From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 15:55:19 BST
Platt,
>
>>And maybe you should read some history on how this was accomplished. It was
>>not through charity work and alms for the poor.
>>
>>
>
>Are you suggesting it's immoral for Christians to fight to defend
>themselves and to insure liberty for themselves and their children?
>
>
I'm suggesting that historically social patterns have conflicted, and,
yes, according to Pirsig it is moral for a social pattern protect itself
(except from intellectual and dynamic threats). But you seem to place
"christians" on the moral side exclusively, saying (or at least seeming
to imply) that christians, and christians *only*, have the moral right
to defend themselves. That is, the islamics with whom we clashed during
the crusades were fighting for "their right" to defend themselves and
insure liberty for themselves and their children from papal power and
enslavement.
Its easy to see that you favor a (dis)history that places all good and
morality at the feet of white, judeo-christian (WJC) patterns, and all
evil and brutality and every other system, call them non-white
non-christians (NWNCs), whether it had directly or indirectly clashed
with WJC patterns. NWNCs always represent the gravest threats to all
that is good, and this is evidenced by a zealot-like use of xenophobic
discourse. WJC are distortively portrayed as the Angels of Goodness,
seeking only to free man from the slavery of NWNCs.
One wonders, since you believe "freedom" to be a God bestowed thing, and
not a result of reason, you bother to believe in the MOQ? You seem to
place the utmost consideration for WJC social static patterns as the
Greatest And Most Moral level of existence. And the only "metaphysical"
struggle is to protect WJC social patterns from NWNC social or
intellectual patterns.
>>Checks and balances??? Oooohhhh... you mean dismantling that stupid liberal
>>judiciary, and supporting the attacks on liberal judges.... oh yes, I
>>see... You mean wanting to pass laws to abolish fillibustering, now that
>>they are not the ones who want to do it??? Ohhhh.... right.....
>>
>>
>
>Are you really clueless how liberals bash conservative judges? Does the
>name Bork mean anything to you? And are you so bereft of history that you
>don't know that the filibuster has never been used in the U.S. to block
>judicial nominees until the last Congress? Your assertion that "wanting to
>pass laws to abolish filibustering" is typical of leftist propaganda of
>which I've spoken of many times.
>
>
>
I'm not clueless as to how divisive politics work. I'm just interested
in how this is xenophobically manipulated through "red herring"
arguments and false dichotomies to reify social power. Your absurd use
of "leftist propaganda" is, again, simply more evidence of this. Likely
you believe that we need to do all these things to protect us from
"commie judges" and "marxist threats", yes?
>>I fear anyone who uses terror tactics against unwitting civilians. Whether
>>flying planes into buildings, or dropping napalm on crowded civilian
>>streets. My "fear" is governed by intellectual reason and a belief in
>>people, not governments. And my allegiance is certainly not to "the state",
>>but to the principles it is supposed to be based on.
>>
>>
>
>You fear being killed. Exactly what dictators rely on to gain and maintain
>power. You would not fight for freedom I take it. You'll willingly let
>others die fighting totalitarianism so that you can continue criticize
>your government. Talk about morality!
>
>
>
Yes, talk about it all you want. My allegiance is to the intellectual
priniciples, and not the static social patterns. When "America" acts
immorally, I call it so. When "America" acts morally, I call it so. When
it wages war I believe to be immoral, I would certainly refuse to die to
protect static social patterns. When it wages war I believe to be moral,
I would certainly die to protect intellectual patterns from social power.
In short, my "morality" is not governed exclusively, totally and without
any critical awareness at all to static social patterns of power, like
yours are Platt. If this makes me "immoral" in your book, go ahead and
call me that. I'd rather die knowing I was critical to my government
dumping tons of napalm on foreign citizens "to assist in psychological
victory", than to go to my grave blind to anything and everything that
was not "love of my government".
>>And where was this principle during the 1500 years of church power? You
>>continue to avoid that question. Although I understand why.
>>
>>
>
>I assumed those who read and understood the MOQ were aware of "evolution
>towards betterness." Christianity has evolved too, you know.
>
>
>
So, it took 1700 years of theological evolution to grasp the
"self-evident truths" of liberty. Must not have been very "self-evident"
to them. Especially as the pre-Christians Greeks had it, and the
Iroquios had representative government. Maybe it was merely "more
self-evident" to the Greeks and the Iroquious.
But sure, Christianity evolved. To the point where people went, "hey,
those Iroquious got a pretty good system going for them."
>>Ask the Amish. They find it quite moral. Or do you think the Amish are
>>immoral?
