From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 16:29:27 GMT
Arlo/Dan,
P:
> > Well, I wouldn't look to Europe for moral guidance given its recent
> > history (20th century).
A:
> Ohhh... but look to America for its shining moral guidance. Uh huh. "Blind
> patriotism" is the best you can offer in response to Dan's question?
Another Arlononsequitur. Did I say I would look to America for moral
guidance? No. I personally look to the MOQ, but am still looking for
guidance from you and others as to what moral foundation should guide the
nation until the MOQ becomes widely accepted. "Secular humanism" doesn't
cut it because, among other things, it cuts out the "faith" option which
most still believe to be the foundation. Also, it's based on "human
rights," which Pirsig rightly dubbed "an amorphous soup of sentiments."
> > Nice smokescreen, but you haven't answered my question. Should all drugs
> > be legalized? If not, why not?
>
> Reductio ad absoluto, eh? Reduce the discussion to nonsensical absolutes.
> We've moved past this, Platt, both Dan and I have cleared made our
> positions that "legalization" is both a continuum with various potential
> levels of restriction, and is something that needs to be addressed
> Intellectually for each specific "drug" or substance.
Nonsensical or not, you've answered the question which is all I wanted.
However, your drug by drug "intellectual" approach is subject to
"intellectual" debate based on conflicting evidence and experience.
> > Drugs are in the poorer neighborhoods because it's a way to make money
> > illegally. I'm for legalizing drugs to put an end to that criminal
> > behavior. As for drug "prevalence," it's not just in the slums by a long
> > shot.
>
> You are half way there, Platt. They make money on drugs in the poorer
> neighborhoods for the same reason alcohol addiction and tobacco addictions
> are significantly higher... because in the hopeless of the context, drugs
> provide a temporary release.
I question your premise.
> I know you feel that anyone living in a ghetto can just get a job and move
> out, but I'm willing to be you've never really spent time around one, or
> talking with the people who live there (I have, near Cabrini Green in
> Chicago, and I've worked tutoring inner city school kids in reading and
> math). I've met seven year olds who told me they knew friends who were
> shot, and that they did not expect to see their tenth birthday. When you
> can appreciate the hopelessness THAT brings, you can begin to understand
> why so many turn to the escape of drugs.
A nice sob story. But, I'm not buying it as the primary reason for drug
use.
> Pirsig criticized the intellectuals of the sixties for siding blindly with
> biological level patterns over social level patterns, which itself was a
> blindspot created by SOM. I see nothing in Dan's MOQ-based inquiry that
> indicates anything like this at all.
We see differently.
> > I consider rock a primitive throwback to jungle music. Take away the
> > beat, the amplifiers, the strobe lights and the pot and what's left?
>
> Take away the beat??? That's like me saying "take away the melody from
> classical music and what's left? Nothing, therefore it has no quality.
My point was that melody was a evolutionary step up from tom-toms. You can
get your kicks from sonic sounds, blinding beams and giddying grass if you
that's what you need to have a good time. For me, a quiet walk on the does
just as well.
Best,
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 : Fri Dec 17 2004 - 16:50:47 GMT