From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 02:24:49 BST
Hi Horse, (Sam this concerns you), and all,
On 12 Aug 2005 at 16:01, Platt Holden wrote:
horse:
> 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.
msh 08-12-05:
The myth of the "bloodbath" after the US defeat in Vietnam is well
documented, even on this list. This is a classic example of the Faux
Philosopher's method of propagating debunked ideas in order to use
this list as a forum for his political dogma.
Please see the following for some history re the US invasion of and
withdrawal from Southeast Asia:
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/15746.html
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/15762.html
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/15784.html
horse:
> 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.
tfp:
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.
msh:
This is empty rhetoric avoiding real issues. The USG not only
supported Saddam after his gassing of the Kurds, the USG supplied him
with the technology to do it. Further, the USG not only allows
brutal dictatorships friendly to US business interests, but has
actively participated in the installation and maintenance of such
dictatorships. In fact, the only dictators the USG doesn't like are
those who refuse to surrender their country's people, resources and
markets to capitalist exploitation.
horse to tfp:
> 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.
tfp:
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.
msh:
This is TFP's warped interpretation of Pirsig's ideas. What's left
out is that the MOQ requires fourth level oversight of social level
activity, something sadly missing from current US and GB policy.
There's nothing in the MOQ that says we must destroy "terrorists" and
"murderers" just because B-D/S-D leaders tell us they are terrorists
and murders. Please see the Lila-24 thread.
horse:
> 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?
tfp:
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.
msh:
On the contrary, the MOQ says that it is perfectly moral to destroy a
society that destroys ideas. That is, freedom of speech means
nothing if it applies only to ideas you agree with. The fire and
crowded theater metaphor is simplistic and archaic, stemming as it
does from a judgement made 86 years ago in order to prosecute people
who wished to persuade others to resist conscription into a
completely unnecessary BUT LEGALLY DECLARED war. Nevertheless,
Holmes' words are worth repeating:
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create clear and
present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and
degree."
In the opinion of most modern legal analysts, no clear and present
danger was demonstrated even in the case of SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES
(1919), from which Holmes' opinion derived. The worst that would
have happened if people had refused conscription into World War I is
that one of the most brutal and least necessary wars in history would
have been considerably less brutal and far shorter.
As for today, if this tired fire-theater metaphor is to be used to
silence the speech of anyone who does not agree with the putative
"war on terrorism," then the war must be legally declared and a clear
and present danger must be demonstrated.
So far, I've seen no such demonstration; but if anyone here can make
a case, I'd love to hear it.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence
to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their
questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my
voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without
having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in
the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for
the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands
trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."
-- Rev. Martin Luther King - 4 April 1967
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 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 02:30:17 BST