From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sun Sep 25 2005 - 15:24:24 BST
[Arlo previously]
Ah, but now you're changing your defintion. Before it was just supporting the
authority of the United States.
[Platt]
Read it again. What I cited was the definition of a patriot.
[Arlo]
Okay. You defined a "patriot" as such: "Patriot" as defined by Merriam Webster:
"one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests."
Those characters fail to meet the definition, especially in regards to elected
"authority." To them, whatever is wrong in the world is America's fault.
Perhaps you can claim that your definition of "traitor" is not simply the
opposite of "patriot". Fine. So, by your definition, Rush Limbaugh is not a
"patriot", as during the Clinton years he failed to "support its authority".
[Arlo previously]
But here you tread into interesting territory. "Leading protests" against
actions you government undertakes, that YOU find IMMORAL, is a being a traitor?
[Platt]
No. That give aid and comfort to the nation's enemies is traitorous. Check
Article 3, Section 3 of our Constitution.
[Arlo]
You said: I don't recall Limbaugh **leading protests** or giving aid and comfort
to the enemy when Clinton sent American troops to Haiti and Kosovo, or when
he bombed Iraq.
So again, I ask, what is the difference between "leading protests" and "speaking
out on a national radio program" with a stance of dissent from White House
policies?
As for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", are you saying that every American
citizen MUST accept the government's declaration of who is an enemy? What if
you, as an individual, disagree? Is it your moral obligation to support the
government in killing, or speak out against what you perceive to be an
immorally labeled "enemy"?
[Arlo perviously]
Well... then prove me wrong. Show me, in your thinking, where dissent
vocalized by your Republicrat compatriots is every seen as "traitorous", or show
me where dissent vocalized by Democrats against Republican actions are ever
seen as "patriotic dissent". Hmmm?
[Platt]
I do not consider aiding and abetting our enemies patriotic. Neither
apparently did our Founding Fathers. Again, I suggest you look up
"Quisling."
[Arlo]
Which completely avoids the challenge. Can you name me any instance where you
felt republican dissent was un-patriotic, or where you feel democratic dissent
was patriotic?
So I looked up Quisling. So that's the European counterpart to "Benedict
Arnold".
[Platt]
The big dichotomy of friend/enemy is one needed for society to survive. As
Pirsig wrote, "An evolutionary morality would at first seem to say yes, a
society has a right to murder people to prevent its own destruction."
(Lila, 13) He then when on to cite the case of the U.S. Civil War.
[Arlo]
Like all analytic knifings, just because you make it, doesn't mean it's the
correct division. However, I don't see Pirsig supporting the idea that
"everything America does is moral", or "every military action undertaken by
American soldiers in history was morally justified". Or that "an individual
must accept the government's proclaimation of who is an enemy, and respond by
killing them."
There are times, sadly, when the cliche "I've seen the enemy, and he is us" must
be dealt with. To think otherwise is to blindly support social patterns over
everything else.
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 : Sun Sep 25 2005 - 16:14:06 BST