Is civil war in Egypt averted? 90% yes for new Constitution.

Great Debates
661

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.

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.

Thanks for finally confessing that you’re not, in fact, pro-democracy.

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.

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?

That doesn’t make them right.

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.

Then they have no excuse now, eh?

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 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.

Ok. Whether it’s a deliberate choice or not is irrelevant to my point.

662

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.

663

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?

664

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?

665

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?

666

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?

667

They had a coup, remember?

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:

I don’t know what method you had in might to keep peasants from having the power of majority rule. Feel free to clarify.

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.

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.

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?

668

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:

[my emphasis]

It is an interesting question, however, because I’m not quite sure which logical fallacy best describes it.

Circular reasoning:

Or

The subset of this, begging the question:

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.

669

[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.

670

[quote=“NotfooledbyW, post:669, topic:679071”]

And now you illustrate this logical fallacy:

[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).

671

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’.
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.

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.

672

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.

673

You wrote:

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”?

Um…are you suggesting that American democracy survived because we didn’t let black people vote for a long time? Or what?

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?

674

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.”

675

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.

676

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.

677

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 popped up in my Netflix New Arrivals list. I’ll probably watch that soon; right now it’s at a 100% on the Tomatometer.

678

How many times can dasmoocher be shown how wrong and illogical his entire train of thought is?

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:

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:

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:

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.

679

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.

680

Two things:

**1). **

[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).

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 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.