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

Great Debates
961

No that is not true. I wrote clearly that I have not argued that the Constitution ‘says the military can take over the government at will’… So I was not citing an opinion to support Mace’s bogus question. But I would cite what if read in context would shed some light on my original statement that generated the bogus question in the first place. That is what the opinion addressed in my view.

And several hours back you wrote:

(-Human Action 02-22-2014 10:05 AM) I didn’t say you were citing it to support a claim of anything. <“Cite”

I surely didn’t cite it to support what I had just made clear. You know, that I was not arguing the premise of the question that made no sense.

Allowing context going back to my original comment would clear it up for you, but you don’t appear to want to be clear.

(-NotfooledbyW 02-20-2014 09:48 PM) 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 that question.
Sorry I didnt finish with that bogus question that John Mace asked,

So if you feel the need to nitpick somebody why not nitpick Mace on why he asked a bogus question.?

962

You are doing the opposite of “shedding light”. Just saying. So I was totally off about your communication problems, eh? You don’t understand what’s being said to you, they don’t understand you but it’s not a communication problem? If you aren’t actually ESL I’ll eat my hat.

963

Please just read what I write, and don’t insert things you imagine. I never said you cited the article to “support” John Mace’s question, whatever that would even mean (how do you support a question? A claim, sure, a fact, sure, an opinion, even…but a question?). The content of the post in question is quite clear:

That could not be clearer. The question, the one asked by John Mace and repeated by you, is whether Egypt’s Constitution allows the military to take over the government at will. While making it clear that you don’t believe that it does, you then provide what you purport to be an “excellent opinion” on that question. The article you go on to cite is not an opinion on that question, and as I’ve explained, representing it as such is highly misleading.

Again, didn’t say you were arguing the premise of that question, and I don’t particularly care about it. You’ve given your explanation of what you meant “constitutional act”… I found it to be fairly incomprehensible, but it’s clear to all and sundry that you didn’t, repeat, did not, mean that the 2012 Constitution of Egypt explicitly empowered the military to depose the President.

And for the second time, adding that you thought the question was bogus has nothing to do with what I’m saying. You’re arguing passionately here, while still not grasping what I’m objecting to. It’s the “here’s an excellent opinion on that question” portion, and the subsequent article. That is all. Nothing to do with disclaiming that you don’t think the military is authorized by the Constitution to remove the President.

It’s not a nitpick, as I explained in my previous post, your use of the article was very misleading.

964

To make it shorter:

followed by an article/opinion quote that does not relate to that question.

Get it now?

965

Nope. Shorter is not in the context of the entire exchange between Mace and I. The critical point in context is that Mace was asking a bogus question. It was bogus because he was asking me to backup with something written in the Constitution that I did not argue or claim was written there. I had no obligation to provide a written cite. But I posted an opinion that shed some light on the unwritten maneuverings ‘acts’. by the military during Morsi’s first year to back up my actual statement that generated Mace’s bogus question. My intent was to show Mace that my original question has some validity. And I think it does.

So the full quote should be posted:

(-NotfooledbyW 02-20-2014 09:48 PM) 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 that question. <“Cite”

And ignoring Mace’s bogus question that led me to post an opinion that supported my original point is the denial of context.

When I used the word ‘question’ that is what I had in mind. I definitely do not consider that to be an error on my part.

(-NotfooledbyW 02-20-2014 09:48 PM) 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 that question.

966

But that article was not " an excellent opinion on that question." So you misspoke or something and that’s all that me and Human are trying to point out to you. We are not arguing with you or trying to poke holes in any argument. We are pointing out a clear error in your text. Don’t try to put in context or tell us how Mace was doing something or other. Just accept that the quote you posted did not have to do with the subject.

967

So you are simply pointing out a clear error in my text?

(-NotfooledbyW 02-20-2014 09:48 PM) 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 that question. <“Cite”

Mace’s bogus question led me to post an opinion that supported my original February 1 point. So when I used the word ‘question’ that is what I had in mind. I definitely do not consider that to be an error on my part.
Had I done this:

I would agree that would be an error. But I didn’t respond in that way.
As I said, what I had in mind when posting that opinion was supporting my Feb 1 post in response to Mace’s bogus question that arose from that original text.

