Jared Diamond responds to Romney's misrepresentation of "Guns, Germs, and Steel"

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by I_Know_Nothing

Have I missed something in the news lately? Could you please fill us in on this development. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I assume it's a reference to the AKP, who took the largest chunk of seats in the Turkish Parliament in last year's elections, although still not quite a majority overall (341 seats or about 46% of the votes). They're "Islamist" the same way that the Republican Party is trying to install a Christian theocracy in the US. Actually the comparison to the Republicans is pretty apt, just replace every Christian reference with a Muslim one and you're fairly close to their platform, love of the free market and all, though the real hardliner "Turkey uber alles" types favor the MHP instead. They're also rather "pro-Western" and firmly committed to the EU. They're no more likely to end elections in Turkey than a Romney win would remove them in the US.

The second largest voting block is the CHP who are staunchly populist and areligious. greenslime has no clue about Turkish politics.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

I assume it's a reference to the AKP, who took the largest chunk of seats in the Turkish Parliament in last year's elections, although still not quite a majority overall (341 seats or about 46% of the votes). They're "Islamist" the same way that the Republican Party is trying to install a Christian theocracy in the US. Actually the comparison to the Republicans is pretty apt, just replace every Christian reference with a Muslim one and you're fairly close to their platform, love of the free market and all, though the real hardliner "Turkey uber alles" types favor the MHP instead. They're also rather "pro-Western" and firmly committed to the EU. They're no more likely to end elections in Turkey than a Romney win would remove them in the US.

The second largest voting block is the CHP who are staunchly populist and areligious. greenslime has no clue about Turkish politics.

Agreed. Moreover, the Kemalists are vastly less supportive of Democracy and far more likely to try and end free elections.

It was also disturbing that Greenslime seemed supportive of a military coup in Turkey which is quite odd for such a staunch supporter of modernity and western values.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by I_Know_Nothing

Have I missed something in the news lately? Could you please fill us in on this development. I have no idea what you are talking about.

The reigning government in Turkey is now Islamist--democratically elected. It is extremely doubtful they will allow any further democratic elections to take place, but I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Agreed. Moreover, the Kemalists are vastly less supportive of Democracy and far more likely to try and end free elections.

It was also disturbing that Greenslime seemed supportive of a military coup in Turkey which is quite odd for such a staunch supporter of modernity and western values.

It's kind of disturbing that you read what I said as being supportive of a military coup in Turkey, when I said no such thing, nor did I suggest it.

Islam and democracy are antithetical. It would be interesting to see a free and fair election in any Islamist-controlled country, and certainly, it could conceivably still happen in Turkey--but it would be astounding to see a secular party put back in power. The "elections" in Turkey from now on are extremely likely to resemble those in Iran.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

The "elections" in Turkey from now on are extremely likely to resemble those in Iran.

Such a comment makes little sense to anyone familiar with either AKP or Iran.

Anyway, I asked you on multiple occasions to list of the 22 Arab countries which ones, other than Sudan and Saudi Arabia are "Islamic Republics"(though Saudi Arabia isn't a republic).

Please, for the fourth time, list them.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Comparing the mix of religion and government in Canada - such as it is, which is pretty limited - to places like Saudi Arabia is just insane.

IW seems to either be speaking in hyperbole, or to truly not understand that in the vast majority of Western democracies, religion has no role in government, whether or not such a role is specifically proscribed by law.

Freedom of religion must, as a matter of necessity, be coupled with freedom from religion. That's why, in the US, we have periodic battles over such ephemera as compelling students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The great contrast between Islam and Christianity in terms of government is that in modern times, only Islam continues to insert itself into the daily lives of its adherents. Christianity used to muscle in on secular authority in the West, but the Enlightenment pretty much ended that. Christianity is now only a belief system, not a belief and governmental system (not that Republicans in the US don't think it should be both).

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Such a comment makes little sense to anyone familiar with either AKP or Iran.

Anyway, I asked you on multiple occasions to list of the 22 Arab countries which ones, other than Sudan and Saudi Arabia are "Islamic Republics"(though Saudi Arabia isn't a republic).

Please, for the fourth time, list them.

No. (Most people would realize that when a request/demand is ignored three times, it's unlikely to be fulfilled upon a fourth such demand.)

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

IW seems to either be speaking in hyperbole, or to truly not understand that in the vast majority of Western democracies, religion has no role in government, whether or not such a role is specifically proscribed by law.

