[MD] Joseph Campbell

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
No pigs could squeal as loudly as Krimel and Arlo in their 
frustration at not being able to mount a cogent argument against my 
conservative views regarding PC, government and individual liberty.

[Arlo]
Argument?

1) You made the assertion that I "claim tolerance and sensitivity", 
can you point out where?

2) You further made the assumption that I "vehemently defend PC", can 
you point out where?

3) In about a dozen posts I've given multiple examples of how 
"conservatives" have manipulated and wielded PC with just as much 
vigor as those "evil leftists". What is your respond to ANY of those? 
(Torture becomes "interrogation techniques", the Dixie Chicks and 
Bill Maher are assalted with a venomous PC war from the right).

4) You claim "individual liberty", and have claimed that "every 
regulation takes something away from individual liberty". But yet in 
those same posts you support laws denying gays the ability to marry 
(regulations) and laws that deny a woman the liberty to go topless 
(regulations). You have yet to answer to these as well.

5) I've claimed (rightly) that being "against PC" is nothing but 
political manure. I've asked for specific examples of where and when 
YOU feel YOU have been the victim of PC. What have YOU not been able 
to say that you wish you could say?

Since all you've replied with is the same inane talk-radio soundbites 
you always do, how can we even have an "argument"? Its just you 
spouting ridiculous soundbites. Your latest post here is a sad and 
great example of just this. Do you see, Marsha? Does Platt's reply 
in-and-of-itself, given the questions asked and not answered, not 
demonstrate shameless rhetoric? Did you see any attempt on his part 
to answer any ONE of the above five points? Or did you just see post 
after post of inane comments about leftists? And now he claims WE 
don't make a "cogent argument"? Ai yi yi...

[Platt]
Nothing further needs to be said about Krimel and Arlo.

[Arlo]
A nice attempt to skirt of the side of the stage, hoping that no one 
notices that he's been totally unable to do anything but squalk invectives.

But this is not new. In previous posts, Platt had derided emergence 
as "oops". To this I had asked him several questions.

1) At some point in the timeline, you've claimed consciousness did 
not exist. Then at a latter point it does exist. What changed in 
between point A and B to account for this?

2) You say that human consciousness evolves over time, what accounts 
for this evolution? If consciousness is not biological or social, 
what is the process by which consciousness becomes greater in 
subsequent generations?

He also made the comment that "Man" is here by purpose. I asked the following.

1) Where did the "plan" or "intent" to make "man" reside? Was it 
subatomic particles getting together and planning  to coordinate to 
make a chemistry professor? Is it some external "force" that has 
manipulated and controlled cosmic events to produce "man"?

2) If the latter, how does this reconcile with the fact that 
(supposing subatomic particles lost the ability) these particles at 
one point could respond to DQ. If their actions were pre-ordained to 
produce "man", then nothing in the cosmos prior to "man" ever 
responded to DQ, the entire cosmos is a mechanical process designed 
and built as a home for "man". So, how then does the ability to 
respond to DQ just suddenly "appear" in man?

I could go on, but I'll hold back for now. You get the idea. Platt 
loves to play rhetorical games of evasion and distortion and then 
pretend to be some victim when he is called out on it. I call it the 
Pee Wee Maneuver, but you can see from this list of ongoing 
unanswered and evaded questions what the issue is here.

So what are the chances do you think ANY question on this list will 
ever be answered? And what do you think the chances are that Platt 
will play, once again, the poor conservative victim to evil leftist oppression?

Yeah. I do to.