So you can take “question” to apply to what you want it to apply, and I have told you what it meant to me. I wrote it. My point is that nothing has been done that affects my arguments and points. So if you believe that is true, I will gladly modify my Feb 1 comment to read:
(-NotfooledbyW 02-20-2014 09:48 PM) 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 my original text that caused John Mace to ask such a bogus question in the first place. <“Cite”
If that will suffice … consider it done. But if you must identify my ‘too abbreviated’ original text as an error on a discussion forum as if it really means anything at all, then there is no way I can talk you out of it. I can only ask why?

968

Ok, two things:

  1. When you quote John Mace asking you a question, then restate his question, then say that a given article is an excellent opinion on that question, 100 out of 100 people are going to understand you to mean that you intend the article to be an opinion on that question.

  2. This still doesn’t make any sense. Your Feb. 1 point was:

Again, the article pre-dates Morsi’s election. How, then, can it be evidence that Morsi didn’t have complete authority over the military after his election?

There’s no difference between the two, that distinguishes one as presenting the article as an opinion on the Constitutionality question, and the other not.

And no, you would not have agreed that you were in error.

Nothing can be done that affects your arguments, because you don’t understand the arguments of others, argue in good faith, respond to others’ points, or concede points made by others (you just gallop on when that happens).

As noted above, that still doesn’t make sense.

I already told you why: as presented, you were framing the article as referring to the 2013 coup, and saying that it was not a coup, and was legal. The article said no such thing.

969

(-Human Action 02-22-2014 10:05 AM) See, debate with you is entirely pointless. You can’t convey your ideas in a way that makes sense to other people, and you can’t read and understand other people’s ideas, and this little flap is a perfect example. That, even more than the insults, the Gish Gallop, the walls of text, the poor coding, the confrontational and angry attitude, is why nothing comes of debate with you. Pointing out errors still has value, **so I’ll do that, but that’s all. ** <“Cite”
When you entered the string of posts between Mace and myself starting on February 1st what were you attempting to debate once you engaged in the discussion? The presumed error you have pointed out does not change or discredit my argument with him. My argument by necessity of John Mace’s incessant repeated asking of his bogus questioning by the time you joined it, was that I did not claim that Egypt’s Constitution (big “C” ) contains language that okays the military to take over at will.

You did not ask Mace to cite where I had written such a claim. You didn’t enter that debate/dispute at all.
So what ideas have I not been able to convey **in any debate with you ** or with anyone else?
I tried to convey this idea to you and you responded with a snarky reply:

(-NotfooledbyW 02-21-2014 11:36 AM) 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”
What failure of conveying my idea is contained or lacking in that?

Here’s an idea/question relative to the dispute that I had with Mace over the bogus question that he kept asking me:

Was Morsi elected under the same exact Constitution (big “C” that he experienced what has been called a coup d’état? And were constitutional acts (small “c”) underway during the entire period from Mubarak’s downfall to the the present moment?

Was Mace’s question to me specific as to which Constitution (constitutional acts) my response must be limited to? For example, was Mace specific that he wanted a response where it was written in the Constitution in effect when Morsi was elected or in effect when Morsi was deposed?

The opinion, that you refer to as an error, pertained to the constitutional climate and realities that were in effect when Morsi was elected.

After Morsi was elected there is much opinion that this is what happened pertaining to constitutional activities and acts under his grab for power. The military according to this was happy with the new Constitution that Morsi rammed through. That is a significant point that applies to the ‘idea’ I have been trying to ‘convey’.

**Egypt: Morsi Regime Rams Through New Egyptian Constitution James Phillips December 26, 2012 at 9:45 pm **

Some Excerpts:

So I must ask you if Mace’s questioning was specific to which Constitution I needed to cite in order to satisfy his bogus question to verify something I had never written existed.
(-John Mace 02-01-2014 05:08 PM) Can you quote the part of the constitution that allow the military to take over the civilian branch of the government? <“Cite”
He does not say a word about the limiting my answer to the 2012 Constitution that Morsi rammed through does it?
My original point is about the constitutional weakness of the Morsi presidency compared to the power of the military under all constitutions that were and are in effect the entire revolutionary period from 2010 through the present. Do you contest my point of reference or is it ok or don’t you understand it?
And this brings up another thought or question that I will look into as to whether an election to high office such as Morsi’s occurring under one Constitution that controlled the election, could be challenged as not legitimate if a new controversial Constitution is passed after Morsi was elected.

