For the love of god learn how to use the quote function rather than this abortion you think passes for it. If you take a look at levdrakon’s post (and notice how I’ve easily and properly used the quote function here)
S/he seems to be under no illusions that the military coup has done anything to further the goal of democracy in Egypt. Note the bits I’ve bolded. Levdrakon states quite clearly that they are back with the military in charge, and it’s not much of a democracy, unlike you who considers this (non) coup to be a normal part of the furthering of the democratic process. As I said before, the army kicking Morsi out of power may have been a good thing, but don’t try to piss on my leg and tell me its raining.
Can you see how referring to a coup as an “invalidation of an election” is a) incredibly clumsy phrasing, with the “power of force the voters gave with a determination for x years” glossolalia, and b) markedly inferior to using the phrase “removed from office” or “deposed”, since it uses the one phrase (“invalidated election”) to refer to both the situation of a president’s electoral victory being invalidated (e.g., by a court, due to voting irregularities, fraud, etc) and thus his never taking office, and the situation of a president being certified as the winner of the election, ruling for a period of time, and then being forcibly removed from office.
It’d be like referring to a divorce, and annulment, and the death of one’s spouse as an annulment. It might be technically correct if you hammer at the dictionary enough (a divorce decree and a death certificate are “formal declarations”, thus either could be a “formal declaration that annuls a marriage”, right?), but it’s very coarse and thus imprecise, and 99% of the people you talk to are going to think you mean an annulment when you use “annulment” to mean “being widowed” or “divorced”. There’s no possible reason to communicate this way, unless you are determined to use your own version of the language, regardless of common usage, or if you erroneously called a divorce an annulment and decided to never, ever, admit you misspoke.
Whether NfbW realizes it or not, this is what he is saying:
Was Barack Obama’s election valid?
Reality: Yes NfbW: Maybe
Is Barack Obama the validly elected president right now?
Reality: Yes NfbW: We won’t know until 2016
But it doesn’t matter if a billion people think one thing and a single person thinks another.
I suggest he do an experiment. Ask people in real life the above questions. When they say yes, explain to them why the are wrong. Record their reactions. Think about why they react that way.
Somehow, if there was some fantastical future reality where Darth Rove was the puppet master behind the Empire of America, I don’t think NfbW would be saying, Remember the good ole days when Obama was the validly elected President? It’s a shame he wasn’t validly elected now. I kinda liked him.
No. Not at all. Morsi became at the moment of the coup d’état no longer the valid President that the 2012 election granted thise powers.
But if you wish to think its clumsy say so and move on. Whether I said it my way or your way makes no difference to the validity and soundness of my argument. Clumsy is a matter of style not fact. I consider both the Annullment and Coup against Obama arguments to be quite clumsy as well as invalid. I made the argument why the Obama coup does not counter my argument but you and Dasmoocher continue to clumsily chase down meanings of words that I used a dictionary to back my use up. All you use is your opinion.
Well, that explains why you keep using that phrasing.
Of course, a Morsi supporter (or a fan of the English language) would counter that Morsi was the valid President persuant to the 2012 election that he won, and then you’d have to explain that you were using “elect” in the sense of "to determine in favor of (a method, course of action, etc.), (in the sense of “I elected to finance this car, instead of paying cash”), rather than the far more applicable definition of “to choose or select by vote, as for an office”, which is what everyone who talks about an election for president means when they say “elect”. And thus, when you say “the election was invalidated”, you mean the choice of the individual voter to choose Morsi, and not the election, in the sense of a collective, government-run process to select a president, persuant to the constitution. You simply aren’t talking about the same thing as the rest of us.
And, here’s the thing…you’re still mistaken. By using the “to determine in favor of (a method, course of action, etc.”, you’ve settled on “elect” as being a personal determination an individual makes. And you have “invalid” as meaning something close to “not valid; without force or foundation”. But the thing is this: a coup cannot remove the “power of force” or whatever from an individual’s determination, which is purely an internal, mental affair. It can overturn an election, of course, but the people who chose (“elected”) to vote for Morsi didn’t suddenly change their minds about him the moment he left office. Their determination was still very much in force.
