From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 - 15:08:15 GMT
Arlo,
P:
> > Yes, at the social level individuals are considered "biological tools" as
> > Pirsig points out in his discussion of "The Giant." Unfortunately, there
> > are those on the left who also consider individuals as tools to be
> > manipulate for a "higher good," namely "the public interest" which they
> > worship as God.
A:
> On one hand you seem to say that it is a function of "society" to use
> individuals as "biological tools". This is an interesting area, and I agree
> with Pirsig (and you) on this.
>
> However, then you suggest only the "left" manipulates this? Are you
> suggesting the "right" does no manipulation? Or that the "right's"
> manipulation is okay in your book?
By "manipulation" I mean using the power of the law to direct behavior. I
good example would be those liberal judges in Mass. who decided to allow
gay marriage compared to referendums on the issue which you, being a
strong supporter of democracy, I'm sure support.
> What I said was that I find the argument hard to believe that the
> terrorists are fighting for the ability to exist under a tyranny. It makes
> no sense to me to say suicide bombers in Iraq are realistically fighting
> for domination over the U.S., any more than it makes sense to say they are
> fighting to have a tyranny re-imposed on the region.
The terrorists in Iraq want to defeat the U.S. so they can reimpose
Saddam's tyranny wherein they will be the rulers and enjoy all the perks
thereto. Surely you would be the first to know that those in power enjoy
privileges the common folk do not. (Think U.N. oil for food program.)
> I am thinking of Quality, again, from the point of view of the individual.
> What level of Quality are the terrorists fighting for? Like I said, it
> can't be biological. Social? This does not make sense if the "social
> quality" they are seeking is to exist under a tyrannical dictator.
Terrorists are fighting for power, a social value. They won't exist
"under" a dictator. They will be the overlords, the dictators.
> Intellectual? We may debate the soundness to their reason, but this is the
> only of Pirsig's levels that makes sense to me to say "it is this level of
> quality that is motivating the terrorists".
If you consider gaining dictatorial power at the point of gun to be an
intellectual value, then you're right. But, I thought intellectual values
were restrictions on social level power.
> I've read "manifestos" by U.S. radicals calling for the elimination of
> blacks and gays, and mexicans, and arabs... This type of hatred has
> historically always existed. I do not know what the solution is, but I do
> see that our actions are creating more and more people who now "want
> islamic conquest".
I'm sure you are not among those "more and more people" because you don't
want a tyranny imposed on people any more than any other freedom loving
person does.
> Also, why is "islamic hegemony" the "precise opposite of
> self-determination", but "U.S. hegemony" is something worth fighting (or
> arguing) for?
There's that moral equivalency again. Would you not fight for your basic
freedoms?
> > I don't see hegemony (domination of others) as an intellectual value, but
> > as a biological one.
>
> Well, fair enough. So let's say "realpolitik" is the driving Intellectual
> value behind hegemony and imperialism. Agree?
Suddenly I see the term "realpolitik" appearing in posts from liberals in
the forum. Is that a new catchword favored by the left? Of course,
"imperialism" is old hat, having been the rallying cry of communists for
many years. So, no. I don't agree.
> For the life of me Platt, I can't understand how people can be soooo
> "patriotic" as to deliberately ignore, or dismiss, horrible things their
> government does. But for others following this thread I'll point out to
> take notice of the way the conservatives have manipulted dialogue. ANY
> criticism of the U.S., even stemming from unedited CIA documents, can be
> simply dismissed as "leftist distortion" without any cognitive difficulty.
> This to me is very scary indeed.
Yes, I know. The U.S. is horrible and and its stupid majority scary. This
is such a tired old liberal rant that it doesn't require comment.
> But let me as this question... do you support the right of the U.S. to
> overthrow democratically elected leaders of foreign nations if we do not
> like their political orientations?
If the democratic election was rigged (like in Ukraine), and if the
"political orientation" of the country in question threatens the U.S.,
then yes.
> And, if we are "pro-freedom", how is it that we backed Pinochet, even
> though the world was quite aware of the atroctities he was committing? If
> it is not "for U.S. business interests", what was it for?
To protect the U.S. from communists gaining a base of operations in South
America.
> Finally, do you believe a brutal dictatorship is higher Quality than a
> democratically elected marxist government?
Nothing is more brutal than a communist government, as proven time and
again in the 20th century.
> Do you believe we can "end terrorism"? Seems to me there will always be
> people who hate, or who feel the mandate to commit terrorists acts. I think
> the best we can do is to minimize the context from which hate originates.
There will always be hate, but not hate resulting in terrorist acts. I don't see
how you can "minimize" the context of radical Islam unless you kill off those
bent on killing you or smother them with democratic values.
> For example, if the U.S. government had responded to Timothy McVeighs
> terrorist attack in Oklahoma, as MSH has recently mentioned in another
> thread, by bombing Montana and Michigan, and rounding up the militias,
> putting them in prison camps, and napalming the streets (as we did in
> Iraq), would this have (1) ended the ability of U.S. militias to recruit
> new members, or (2) created a surge of membership?
Hard to say. My guess would be yes and no. Of course, the scenario you've
dreamt up is absurd on its face. There's a huge distinction between
internal and external threats.
> Surge, right? And that is exactly why this "war on terror" is ludicrous.
> Just like our "war on drugs", what a big success, eh?
Well, I'm just thankful you're not in charge because it seems your
"everybody is equal" stance that would welcome terrorists and drug lords
to a party at your house like "parties in the 50's and 60's full of
liberal intellectuals like himself who actually admired the criminal types
who showed up." (Lila, 24)
> How is prohibiting gay marriage, calling for censoring music and television
> and books, futher resticting "vice", and the other similar agenda items of
> the "right" NOT "we know what's best for you"????
These are democratically determined restrictions, not handed down by a
ruling elite who think they know what's best for you, like there should be
one deodorant for all, not a choice of 25.
> I think the "left" considers it to be "nonintellectual" is because many of
> the issues raised are simply "fear" and xenophobia. And because during the
> campaign, baptist churches were telling their congregations if they vote
> for Kerry they would go to hell. Because of the circulated ads that told
> hunters Kerry would take their guns and ban hunting if he was elected. I
> listen to right-wing radio nearly everyday, Platt, I hear little
> intellectual reasoning. It is mostly "fear fear fear". Fear of the "liberal
> elite" (whatever that is), contempt for academia, fear of gays marrying,
> fear of "communism" (still, after all these years). Right wing radio is
> practically indistinguishable from the hell-evoking tele-evangelists. How
> is that "intellectual"?
To be afraid of loss of freedom is indeed a reaction to intellectual
concerns as it was intellect that demanded (and fought for ) freedom in
the first place.
> To be honest, the ONLY topic where I've heard valid intellectual reasoning
> evidenced the dialogue is on the topic of abortion. "When does life begin?"
> is likely the most profound Intellectual question our politicians are
> haggling over.
What we consider "valid intellectual reasoning" is the underlying question
isn't it? Leftists figure they have a monopoly on it, which is part of
their problem.
> But we are getting way off topic...
I'll say. But I always enjoy conversing with my liberal friends.
Platt
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 13 2004 - 15:07:27 GMT