From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 21:01:19 BST
Hi Horse,
> As we all will I'm sure. But let's hope and work to stay around as long as
> possible. You too Platt. Your political views may drive me and others nuts
> (as I'm sure mine do) but I still value them.
Thanks Horse. Much appreciated because there have been some murmurings
about how I'm a bad influence. I value my political opponents. Challenges
to static patterns are always beneficial, one way or another.
> It (caring) does apply to Iraq. That's why so many want the US (and the UK) out.
> Then there may be a chance that the violence will subside. I can't see it
> happening before that.
I fear the blood spilled from an Allied pull out from Iraq will equal
what happened to Vietnam after we pulled.out, probably worse because most
Iraqis don't have boats.
> There were a lot of us that protested about the
> Iraqi gassings (1988/9 I think) and the lack of sincere condemnation from
> your country. After all you carried on supporting Saddam even after the
> gassings. And supported him during the years he was doing horrendous thing
> to his people.
Yes, we need to atone for our grievous error, just as we should for
allowing any dictatorship to exist in the world. including Cuba, North
Vietnam, China and a number of Middle East and African nations.
> Can you show me a statement by Pirsig which explicitly states that
> germs and people are equivalent as you contend, or that a doctor should
> destroy germs by killing the patient which is what you appear to believe.
> One thing I did notice in the above is that your language has shifted a
> bit. I have no problem with limiting and/or destroying human biological
> (criminal) behaviour, I just prefer not to kill the patient along with it.
> A bit like Pirsig really.
I don't think I've ever said it's Pirsig's view (or mine) that it's OK for
a doctor to destroy germs by killing the patient. I do think it's
Pirsig's view that humans who behave biologically (rape, murder, pillage)
should be limited or destroyed, like a doctor should when confronted with
deadly germs. In other words, it's moral for the police to have orders to
shoot to kill terrorists and suspected murderers who refuse to obey police
orders. Also I think he means it's moral to take preemptive action to
limit or destroy those whose biological behavior threatens society. For
those who believe no society is worth defending in such manner, Pirsig
would disagree, pointing out that some ideas and cultures are morally
superior to others. (Lila, 13 & 24) I, like you and Pirsig, would prefer
not to kill anybody. Sometimes it's necessary and moral according to the
MOQ to do so.
> This is in response to banning a number of Moslem groups, many of whom are
> opposed to violence. I thought you were for freedom of speech Platt. Does
> this only apply where you agree with what others have to say?
Free speech is limited. You are not free to yell fire in a crowded theater
when there is none. Similarly, you cannot incite to destroy a society.
Democratic countries have sedition laws for that reason. There are also
laws against treason. In fact, I recall reading somewhere that in Britain
treason is still a capital crime. Can you are confirm that? Are you in
favor of such laws?
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 : Fri Aug 12 2005 - 21:09:56 BST