> > [Platt] > > I appreciate the compliment, Ham, but you have the knack of getting to the > > root of today's political problems with a few succinct words, as in your > > insights here. > > > > [Krimel] > > So you are actually stating, unequivocally, that you support Ham's > > blatantly racist rhetoric? > > [Platt] > Typical leftist ploy. You don't like what someone says so you try to > intimidate into silence by a personal attack. > > [Krimel] > I asked you if you support unequivocally support Ham's statements. I > withdraw all suggestion of racism. Do you endorse this statement from Ham: > > "Our nation has allowed itself to be intimidated by an alien culture on the > premise that discrimination is a bad word." > > What alien culture is he talking about?
The alien culture I talk about is Marxism. He may be referring to tribalism. > What forms of discrimination do you > and he support? Between good and evil. > "Children today are taught that Democracy means "social equality" rather > than individual freedom." What does this mean? Should we teach children > social inequality? How is social equality at odds with individual freedom? Social equality as taught means everyone gets an equal slice of the pie. > Where is it mandated that "third-world cultural values as equal to those of > the Free World?" What "third-world cultural values" are you two talking > about? Tribalism. > He says, "welfare programs that will transform entrepreneurial capitalism > into collective socialism." Name a single politician in the history of this > country who has called for the state to take over the means of production in > this country. Hillary, Obama -- take over the oil companies. > Are you saying that "entitlements and welfare programs" do not refer to poor > blacks? Who are they directed towards? People below an arbitrary poverty line. > Please feel free to offer up some intellectual defense of any of this. Of what? > [Platt] > Not tribes, but some of social concepts held by some Indians. Your romantic > notions are typically wacko. "Primitive tribes such as the American Indians > have no record of sweetness and cooperation with other tribes. They ambushed > them, tortured them, dashed their children's brains out on rocks." (Lila, > 24) > > [Krimel] > Pirsig does not glorify Indians but he does not repudiate their tribal and > collectivist culture either: > > "But even though Indians were never given proper credit for their > contribution to the American frontier personality values, it's certain that > these values couldn't have come from anyone else. One often hears 'frontier > values' spoken of as though they came from the rocks, the rivers or the > trees of the frontier, but trees, rocks and rivers do not by themselves > confer social values. They've got trees, rocks and rivers in Europe." > > Pirsig says this: > > "Out West among the Indians it's a standing joke that the chief is the > poorest man in the tribe. Every time somebody needs something he's the one > they go to, and by the Indian code, 'the generosity of the frontier,' he has > to help them. Phaedrus didn't think you'd see much of that along this river. > He could just imagine some strange riverboat man pulling up at Astor's > mansion and saying, 'I just saw a light on and thought I'd stop in and say > "hello".' He wouldn't get past the butler. They'd be horrified at his > impertinence. Yet in the West they'd probably feel obliged to invite him > in." > > Where would you say his sympathies lie; with the collectivist chief or the > individualist Astor? > > Or perhaps you could provide a reasoned Randian analysis of this: > > "The old Indians knew how to handle it. They just got rid of anything > anybody wanted. They didn't own property, they dressed in rags, some of > them. They kept it down, laid low, and let the aristocrats and egalitarians > and sycophants and assassins all look on them as worthless. That way they > got a lot accomplished without all the celebrity grief." If you think Pirsig is extolling the Indian lifestyle and recommends we go back to it, you would think he'd join them. Instead, like the individualist he is, he chose to the spend a good deal of his time in the solitary confines of his boat. No doubt some Indian values were worthy and influenced the evolution of American culture. But, Pirsig put those values in perspective when he wrote: "Indian values are all right for an Indian style of life, but they don't work so well in a complex technological society. Indians themselves have a terrible time when they move from the reservation to the city. Cities function on punctuality and attention to material detail. They depend on the ability to subordinate to authority, whether it is a cop or an office manager or a bus driver. An upbringing that allows the child to grow "naturally" in the Indian fashion does not necessarily guarantee the finest sort of urban adjustment." (Lila, 22) > [Platt] > Again, a personal attack without intellectual substance. But, expected since > you have no rational argument. > > [Krimel] > Please show me that I have misrepresented Ham's views here. Please > elaborate, comment, give a reasoned argument. I have no wish to sling > slander. Glad to hear it. But, precisely what do you wish that I give you a "reasoned argument" about? > Tell me how much you endorse if not "social equality" then equality > under the law. I endorse equality under the law. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
