Turkish Spring ?

[Empire*Of*Media]

Down with Islamists and all their Ilk, says I.

[HoreTore]

The Autobarns were a good idea too - as were Hitler's other industrial projects - but it was still stupid of Western Europe to support him, wasn't it.

I would never support extensive road construction, so no points on that example.

Also, it may surprise you that you can actually support opinions, ideas and efforts made by people you disagree completely with. But I guess that's hard to grasp for someone with a black and white world-view.

Down with Islamists and all their Ilk, says I.

I oppose all religious influence on society on principle, have I ever said anything that would make you think otherwise?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would never support extensive road construction, so no points on that example.

Also, it may surprise you that you can actually support opinions, ideas and efforts made by people you disagree completely with. But I guess that's hard to grasp for someone with a black and white world-view.

I oppose all religious influence on society on principle, have I ever said anything that would make you think otherwise?

But this policy is motivated by Islamic principles, with the objective of strengthening Islam's hand in Turkish society - so by your own argument, you should reject this policy on principle. As I do.

[Montmorency]

But I guess that's hard to grasp for someone with a black and white world-view.

But yours is black-and-white as well?

[Fragony]

Ordugan threatens he can mobilise a million counterprotesters apparantly. The guy is truly a lunatic.

[Fragony]

Don't take it for a fact, I don't know if it's true

[Ironside]

I
I'm not talking about prohibition, I'm talking about restrictions.

There's quite a number of them here coupled with hefty taxation, and apart from the occasional shopping trips to Sweden(for a buttload of other things as well though) and what our Polish carpenters bring from home, there's next to no organized smuggling in alcohol.

With those times, it's a de facto prohibition for the population outside students. It's really a law made to create illegal bypassing.

[Fisherking]

I back LEN’s view on this. I hope he pipes in soon again on it.

If LEN thinks the Prime Minister is a Truly UnRepentitive Dictator, I will take him at his word.

He dose seem to still have a support base among the more staunchly religious of Islam, who say they agree with the protesters over some of the issues, but oppose them because of the looting, vandalism, and calling the PM names.

Earlier, LEN said that he worried that was being done by undercover police. Which could be the case.

Local reporting is restricted because journalists get locked up for statements not friendly to the government. So there you have it.

[Montmorency]

I'm not impressed with these protests. A few tens of thousands of young people, secularists and environmentalists.

Erdogan still has the support of the majority of the country. His little quip could perhaps be seen as a test of the waters. That hundreds of thousands did not mobilize in response to the provocation is telling.

The upcoming local elections will show what's what.

[LeftEyeNine]

What Fragony told you is true. Rather than trying to remedy the situation, he kept his long head high -if that's what he thinks he's doing- and, first, declared that he could mobilise a million (sheep) if he wanted to and a few days later, if not right the next day, he declared that he was barely being able to "keep the 50% at their homes" (dogs). That's how he sees his voters. And then he left for a 4-day trip to Northern African countries. Moroccan king refused to meet him and today we've heard that the strongest opposition leader in Tunisia Hamma Hammami apparently rejected the dinner to join RTE saying that "they wouldn't join the feast of despots and conspirators".

@Montmorency

The country has never seen such an enduring and widely embraced series of protests. Here in Ankara, police are still very harsh on the protesters in Kızılay (heart of Ankara). People have started to stomp their cars' horns and went out to the streets as it rains with their pots and spoons clinging them in the street I'm living at right now as it hit 9 o'clock p.m..

The sole reason the government couldn't manage and handle the situation like it always could is since that they couldn't paint it in a certain color they'd find easy to target (Ergenekon (the unconfirmed terrorist organization), CHP (the main opposition party, ideologically too) etc.) and find the right public and media support to put it down.

Because the protesting community is so colorful that they are organizing free markets, free food, even a library, all in the middle of Taksim. On which earth, could I have seen protestors cleaning the place they have demonstrated in after the clashes ended ?

If the protests were one-sided, it wouldn't meet with such unparallelled support and would die out eventually. It didn't, it isn't.

Such pressure even brought the your-normal-lap-dog mainstream media to be broadcasting unbiased about the protests for 2 days now.

This feels like power now, doesn't it ?

[Fragony]

Bloggosphere once again shows to be more reliable than MSM. This is insanity.

[HoreTore]

But this policy is motivated by Islamic principles, with the objective of strengthening Islam's hand in Turkish society - so by your own argument, you should reject this policy on principle. As I do.

I consider proposals on the actual merits of the proposal, not its theoretical or real aims and wishes. Thus, I can be able to appreciate it when someone I really disagree with comes with proposals I actually like.

It makes me sad that you are so caught up in your "us vs them" worldview that you are incapable of separating the ball from the man when considering ideas and proposals.


I oppose Jesus' message. That does not in any way whatsoever mean that I oppose Christians when they want to give to the poor because they believe that Jesus wants them to. I consider giving to the poor a good thing, and so I consider Christians who give to the poor because of it as good. I honestly expected you to be someone capable of seeing enough nuances to realize that. Am I wrong?

