From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 15:47:45 BST
> [Arlo previously]
> Correct me. Name a few things that are not "conservative" party platform
> tenants that you argree with.
> [Platt]
> Reality is morality, good is a noun, destructive biological patterns should
> be limited or destroyed with complete moral ruthlessness, the way a doctor
> destroys germs. Shall I go on?
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, these things are pretty much in line with your party platforms, but
> this isn't really what I asked. Name a few things that ARE tenants of
> another political platform, that are not tenants of the conservative party
> platform, that you believe.
Let's back up to see what you "really asked." You said that I believed
that "all REALITY can be captured by the cultural dichotomy." (emphasis
added). I responded,"Since when have I said or implied that 'all REALITY
can be captured by the cultural dichotomy. Let's see your evidence.'" You
then responded by saying "Name a few things that not 'conservative' party
platform tenants that you agree with." as if all REALITY was contained in
a party platform. So I answered as above with things not in a conservative
or any other party platform which I believe about REALITY. All in all a
nice example how communication can become a miscommunication. As for
tenants of other party platforms I agree to that are not in the
conservative platform, I presume there are some in the libertarian
platform although I don't have a copy of it handy.
> [Platt]
> The question was whether a conservative could be a critical thinker, not if
> I was a critical thinker. Why don't you answer the question instead of
> launching a screed against me?
>
> [Arlo]
> No, the question was whether I felt is probable that someone, reasoning on
> their own on a wide variety of issues, would chance upon duplicating
> exactly the "party platfrom" on every issue. I've said that it was unlikely
> (given the great variety of human experience), though possible. I've never
> denied, indeed I've supported, that someone could be a critical thinker and
> arrive at positions supported by the conservative party, or the liberal
> party. Or whatever.
OK. A critical thinker could be a conservative. That's all I wanted to
know. I shall remember that, along with "check your premises" and "Quality-
sight enabled." :-)
> However, even that person who by happenstance duplicated in perfection the
> party platform would have little reason to succomb to the tactics used by
> many to support the Authority of the platform, unless the social
> instantiation of power that is the Party is more important than the issues
> or reasoning at hand. From an inability or unwillingness to examine party
> actions critically, and apply the same moral response to an act regardless
> of which "party" it originated from, I conclude that these people's beliefs
> are provided by the Party, and it is in blind service of the Party that
> they argue from.
I'm not sure I follow all that, but so be it.
> [Arlo previously]
> But combine someone who just happens to endorse every conceivable party
> issue, refuses to levy any critical examination of his party or its people,
> and adopts completely different responses to similar acts based on "whose
> party" they originate from, who believes only "news" from sources faithful
> to the party, and yes, Platt, I'd say that evidences a lack of critical
> discerning.
Not sure I follow that either. You're reading minds and assigning motives
which, at best, is a guessing game.
> [Platt]
> Maybe you think that's me, but by the same token, I could say the same
> about you.
>
> [Arlo]
> How so? When have I indicated that I support every tenant of the "liberal
> party", or that I am unwilling to criticize equivocally immoral acts
> committed by democrats as republicans. Or that I apply a different standard
> to "liberals", providing excuses for the same things I'd condemn in the
> "conservatives"?
You pretty much follow the liberal line of expanding welfare programs
which are the heart and soul of democratic party. Is that not so?
> [Platt]
> But again I ask, if someone agrees with a party platform does that
> automatically qualify her as a non-critical thinker? In other words, are
> only liberals critical thinkers? Or only those who disagree with one or two
> planks in a party platform?
>
> [Arlo]
> What I've said was, my indication of the improbability of duplicating a
> party's platform reasoning issue by issue, combined with unwillingness to
> critically examine one's "party", and the application of polar responses to
> same acts committed by different parties, is all indication to me of a lack
> of critical discerning. Whether this person would be a "liberal" or
> "conservative" is irrelevant. Thus, no, liberal party parrots are no more
> "critical thinkers" than conservative party parrots.
Yes, but above you admitted it's possible (if unlikely) for a critical
thinker to be a conservative, and I presume that extends to include a
communist, a libertarian, a socialist, a fascist, a liberal or whatever.
Furthermore, just because someone disagrees with one or two positions of a
political party doesn't automatically make him a "critical thinker." Or
does it?
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 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 23:03:52 BST