You have no idea what my response to Mace was about.
There is not a question as to whether the Constitution allowed the military to take over the government at will. That is Mace’s error and now yours.
Here I will repeat my response to you. Perhaps twice will be a charm. Note my use of the word ‘bogus’. I asked you to go back and read. Apparently you did not do that.
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW
Pay attention. I posted it as an opinion in response to Mace’s bogus request for a quote where Egypt’s Constitution actually states that it is ok for the military to overthrow the civilian Govenment.
Then, posted an article that is not an opinion on that question, let alone an excellent one, as it pre-dates both the coup and the Constitution.
While I’ve had my fill of debating you, as I can’t abide the insults and Gish galloping, I figured it was worth noting for the sake of anyone else reading this that the article wasn’t, in fact, an opinion on the question of whether Egypt’s constitution allows the military to take over the government at will. It’s an opinion about the military’s interference in the 2012 presidential election. Perhaps you noticed the line about the military’s actions not being a coup, and leapt to post it without realizing what it was actually talking about. Who can know with you?
I posted this yesterday and it provides context for my subsequent responses to John Mace.
(-NotfooledbyW 02-01-2014 04:59 PM) My point has been that to be a head of state of a duly elected government and not have full and complete authority over the military and then be ousted by the military, makes that military take/over to be more of a constitutional act than a military coup. … It’s still a coup but it is an uncommon version of a coup. <“Cite”
So if H.Action can be bothered with context he could see that my point revolves around SCAF actions they were taken prior to the actual and final Coup d’état last summer.
The opinion I cited applied and I consider it much more valid than the opinions expressed by John Mace on the matter.
Here’s more from my post yesterday at 11:11 pm:
“It was more of a constitutional act than a military coup ‘but still a coup’ because there was no constitutional power of force to maintain the military under the full control of civilian leadership, as in taking orders’ from a democratically elected president. Morsi did not effectively have full and unchallenged constitutional authority over the military as president. It is a constitutional necessity that is normal in most functional democracies. That ‘effective’ weak constitutional position that Morsi experienced for one year is not written in the Constitution and I never argued that it was. It was an expressed reality due in large part because of the inherent problems that follow revolution and the overthrow of long established dictatorships.”
In that context, or any other, it’s erroneous to say the article you linked to was an opinion on whether the Constitution allowed the military to take over the government at will.
But, I know the drill by now: you’re never wrong, thanks to the magic word “context”, even when the additional context you cite has nothing to do with the point at hand, as in this case.
It was not intended to be an opinion on that question. That is why you have committed an error by brushing over context and then hoping to bag a trophy ‘gotcha’ instead joining in while fully understanding the context and then adding something constructive to the thread.
Again, “context” isn’t a magic word that, once uttered, means you can never be wrong. There is nothing in any previous post on this thread that, properly understood, would instruct someone to understand that if NotfooledbyW says an article is an opinion on whether Egypt’s constitution allows the military to topple the government, he doesn’t really mean that it’s an opinion on whether Egypt’s constitution allows the military to topple to the government, he means something else.
I’ve added plenty that was constructive to this thread, as you well know. The guy who started ladling on insults, leaping from topic to topic whenever one of his claims was rebutted, ignored the points of others, refused to admit any errors, blamed everyone else for being unable to grasp the true meaning of his idiosyncratic posts, linking articles then refusing to stand by their content…that wasn’t me, pal.
Why can’t I quote an Egyptian revolutionary and writer who has engaged in the struggle for human rights, democracy and freedom in the Arab world in order to display her opinion from a revolutionaries’ point of view?
I have not lived her struggle and I as an observer of her revolution I’m saying it does not matter what we observers call the end of Morsi’s term as president of Egypt. It matters what the participants themselves wish to call it.
I wonder if this is Human Action’s idea of me being proven wrong about something and accept the verdicts of unreasonable forum members that I’m wrong.
Never said you couldn’t, I just thought it was odd, and asked about it. You gave an indecipherable reply, post #577, in which you complained about a dispute you had with John Mace. Now, for some reason, you’ve circled back to re-address that question.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I have not lived her struggle and I as an observer of her revolution I’m saying it does not matter what we observers call the end of Morsi’s term as president of Egypt. It matters what the participants themselves wish to call it.
[/quote]
Groovy.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I wonder if this is Human Action’s idea of me being proven wrong about something and accept the verdicts of unreasonable forum members that I’m wrong.
[/QUOTE]
When I think you’re wrong about something, I’ve been pretty clear about saying so, and I didn’t in this case. I did think it strange that you’d say Morsi’s removal was a coup, then repeatedly post an article where the author argues that it wasn’t a coup, but then I find a lot of what you post to be strange. To each their own.
Properly understood? What is it that you “properly understand” from the origination of my duspute with John Mace a few weeks ago that enables you to deny the existence of context that I’m telling you is there?
The point is that it isn’t possible to properly understand anything you say, because [list=a][li]it doesn’t usually make any sense, and [*]you turn around and claim that you didn’t say it.[/list][/li]Regards,
Shodan
Enlighten me, then. What context was there, that means that I should have understood that this:
…would be followed by an article that wasn’t, in fact, an opinion on that question? Because the supposed context you then posted sure doesn’t do that. It was about how, in your opinion, Morsi was never really in charge of the military. Nothing to do with the Constitutional question you claimed to be addressing with that article.