[Montmorency]

It makes me sad that you are so caught up in your "us vs them" worldview that you are incapable of separating the ball from the man when considering ideas and proposals.

It seems you have difficulty placing policies in a wider context. Policies can never be taken in and of themselves - they must be judged within the wider network of government action.

Thus, you would never notice should supporting an opponent's Policy X contribute to the implementation of the Policies A, B, and C, which you might happen to disagree strongly with.

Thus are the arrogant reduced to sequaciousness.

[HoreTore]

It seems you have difficulty placing policies in a wider context. Policies can never be taken in and of themselves - they must be judged within the wider network of government action.

Thus, you would never notice should supporting an opponent's Policy X contribute to the implementation of the Policies A, B, and C, which you might happen to disagree strongly with.

Thus are the arrogant reduced to sequaciousness.

So what you're saying is that I cannot appreciate a Christian who gives to the poor, because I disagree with Jesus?

That's absurd.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So what you're saying is that I cannot appreciate a Christian who gives to the poor, because I disagree with Jesus?

That's absurd.

And you accuse PVC of lacking nuance?

[HoreTore]

And you accuse PVC of lacking nuance?

Well, I'll have to elaborate then. Following montmorency's recipe:

Mot christians who give to the poor, do so because of two, among several other, things: obedience to the words of whom they consider the representation of Good(Jesus)* and secondly wanting to spread the word and good of Jesus(as evidenced by most christian charities also actively or passively engaging in missionary work of some sort).

Now, when we transfer that to montys recipe, X will be "giving to the poor", while A and B will be "obedience to God" and "wanting to spread the faith". I strongly oppose both A and B. But should that have an effect on my judgement of X? I say no. X is something I already hold dear, and thus it will be deemed good regardless of the fact that it is caused by A and may lead to B.

Thus, I can't really see why I should flabbergast Erdogan for implementing policy X, which I agree with, because of eventual A's and B's.





*I know this statement could be said in a zillion ways(already accepting jesus leads one to do good, wanting to please the Lord, etc etc), and this is what I ended up with. If it offends, please rephrase it instead of charging the red flag...

[Montmorency]

So what you're saying is that I cannot appreciate a Christian who gives to the poor, because I disagree with Jesus?

That's absurd.

No. That clearly has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

I'll give you a simple example.

A ruler commands that all citizens be issued national ID cards.

You like that sort of thing, yes? Even though you don't support the leader, who is, say, a fascist?

Well, would you still persist in viewing the policy itself as good if that leader were to then command that all non-military citizens with ID numbers ending in a 0 are to be terminated?

It would be desirable for every citizen of a state to be tracked by some form of national identification in your world-view (I guess). Yet, surely you wouldn't similarly favor a wanton decimation of the whole nation? This is the conflict - by not viewing this single policy in a network of policies rather than in itself, you favor this one policy as a blind man. After all, it would be impossible to kill off all those with an ID# ending in 0 if there are no national IDs, right?

Think about it. I use this rather crude example because I'm fairly certain that this one thing - national IDs - you do support, and I don't have the patience for snide irrelevances such as 'Well, I wouldn't support that so the example is meaningless'. Substitute alternative scenarios according to your self-knowledge...

[Montmorency]

Now, when we transfer that to montys recipe, X will be "giving to the poor", while A and B will be "obedience to God" and "wanting to spread the faith". I strongly oppose both A and B. But should that have an effect on my judgement of X? I say no. X is something I already hold dear, and thus it will be deemed good regardless of the fact that it is caused by A and may lead to B.

You can only be comfortable maintaining this position because you also believe that Christian charity is not effective in spreading the faith - or at least not alarmingly so. Get it?

[HoreTore]

No. That clearly has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

I'll give you a simple example.

A ruler commands that all citizens be issued national ID cards.

You like that sort of thing, yes? Even though you don't support the leader, who is, say, a fascist?

Well, would you still persist in viewing the policy itself as good if that leader were to then command that all non-military citizens with ID numbers ending in a 0 are to be terminated?

It would be desirable for every citizen of a state to be tracked by some form of national identification in your world-view (I guess). Yet, surely you wouldn't similarly favor a wanton decimation of the whole nation? This is the conflict - by not viewing this single policy in a network of policies rather than in itself, you favor this one policy as a blind man. After all, it would be impossible to kill off all those with an ID# ending in 0 if there are no national IDs, right?

Think about it. I use this rather crude example because I'm fairly certain that this one thing - national IDs - you do support, and I don't have the patience for snide irrelevances such as 'Well, I wouldn't support that so the example is meaningless'. Substitute alternative scenarios according to your self-knowledge...

I see no problem in supporting national ID cards(which I honestly consider a requirement for any nation aspiring to the term "civilized"), while at the same time opposing whacking every tenth citizen.

