[Woods previously]
It's called Schizo. You see what happens when your stuck in a dualistic
perspective Arlo.
[Arlo]
Me? Haha. Okay. Let's distill this down, and see if you will actually answer a
question here.
woods:
Stop it Arlo. I've answered every question you've asked.
This is getting silly. I'll read through this, but it's
getting dry and cumbersome. Peace, Arlo. You have
a strain that always likes to beat up on others and argue. The
old Arlo-Platt argumentation yet your always thinking your right.
It's a bit old. You always stir up an argument inside the
same old dualistic paradigm. I'm talking outside this dualistic
paradigm, but you can't see outside of this dualism. Now your
going on about me not answering your questions. I'm giving
an answer you just don't like. It's doesn't fit your comfortable
dualistic world.
Arlo:
I'll take it step-by-step, tell me if it gets complicated.
You are arguing that we should remove the distinction between the "military"
and "civilians" and see everyone as one big group of neighbors.
woods:
My goodness... "We the people..."
Arlo:
I have argued that one group of people (those serving in the military) be
entrusted with these weapons, and another group of people (those not serving in
the military) be denied access and use of these same weapons.
woods:
Ok. One group is more moral in your eyes than the other group, same old,
same old dualistic thinking.
Arlo:
At this point you could accuse of me a double-standard (one group can, one
group can't), and I'd accept this. Yes, I do have a double-standard, and have
no problem with allowing one group (those serving) from having access to
weapons that another group (those not serving) do not.
woods:
"We the people..." 2nd Amendment... You are a socialist, in the sense
the state is more moral than the people within the state. That's your
assumption. No wonder this country is going to sh*t in a hand-basket.
You assume the state is more moral than the people in the state. You
give all your heart and morals to the state, instead of considering the
general population. Forget it... Now I know what's happening, it's is
the Ivory Tower looking down on the servants in the field and your
presuming they are immoral. Feudalism, Arlo, feudalism.
Arlo:
But here you go off on a different tangent. You accuse ME of saying if one
group can then all should be able to. That is YOUR position. YOU seem to be the
one stuck with an inability to differentiate why one group should and another
shouldn't.
woods:
Again, your dualistic thinking and application. I'm talking about
people and morals Arlo. Your automatically placing morals
in the state. I put them in the people. Now we could try to
apply some moq and work on cultivating morals, but your not
willing to do this it seems. Your willing to automatically call
the state moral and the public immoral. Instead I say people
in general can be determined to be moral and have the ability
to be moral. I don't automatically call one group more
moral than another group. I'm talking about people on this earth
and morals Arlo. It's rather simple really.
Arlo:
Fair enough, I say, your position is that if one group (the military) has these
weapons then everyone (civilians and military alike) should also have access.
So I ask, Woods, in your opinion, since the military does have access to
nuclear weapons, should YOU?
woods:
My position all along Arlo is if any one group or person can have
excess to nuclear weapons then all other groups of people can
also have excess to them. Now if you would take this obvious
moral dilemma and understand that the same fear in this divide
conquer tactic of yours in which you don't trust yahoos and yourself
to have a nuclear weapon, but give full trust and morality to the
state is your pledge to the state without question. My position
has been, but you fail to understand, is that any group of people
once they get a weapon that any other group of people couldn't possibly
have (outside of the insane and criminals; how we define insane is up for
debate, but one I'm not prepared for) is that that group of people have
thereby acquire a weapon that is too dangerous for any group
of people including themselves. So, this fear and yahoo factor
of yours could be used to measure what weapons are allowable in
this world. But you advocate the military can have nuclear weapons,
which I do not. I advocate that once the threshold has been
crossed in which the danger of the weapon can be only given
to a certain group and by no means, no matter what regulations or
training any other group undergoes they can not have those
dangerous weapons - then those weapons are too dangerous
and no group morally can have them. But all you've
talked about so far is the assumption that the state is moral
and the state can have nuclear weapons and the civilians of
such a state cannot. You can clearly see the difference
in my moral judgment and yours. You put a higher moral
standard in the gov't, whereas I base morality within people
to start with cultivating such a morality first in their hearts and
mind and then go from there. You put your morality to
start in the state and then go from there. That's socialism and
it is the very bankrupt system that degenerates and enslaves
the very ability of people everywhere from living out morality
true and true from their own hearts and minds not automatically
in the state dependently enslaving and taking over the
moral responsibility of any one person. You put your faith
in state, I put mine in the people.
Arlo:
Now I suppose you could go the other route, and say NO ONE should have nuclear
weapons. But you clearly seem to be articulating the reverse, that citizens
should have equal access to any and all weapons used by their "neighbors" in
the military.
woods:
I've only pointed out the moral hazard in allowing any one group
in having any weapon that creates a debate that other groups
can not have such weapons because the weapons are to dangerous.