Hell, what context could possibly exist that would lead one to understand that “But here’s an excellent opinion on that question”, in fact, means “Here’s an article unrelated to that question”?
ETA: Nice snip, by the way. Aren’t you the guy who hates when people do that?
Here you used these two phrases as one basis for your response to me, “There is nothing” … “that, properly understood, would instruct” … (see full quote)
Which I take to mean that there is nothing in any previous post on this thread that you don’t properly understand with respect to context of my later statement that you are complaining about. If that is incorrect you can clarify that for all including me.
First I must assume that you have read and properly understand all posts pertaining to this particular stream of posts between Mace and I, but then you come back and request that I enlighten you.
So which is it? Do you properly understand everything that’s been written in a dozen or so relevant posts or do you need to be enlightened on it? Do you really want to be enlightened on it so you can properly understand what I wrote in the context of the whole?
So what do you understand or not understand by these two comments:
(-NotfooledbyW 02-01-2014 04:59 PM) My point has been that to be a head of state of a duly elected government and not have full and complete authority over the military and then be ousted by the military, makes that military take/over to be more of a constitutional act than a military coup. … It’s still a coup but it is an uncommon version of a coup. <“Cite”
(-NotfooledbyW 02-21-2014 11:36 AM) "It was more of a constitutional act than a military coup ‘but still a coup’ because there was no constitutional power of force to maintain the military under the full control of civilian leadership, as in taking orders’ from a democratically elected president. Morsi did not effectively have full and unchallenged constitutional authority over the military as president. It is a constitutional necessity that is normal in most functional democracies.
That ‘effective’ weak constitutional position that Morsi experienced for one year is not written in the Constitution and I never argued that it was. It was an expressed reality due in large part because of the inherent problems that follow revolution and the overthrow of long established dictatorships." <“Cite”
So Mace has ‘questioned’ for several weeks where in the Constitution any of this is written. As you can see I do not claim it is written in the Constitution. That is why Mace’s argument is so bogus. So I posted an opinion that demonstrates the constitutional weakness of Morsi’s power that separates Egypt’s first brush with democratic rule following an election to most functional democracies around the world as a continuation in the context of my original and earlier points.
Yeesh. I understand all of that, to the extent it can be understood (calling a coup a “constitutional act”, then admitting that there’s nothing in the constitution that allows a coup, for instance, is batty).
But it has nothing to do with the error I pointed out, which is simple and needs no context. You presented an article as addressing a question, when, in fact, it did not address that question.
I have it on pretty good authority, and can confirm it through personal experience, that admitting an error on this board will not kill you.
Human Action chooses to tell me what I am telling all the factions that make up the electorate Egypt. Human Action has chosen wrong. No faction should surrender their voice in government to any other faction. I am saying that any non-Islamist individual as part of a minority faction will not have to surrender their religious liberty to a majority faction of Islamists in the name of simple majority rule. If one Egyptian wants religious freedom and all the other inalienable rights that come with a system of government that is based upon protecting those rights from majority rule then that one Egyptian should get it.
I have no reason to doubt the following narrative on the events leading to Morsi’s ouster. I wonder if Morsi’s close relationship to radical extremist Islamist Preachers calling for ‘Holy War’ against the Assad Regime in Syria fits with modern democratic ideals that include separation of church and state.
You are wrong but you think that is an error that affects my argument. My God, what pettiness you live for. It is worse than I thought.
And it is not an error on my part anyway. Because anyone who is genuine and serious about having a conversation with someone of opposing views on issues would be able to recognize this very simple key word in this exchange. I have bolded the word asked where Mace used it and a fair and reasonable human mind would see that I was responding to what John Mace had asked. .
Again, more context:
And it should be obvious that I was not citing that ‘opinion’ to support a claim that the constitution ‘says the military can take over the government at will’ because I started my response with… “I have not argued that”
But you must tell me that I meant something else besides what I wrote.
Or is my huge error that I did not write my answer to John Mace’s complaint about the unanswered status of the question he had ‘asked’ me in this way:
I have not argued that the Constitution ‘says the military can take over the government at will’… So I do not have to quote it or respond. But here’s an excellent opinion on ** THE question THAT JOHN MACE ASKED ME that is a bogus QUESTION to begin with. **
Your conclusion must be that you are the ultimate decider of all context… what is valid what is not… so you cannot be wrong when you decide to call out someone even when you don’t understand whatever is said in context.
What is the error you think I have made that you have exposed…
Your error is simple to explain… You rewrote what I said to make your point.
I did not call a coup a “constitutional act”… I nowhere did I state that the Constitution allowed a coup or take over … You removed the context of the weak constitutional condition that Morsi was in… for his entire term.
Constitutional acts were the moves I cited in that opinion piece about the period leading to the coup d’état of Morsi. You toss it all out, because context can only be decided by you.
Here’s what I wrote, "My point has been that to be a head of state of a duly elected government and not have full and complete authority over the military and then be ousted by the military, makes that military take/over to be more of a constitutional act than a military coup.:
Its plain that I wrote the "military take/over was more of a constitutional act than a military coup.
Why the re-write?
Your world has strict limits… It is s a coup … It is not constitutional … Nothing trumps an election - nothing… there is no flexibility on that principle.
No wonder a realistic perspective on events in Egypt appear to be batty to you.