Kerry, Bush and Armenians

[Darorinag]

You are being a moron. The point is: Kerry or Bush. I do not give a rats ass if you think neither are worth voting for but do not say stupid things like, "Any Armenian who justifies his voting for Kerry as being the result of Bush's bad record, is an idiot." Unlike you, nationality aside, these people are inclined to vote and that is fine. Let them vote, because I will not be.

I am not forcing anyone to vote or not to vote. I am simply stating my opinion. Do not try to silence me. Also, yes, it's a false dichotomy, and believing in false dichotomy is idiocy..

[dusken]

I am not forcing anyone to vote or not to vote. I am simply stating my opinion. Do not try to silence me. Also, yes, it's a false dichotomy, and believing in false dichotomy is idiocy..

I am not trying to silence you; I am just addressing you the way you are addressing the people you disagree with.

This all comes from little kids who have never studied logic and think they understand it based on a couple of basic concepts. It is not a false dichotomy. Your choices of action are manifold but the possible results are only two, and that cannot be denied. If someone accepts that this election is worth voting in, it is not illogical. If someone accepts that Kerry and Bush are equally bad but one may be preferable with respect to one issue that is not illogical. All voting is based on speculation. It is dependant on the mode in speculations of a group. Your choice is not one of logic, but of principle.

[Anonymouse]

Anon, we meet again.

This nation is, in fact, doing what nations are supposed to do. Nations and States and/or nation-states are founded for the primary reason of defense. I find it hard to believe your portrayal as the U.S. being the only offensive country in the entire world. That notion is simply ridiculous. If you decide to maintain that wild irrational thought then I say to you, that you are absolutely wrong. But I encourage you to keep that thought and think that offense is also a good defense.

Well, it's good to see you've returned. You should frequent it more often. What have you been up to?

Onto the post. The U.S. is not the only offensive country, nor did I say it is, but the U.S. is the most aggressive, offensive, and imperialistic country, right now, and there can be doubt about that.

[Darorinag]

I am not trying to silence you; I am just addressing you the way you are addressing the people you disagree with.

I tend to disagree. You are not just innocently trying to disprove my point, but are making attempts to discredit me by comments like "little kids who have never studied logic and think they understand it based on a couple of basic concepts." Not only is that a fallacy of attack on the person, it was totally uncalled for.

It is not a false dichotomy. Your choices of action are manifold but the possible results are only two, and that cannot be denied.

False dichotomy is not concerned with results, but with choices. You have the choice to 1) Support Extreme A 2) Support Extreme B 3) Be neutral. i.e, you have the choice to 1) Vote for Bush 2) Vote for Kerry 3) Not vote at all.

If someone accepts that this election is worth voting in, it is not illogical.

That, I think, is a statement no one is denying. My point is not about those who want to vote for Kerry or Bush. It's about those who insist that you have the moral obligation to vote, regardless of which side you choose to vote for. That to refuse to vote is ignorance. etc. So once again, the point you're trying to make is irrelevant.

If someone accepts that Kerry and Bush are equally bad but one may be preferable with respect to one issue that is not illogical. All voting is based on speculation. It is dependant on the mode in speculations of a group. Your choice is not one of logic, but of principle.

I am not talking about the logic behind choices. I'm talking about the logic of insisting that one *must* vote. I don't see why I should be verbally forced to vote (through intimidation tactics - of the "you're an ignorant fool if you don't vote" kind) when I don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils..

[dusken]

I tend to disagree. You are not just innocently trying to disprove my point, but are making attempts to discredit me by comments like "little kids who have never studied logic and think they understand it based on a couple of basic concepts." Not only is that a fallacy of attack on the person, it was totally uncalled for.


False dichotomy is not concerned with results, but with choices. You have the choice to 1) Support Extreme A 2) Support Extreme B 3) Be neutral. i.e, you have the choice to 1) Vote for Bush 2) Vote for Kerry 3) Not vote at all.


That, I think, is a statement no one is denying. My point is not about those who want to vote for Kerry or Bush. It's about those who insist that you have the moral obligation to vote, regardless of which side you choose to vote for. That to refuse to vote is ignorance. etc. So once again, the point you're trying to make is irrelevant.


I am not talking about the logic behind choices. I'm talking about the logic of insisting that one *must* vote. I don't see why I should be verbally forced to vote (through intimidation tactics - of the "you're an ignorant fool if you don't vote" kind) when I don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils..

This is funny. You do not know what your argument was anymore. Nobody is forcing anyone to vote. You said this:

Any Armenian who justifies his voting for Kerry as being the result of Bush's bad record, is an idiot, and deserves to be called that. Neither of us argued IN FAVOUR of voting for Bush... so what is your point??? Bush WAS pro-Armenian before the election. Read this, also from ANCA. So what makes you sure that Kerry wouldn't do the same thing? How can you endorse Kerry, not knowing his REAL stance on the Armenian issue? What Armenians fail to understand is that American politics is
not about *a* man, it's about a drawn plan and certain policies.

