From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Feb 21 2004 - 14:41:06 GMT
DMB:
You choose to be hateful and cite Pirsig, the most gentle and open-minded
person one can imagine, as your authority to be so. Wonders never cease.
> Platt, Steve and all bible thumpin' hicks:
>
> Platt said:
> To label Christians as "idiots" because they doubt the Darwin story of
> evolution appears to me to demonize a large segment of the population. I'm
> surprised by your insensitivity. I'm sure you wouldn't like to have your
> concepts called "idiotic." ...that doesn't give you the right to verbally
> abuse others who hold different beliefs. Where is the hallowed
> "sensitivity" we hear so much about that supposedly occupies the moral high
> ground? ...Hardly an expression of tolerance and inclusiveness.
>
> dmb says:
> Sensitivity? Tolerance and inclusiveness? The high moral ground? Oh, did I
> say "childish and idiotic"? Sorry, what I should have said was hopelessly
> stupid, evil, ignorant, uneducated, ultra-right-wing, fanatical, vicious
> bigoted hillbillies. I should have said all that, but someone beat me to
> it....
>
> "That was entirely within one code - the social code. Phaedrus thought that
> code was good enough as far as it went, but it really didn't go anywhere.
> It didn't know its origins and it didn't know its own destinations, and not
> knowing them it had to be exactly what it was: hopelessly static,
> hopelessly stupid, a form of evil in itself. Evil. ..If he'd called it that
> 150 years ago he might have gotten himself into some real trouble. ..But
> today its hardly a risk. Its more a cheap shot.Everybody thinks those
> Victorian moral codes are stupid and evil, or old-fashioned at least,
> except maybe for a few religious fundamentalists and ultra-right-wingers
> and ignorant uneducated people like platt." LILA end of ch 13
Silly and mean-spirited and, of course, a lie..
> "It was this issue of intellect vs society that made the Scopes trial of
> 1925 such a journalistic sensation. In that trial a Tennessee
> schoolteacher, John Scopes, was chaged with illegally teaching Darwinian
> evoluion. ...But in 1925 his lawyer, Clarence Darrow was just taking easy
> shot at a toothless tiger. Only religious fanatics and ignorant Tennessee
> hillbillies opposed the teaching of evolution. ...Church bigots, pillars of
> society who for centuries had viciously attacked and defamed intellectuals
> who disagreed with them, were now getting some of it back." LILA ch 22
>
> dmb continues:
> My point here is NOT that its sometimes appropriate to use harsh language,
> although that's true enough. My point is that this is no mere name calling.
> There is a reason Pirsig views the beliefs of religious fanatics as stupid
> and evil. He'trying to say something substantial and so was I. So, please
> Platt, rather than amuse us with phony PC indignation why not address the
> actual issues? Why not explain why its stupid and evil? Or why you think
> its smart and good? Why strike a silly pose when you can take the dabate
> seriously?
You want serious? Try this:
"There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality and the
Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a quarrel between the
Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological" theories which insist that
life has some purpose. What the Metaphysics of Quality has done is unite
these opposed doctrines within a larger metaphysical structure that
accommodates both of them without contradiction." (Lila, Chp. 11)
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 Feb 21 2004 - 14:52:28 GMT