Why was my annulment/divorce/widowing = annulment argument invalid? I consider it one of my finer analogies, in fact.
Not so much. See above. You use the dictionary, but you use it by selecting inapplicable definitions and stretching them to their breaking point. In fact, you abuse the dictionary.
It is alarming, the percentage of your posts that contain some variation on the phrase “You are wrong.”
You’re going to prove that my conjecture that Barack Obama is the validly elected president of the US is wrong?
Please do.
Or, are you referring to my characterization of your position in what you quoted?
Your position is that a presidential election is not valid unless the term of office is completed. So how can we know if Obama’s election is valid until his term of office is completed?
So,
Was Barack Obama’s election valid? NfbW: Maybe
True. His term of office is not yet complete.
Is Barack Obama the validly elected president right now? NfbW: We won’t know until 2016
True. This is the year the next election occurs.
Although technically, the inauguration of the next President will be in 2017. So this bring up other questions. Does the election of the next president mean that the election of previous president is valid? Or, is it not valid until the next, not yet validly elected, president actually takes office? Would a military overthrow in December invalidate two elections?
Tell us, when does an election become valid–end of current term or after the next election? On second thought, please don’t.
According to Human Action Pakistan just got Democracy right. But Wikipedia says, "they had three coup d’états by the military establishment … resulting in the enforcement of **martial law **across the country " over the past fifty plus years.
I wrote that the army in Egypt did not negate democracy, they negated an election. And Pakistan has demonstrated the validity of my statement.
Wait a minute: Wikipedia says “the Indus Valley of Pakistan [was] possibly the earliest cradle and model of democracy; one which was based on a “rule by the people” and one that could even predate Greece” But they had a coup d’état three times since 1958 which is also according again to Wikipedia.
Martial Law by Military Coup at least three times in Pakistan did not ‘negate democracy’ since Human Action says it now exists… according to H.A.s Meticulous and immediate standards for Egypt.
Egypt’s has only one coup down, two to go, and no one in their right mind would say that the first coup in Egypt means for all eternity that the Egyptian army negated democracy… that is because as I said … they negated an election. And if Pakistan is an example … they may have saved the chance for democracy by cutting down the Islamists trying to screw democracy up.
Did you see this line in the Wiki Cite: “Some of the Islamisation policies introduced during Zia-ul-Haq’s martial era also controversially*** undermined ***local democratic and secularist movements”
Damn those Islamists undermining democratic and secularist movements.
Exactly! Democracy is great, except for those pesky elections. It’s clear that Egypt has improved democracy by negating the election. After all, democracy is derived from the Greek root "demos’ which means “army”.
I wrote, "Morsi became {at the moment of the coup d’état} no longerthe valid President that the 2012 election granted [him] those powers.
If you are arguing that Morsi has the validity of being President of Egypt after the coup and is still able to use the powers granted to him in the 2012 election… then lets see you put it in writing. ‘’’
Who holds the power of force granted by an election in Egypt right now?
I am not the one muddling language up with flights to buying cars, overthrowing Obama,… and wedding annulments.
Context Mace. Context. Read my whole explanation rather than a snippet… It would help you out tremendously.
Where did *‘Egypt has improved democracy’ *anyway? What are you trying to say?
Are You saying that the army did negate government *'by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. * or did they negate one election … the first one … one that was being taken over by anti-democratic Islamists…
Did the military negate the potential for decent democracy in Pakistan when put the country into marshal law. If we call it marshal law in Egypt to prevent a major civil war would that be ok with you?
You’re right!! I did some more etymological research and it turns out that the the word “demos” also means “not all people, especially people who vote for politicians that NFBW disapproves of”. My bad for not being aware of that alternate meaning of the word.
American president welcoming Al Tikriti top member of the MB whose father is the head of the MB Iraq wing and who head the MB Cordoba Foundation in London that UK PM has called the political wing of the MB who are trying to establish a caliphate in Europe. Egypt, Russia, the Arab Gulf region have all declared the MB a terrorist organisation.