And by legitimate I do not mean ‘legally’ alone. I also mean such a thing as ‘the spirit of the law’ being fully retained and valued.

970

Still talking about me? I’m flattered!

971

(-John Mace 02-01-2014 08:28 PM) Still waiting for you to cite the part of the constitution that (-says the military gets to take over. <“Cite”
(-John Mace 02-02-2014 05:51 PM) Oh, can you please answer the question about how the military coup was more like a “constitutional act”? Please cite the part of the constitution to which you are referring. <“Cite”
(-John Mace 02-02-2014 09:32 PM) And we’re still waiting for your explanation about how the coup was more like a “constitutional act”. Or are you now saying you made a mistake by posting that? <“Cite”
Nope. No specific reference to the (big “C”) 2012 Constitution… and my point is regarding (small “c”) constitutional acts which occurred during the revolutionary period starting in 2010.

Here is the "error-minding’ entrance of Human Action:
(-Human Action 02-21-2014 10:48 AM) You wrote:* Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW 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 that question. <“Cite” * 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. <“Cite”
Human Action’s big error find is based upon … “as it **pre-dates **both the coup and the Constitution”… (BIG “C”)

Note, Human Action has converted Mace’s (small “c”) constitution and constitutional acts in his QUESTION to (Big “C”) Constitution so he could ‘date it’.
I specifically pointed out that I did not argue that it was written in any (big “C”) Constitution when I posted the opinion that Human Actions finds to be an error.
Here’s the question that Mace posted that I was responding to:
Originally Posted by John Mace (Post 17123030) I asked NFBW before, and he never answered, to quote the part of the constitution that says the military can take over the government at will. If HH wants to carry NFBW’s water on this issue, fine. So far, I have not seen any proof that this was constitutional. Have you? <“Cite”
All small "c"s references to constitution which are not dated or tied to any specific Constitution or specifically dated constitutional document.
The opinion I cited does relate to the argument and to the constitution that was in effect when Morsi was elected. It contains this paragraph which is an excellent point that is related to the questions that John Mace repeatedly and repeatedly asked:
{{“Nevertheless, the issue here is not the individual decisions themselves, it is the combined damage that the entire body of rulings has wrought on the nation’s political process. Occurring at a surprising speed, these have **successfully wrenched power from emerging democratic institutions **and placed it in the hands of the generals.”}}

It references wrenching power from ‘emerging democratic institutions’ which applies to forward into the future in my view.

That power was placed into the hands of the generals in and during both constitutions that were in effect during this entire period being discussed. Those are constitutional acts in my view.

Human Action has erred by inserting ‘pre-dates’ into the discussion where it does not belong.

972

So, your argument hinges on whether I capitalized a “c”? Wow, that’s reaching new heights!

Here’s a hint: I don’t think I pay much attention to whether I capitalize that word or not.

973

(-Human Action 02-22-2014 11:56 PM) 1. When you quote John Mace asking you a question, then restate his question, then say that a given article is an excellent opinion on that question, 100 out of 100 people are going to understand you to mean that you intend the article to be an opinion on that question.
Maybe so if I had simply restated his question as a valid question. It was not a valid question as asked. I restated his question after citing it in full to disavow it. I was disavowing that I had never written that those words were part of a text in any Constitution. So if a bazillion people took it the way you do, they are not necessarily right and I’m telling you that they aren’t.
I posted an opinion that dealt with ‘constitutional’ acts involving the military etc that had bearing on the overthrow of Morsi within a year. The General’s power grab in 2012 is related to the eventual coup in 2013. Sorry but it is. You are just plain wrong. The 2012 Constitution did negate the power that the general’s had grabbed. There is a significant relationship between the opinion I cited and the coup that occurred a year later.