That's not remotely true. Most western democracies do have a mixing of government and religion in ways that would violate the American concept of Seperation of Church and State.

That is true of the UK, Ireland, Israel, Canada, Japan, and the Scandanavian countries.

That doesn't make any of them theocracies.

The same is true of Jordan, Syria, Morocco, Iraq and most of the Islamic world where there is some mixture of government and religion without being theocracies. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the exceptions not the rule.

Now, for the fifth time, please list which of the 22 Arab countries, other that Saudi Arabia and Sudan are, to use your words, "Islamic Republics".

If you're going to make a statement you should be willing to back it up.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

No. (Most people would realize that when a request/demand is ignored three times, it's unlikely to be fulfilled upon a fourth such demand.)

More people would realize that, often, when someone makes a claim in a debate and refuses to provide proof when challenged multiple times, it's because their argument was full of shit and they can't support it and aren't going to retract it instead.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Now, for the fifth time, please list which of the 22 Arab countries, other that Saudi Arabia and Sudan are, to use your words, "Islamic Republics".

If you're going to make a statement you should be willing to back it up.

I would do so at the request of most people.

However, many of the things you've said in this thread and elsewhere suggest that you hold extremely radical views and are willing to selectively consider and fail to consider various facts that, respectively, support and refute your positions. I'm sure you feel the same about me. Debate with you is therefore pointless.

I will reiterate for your benefit that I did say that there was no such thing as an actual Islamic republic; therefore, which of those nations actually calls themsleves that is largely irrlevant (as in, for example, the defunct German Democratic Republic aka East Germany).

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

More people would realize that, often, when someone makes a claim in a debate and refuses to provide proof when challenged multiple times, it's because their argument was full of shit and they can't support it and aren't going to retract it instead.

This "prove it! prove it! prove it!" stuff is pointless. It's just another way of saying, "nyahh, nyahh, I disagree with you." I didn't ask for "PROOOOOOF" for a couple of IW's assertions, even though they were pretty out-there.

Of course, the next step in this internet kiddie tactic is to assert that the person who refuses to provide "PROOOOF" is doing so because his argument is, as you put it, "full of shit." There are other possible reasons why, in fact, and please come back in thirty years when you've figured out what those might be.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

No. (Most people would realize that when a request/demand is ignored three times, it's unlikely to be fulfilled upon a fourth such demand.)

I take it then that you're admitting you were wrong when you implied that most Arab countries were "Islamic Republics"?

Thanks for doing so.

Now, you made another argument that is demonstrably false and would strike anyone familiar with the region cringe.

Greenslime1951
The Israelis have offered full Israeli citizenship in a combined state several times (there are over a million non-Israelis in Israel now), but the Palestinians have consistently rejected their offer, preferring instead to listen to the ravings of a guy who can't even be bothered to shave.

That is bullshit. The Israelis have never offered citizenship to the Palestinians in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. They offerred citizenship to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and to the Druze on the Golan Heights after annexing the territory.

What made you make such a claim?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

This "prove it! prove it! prove it!" stuff is pointless.

Boy oh boy, are you ever posting on the wrong website.
And no, asking you to prove your case isn't just saying someone disagrees with you, if you can't meet their challenge, it's pointing out that you aint got nuthin'.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Of course, the next step in this internet kiddie tactic is to assert that the person who refuses to provide "PROOOOF" is doing so because his argument is, as you put it, "full of shit." There are other possible reasons why, in fact, and please come back in thirty years when you've figured out what those might be.

Actually, the next step is for you to man-up and post your proof. If you have it. Which you don't. Which is why you're ducking. Man-up.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

However, many of the things you've said in this thread and elsewhere suggest that you hold extremely radical views and are willing to selectively consider and fail to consider various facts that, respectively, support and refute your positions. I'm sure you feel the same about me. Debate with you is therefore pointless.

Failing to respond to a straightforward question with a factual answer because the person asking the question is a "radical" is the surest way to have everyone on the board question your credibility.

You have made sweeping statements in this thread that would tend to indicate that your grasp on these subjects is tenuous at best. Not being willing to entertain even basic questions on what you've said further undercuts any credibility others might give to your flimsy opinions.

If you don't want to debate a certain poster, then don't respond at all. Selectively responding makes your positions look even weaker.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

However, many of the things you've said in this thread and elsewhere suggest that you hold extremely radical views.

