonable dialogue.

"National defense", the use of force, as I had said, is a legitimate 
response to aggressive force. And should be deployed not out of 
nationalistic pride, but out of the reasoned knowledge that such 
force is the best option to meet the threat at hand.

Alongside this moral use of force, however, must be the continuing 
understanding of how this threat originated, and what other options, 
in addition to moral force, may be required to not only stop the 
present threat but minimize the potential for similar future threats. 
So long as our only approach is "kill em like germs", while we keep 
contributing to the foundation for more and more germs, we will 
always have nothing but a unwinnable, reactionary position. As I 
said, it is not enough to meet future Hitler's with aggressive force, 
we must see our role in Hitler's rise, admit to it, learn from it, 
and move forward with different actions than we have in the past.

We can take great pride in our defeat of Hitler, but until we 
recognize and admit that Henry Ford is emblematic of the historical 
foundation that created Hitler's power in the first place our victory 
is only partial.

While intellect alone may not solve all our problems, neither will an 
approach that denies intellect altogether.