974

Correction to 973:
The 2012 Constitution did [NOT] negate the power that the general’s had grabbed. There is a significant relationship between the opinion I cited and the coup that occurred a year later.

975

Wow. I’m almost speechless. I don’t know that I’ve ever read a more ridiculous argument on this board that didn’t pertain to conspiracy theories, or Billy Meier.

Obviously, I’m not going to go line-by-line through your walls o’ text, because I value my time and sanity.

I have no idea what a constitutional act is, or “constitutional weakness”, or any other bizarre turns of phrase you’ve used here, that evidently have nothing to do with a constitution. You never say what you think they mean. The dictionary’s no help, as it relates the term to, as you’d expect, Constitutions, and doesn’t distinguish between a big-c and little-c version.

Beginning to grasp that you do, indeed, have issues with expressing your ideas?

Um, yes. Perfectly specific:

That means, and can only mean, the Constitution that was in effect at the time of the coup. What, do you think he was asking if the U.S. Constitution allowed it? The 1923 Egyptian Constitution?

Really? When did that start?

NotfooledbyW, you should probably tell this NotfooledbyW guy that small-c uses of the word aren’t tied to any specific Constitution.

And hey, how convenient. When called out on getting dates wrong, declare that you were using the secret form of a word, that isn’t tied to dates! Genius!

The small-c constitution? What’s that? It can’t a specific document, so I have no idea what it means.

Lastly: how about those sentences you bolded? The ones that had nothing to do with whether Morsi controlled the military (as they couldn’t, Morsi wasn’t in power), which is what you were allegedly talking about when you posted the article? It makes perfect sense to bold that sentence if you were addressing the question of whether removing Morsi was allowed by Egyptian law…it makes no sense to do so if you were addressing the question of whether Morsi had control of the military. Your back-filled, nonsense explanation makes no sense, and it’s rather apparent why that is.

976

So Human Action finds it to be an error to cite something that was in regards to constitutional related actions taken by the military leading up to a coup d’état in 2013 because it was written before a new constitution was ratified. The opinion cited was that the actions taken in 2012 were legally a coup d’état at that point. The new Constitution did not diminish or negate those actions taken. There is no error.

977

Funny, I am quite certain that your painstaking effort to find an error in what I posted is ridiculous. It is absurd since the error you perceive to have found has no effect on my thread related arguments and points on this thread.

978

I realize that Human Action does not allow context or explanations that I have provided in other posts. That is why Human Action has no idea what the phrase “constitutional act” means to this discussion and thinks constitutional acts have nothing to do with a constitution.
I picked the most recent question from Mace when I made the so-called ‘textual’ error. There were many repetitious bogus questions from Mace …but I replied to the most recent.

Here’s one that applies context and perhaps not so bogus because it somewhat closer to my original statement:

(-John Mace 02-02-2014 09:32 PM) And we’re still waiting for your explanation about how the coup was more like a “constitutional act”. <“Cite”
Human Action won’t allow or acknowledge context. He has no argument if he allows my words to have it.

979

Hey, look at that, more hysterical, contradictory, protestations, scattered, for some reason, over multiple, consecutive posts. Didn’t see that coming!

I’ve done my due diligence here. Anyone reading this thread will understand your error, and the absurdity of your ass-covering explanations. There is, as there’s always been, no point in trying to convince you of your error, or of much of anything else, so my work is done here.

980

Another example of Human Action prejudice and double standard. Mace did not state specifically the 2013 revised Constitution in his question. I didn’t state specifically that I was referring to ‘the BOGUS question’ that Mace had been pestering me about.
The Morsi era Egyptian Constitution did not throw out the parts where the military held on to the powers they had under Mubarak… that is relevant to the opinion I cited. Mace Did not define that I could only respond regarding the 2012 constitution.
Human Action declares John Mace being specific… but I was not specific enough to suit the microscopic search for errors on my part…

And then there’s the fact that Human Action has not desire to put others who agree with him under that microscope.

That should tell the readers what is really going on here.
It works both ways… When it doesn’t work for Human Action’s ridiculous error finding escapades then Human Action exits.