What "extremely radical views" do you think I hold?

You made some extremely strong statements, suggesting that most Arab countries were Islamic Republics when the actual number is more like two(Saudi Arabia and Sudan) out of roughly 22(there is a certain debate over many "Arab" countries there are)though I suppose one might stretch the definition a little to include a Gulf Emirate or two as well.

I merely asked you to list the Arab countries you feel are "Islamic Republics" other than the already mentioned Sudan and Saudi Arabia.

The fact that you refuse a fairly simple request is far more likely to make people think that you don't have an answer but that you do but are merely refusing to say.

On this board, when we're asked to provide a cite or explain an assertion we made, we're expected to do so.

With that in mind you said I made some extreme assertions you disagreed with but you chose not to ask me to back them up.

Ok, then list the Arab countries other that Saudi Arabia and the Sudan and afterwards I'll be happy to answer any questions you have about assertions I made.

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Holy shit is this veering off topic.

The problem with Romney's remarks has nothing to do with the values of Palestinian culture. It's that he cited Jared Diamond as making arguments Jared Diamond never made. Romney misrepresented a famous academic in an attempt to sound informed. He is either ignorant or a liar.

That would put him on a par with Jared 'Blank Slate' Diamond.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Please, for the fourth time, list them.

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

No. (Most people would realize that when a request/demand is ignored three times, it's unlikely to be fulfilled upon a fourth such demand.)

No one is compelled to respond to another poster's questions. greenslime is correct that if you have asked a question three times with no answer, the person questioned is likely not going to do so at subsequent requests.

Persistent badgering for an answer is harrassment and it will stop.

On the other hand, it is also true that a poster who makes an assertion that he or she refuses to support may be simply ducking the fact that the idea has no support and other posters are free to point out that fact.

= = =

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

More people would realize that, often, when someone makes a claim in a debate and refuses to provide proof when challenged multiple times, it's because their argument was full of shit and they can't support it and aren't going to retract it instead.

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

This "prove it! prove it! prove it!" stuff is pointless. It's just another way of saying, "nyahh, nyahh, I disagree with you." I didn't ask for "PROOOOOOF" for a couple of IW's assertions, even though they were pretty out-there.

Of course, the next step in this internet kiddie tactic is to assert that the person who refuses to provide "PROOOOF" is doing so because his argument is, as you put it, "full of shit." There are other possible reasons why, in fact, and please come back in thirty years when you've figured out what those might be.

Both of you will stop this sort of childish exchange.

Stick to actually discussing the topic on its own merits and omit discussions regarding the debating tactics of others.

= = =

Originally Posted by Chen019

That would put him on a par with Jared 'Blank Slate' Diamond.

And now you are going to mischaracterize Diamond as well. (And if this was an attempt to open a wedge for another of your assertions that those dark people are dumb, then open a new thread to do so, rather than further hijacking this one.)


[ /Moderating ]

[sqweels]

The irony here is that while we're sticking up for that idea that Israel's culture is responsible for their relative success, as Diamond noted the culture of the United States, which does not value education, is responsible for our relative decline.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

No one is compelled to respond to another poster's questions. greenslime is correct that if you have asked a question three times with no answer, the person questioned is likely not going to do so at subsequent requests.

Persistent badgering for an answer is harrassment and it will stop.

Apologies.

I did not realize that asking someone to provide evidence for their assertions was considered harassment.

I wasn't trying to harass him, merely asking him to provide proof for his assertions which strikes me as SOP on the dope.

Had he declared off the bat that he'd refuse to answer questions from me for whatever reason, such as the fact that I'm Muslim(I don't know if that's a reason but he accused me of holding radical views and has made several bigoted, ignorant statement about both Islam and Muslims so it's certainly possible) I wouldn't have asked him to explain his assertions.

Anyway, as others have noted it's rather obvious he made some ignorant statements about a subject knows little and didn't react well to being challenged on his claims, particularly when the challenge was made by a Muslim.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Islam and democracy are antithetical. It would be interesting to see a free and fair election in any Islamist-controlled country, and certainly, it could conceivably still happen in Turkey--but it would be astounding to see a secular party put back in power. The "elections" in Turkey from now on are extremely likely to resemble those in Iran.

Help me understand why you insist on this point-of-view when at least two people, who display far better knowledge of Turkey and its politics than you, have clearly demonstrated that your concerns are baseless?

