From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jan 17 2005 - 15:15:35 GMT
Hi All,
I must say I'm flattered to be the center of so much attention recently,
illustrating I suppose that my conservative political views are not
welcome by some who contribute to this site. This seems rather odd since
those on the opposite side of the political spectrum often speak of their
love, caring, and compassion towards all, not to mention their tolerance
and sensitivity to the thoughts and feelings of others.
But such hypocrisy isn't my main concern. Rather it is the lack of cogent
argument against views that some find wrongheaded. Time and again I've had
to point out the ad hominem nature of many responses to my questioning of
leftist ideas, and lately there have been appeals to such authorities as a
singing group called the Beatles and a comedian named Bill Hicks. To reply
in kind by following this line of argument I could legitimately cite the
musings of Snoop Doggy Dog and Jackie Mason. From there the debate has
nowhere to go but down.
Another frequently used form of argument is to accuse me (and anyone who
suggests the possibility of an intelligence that transcends man) of fear
mongering while simultaneously stating the dire consequences that will
befall us by allowing God-fearing conservatives to exercise political
power.
Another technique is to use a singular occurrence of anecdotal evidence to
prove a point (When I was sick socialized medicine saved my life.) while
ignoring evidence compiled by a broad range of study. (The NHS has a
severe shortage of capacity, directly costing the lives of tens of
thousands of patients a year. Source: The Guardian.)
Finally, there's the implication, sometimes obviously stated, that if your
political view isn’t leftist, you certainly aren't qualified to be
admitted to the intellectual level, a status reserved for properly
educated individuals or for those with sufficiently large hearts to
understand the wisdom of robbing rich Peter to rescue poor Paul from the
consequences of his bad decisions. Being nonjudgmental of others (amoral)
is considered highly moral by leftists (never mind the contradiction) ,
unless of course the person in question is a conservative.
None of this makes a wit of difference when it comes to interpreting
Pirsig's metaphysics. Being an avowed atheist, Pirsig's supports those
deny any role of God in the affairs of man. Being in favor of free
markets, he supports those who believe capitalism on balance is more
conducive to the pursuit of happiness than socialism. Other than that, his
politics is not known in any detail. We do know that he attributes some
social problems to a lack of moral standards, especially among the
intellectual elite who are wed to the SOM paradigm.
In any case, I appreciate the undeserved attention, but hope we can
continue debating issues of interest without getting personal. After all,
it's the ideas, not whose ideas they are, that counts.
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 Jan 17 2005 - 15:58:54 GMT