[MD] S/O and Morality

[pholden at davtv.com]

Does this guy have a life? More moronic nonsense.


Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Platt]
> Substantive challenges? What a joke. It's the Hillary way.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Lo and behold, yet another Pee-Wee in lieu of addressing any of the 
> substantive points in the discussion. And what's funny is that this 
> does not even make sense. Are you implying that Hillary tells jokes? 
> I realize you got nothing to offer but these moronic talk-radio 
> responses, but at least try to put some effort into coming up with 
> ones that at the very least make sense.
> 
> Of course, since your aim was to try to dismiss how you've used 
> moronic rhetoric and anti-intellectual smear tactics to respond to 
> substantive points, I will repeat them for you. Let's see if the 
> third go-round has you offer anything other than Limbaughism and 
> moronic chicanery.
> 
> Point One:
> Defeating Hitler was a moral use of military force. But if our 
> military victory is not coupled with an understanding of the 
> international and social forces and policies that set the stage for 
> Hitler's rise, our victory is incomplete. William Shirer, as well as 
> many WWII historians, has articulated this backdrop, which has its 
> roots in pre-WWI policies and foreign interference in Germany's 
> sovereignty. It includes the anti-semetic and pro-fascist support of 
> those, like Henry Ford, who were not only willing to "turn a blind 
> eye" but provided crucial international support for the rise of the Reich.
> 
> Your moronic response:
> What nonsense. Now Hitler's rise was our fault. And I suppose we 
> deserved to get hit by Islamic radicals.
> 
> Arlo adds:
> If you are disputing the international and social support provided 
> Hitler, from powers within the American government and evidenced by 
> the American people, then perhaps you would like to begin by 
> articulating exactly why pro-fascist policies and social support for 
> Hitler had nothing whatsovever to do with his rise to power. Using 
> cheap and moronic quips insinuating that I feel we deserved to "get 
> hit by Islamic radicals" only demonstrates a level of stupidity that 
> must be called for what it is.
> 
> Point Two:
> As an extension of the above, a people must be ready and willing to 
> accept their parts played in the unfolding of world events. We should 
> not, nor should anyone, be so blinded by our inability to admit any 
> mistakes that we recreate over and over the same problems we rely on 
> our military to fix.
> 
> Your moronic response:
> "Nationalistic blindness" or "national defense" are debatable viewpoints.
> 
> Arlo adds:
> Besides the moronic association attempted here, your response offers 
> nothing to the point made. Do you agree of disagree that when we make 
> mistakes, when any nation makes mistakes, learning from and 
> correcting those mistakes are an integral part of the solution? 
> Please articulate why. As I responded to your moronic pairing last 
> time, implying that a condemnation of nationalistic blindness is 
> somehow a condemnation of national defense provides yet another 
> example of how anti-intellectual moronic rhetoric is contemptible and evil.
> 
> Your other moronic response:
> If you have no national pride, why defend yourself?
> 
> Arlo adds:
> Can you articulate where exactly in the dialogue you derive the 
> implication that "national pride" is, to me, a bad thing? Here you 
> have slipped from "nationalistic blindness" to "national defense" to 
> "national pride" in an attempt to imply that because I believe that a 
> people, a nation, must be ready and willing to accept and learn from 
> their mistakes, that I am assaulting having pride in one's nation. 
> This is the same kind of moronic rhetoric used by talk-radio buffoons 
> to vilify any who do not accept the neoconservative dogma as 
> "anti-American", "traitors", "they hate America" and "they want to 
> see dead American soldiers". The tactic is evil, not to mention moronic.
> 
> Point Three:
> It is not that we have no valid concerns and problems facing us, but 
> using "doomsday" rhetoric to manipulate a people is immoral. I've 
> articulated some ways to spot "doomsday rhetoric" as opposed to the 
> articulation of valid concerns. These included "distance" between an 
> event and an outcome, "my way or the highway" rhetoric where I and 
> ONLY I can save your from doomsday, and "one solution" stances where 
> unless ONE thing happens the doomsday scenario will occur. While I am 
> sure there are others, these represent a good foundation for weeding 
> doomsday rhetoric apart from intellectually-based articulations of 
> valid concerns.
> 
> Your moronic response:
> If you are in Manhattan when an atomic bomb goes off, it's indeed 
> "doomsday" for you and millions of other people.
> 
> Arlo adds:
> Find for me in anything I said ANYTHING that would indicate I feel 
> otherwise. Do you feel that my three points for spotting doomsday 
> rhetoric are valid? If not, can you provide counter-examples of when 
> these devices would legitimately be used? (I wont repeat my examples 
> here, you can go back a few emails if you want to see them).
> 
> To get back to this original point, I had given the example of 
> illegal immigration, and two examples demonstrating what may be the 
> articulation of a valid concern and the use of doomsday rhetoric. You 
> elaborated on this and said, "Adding to the debt may indeed result in 
> the demise of the America as we know it although the timing is unpredictable."
> 
> This is a good example of the use of "doomsday rhetoric". "The demise 
> of America" says nothing but yet panders to fear. I had asked you 
> what you meant specifically, and you said "Excessive national debt 
> can lead to destructive inflation and the rise of a dictatorship, or 
> defensive weakness encouraging invasion."
> 
> You are now proposing that "illegal immigration", through the 
> receiving of social welfare by illegals, will lead to either a 
> dictatorship or a foreign invasion. Would this be the outcome of any 
> economic turmoil, or only the turmoil created by illegals? If we 
> deport all our illegals and build a giant, electrified fence along 
> the entire border, would we still face the concern that any economic 
> repression or depression makes us susceptible to dictatorships and 
> foreign invasions? What steps do you propose to ensure that this does 
> not happen? (Consider that the Great Depression occurred before 
> welfare, what steps would you take, apart from abolishing welfare to 
> illegals, to keep us from facing a potential dictatorship or invasion 
> should the market depress once again?)
> 
> Will we see any substantive reply, or simply more moronic, 
> anti-intellectual talk-radio rhetoric? Another Pee-Wee perhaps?
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/