Maybe I can help a little: The AKP first dominated Turkish politics in the general election of 2002. Since then there were general elections in 2007 and 2011. There were local elections in 2004 and 2009. Referendums on electoral processes and their constitution were held in 2007 and 2010. So the AKP has dominated Turkish politics for 10 years. In that time 6 major votes have occurred. If you look in Google News for these votes you will not find a single news article discussing election rigging in Turkey that is anything like Iran. If anything, the dominance of the AKP and the military receding into the background marks the end of a democratic system that in anyway reflects Iran's system of government.

Turkey's only 2 problems in government are 1) Kurdish representation and the ongoing war with the PKK; 2) corruption. Corruption is a far more serious problem. It's a serious problem affecting democratic governments throughout the world, independent of ethnicity and religion.

So on the one hand, you have a system of government that is nothing like Iran and much more like Western governments, yet you fear them being some kind of theocracy. If it's because of your predictions about the success of a secular party (e.g. CHP); the only thing keeping the major secular party out of controlling the government is their ineptitude.

This leaves the choice to you: 1) Develop a world view like the one that Romney is criticized for portraying - unidimensional, simplistic, and inaccurate, or 2) develop a world view based on understanding a complex variety of factual information that you can use to make reliable predictions.

It's up to you of course, but I'm now the 3rd person who's posted to this thread who says your fears are baseless and you know nothing of use about politics in Turkey.

[Bryan Ekers]

Diamond just wants to do is call a spade a spade, and if Romney can win hearts by lying, then it's the electorate who should be clubbed.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

I did not realize that asking someone to provide evidence for their assertions was considered harassment.

Don't be disingenuous. No one has claimed that asking a question is harrassment. In fact, no one has claimed that simply repeating a question once or twice is harrassment. It becomes harrassment when the question is asked repeatedly, along with references to how often it has been asked.

[ /Moderating ]

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Islam and democracy are antithetical.

Oh, hey. July two twelve. Who woulda thunk it ?

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Inbred Mm domesticus

Help me understand why you insist on this point-of-view when at least two people, who display far better knowledge of Turkey and its politics than you, have clearly demonstrated that your concerns are baseless?

I have simply observed the actions of Islamic theocracies when they seize power, by revolution, coup, or democratic means. I have not seen any such theocracy, anywhere in the world, hold a fair election where a secular opposition has a fighting chance to win, nor have I seen any such Islamic government voluntarily step down in favor of a pluralistic/secular one.

I certainly do hope I'm wrong about Turkey, and that it proves to be unique in not oppressing and crushing secular opposition to the theocracy. But until we see that happening, I doubt my concerns are "baseless."

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Anyway, as others have noted it's rather obvious he made some ignorant statements about a subject knows little and didn't react well to being challenged on his claims, particularly when the challenge was made by a Muslim.

I don't care if someone who "challenges" me is a Muslim or a Martian. If he does so in a decent fashion, I will respond to him; otherwise, not.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Don't be disingenuous. No one has claimed that asking a question is harrassment. In fact, no one has claimed that simply repeating a question once or twice is harrassment. It becomes harrassment when the question is asked repeatedly, along with references to how often it has been asked.

[ /Moderating ]

Fair enough.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I have simply observed the actions of Islamic theocracies when they seize power, by revolution, coup, or democratic means.

Ok, this is a rather silly comment.

For starters, Turkey under the AKP is not a theocracy and doesn't remotely resemble one.

Second, what did you mean by an "Islamic theocracy" seizing power by "democratic means" or "coup"?

I've never heard of an Islamic theocracy seizing power by either democratic means or coup.

I'll even give a quick rundown of the Islamic theocracies in the world to show that.

Saudi Arabia- I don't see how you could say the Saudi family seized power through any of the three means you said. They steadily gained power in the 19th and early 20th Century and with the backing of the western powers who loved their oil combined their kingdoms into The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(so named for due to the royal family.

Iran- Ok, they seized power due to a revolution. I do feel compelled to note that while I'm probably the last person on the Dope who will ever be fans of the Mullahs, their government grants far more freedom to their populace than did most of the "secular" governments in the region, such as Egypt, Syria and Saddam's Iraq.

One of the mistakes westerners make is to foolishly assume that people would naturally see secular governments as somehow being freer, more modern, and more tolerant than "secular" governments when those from the Middle East who take a look at Assad's Syria, Hussein's Iraq, or Mubarak's Egypt and then take a look at Iran, which has elections for the Presidency, which has been won by people who the Ayatollahs disapproved of, think Iran's a better choice. In fact, the whole reason for the Green Revolution was because Iranians were used to electing their President, saw that as an essential right, and saw the right stripped away when the government clearly lied about the results.

Finally,

Sudan- Now yes, General Bashir took power in a coup(a bloodless one but still a coup) and he made the country into a theocracy, but he didn't make it a theocracy until years later so I'm not sure how you could call that an example of a theocracy taking power via coup.

And yes, off the top of my head, those really are all the Islamic theocracies I can think of. I know some people would argue that Pakistan should be considered a theocracy because it's official title is "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" and it has Islam as the official position, but I'm a bit hesitant to put it in the same category as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The same with Afghanistan now that the Taliban has fallen, though I'm not a fan of Kharzai or his government.

I suppose one could also throw in a gulf emirate or two, but yes, I know this may be shocking to many, but out of the the 150+ Muslim countries in the world, you can probably count on one hand the number that are "theocracies". And no, that doesn't mean that there isn't some mixture of government and religion within many, the same as is true in all but a handful of western countries, but hardly enough to get them labeled theocracies.

I know people are terrified of the rise of "Islamic theocracies" in the Middle East, but in reality they're few and far between.

BTW, you earlier claimed that the Israeli government had repeatedly offered citizenship to the Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as members of a combined state.

Greenslime1951
The Israelis have offered full Israeli citizenship in a combined state several times (there are over a million non-Israelis in Israel now), but the Palestinians have consistently rejected their offer, preferring instead to listen to the ravings of a guy who can't even be bothered to shave.

The Israelis have never once offered this, though they have offered citizenship to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Since you won't provide any cite for your claim I assume we can infer that you have conceded that your claim was wrong.

If not, it should be no problem for you to provide an instance of the Israelis doing this and you have ample motivation to do so because doing so would certainly make me look a bit foolish.

Most reasonable people would agree that you not providing evidence for your claim is ample evidence that your claim was wrong.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I certainly do hope I'm wrong about Turkey, and that it proves to be unique in not oppressing and crushing secular opposition to the theocracy. But until we see that happening, I doubt my concerns are "baseless."

It hasn't happened in 3 elections in over 10 years but I’m sure if you email the AKP they’ll get right onto implementing your brain fevered imaginings.

Or we can just call bullshit on your concerns and lump them into an apparent tendency to spout baseless assertions and then shriek Trope! Meme! when asked to back them up.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Grey

It hasn't happened in 3 elections in over 10 years but I’m sure if you email the AKP they’ll get right onto implementing your brain fevered imaginings.

Or we can just call bullshit on your concerns and lump them into an apparent tendency to spout baseless assertions and then shriek Trope! Meme! when asked to back them up.

Thank you for expressing your disagreement with me in such a polite and felicitous manner, especially given the fact that your opinion is so much more valid than mine. You serve as a shining example for other internet message board posters.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Since you won't provide any cite for your claim I assume we can infer that you have conceded that your claim was wrong.

Nope, IW, I don't CITE CITE CITE on demand. Neither do you.

Have you twigged to the fact that the reason I don't bother to respond to your constant demands for this, that, and the other is precisely because you incessantly, tiresomely make those demands?

If you think that someone asserting a position and not "providing a cite" for it is conceding that said position is incorrect, well, then, I am glad that you are acknowledging that just about every single position you've taken is wrong, since I detect an appalling lack of citations in your posts to back up your assertions.

Give it a rest, why don't you--it's evident your positions are seen through the lens of your particular politics. Nothing wrong with Israel/US-hating (though it's a bit cliched); why not acknowledge that that's where you're coming from?

Most of Israel's critics drastically distort the recent history of the region in order to make Israel look like the bad guy, when all they are doing is trying to continue to exist--a right the Palestinians refuse to grant them.

[FinnAgain]

No, Ibn is correct and your claims about Israel betray utter ignorance on the topic. Israel has, and almost certainly will never offer the Palestinians "full Israeli citizenship in a combined state". They've made limited offers, like to the residents of East Jerusalem and such, but the idea that the Israelis themselves support a one state "solution" and offered the Palestinians citizenship is wonky.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Nope, IW, I don't CITE CITE CITE on demand. Neither do you.

Actually, yes, when people ask me to provide evidence to support my claims I do. Please don't accuse me of things I don't do.