>>
>>
>
>They are immoral to the extent that they smother individuality for the
>sake of the collective.
>
>
>
So you would work against the Amish threat? Good. From now on, when you
trumpet the great threats of "communism" and "marxism", make sure you
add "amishism" to that list. When you repeat your list of brutal
dictators (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc), make sure you include Jacob Amman.
My personal feeling is that the concept of "private property" is one
that undergirds our entire economic system. We couldn't do away with it
without returning to near agrarian life, as the Amish do. But, I do see
the problems when this concept is relegated to extreme. That is, when
radio airwaves are sold off to corporate interests, when copyrights are
extended to absurd lengths favoring wealth-fixations over the nurture of
a public commons, when the ideas of community and community space are
relagated to the xenophobic outreaches of our society to server only
corporate wealth-fixations.
Tell me, Platt (although I can presuppose the answer), do you think we
should sell of the public parks and gamelands?
>Delighted to hear that you reject Marx's central prerequisite for a better
>world. I take it then that you would not want the government to take away
>your Harley to give it to someone more deserving, like a poor person
>needing transportation to a job?
>
>Incidentally, does your Harley have a muffler that meets the same sound
>standards required for my Buick?. If not, why not?
>
>
Nope. But I have already given my neighbor my car several times to use
while his was in the shop, so that he wouldn't have to "rent" (I had to
take the bus). And, low and behold, when my car was totalled last year
(not my fault), he did the same for me. His kids have a key to my place,
in case they are ever locked out, they can come in and be safe. Not pure
Marxism, but a "mi casa su casa" good step.
As for the Harley and its pipes. I bet its somewhat louder than your Buick
>>Why is it (democracy)a "greek" term? Why did Franklin use the Iroquios
>>as the only real world example of such a system????
>>
>>
>
>Please quote Franklin to that effect.
>
>
>
Okay. Here's one I found reprinted on the web (saves me typing time). In
fact, this reprinting does highlight a relevant passage. From Franklin's
letter:
It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of ignorant Savages
[the Iroquois] should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union,
and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted
Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be
impracticable for ten or a Dozen _English_ Colonies, to whom it is more
necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to
want an equal Understanding of their Interests.
(http://iroquoisindians.freeweb-hosting.com/webdoc83.htm)
>>Which is why we have a mutlibillion dollar advertising system in this
>>country, Platt. Because people need to be told what to buy, and how buying
>>things will make them attractive, popular, cool people. Or do you think
>>advertising is not deceptive and manipulative, but merely "informative"?
>>
>>
>
>When those on your side stop using advertising to influence voters, I'll
>agree with you that it's evil.
>
>
>
Why is it only ever "evil" for the other side to do it? Both distortive
"left-wing" and "right-wing" propaganda is wrong. But I'm talking more
about the nornal, everyday product advertising, that relies heavily on
psychological research to manipulate "valuation" of its product.
>>Not stupidity, no. I am friends with many people back home who are Bush
>>supporters, and in every case its out of xenophobic distortions of
>>right-wing propaganda. Fear of muslims, fear of blacks, and fear that my
>>guns will be taken away. You can toss in some other things, like "liberals
>>are commies" (which is xenophobic as well, but more deliberately
>>distortive), but these were the big three among people I know.
>>
>>Hate terrorists. Hate welfare (which is nothing but "blacks" living off
>>other people's money). The liberals will take my guns away.
>>
>>Stupidity? No. Fear? Absolutely.
>>
>>
>
>Are you trying to tell me that liberals don't fear conservative judges and
>the religious right? And that they don't hate Bush? Give me a break!
>
>
>
So you admit that population chose as it did out of fear (of gays,
blacks and islamic terrorists, and losing their guns)?
>>You are actually happy that noboby willingly shares a snowblower.... Why
>>how Christian and utterly materialistic of you. Jesus would be proud, he'd
>>hate if people willingly shared things with one another. In fact, didn't
>>Jesus condemn Paul for suggesting that they share? Saying, "And ye shall
>>not share, for thy father in heaven wants though to acquire material
>>possessions and keep them from thy commie neighbors."
>>
>>
>
>Jesus would hate forcing people to share their wealth at the point of a
>gun, or give up their freedom, which you seem to have no qualms about
>whatsoever.
>
>
No, Jesus would not have used a "gun", but the message remains, and I
notice you avoided the question. Would Jesus support private wealth
acquisition and wealth-fixation? Would he "hate gays" and "liberal
judges" but say nothing to those who drive Lexuses or Mercedes while
people in this country and all over the world are starving? C'mon,
Platt, WWJD?
Arlo
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 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 19:12:29 BST