Gentlemen,
This is a very intersting discussion, and I have enjoyed it greatly, but
it would help if you both would now change sides and argue the others
position. It will do you both good. There are many truths, and you both
have good ones.
Truth is the map not the road. Where did this come from? I love it.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_focus@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: MF MOQ as a moral guide
> Hi Rick:
>
> > > PLATT:
> > > This is where your position falls off a cliff.
> >
> > rick: How would you know what my position does??? You completely ignore
my
> > argument and simply restate your own. Is this really the best you can
> > do???
>
> PLATT:
> You seem to believe if I don't agree with your argument that I ignore it.
> Not replying to your post--now THAT would be ignoring your argument.
> And why the thinly veiled insult? "Is that really the best you can do???"
> How is that relevant to anything? And does using three question marks
> instead of one somehow add anything to your argument other than
> reveal a belligerent attitude?
>
> > PLATT:
> > The MOQ's canon against
> > > subordinating truth to social values erects a solid moral wall against
> > > tyrants who alter truth for the very reason you cite--because it
"would
> > > be best for society."
> >
> > rick: Yes... the MOQ does say something like this... But that canon is
> > completely irrelevant to this conflict. One need not turn to the MOQ to
> > see how ridiculous the position you've put forth is....
> > Did you know that the figures in the statue will stand over 12 feet
> > tall??? This is so it is easier for soicety to view from great
distances.
> > Clearly this disturbes you as the actual firefighters we're all
> > considerably shorter than this... and subordiniting 'historical
accurcay'
> > to social need in this way is repugnant to the MOQ... right? And did you
> > know that even before the decision was made to change the races of the
men,
> > the decision was made to use MODELS instead of the actual men in the
photo.
> > Surely you'd have been just as peeved if the 3 white firefighters had
been
> > repleaced by 3 white models??? Right??? Because 3 white models is just
as
> > 'historically inaccurate' as 3 multi-racial models... no matter how you
> > slice it, it would have been different guys.
>
> PLATT:
> The size of the figures depicted in the statue is irrelevant to its
> historical accuracy. Take a look at the Lincoln memorial sometime.
> Whose face is depicted? How large is it?
>
> As for the decision to use models, who decided that--the same guys
> who decided to be politically correct instead of truthful to the flag
raising
> event?
>
> RICK:
> > But moreover, you've completely missed the fact that the memorial
> IS,
> > in
> > fact, quite historically accurate. In fact, it MORE accurately portrays
> > the racial composition of the men it was built to commemorate than
> > Franklyn's photo does. Keep in mind, the statue is NOT a commemoration
of
> > the event in the photo, rather, it is a sommemoration of the men who
dies,
> > that was INSPIRED by the photo. Like I said, you're judging the
accuracy
> > against the wrong history.
>
> PLATT:
> More accurately portrays the racial composition? Hardly. The politically
> correct statute portrays a racial composition of one third white, one
> third black and one third Hispanic. But, you reported that the actual
> racial composition of the firefighters who died in the fire was 319 were
> white, 12 were black and 12 were Hispanic.
>
> But, I agree that the statute was to commemorate the MEN who died.
> Race had nothing to do with their bravery nor their deaths. Nobody,
> absolutely nobody, was concerned with petty racial diversity when
> those firemen entered the buildings.
>
> RICK:
> > And if all that doesn't do it for you. Than don't argue with me...
> > argue with Robert Maynard Pirsig... an author who is quite confident
that
> > "Authenticity isn't necessarily Quality." (Letter from R.Pirsig to
> > R.Redford as published in the Guidebook to ZMM, p.236).
>
> PLATT:
> Since I don't have a copy of the Guidebook to ZMM I would like to see
> the context of the quote. The relevance of Pirsig's statement to our
> debate depends on the entire letter and the circumstances that
> prompted it. Pirsig changed his mind on a lot of things after writing
> ZMM.
>
> What surprised me, Rick, was that you didn't comment on whether in
> your opinion Pirsig is right in placing the intellectual level morally
> higher than the social level and perhaps more importantly, whether you
> think there is such a thing as "the truth." These are the overriding
> philosophical issues that our debate about the statue has raised and
> that I had hoped you would pick up on.
>
> Your move,
> Platt
>
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:34 BST