I've been talking about people and morality. Your talking about
state is more moral than civilians. I'm talking about people
everywhere. I don't label people and automatically place these
labeled people will more morals than other people based on
the labels and lines of imagination that we've subjected them
to. This is the fallacy of putting trust in not only dualistic applications
and thinking, in which you've done, but also the fallacy in
believing labels will automatically make somebody
more moral than somebody else in which you've also done. Just
cause a five star general is called a five star general doesn't
make him or her more moral than my neighbor. My neighbor may
never fire the nuke, but the general may. Labels... all labels and
your giving these labels more moral power than the people behind
these labels. It's quite odd don't you think.
Arlo:
You want to talk in terms of "people", fine, I ask you this. Should people be
able to own nuclear weapons (this is the position you've been articulating). Or
should only certain people (this is my position). Or should no one. In your
opinion, which?
woods:
Now your understanding. I'm either so simple it's hard for
the complex to see how simple this really is, or maybe I'm
more complicated than what is usually deemed. I've given
my answer to this in every post so far.
[Woods previously]
Oh really Arlo. So my equating the military as people is wrong in your eyes?
[Arlo]
The military is a subset of the population bestowed with certain
responsibilities and privileges (including access to certain weapons) the rest
of the population are denied. Yes, the military are "people" (how idiotic to
try to paint me as saying otherwise), but these people have special
responsibilities and privileges.
woods:
I don't know. I keep writing this is about people and morality. I don't
write this for the fun of it Arlo. Your labels and dualistic thinking
and application is tripping you up.
[Woods previously]
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.
[Arlo]
You really have gone down a strange rabbit hole, haven't you? When your
position relies on such distortive and deceptive rhetoric as this, I fear we
have lost all common ground.
woods:
I've been quite simple and straight forward with you, but your
dualistic and label minded thinking has you fall down
into rabbit holes that your not used to. Such as talking
about people and morals in general.
[Woods previously]
Ah, but people and neighbors non the less, with hearts and minds and morality
at play. Don't you know?
[Arlo]
Yes, they are people and our neighbors. But their service and the great
responsibilities they bear mandate certain privileges for them the rest of us
should rightly be denied.
woods:
Putting your trust and morals in the state and labels, and not in
people in general. Socialism.
[Arlo previously]
If you wish to be one of these "some people", then by all means join the
military and serve and protect.
[Woods previously]
I'd rather keep my free-thinking intact.
[Arlo]
So you're saying the people are not free-thinking?
woods:
In the military, if you didn't know, they follow orders and
procedures that are top-down in their approach and it
is very difficult to obey these orders and to be more
true to your own consciousness, but it could still
be done no doubt.
[Woods previously]
Are you questioning my morality now?
[Arlo]
I'm beginning to question your sanity, yes.
woods:
Yeah, Pirsig was considered insane for not taking the
dualistic and label minded approach, and since you
have opted for this dualistic and label minded approach
and I have not, then it would be a bit insane to you. It's
quite easy for me to try to put myself in another's shoes, but
can you?
[Woods previously]
I'm kind enough to call the military people and neighbors. Are they not? What
are they?
[Arlo]
When did I say that the people who serve in our military are not "people" or
"neighbors"?
woods:
Easy. That's all I'm talking about are people and morals, remember that
sentence?
But you like to label people and use dualistic thinking and compartimentalize
people
with your identity labeling. Now you've come across somebody a bit more wild
than your categorizes and you don't know what to do, do you? I'll help you.
You
could learn from me and ask me questions. You can stop thinking you know
everything and try to gain insight from somebody else's perspective instead of
always coming into this forum and arguing with somebody due to your
left/right political paradigm or civilian/state socialism paradigm. I'm not
within
such paradigms. I've applied my perspective in life to a different set of
patterns
and routines, but you find somebody you can learn from to be
improper maybe? Ivory Tower on your part maybe?
[Arlo had asked]
And since the US Military has nuclear weapons (I assume the root of your
argument is that the "military" are "your neighbors", no?), 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 previously]
What's the fear? Could it be these Abrams tanks and nuclear weapons are scary
Arlo? I hope so. For they are dangerous.
[Arlo]
Can't answer the question it seems. Yes or no, Woods. Since the military
(people and neighbors) have access to nuclear weapons, tanks, missiles and
F16s, should YOU?
woods:
Again, cause I don't fit into your dualistic paradigm it's quite confusing
and wild for you. I answered your questions, but because I don't go
around labeling people and apply dualistic paradigms like you, it's
understandable that you don't get me. But you could learn something
from me, something new maybe, but that's always something that
is difficult for any person from time to time. So instead of labeling
and dualistically demanding I fit into your paradigm maybe you
could learn mine to understand me. This doesn't mean you give up
on yours. It means you learn about something different in the world.
peace bro,
woods
P.S. If this is too much of a stretch for you to consider, then I understand.
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/