That mentality is what I am reacting to. You would not want to vote for either one based on speculative reasons independant of the Armenian issue. That does not mean that someone who choses one over the other is an idiot. That is what voting is: chosing who you would think is best. And again you have lost sight of the fact that this has nothing to do with people feeling forced to vote. It is not a false dichotomy because nobody is trying to force anyone into an extreme. It is like saying the bipartisan system is a false dichotomy. There is no universal suggestion that it is a dichotomy. A false dichotomy is necessarily categorizing everyone into one of two groups. That is not what is happening here because it is suggested and given that if someone is voting they have a preference. By your hypothetical forbearance from voting you would not be categorized as one extreme or the other. That is impossible because results are not known ahead of time. Basically, it boils down to you calling people idiots and not having the reasonable right to do so.

[Darorinag]

That does not mean that someone who choses one over the other is an idiot. That is what voting is: chosing who you would think is best.

Voting is about who you think is GOOD... see, this is the kind of logic I'm talking about. Voting should *NOT* be about casting your voice in favour of someone just so that the worse person wouldn't take office... It's about who is *GOOD*..

It is not a false dichotomy because nobody is trying to force anyone into an extreme.

False dichotomy is not necessarily about FORCING someone physically to do something. In fact, it NEVER is. It's about VERBAL intimidation within arguments. Which is what I am talking about - the "if you know that Bush is bad and you don't vote for Kerry, then you're an ignorant fool" argument.. it IS a false dichotomy.. whether you like to admit it or not.

Basically, it boils down to you calling people idiots and not having the reasonable right to do so.

I think you are confused in a major way. I have the right to call anyone an idiot. Only that it would be irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and if used WITHIN an argument to PROVE something, it would have to be considered a fallacy. I am not calling people idiots for voting for Bush or Kerry (only calling them politically naive, which is more of a statement of fact rather than an attack on the person - because I'm also pointing out facts to demonstrate why I call them naive).. But I would call anyone who insists that I should submit to the false dichotomy of U.S politics, an idiot. And I think I have ever logical reason to do so.

[surferarmo]

Again, that's a fallacy. I never said America should declare war on Turkey! You're losing it in the depths of false dichotomy - so it's either supporting Turkey, or attacking it?!? Not supporting Turkey does NOT mean attacking it...........

Dar, I am being logical. Turkey is not going to give up its land because America said so. Therefore, there would either be aggression or apathy for the issue, in which case nothing would be solved.

[Darorinag]

Whoever talked about giving up land?!??!?! Genocide recognition is not the equivalent of giving up land... Just because Jews got themselves a state after the holocaust doesn't mean it would be the same by default for others who get their genocides recognised...

In fact, I am against that because it would make us so much like the Jews.. which is worse than losing any credibility.. as the revisionist cause advances. (this, btw, is not meant to turn this thread into a discussion about Jews and the holocaust, please..)

[surferarmo]

Good point! You could also spin it to the way of - Wouldn't you want to advocate and push for the support Armenian-Americans being successful in America?

You'll hear answers like:
-Armenians are passionate about the genocide issue, about the direct effect it has on them to have an official understandment of it, and not giving into the Turkish Lobby.

-They want Turkey to recognize the genocide, yet they fail and deny to. In part of the denial they spent money on lobbists in Washington D.C. to lobby and pour in campaign contributions so there will be no laws, like the amendment in congress that was negativly torn apart by Speaker Hastert.

-Part of some Armenians is thr fury of money being spent on the lobbying and taking away from an issue used as political bait, and stuffing it away till next election cycle, meanwhile taking money and adivce from Turkish lobbists. Lets not forget Turkey has one of the WORST human and civil rights records, to this day.

There are rich Armenians, poor Armenians. Rich Armenians hiding money to look poor, poor Armenians pretending to be rich...you never know which economic political policy to throw at them to gain their attn. There will be bush armos, Kerry Armos...all in all, deep down they still want the genocidal issue solved, not only for Armenians but for every other ethnicity.

There's more but im still sore from a wedding that Harout made me dance all night to...

Believe in what you want to, say what you want to, and dream what you want to, thats just part of the freedoms America has to offer. God Bless.

Let me get an alleiluia! Come on man. You say God Bless, but John Kerry supports the ACLU which is fighting right now to take the cross out of the County seal of LA. Crazy bro. (That had nothing to do with anything, I just brought it up to mess around)

I agree with the approach you mentioned. That would be the best way to approach genocide recognition. However, what would happen if America approved of legislation to recognize the genocide?

And just a fact for you and others who might not know, 36 states have recognized the Armenian genocide resolution.****

[Darorinag]

So surferarmo, if I say that Kerry is the anti-Christ, would you agree with me?