[Woods previously]
"I can't think of a single benefit that would arise from my arming my home with
surface to air missile batteries and a few tomahawk launchers. I trust our
military to protect us from threats of that caliber."
Here's "ONE time" you said it Arlo. Still confused by your own writing?
[Arlo]
Kindly point out to me where in the above it mentions that I'd support allowing
civilians to own nuclear weapons.
woods:
It's called Schizo. You see what happens when your stuck in a dualistic
perspective Arlo. You divide the world into two sides, and only consider
one side of this dualistic perspective. It's quite an intellectual exercise.
I said you support "people" having nuclear weapons. The whole time
you think "people" means citizens. I'm talking about people and morals Arlo.
I have from the very first post. But, I guess, you don't think the gov't and
the
military are "people" or "neighbors". You see what happens when you
apply dualistic paradigms in your life. So, if the military and gov't aren't
"people" or "neighbors", are they beasts in your eyes? What are they? I've
been talking about people and morals. What are you trying to say here Arlo?
Are you trying to learn about morality? People?
[Woods previously]
By saying you "trust our military to protect us... that caliber." I take it to
mean people, in your assertions, can have matching caliber to strike back and
protect.
[Arlo]
Do you? Did I say that or is that your own invention? When did I ever say
civilians should have "matching caliber"? Not once. Indeed, this very sentence
says the exact opposite.
woods:
Oh really Arlo. So my equating the military as people is wrong in your
eyes?
This statement of mine, rightly says the military are people. You see the
fallacy
of dualistic thinking Arlo. It's trapping you.
[Arlo had said]
Thus, in my view, tanks, missiles, flamethrowers, grenades, atomic bombs,
sidewinders, tomahawks, battleships, bazookas, Abrams, etc. would all be
reserved for the military. Is that clear enough for you?
[Woods previously]
Very clear. You are allowing our neighbors to have nuclear and other high
grade weapons. You said right here. In your writing. What aren't you
getting?
[Arlo]
Ohhh.. I see. Clever. You are reducing "the military" to "our neighbors". By
allowing the military use of tomahawks, you (mis)interpret this as allowing our
neighbors the use of tomahawks. And then by this make the assumption that you
should be able to own one as well.
woods:
The whole time I've been saying I'm talking about "people" and "morals", but
you don't think the military are people it would seem. It's not clever. It's
called
how one has tried to apply the moq and not get stuck in repeating dualistic
applications that you keep doing with two-party left/right paradigms and
civilian/gov't
paradigms. I'm talking about people and morality. Look back at each post from
the
beginning. I've repeated this numerous times, but your dualistic thinking
traps
you from noticing this.
Arlo:
These weapons are dangerous, and need to be regulated. But they are necessary
for our protection. And so we've, as a society, set up a volunteer force that
would be given the responsibility of access and use of the weapons when it is
necessary to protect the rest of us. They do not "own" these weapons, and the
regulations make it impossible for any one soldier to joyride in his Abrams
down the streets of Denver. They are tightly controlled and regulated even
within the confines of our military.
woods:
Ah, but people and neighbors non the less, with hearts and minds and morality
at play. Don't you know?
Arlo:
If you feel threatened that our volunteer army has access to these weapons but
you do not, Woods, then please join the army. If you are paranoid about the
military turning against us, then by all means be a moral force within the
military.
woods:
I never once went this direction in my thinking, but you find it easy to
split the world up into these logic fallacies. This doesn't even fit in.
[Woods previously]
So you are allowing some people to have these weapons and other people to not.
Odd. And what laws are people allowed to listen to and others not?
[Arlo]
I am allowing a regulated military access and use of these weapons.
woods:
People to use regulated military weapons.
Arlo:
I am disallowing non-military civilians from access and use of these weapons.
woods:
People to NOT use regulated military weapons.
Arlo:
The "some people" we entrust with these weapons is done so with great
responsibility. If you wish to be one of these "some people", then by all means
join the military and serve and protect.
woods:
I'd rather keep my free-thinking intact. I'll pass. I don't need a military
to dictate my morals. Are you questioning my morality now?
[Woods previously]
What weapons my neighbors can have, I can have. Simple. This is about morals.
[Arlo]
And since the US Military has nuclear weapons (I assume the root of your
argument is that the "military" are "your neighbors", no?),
woods:
I'm kind enough to call the military people and neighbors. Are they not? What
are they?
Arlo:
....you feel you should be able to own one well? Since the US Military has
Abrams tanks, sidewinder
missiles and F16s, you feel you should be able to have them as well?
woods:
What's the fear? Could it be these Abrams tanks and nuclear weapons
are scary Arlo? I hope so. For they are dangerous.
woods
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/