[Montmorency]

I see no problem in supporting national ID cards(which I honestly consider a requirement for any nation aspiring to the term "civilized"), while at the same time opposing whacking every tenth citizen.

1. National IDs
2. Decimation

1 is good, 2 is bad and perhaps obliterates the "good" of 1.

If 1 follows, so does 2. If 1 is averted, so is 2.

Is it sensible to support 1 in this scenario?

[HoreTore]

You can only be comfortable maintaining this position because you also believe that Christian charity is not effective in spreading the faith - or at least not alarmingly so. Get it?

No.

Actually, I consider charity works to be the main PR thing for christianity - I have never considered those halleluja meetings effective at much more than maintaining the resolve of the already converted.

[HoreTore]

1. National IDs
2. Decimation

1 is good, 2 is bad and perhaps obliterates the "good" of 1.

If 1 follows, so does 2. If 1 is averted, so is 2.

Is it sensible to support 1 in this scenario?

Why is 2 averted if 1 is averted? Why does 2 follow if 1 is enacted? I see no real automatic relation between the two.

[Montmorency]

Forget the relative - in absolute terms, do you see Christian charity as bringing a significant (i.e. dangerous) number of converts to the religion?

Why is 2 averted if 1 is averted? Why does 2 follow if 1 is enacted? I see no real automatic relation between the two.

2 entails the execution of those bearing a certain type of ID. If there are no IDs, this policy can not be imagined.

[HoreTore]

Forget the relative - in absolute terms, do you see Christian charity as bringing a significant (i.e. dangerous) number of converts to the religion?

Most definitely. Without the redistributive side of Christianity, I don't see how it could have very many followers today.

2 entails the execution of those bearing a certain type of ID. If there are no IDs, this policy can not be imagined.

....so this hypothetical dictator is completely unable to come up with a different way of whacking every tenth citizen....?

He'll already have the birth certificates, btw. Lot's of numbers on those, take your pick.

[LeftEyeNine]

Sorry but what is this all about you're doing here ?

[Montmorency]

I'll make it very general: do you believe there are any credible (i.e. possible in the 'real world') scenarios in which you might like a policy in itself, revile its proponent - and ultimately decide that the policy is not worth favoring because the consequences with respect to the rest of the proponent's program may outweigh the positive aspects?

[HoreTore]

I'll make it very general: do you believe there are any credible (i.e. possible in the 'real world') scenarios in which you might like a policy in itself, revile its proponent - and ultimately decide that the policy is not worth favoring because the consequences with respect to the rest of the proponent's program may outweigh the positive aspects?

Now you've changed my premise.

My statement was that I could consider policy X as good, even though I dislike A and B.

Now you're asking whether policy X is worth favouring, because of dislike of A and B.


That's a major change.

And to relate it to Erdogan's proposal, one would then have to prove that imposing alcohol restrictions will lead to negative A's and B's, ones which will outweigh the positives of alcohol restrictions.

But even then, my answer would be that alcohol restrictions are good and thus should be implemented, and that one would have to come up with ways of countering any eventual A's and B's, just like we're coming up with ways of countering the works of Christian missionaries, without wanting to shut down christian charities.

[Montmorency]

Now you're asking whether policy X is worth favouring, because of dislike of A and B.

That's what we were talking about the whole time!

And to relate it to Erdogan's proposal

Nah, I wouldn't do that. I was getting at what I saw as an -

It makes me sad that you are so caught up in your "us vs them" worldview that you are incapable of separating the ball from the man when considering ideas and proposals.

- imprudent perspective to bring to these considerations. That is, I got the feeling that you were separating the man from the rest of his proposals. You see it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I consider proposals on the actual merits of the proposal, not its theoretical or real aims and wishes. Thus, I can be able to appreciate it when someone I really disagree with comes with proposals I actually like.

It makes me sad that you are so caught up in your "us vs them" worldview that you are incapable of separating the ball from the man when considering ideas and proposals.


I oppose Jesus' message. That does not in any way whatsoever mean that I oppose Christians when they want to give to the poor because they believe that Jesus wants them to. I consider giving to the poor a good thing, and so I consider Christians who give to the poor because of it as good. I honestly expected you to be someone capable of seeing enough nuances to realize that. Am I wrong?

That depends - plenty of people (including you) have criticised Christian charities for being openly Christian, and therefore "preaching" with the charity.

This policy is designed to favour extreme Muslim theology and grind everyone else, minorities and secularists, down at heel. That is not only the objective - but the net effect.

You say ID cards are important for a civilised society - ok - what if the purpose of those ID cards is to more accurately identify Jews and Gypsies on the street?

That's exactly what the Nazi's used them for.

Do you approve of the Nazi use of ID cards, or would it have been better if that policy had not been implemented.

And lets be clear - I'm talking practice, not theory, if you want theory from me start an abstract debate - here I'm concerned with what's happening on the ground in Turkey, and real-life comparisons as they relate to the situation.

[Beskar]

Turkish Media: