# Is civil war in Egypt averted? 90% yes for new Constitution. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071 "2014-01-17T16:30:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/661 "2014-02-05T15:04:47Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > \*\*mind-set \*\*[mahynd-set] Show IPA noun 1. an attitude, disposition, or mood. 2. > an intention or inclination. Origin: 1925–30 [MINDSET Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mindset) > Do you think being a peasant or being subjected to life in a peasant class and being illiterate is an **intentional** or inclined mindset, \*\*attitude or disposition \*\*that is antithetical or not conducive to being able to refuse to see any value in the processes and political culture of more successful nations? Intentional? I don’t want to get into questions of free will and all, but no, I don’t think it’s particularly intentional. That doesn’t mean it can’t be changed, of course. I think it’d help if there were more majority-Muslim democracies, to provide a ready example that’s culturally closer than Western nations. There are a few, perhaps Egyptians should look to Turkey as a paragon. At a certain point, though, people should be able to copy what works for others. That’s more-or-less the basis of civilization, retaining ideas that work and discarding ideas that don’t. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Do you think it is possible that the problem of illiteracy combined with what is in effect a wholesale dependence for sustenance on what ever governing system arises in a third world culture must be rectified and eradicated to some degree before large dependent third world populations can become as wonderful as we are with a mindset that is conducive to democracy and human rights and freedom of expression and religion. A market economy would help, sure, as they are more conducive to political freedom than command economies. That said, no, nothing has to change for Egypt to have democracy, except for the factions that lose at the polls to refrain from launching coups when they don’t get their way. That’s what’s spoiling democracy in Egypt at the moment, and it’s not the peasants who are responsible for that, or for the crackdowns on human rights, freedom of expression and religion. It’s the military and its allies. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And no this is not an absolute rejection that illiterate peasants can’t become part of a functional democracy. That depends on the educated class’s intent and ‘mindset’. The enlightened -pro-democracy educated class and the type of governance that evolves in nations with a large peasant class must have a means to that democratic ideal … that first must get passed a method where illiterate born ignorance does not have the power of majority rule. And in Egypt’s case it is quote obvious that ignorance born of illiteracy is more of a problem than in many places because it can be coupled with ignorance born of devotion to particular religious ideals and beliefs. Specifically involving a religion that is very much indeed easily misused as a means to opposing the very ideals of democracy and freedom that you are so puritanically demanding of this third world nation. Thanks for finally confessing that you’re not, in fact, pro-democracy. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I don’t like referring to the Egyptians as third word also… They have a large third world population and third world problems … but the educated Egyptians I know are not living the third world mindset of which you speak, and they all agree that what I have defined as a serious problem for advancing freedom and democracy inside their homeland is not going to be resolved just by mirroring and understand how we got to where we are with first world culture and standard of living. All Third World nations have educated people, many of whom are educated in the West. Egypt is not unique in this regard. The people you know are interested in a certain outcome, which the majority of Egyptians don’t want. That is why these folks oppose democracy. There’s nothing admirable about it, any more than when these same arguments were used in Japan, South Africa, or even the early United States. Elitism isn’t compatible with democracy. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The military solution is the only path to democracy as far as they see it. Which is a contradiction in terms, and the acme of foolishness. The path to democracy is democracy. What these people want isn’t democracy, what they want is to have the kind of government _they_ personally desire. And again, you’d oppose this if this same reasoning were deployed where _you_ live. Or do you desire literacy tests, or having to hold a bachelor’s degree, to vote here? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And all three Egyptians I know go home often and have friends and family going through these revolutionary times. > > I know you will dismiss this as anecdotal… however I’m letting you know that I do not hold my opinion and reject yours without looking deeply into this historic event that we are witnessing including on a personal level with those who know more than I could ever know about the reality of what’s going on. That doesn’t make them right. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Bringing up a third world mindset as you did is a generalization that is very insulting to many very good and enlightened people of Egypt. Hey, if the shoe fits. If you don’t want to be described as having “contempt for the rule of law”, don’t depose your lawfully-elected President in a coup. If you don’t want to be described as having “a boundless appetite for conspiracy theory”, don’t rail on about how Obama’s in the Muslim Brotherhood and the U.S. wants Egyptians to fight for jihad. Of course it’s a generalization, it’s a statement about millions of people. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The civilization that was far advanced many years before the Europeans got their shit together in building a democratic republic that we now see in nation’s like Germany. Then they have no excuse now, eh? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The French Revolution hardly came along without much spillage of blood between peasant and ruling and middle elite class. That was 225 years ago, and was only the second Enlightenment revolution ever. There’s no reason modern people can’t look back and learn from the mistakes others have made, instead of repeating them. Since you brought up Pakistan, consider them. They just had [their first transfer of power between two democratically elected civilian governments after completion of a full term](http://www.ifes.org/Content/Publications/Press-Release/2013/IFES-Congratulates-Pakistan-on-Historic-Transfer-of-Power.aspx) in the history of the nation. The progressive center-left Pakistan Peoples Party lost to the center-right Pakistan Muslim League. No coups, no political parties banned, no smug declarations that peasants can’t be allowed to vote. People going to polls, voting their conscience, and accepting the result. **That** is how you build democracy, sir. Egypt has chosen another route, and while I wish them well, I don’t like their chances. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Being at the bottom of those messes of human history is not an intentioanal mindset. at all. Ok. Whether it’s a deliberate choice or not is irrelevant to my point. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/662 "2014-02-05T17:00:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW It is meaningless to say the election does not give the President his powers because it is Constitutionally impossible to gain the power without winning an elections. > > (-H.Action says) … That is exceptionally wrong, and I told you why. You told why but it was based on ignoring the FACT that you left out the FACT that I had identified that I was only talking about elected officials. Your unfounded declaration that I am wrong is absurd based on what has been put in writing and pointed out to you in clear detail. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/663 "2014-02-05T17:11:55Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW. "Is Egypt’s military rule ‘brutal’ now? Its tough on the militant Islamists but ‘brutal’ I don’t know. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Too much so for my tastes, certainly, but less so than Egypt. By what data have you determined that the brutality of bombing people in their homes is in Pakistan is less brutal than what is going on in Egypt? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/664 "2014-02-05T17:16:56Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You told why but it was based on ignoring the FACT that you left out the FACT that I had identified that I was only talking about elected officials. Your unfounded declaration that I am wrong is absurd based on what has been put in writing and pointed out to you in clear detail. You said it was “Constitutionally impossible to gain the power [of the presidency] without winning an election”. This is incorrect. When using the U.S. president as your example, as you did, you can’t say you’re speaking only of “elected officials”, because, as I noted, the President isn’t always elected to that post. You either chose a bad example, or made a mistake in thinking the President is always elected. I would like an answer to this, by the way (slightly modified from the original for clarity): If the phrase “the election was invalidated” applies to situation where a president who was duly elected was then removed in a coup, what phrase would you use for the situation of a president’s election victory being thrown out by a court due to, say, missing ballot boxes, with another election scheduled? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/665 "2014-02-05T17:22:13Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > By what data have you determined that the brutality of bombing people in their homes is in Pakistan is less brutal than what is going on in Egypt? I wasn’t referring to the conflict with the Pakistani Taliban, but rather human rights violations by the government, which seems, to my reading of HRW, to be worse in Egypt than Pakistan right now. Please provide evidence to the contrary if you have it. Are you really suggesting that the Freedom and Justice Party is comparable to the Pakistani Taliban, or what? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/666 "2014-02-05T17:47:49Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Since you brought up Pakistan, consider them. They just had [their first transfer of power between two democratically elected civilian governments after completion of a full term](http://www.ifes.org/Content/Publications/Press-Release/2013/IFES-Congratulates-Pakistan-on-Historic-Transfer-of-Power.aspx) in the history of the nation. The progressive center-left Pakistan Peoples Party lost to the center-right Pakistan Muslim League. No coups, no political parties banned, no smug declarations that peasants can’t be allowed to vote. People going to polls, voting their conscience, and accepting the result. **That** is how you build democracy, sir. Egypt has chosen another route, and while I wish them well, I don’t like their chances. That’s a strange argument that Egypy chose another route. First though, Are you suggesting that I have declared that peasants can’t be allowed to vote. I have not. So clean that up a little would you? And you say no coup’s … Well this time around anyway. You have pretty much shot down your entire argument against the revolutionarues and good people of Egypt by praising Pakistan’s successful election. Apparently your purest version of Democracy has evolved over a period of decades under military rule achieved by coup. Three of them. So how do you propose that Egyptians can’t evolve in a similar way toward democracy? Jesus, the Egyptians have been working on this for three years - the Pakistanis get there after five decades of intermittant military rule with military coup’s and much violence. What is your bias agsinst the people Egypt and why must it be done differently if that is what it took in Pakistan? > **[Military coups in Pakistan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_coups_in_Pakistan)** > > Military coups in Pakistan began in 1958 when military officer Muhammad Ayub Khan overthrew and exiled president Iskandar Ali Mirza. Since its creation in 1947, Pakistan has spent several decades under military rule (1958–1971, 1977–1988, 1999–2008). After their respective terms in office, each of the past five prime ministers of Pakistan has faced convictions or imprisonment. This trend highlights a significant aspect of Pakistan's political landscape: the prevailing rule that the Pakistan I... > [@](#): > > Military coups in Pakistan began in 1958 and there have been three successful attempts. There have also been numerous unsuccessful attempts since 1949. its independence in 1947, Pakistan has spent several decades under military rule (1958 – 1971, 1977 – 1988, 1999 – 2008). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/667 "2014-02-05T18:06:25Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That’s a strange argument that Egypy chose another route. They had a coup, remember? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > First though, Are you suggesting that I have declared that peasants can’t be allowed to vote. I have not. So clean that up a little would you? You didn’t launch a coup or ban a political party either, so obviously I wasn’t attributing those things to you. That said, you did skirt on the edge of saying peasants shouldn’t have the right to vote, here: > [@](#): > > The enlightened -pro-democracy educated class and the type of governance that evolves in nations with a large peasant class must have a means to that democratic ideal … that first must get passed a method where illiterate born ignorance does not have the power of majority rule. I don’t know what method you had in might to keep peasants from having the power of majority rule. Feel free to clarify. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you say no coup’s … Well this time around anyway. You have pretty much shot down your entire argument against the revolutionarues and good people of Egypt by praising Pakistan’s successful election. Right, I praised their election, not their entire history, which is horrid. See, Muslim folks in poor countries are capable of orderly elections and transfers of power, just like people in the West. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Apparently your purest version of Democracy has evolved over a period of decades under military rule achieved by coup. Three of them. So how do you propose that Egyptians can’t evolve in a similar way toward democracy? I never said they _can’t_ evolve into democracy. Eventually, I’m sure they will. Over a long enough timeline, I expect the entire world to have democratic government. I’ve said it’s less likely than by respecting the rule of law and democracy. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Jesus, the Egyptians have been working on this for three years - the Pakistanis get there after five decades of intermittant military rule with military coup’s and much violence. What is your bias agsinst the people Egypt and why must it be done differently if that is what it took in Pakistan? > [Military coups in Pakistan - Wikipedia](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_coups_in_Pakistan) Can you not see the problem with this argument? You’re saying, as evidence that Egypt coup will lead them to democracy, that Pakistan employed multiple coups, and it took them about 50 years from independence until a successful, peaceful, democratic transfer of power occured. Could it not be that the coups slow down progress, instead of speeding it up? That Pakistan is a cautionary tale, not a “best practice” to be copied? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/668 "2014-02-05T18:31:01Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Birds of an error-prone feather stick together. > > Just as H.Actiln did you have responded to a snippet of my full commentary but you got snarky with it. You ‘snipped’ out the part where I was talking about ‘elected’ officials - not officials that get there by other means. And you have not paid attention to my further explanation that it as still Nixon who was elected who selected Ford that provided Ford’s path to the presidency. > > Here is what I wrote that you screwed up by missing a key point in my statement: > > Do you know of any ‘elected’ President that gained the power’s of the Presidency without winning an election first? Let’s flip that around: “Do you know of any ‘not elected’ President that gained the power’s [sic] of the Presidency without winning an election first? You didn’t a few days ago and, maybe for the first time ever on this board, you admitted you were mistaken: > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Nope I forgot Spiro… There’s a real correction… Thanks. Now my point still survives **my mistake**. [my emphasis] > [@](#): > > Do you know of any ‘elected’ President that gained the power’s of the Presidency without winning an election first? It is an interesting question, however, because I’m not quite sure which logical fallacy best describes it. **[Circular reasoning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)**: > [@](#): > > Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the argument is useless because the conclusion is one of the premises. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[3] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.[4] Or The subset of this, **[begging the question](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)**: > [@](#): > > Begging the question means “assuming the conclusion (of an argument)”, a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.[1] Which one would you pick? In either case, it’s just another example of the logical fallacies you commit frequently commit, but it has given me something to think about. I also have to consider whether I’ve just committed the fallacy of a false dilemma, because there may be another fallacy that better describes it. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/669 "2014-02-05T19:15:34Z")
[quote=“dasmoocher, post:668, topic:679071”] In either case, it’s just another example of the logical fallacies you commit frequently commit,… [QUOTE] More Snipping dasmooch. The question you have gone all haywire on has ‘elected’ before ‘President’ because it is highlighting the fact that your original point as an error. This dodge of yours is compounding your error. Your erred when you wrote: “Cite” \>(-dasmoocher 02-04-2014 10:16 PM) Really, which election did Ford win to gain the Presidency? \<“Cite” Because that response was to a statement I made the referred to ‘elected officials’ as distinct from ‘selected officials’. So my statement was correct and Ford did not have to win an elections to validate the correctness of my statement. So you are taking the full context of this line of argument out of the way because you cannot admit you made a mistake… that affects the argument. Forgetting about Agnew is not a mistake that affects the outcome of the argument. Your mistake sets you back to the first round. You need to start over, admit you erred and then try to find an argument that can replace it. But you can’t. So we get your circular argument mumbo jumbo. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/670 "2014-02-05T19:28:52Z")
[quote=“NotfooledbyW, post:669, topic:679071”] > [@dasmoocher](#): > > So we get your circular argument mumbo jumbo. And now you illustrate this [logical fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts): > [@](#): > > **Moving the goalposts** , similar to “shifting sands” and also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[2] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed too. It counts for less.[3] [my bold] I meant President, no…wait, I meant elected President, no…hold on, I actually meant selected President. Yeah, that it! Selected President. I am Winning! Interesting that you consider logical arguments “mumbo jumbo” (psst, not really). ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/671 "2014-02-05T19:45:52Z")
Picky people about use of words should not be so sloppy: > [@](#): > > (-Human Action 02-05-2014 01:06 PM) That said, you did skirt on the edge of saying peasants shouldn’t have the right to vote, here: \*“Cite” \>The enlightened -pro-democracy educated class and the type of governance that evolves in nations with a large peasant class must have a means to that democratic ideal … that first must get pas[t] a method \*\*where illiterate born ignorance \*_does not have the power of majority rule. \<“Cite_” > > I don’t know what method you had in [sp]mind to keep peasants from having the power of majority rule. Feel free to clarify. I didn’t say it as you re-phrased it. I said that a means is needed \*\*where illiterate born ignorance \*\*does not have the power of majority rule. “IGNORANCE” is the noun… not ‘peaasants’. I wouldn’t recommend this method, but if was good enough for our Constitution for ninety years you should allow for something to be done (Not as bad as we were) as the Egyptians evolve their way to Democracy as the Pakistanis have done. Ninety years! And the Egyptians had to do it in one year. You are something. > [@](#): > > MARCH 6, 1857 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision to deny citizenship and constitutional rights to all black people, legally establishing the race as “subordinate, inferior beings – whether slave or freedmen.” > > 1863 JAN. 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln freed slaves in the Confederacy. > > 1865 DEC. 6, 1865 The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery. However, Southern states managed to revive slavery era codes creating unattainable prerequisites for blacks to live, work or participate in society. The following year, the First Civil Rights Act invalidated these “Black Codes,” conferring the “rights of citizenship” on all black people. > > 1868 JULY 9, 1868 The 14th Amendment granted due process and equal protection under the law to African Americans. > > 1870 FEB. 3, 1870 The 15th Amendment granted blacks the right to vote, including former slaves. I’ll put down some thoughts on eliminating \*religious based ignorance \* from possessing majority rule in Egypt when I can be assured that my words are not being revised for some other purpose. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/672 "2014-02-05T19:56:22Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > I meant President, no…wait, I meant elected President, no…hold on, I actually meant selected President. Yeah, that it! Selected President. I am Winning! > > Interesting that you consider logical arguments “mumbo jumbo” (psst, not really). My original statement certainly meant use the the phrase ‘elected officials’ that is a truth you cannot escape or deny - mumbo jumbo is a smokescreen but anyone interested in the truth can blow your smoke away. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/673 "2014-02-05T20:07:15Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Picky people about use of words should not be so sloppy: > > I didn’t say it as you re-phrased it. I said that a means is needed \*\*where illiterate born ignorance \*\*does not have the power of majority rule. “IGNORANCE” is the noun… not ‘peaasants’. You wrote: > [@](#): > > And no this is not an absolute rejection that **illiterate peasants** can’t become part of a functional democracy. That depends on the educated class’s intent and ‘mindset’. The enlightened -pro-democracy educated class and the type of governance that evolves in nations with a large **peasant** class must have a means to that democratic ideal … that first must get passed a method where illiterate born ignorance does not have the power of majority rule. Bolding mine. Wherever could I have gotten the idea that you were linking the illiterate, ignorant class to the peasants? :rolleyes: Are there a lot of peasants in the “educated class”? How about the “enlightened pro-democracy educated class”? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I wouldn’t recommend this method, but if was good enough for our Constitution for ninety years you should allow for something to be done (Not as bad as we were) as the Egyptians evolve their way to Democracy as the Pakistanis have done. > Ninety years! And the Egyptians had to do it in one year. You are something. Um…are you suggesting that American democracy survived because we didn’t let black people vote for a long time? Or what? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I’ll put down some thoughts on eliminating \*religious based ignorance \* from possessing majority rule in Egypt when I can be assured that my words are not being revised for some other purpose. Sure, I love your value judgments about other peoples’ political beliefs, and crave more. Tell me who the undesireables are, and why they must not have political representation. Also: If the phrase “the election was invalidated” applies to situation where a president who was duly elected was then removed in a coup, what phrase would you use for the situation of a president’s election victory being thrown out by a court due to, say, missing ballot boxes, with another election scheduled? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/674 "2014-02-05T20:24:45Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > \ > This dodge of yours is compounding your error. > \ > > Forgetting about Agnew is not a mistake that affects the outcome of the argument. Your mistake sets you back to the first round. You need to start over, admit you erred and then try to find an argument that can replace it. But you can’t. You’re the one dodging questions. I asked you the question below. You need to find a new argument that Morsi’s election is invalid, not valid, or whatever, because the question below illustrates your mental gymnastics. “But you can’t.” > [@dasmoocher](#): > > So, let’s make this a simple yes or no question. > > _ **IF** _, by some fanciful, improbable, very, very remote occurrence, the US military overthrew the Obama administration next month and took power, would Obama’s election be valid? > > Yes? > > or > > No? > > If you say _Yes_, you are once again contradicting yourself because this is Morsi’s situation. If you say _No_, it just further illustrates your unusual sense of reality because you are then saying Obama is not the validly elected President of the US. > > But enough of this sidetrack. I think everyone here sees your arguments for what they are. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/675 "2014-02-05T20:33:06Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > My original statement certainly meant use the the phrase ‘elected officials’ that is a truth you cannot escape or deny - mumbo jumbo is a smokescreen but anyone interested in the truth can blow your smoke away. Is that your original meaning, or your original original meaning, or your original original original meaning? You do realize we are limited to understanding your thoughts as you type and post them, and not how they exist in your mind? Based on the history of the coherence of your posts, I’m not sure I’m the one who indicates that they’ve producing, inhaling, and blowing smoke. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it might explain things like being unable to recall what you write. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/676 "2014-02-05T23:33:52Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > Is that your original meaning, or your original original meaning, or your original original original meaning? I had one statement with only one original meaning. You screwed up and ignored the original meaning. Your take now is the mumbo jumbo I am talking about. You have ceased discussing the facts and the context of what’s been written. You’ve drifted down the path meaninglessness. This works with a few here who think they are the reasonable and smart people. I got news for you. Wrong is not necessarily right just because a few think a majority makes it so. And this is a case when you are wrong and a billion people agreeing with you would not make you right. Try to get off this kick. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/677 "2014-02-06T00:19:27Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I had one statement with only one original meaning. You screwed up and ignored the original meaning. Your take now is the mumbo jumbo I am talking about. You have ceased discussing the facts and the context of what’s been written. You’ve drifted down the path meaninglessness. > > This works with a few here who think they are the reasonable and smart people. I got news for you. Wrong is not necessarily right just because a few think a majority makes it so. And this is a case when you are wrong and a billion people agreeing with you would not make you right. Try to get off this kick. I’ll _infer_ this post means you’ve realized you argued yourself into an illogical position and won’t continue. You can’t even answer a simple yes or no question. This is a case when you are wrong and even a billion people agreeing with that would not make you see it. But I’m done pointing out the flaws in your arguments and statements–they’re so numerous it’s like pointing out prohibited behaviors mentioned in the Bible, and I just noticed [The Square](http://thesquarefilm.com/) popped up in my Netflix New Arrivals list. I’ll probably watch that soon; right now it’s at a 100% on the [Tomatometer](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/771363914/). ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/678 "2014-02-06T02:53:56Z")
How many times can dasmoocher be shown how wrong and illogical his entire train of thought is? > [@](#): > > (-dasmoocher 02-04-2014 09:18 PM ) So, let’s make this a simple yes or no question. > > IF, by some fanciful, improbable, very, very remote occurrence, the US military overthrew the Obama administration next month and took power, would Obama’s election be valid? \<“Cite” Key question - what is taking power? Does the US military suspend/over-rule the US Constitution when it overthrows the Obama Administration? Do they take down the VP, the Speaker of the House? The entire line of succession. How deep do they go? Is Congress the House and Senate suspended? Are SCOTUS justices in on it or are they removed from the bench? You have to think about these things to request me to make a determination for comparison that was originally about the Nixon/Agnew/Ford administration which is based upon the reality of history. But I do know this. Whatever happens in your simplistic imagined 'coup d’état to remove Obama it is nothing at all similar to the resignation of Nixon where his election in 1976 continued to hold the force of power that the people had given him. Really no different then had he died in office. The constitution and the election was not voided. Whatever you are dreaming up about the overthrow of the entire US government during Obama’s presidency by the US military would in fact void Obama’s election _(my vote for Obama too would be voided - no longer valid)_ in the way that I defined it for Morsi. I am assuming that Obama has been rendered powerless in your fantasy. So your conclusion/argument is flawed, wrong and not at all well thought out: > [@](#): > > (-dasmoocher 02-04-2014 09:18 PM ) If you say Yes, you are once again contradicting yourself because this is Morsi’s situation. If you say No, it just further illustrates your unusual sense of reality because you are then saying Obama is not the validly elected President of the US. \<“Cite” I have no unusual sense of reality because I am not saying it the way you are saying it. Your reality is not connected to the context of the argument engaged by a few of us here. The U.S. Constitution was not suspended after the 1972 Nixon election victory. Here’s some context. I am sorry if context annoys you: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > “Cite”\> Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post 17035951) Yes. I’ve explained it over and over again. The ‘mistake’ of electing Morsi became known and extraordinary measures were in [sp]order to correct the mistake. \<“Cite” > > > > (-Human Action 01-21-2014 09:52 PM ) And that \*\*invalidates \*\*the constitution that was voted on through referendum? \<“Cite” 036a > > (-NotfooledbyW 01-21-2014 10:01 PM) I don’t believe you are willing to try to understand the concept of democracy in infancy? You keep trying to compare the situation in Egypt to our democracy at the present moment. That is not realistic. \<“Cite” More context that shows that there are other ‘reasonable’ poster’s here who understand and perhaps sympathize with the potential reality that "democracy in Egypt is more “a long-term goal” rather than one to be accomplished within it’s first three years. See the response to me from levdrakon: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > “Cite” \> Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post 17035444) That is right - More power to the military because the first president after Mubarak showed that the path to real democracy can’t happen if the power falls into the hands of a president that is overly sympathetic to religious fundamentalists and extremists that won’t tolerate much in the way of secular civil rights. > > > > The path from [sp]tyranny to democracy most likely must go through secularist control of the machinery of governing and the Egyptian military is the one part of government that can actually deliver for the moderate and secular minded members of society. > > > > It’s a transition and probably a necessary transition from point a to point b, \<“Cite” > > (-levdrakon 01-21-2014 07:00 PM) This isn’t the first time the secular-minded military has stepped in and held the country together. Egyptians try democracy, screw it up, take to the streets and now they’re back with the military. In Egypt’s particular case, it may not be that bad. The military from what I’ve read, is more entwined in business and profit and peace is in its best interest. > > Not much of a democracy, though. I’ve read democracy in Egypt described as “a long-term goal.” \<“Cite” **levdrakon** does not sound like he/she is anti-democracy to me at all. Who would accuse others of being anti-democracy for believing it might just be a long term goal just like the half century it took for the Pakistani’s to get it better if not right. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/679 "2014-02-06T02:57:27Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > I’ll _infer_ this post means you’ve realized you argued yourself into an illogical position and won’t continue. You can’t even answer a simple yes or no question. > > This is a case when you are wrong and even a billion people agreeing with that would not make you see it. > > But I’m done pointing out the flaws in your arguments and statements–they’re so numerous it’s like pointing out prohibited behaviors mentioned in the Bible, and I just noticed [The Square](http://thesquarefilm.com/) popped up in my Netflix New Arrivals list. I’ll probably watch that soon; right now it’s at a 100% on the [Tomatometer](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/771363914/). You have not successfully pointed any other flaw in my arguments than the deal ab out Spiro Agnew. And as I said… that minor mistake on my part had zero harmful effect upon my argument. It meant nothing to inadvertently refer to the Nixon/Agnew election as the Nixon/Ford Election. That was your only triumph. And it was nothing. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/680 "2014-02-06T04:09:09Z")
Two things: \*\*1). \*\* > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **NotfooledbyW** > Whatever you are dreaming up about the overthrow of the entire US government during Obama’s presidency by the US military would **in fact** void Obama’s election (my vote for Obama too would be voided - no longer valid) in the way that I defined it for Morsi. [my bold] So, if a US President is ousted out of office by the military, his election would,\*\* in fact\*\*, be invalid, void, or whatever. Can you provide a cite for **this fact**? Your description of Morsi’s ouster doesn’t really apply because it’s changed so much, and _it has nothing to do with my hypothetical_. Why are you trying to qualify your answer by bringing Morsi into the hypothetical Obama overthrow? **2).** > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You have not successfully pointed any other flaw in my arguments than the deal ab out Spiro Agnew. And as I said… that minor mistake on my part had zero harmful effect upon my argument. It meant nothing to inadvertently refer to the Nixon/Agnew election as the Nixon/Ford Election. That was your only triumph. And it was nothing. I provided linked definitions of the logical fallacies you are using but the only “flaw” I have pointed is your Nixon/Ford mistake (which, I predict in the near future, you will soon be claiming is a typo)? [Clarke’s Third Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws) stated: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In your world, it appears that: Any sufficiently advanced logical argument is indistinguishable from mumbo jumbo. Now, rules can have exceptions. In your case, your arguments _usually are_ mumbo jumbo. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071.md?page=35)