Have you twigged to the fact that the reason I don't bother to respond to your constant demands for this, that, and the other is precisely because you incessantly, tiresomely make those demands?

Constant demands?

Have we had a disagreement before? If so I honestly don't remember. I think I asked you about that twice and it was quite reasonable for me to ask you that.

You made an odd claim which seemed to display a dramatic lack of knowledge of the the Israel-Palestinain situation.

You claimed that Israeli has repeatedly offered "full Israeli citizenship" to the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip "in a combined state" in post #22.

Anyone with knowledge of the region knows that such a claim is complete and utter bullshit. Yes, the Israelis have offered citizenship to the Druze in the Golan Heights and to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem, but the Israelis have never and almost certainly will never offer citizenship the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as part of a one state solution.

The fact that you refuse to provide evidence for your claim after being asked about it and told by two different people that your claim was bullshit is a pretty strong indicator that you were wrong and that your knowledge and understanding of the region leaves much to be desired.

Give it a rest, why don't you--it's evident your positions are seen through the lens of your particular politics. Nothing wrong with Israel/US-hating (though it's a bit cliched); why not acknowledge that that's where you're coming from?

You think I hate Israel and the US? I think several people are going to need smelling salts after reading that claim.

Most of Israel's critics drastically distort the recent history of the region in order to make Israel look like the bad guy, when all they are doing is trying to continue to exist--a right the Palestinians refuse to grant them.

Considering how you yourself have very dramatically distorted the history of the region this post shows remarkable chutzpah. Moreover, the Palestinians are hardly in position to grant or refuse to grant any rights to the Israelis.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Thank you for expressing your disagreement with me in such a polite and felicitous manner, especially given the fact that your opinion is so much more valid than mine. You serve as a shining example for other internet message board posters.

I doubt it - my bullshit tolerance drops by the day. You however have yet to demonstrate any competency in debating let alone any ability to tell the difference between your opinions and reality.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I have simply observed the actions of Islamic theocracies when they seize power

Taking what you've said as a hypothesis, there are two obvious weaknesses to it:
1) Turkey is not an Islamic theocracy. In fact, even with the AKP in power, its government is clearly secular. That has not changed in any significant fashion since 2002.
2) The AKP did not 'seize' power. They earned the right to govern by appeallng to the desires of the masses in a democratic country. They continue this behavior to the present day. That's all there is to it minus the details of how they appeal to the masses.

Besides the flaws in the hypothesis itself, there is the evidence. First, evidence supportive of the hypothesis that Turkey has not become an Islamic theocracy despite the electoral success of the AKP: 6 major elections. In those elections the major parties, AKP, CHP, MHP, and BDP have won seats consistent with the demographics of the people who vote for them. AKP gets the moderate to strongly conservative pro-business, pro-religious vote. CHP gets the die-hard liberal/Kemalist vote. MHP gets crazy nationalists and BDP gets Kurds. In other words, the parties get votes tallied from people who would favor them and whose attitudes toward religion in government vary widely. Also, the AKP success has varied as other political movements gain and lose strength. The AKP was earning votes from the Kurdish minority for a time and the AKP has lost some seats in parliament to the increasingly popular MHP. Real Islamic theocracies would not allow any party to run that did not buy the orthodoxy of the theocratic state. In real Islamic theocracies the approved party always wins, and wins big.

Second, evidence against a seizure of power by Erdogan and the AKP comes from the vocal attempts by Erdogan to criminalize adultery. He met with vocal opposition and eventually backed down from his position. It has not returned as an issue since 2004. What kind of Islamic theocracy with all of the arms of government seized by members of the theocratic regime would allow opposition to religious laws?

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I certainly do hope I'm wrong about Turkey, and that it proves to be unique in not oppressing and crushing secular opposition to the theocracy. But until we see that happening, I doubt my concerns are "baseless."

The AKP is not crushing anyone, as demonstrated by the failure of the adultery law. Their dominance is due to their appeal, particularly Erdogan's. He's a fantastic orator and politician. The AKP will wain after Erdogan ends his tenure as prime minister.

I guess your concerns are not baseless. As long as we are all human there is a possibility that any government can become a theocracy. So there's that.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

On the other hand, it is also true that a poster who makes an assertion that he or she refuses to support may be simply ducking the fact that the idea has no support and other posters are free to point out that fact.

= = =

Stick to actually discussing the topic on its own merits and omit discussions regarding the debating tactics of others.

[ /Moderating ]

Holy contradictory instructions, Batman.

No, seriously. How are we to continue to point out that greenslime has not provided any citations and thus is likely ducking out of debate, yet not discuss his debating style? The former is the latter.

[tomndebb]

No, it is not.

Pointing out his persistent errors and citing the facts that run counter to his claims is different than standing around chanting "your logic sucks."

And, as I noted in the linked post, the problem is not in mentioning that another poster employs poor (or non-existent) logic, it is in harping on that fact for post after post.

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

So, someone can just make an assertion without cites, and if they can fend off the calls for cites for a few posts they will just get away with it? We won't be able to call them out?

[MrDibble]

There's a whole BBQPit for calling them out - start a thread there and link to it here.

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

All they have to do is ignore the pit thread and poof! no cites necessary again. Back to square one.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by GSV Consolation of Dreams

All they have to do is ignore the pit thread and poof! no cites necessary again. Back to square one.

The requirement that everyone (or, everyone that you disagree with) must provide citations for everything they say exists only in your imagination.

I can't help but notice that you didn't provide a citation for your assertion that the BBQ pit threads are ignored by those who are the subject of them. Nothing is true unless it's cited, after all. Not even an opinion.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

The requirement that everyone (or, everyone that you disagree with) must provide citations for everything they say exists only in your imagination.

Had you not made repeated errors on this thread and repeatedly revealed some fairly dramatic ignorance of the Middle East and the people who live there, such arguments would be more effective.

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

The requirement that everyone (or, everyone that you disagree with) must provide citations for everything they say exists only in your imagination.

I can't help but notice that you didn't provide a citation for your assertion that the BBQ pit threads are ignored by those who are the subject of them. Nothing is true unless it's cited, after all. Not even an opinion.

I never said it was a requirement for EVERYTHING. You are the one imagining things here. Read my posts again... this time for comprehension.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by GSV Consolation of Dreams

So, someone can just make an assertion without cites, and if they can fend off the calls for cites for a few posts they will just get away with it? We won't be able to call them out?

There are multiple threads on this general topic in ATMB.

No one "gets away" with stonewalling on the matter of supporting references.
The easiest thing to do is to simply gratuitously deny any gratuitous assertion.
One may also provide information, (sources help, of course), that demonstrates that a claim is wrong.

For example, greenslime1951 made the claim that Islam is antithetical to democracy. To support his claim, he later said that he had not seen any theocracies move on to become democracies--without addressing the various Muslim-majority countries that have representative governments. Several posters have provided facts that argue against greenslime1951's original claim about Islam and democracy. He has failed to provide any evidence that his claim was based on anything other than his personal belief. As long as he insists on repeating a claim without evidence, one need only point to the contradicting evidence and ignore him. One does not need to make a big deal about his posting style; simply pointing to facts is sufficient.

[ /Moderating ]

[BigT]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

No, it is not.

Pointing out his persistent errors and citing the facts that run counter to his claims is different than standing around chanting "your logic sucks."

And, as I noted in the linked post, the problem is not in mentioning that another poster employs poor (or non-existent) logic, it is in harping on that fact for post after post.

I still do not see the distinction you are making. Telling someone their logic sucks is attacking them as a person, not discussing their debating style.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by BigT

Telling someone their logic sucks is attacking them as a person, not discussing their debating style.

I realize that this is a favorite theme of yours, based on your repeated assertions in ATMB, but I reject your claim, here, on two counts:

First, I explicitly rejected as inappropriate the notion of "standing around chanting 'your logic sucks.'" so appearing to attribute that idea to me seems more than a bit odd.

Second, I reject the notion that you seem to advance that pointing out errors in logic is the same action as "standing around chanting 'your logic sucks.'"

It is not an attack on a person to point out where they have employed a fallacy or where they have constructed a flawed syllogism. Mentioning that a poster repeatedly uses flawed logic is still not an attack on the person provided that the comment is not delivered in a specifically insulting way:

Your logic throughout this discussion has been flawed: not insulting
You could not arrive at a correct conclusion if Aristotle, Occam, Whitehead, and Gödel tried to lead you to it: insulting

If one persistently harps on the claim that a poster is illogical, that would be considered harrassment, but mentioning the idea in a post or two, particularly in response to the actual flawed logic, is just not a personal attack.