From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 12:34:35 BST
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
Don't you admire the high intellectual quality of someone who quotes
himself?
> 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.
The real issue involved had to do with the Cold War and whether the U.S
should allow communism to gain a foothold in the Western hemisphere. Msh
indicates he would be in favor of letting anti-intellectual communist
regimes have their way.
PH (previously)
> 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.
It is the failure of fourth level oversight that Pirsig condemns in Lila
24. In pointing out intellectuals were guilty of "destructive sympathy
toward lawlessness," he was talking about people like msh. As for
identifying terrorists and murders, ask the families of Briton's bombing
victims. Finally, here's what Pirsig had to say about killing those who
threaten society:
"There's no inconsistency here. It's moral for a society to prevent a
criminal from destroying it by killing him if that is necessary. But an
imprisoned criminal is no longer a threat to society and it becomes
arguably immoral to kill him because he is still capable of thought. The
Confederates, who started the Civil War by shelling Fort Sumter in South
Carolina were out of prison and shooting and killing men of the United
States Army. This is a criminal act. Lincoln made it very clear that
although he abominated slavery that was not the cause of the Civil War. He
told the Confederates that they did not take an oath of office to destroy
the Government of America, but he did take an oath to preserve it As long
as they were attempting by force to destroy the elected government of the
United States he had a right to stop them by whatever force was necessary.
When they stopped shooting and began obeying the laws of the United
States the right to kill them expired. At that point the US Government
did stop killing them." (LC, Note 136)
So to assert that the MOQ is always opposed to killing human beings is
less than accurate, to put it kindly.
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 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 12:32:26 BST