Americans are engaged in arguing over the meaning of words and ignoring what is going on under their very noses.
[QUOTE]
“Cite” > Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post 17083216) Are You saying that the army did negate government *'by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. <“Cite”
[QUOTE]
(-John Mace 02-07-2014 01:47 AM ) Yes. That is exactly what they did.
[/QUOTE[/QUOTE]
]
Millions of democratic minded Egyptians would argue that because of the marshal law imposed that suspended the constitution, and voided the first election because it was taken over by anti-democratic minded Islamists, is preserving democracy not negating it. Had Islamists taken control of the army and police with the control of all aspects of governing it would have been a death sentence for democracy… It would become a path to theocracy.
Democracy was not negated in Pakistan… according to H.Action it was developed over time and has succeeded… including periods of marshal law imposed to keep society from total chaos…and bloodshed.
Do you prefer the Egyptians go the route of total chaos and bloodshed or in the end have a theocracy?
That’s right, they just had their first successful transfer of power. Despite having a 55% literacy rate, well under Egypt’s 72%, neatly demolishing your claim that democracy in Egypt depended on preventing the illiterate from exercising majority rule.
Could it be, just maybe, that political culture is the key factor?
Please quote where I’ve ever said democracy will, due to this coup, never again return to Egypt. That’s a strawman argument.
By your logic, because France had mass executions during their Revolution, then later had democracy, mass executions pave the way for democracy. It’s the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - because a nation that had coups later became a somewhat stable democracy, you’ve inferred that coups lead to democracy. Which is nonsense, unless you can demonstrate some kind of actual link between the two.
Pakistan’s last 50 years remain a cautionary example, of how military coups retard the progress of democracy, they don’t encourage it. How could they? A coup of a democratically-elected government is the subversion of democracy.
Plus, there is no “context” that can explain such a contradictory statement, unless the context is that the statement was a joke. So, I guess we are to conclude that the statement was a joke-- which does sort of explain a lot of what has been posted by him.
Right, “Context!” isn’t a magic word to get out of a point one can’t defend or explain, he just uses it that way.
Analogies are used to promote clarity and mutual understanding, which is rather the opposite of “muddling language up”. Refusing to use to acknowledge analogies is not helping you be understood, or helping you understand others.
(-Human Action 02-07-2014 09:50 AM) By your logic, because France had mass executions during their Revolution, then later had democracy, mass executions pave the way for democracy. <“Cite”
That is not my logic at all. You should not assume that it is. As you can see when I was making a point that our “revolution” and revolutions as what took place in France are BLOODY.
(-NotfooledbyW 02-05-2014 12:51 AM) The French Revolution hardly came along without much spillage of blood between peasant and ruling and middle elite class. <“Cite”
You certainly are struggling with the concept that revolution and path/struggles to get to democracy are not necessarily the same thing. I believe the revolution must be successful prior to sustaining a firm foundation for setting up democracy in many different cultures and societies.
That struggle you have with regard to Egypt is obvious. You seem to think their Arab Spring Revolution was over at the exact moment that Morsi won an election. That would have been nice in a perfect world. But the world is not perfect if you have not noticed. In **Egypt the revolution must continue a bit longer **to defeat the second tyranny they face in that nation. That is the tyranny of Islamist rule. That Islamist tyranny will not fit with what the revolution and the rejection of authoritarian rule was all about. It was not the Islamists that brought the tyranny of Mubarak down… It was those that now oppose them in every fundamental what.
So to keep yourself straight on ‘my logic’… my logic says you should not look at the speck in Egypt’s Eye of Revolution without looking at the slogs in the eyes of our own Revolution… and that of France. Arduously seeking independence from a despot is not usually down without bloodshed.
Perhaps Egypt’s revolution to this point has not been bloody enough to call it a revolution. Again I defer to the Egyptians who put their necks on the line to drive Mubarak out of power. That was a revolt, a revolution. They call it that. The revolution continues… and the struggle to set up a democracy
