User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 28 of 28

  1. #21
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    No matter how many times you use "laughable" and "fail", my point still stands, and so does yours, even without childish insults. It is unnecessary to degrade your opponent with such claims, and frankly, it's also more of a sign of arrogance than a sign of intelligence. You might want to work on that.

    I'll address Turkey later.

  2. #22
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    No matter how many times you use "laughable" and "fail", my point still stands, and so does yours, even without childish insults. It is unnecessary to degrade your opponent with such claims, and frankly, it's also more of a sign of arrogance than a sign of intelligence. You might want to work on that.

    I'll address Turkey later.
    I look forward to you getting onto Turkey soon, Litvyak. However, your inability to distinguish an Empire from a nation state, a theorocracy from a secular republic and your assertion that the present Republic of Turkey is a "successor" to the Ottoman Empire demonstrate how threadbare the flying carpet of your knowledge on the matter is.

    If you're going to talk shit, Litvyak, don't expect me to collude in your delusion.

    I appreciate that English is not your first language. But don't take it personally if I hint to you that "successor" (meaning "one which follows") is the incorrect word to use if you are attempting to present a continuum sufficiently smooth to nail modern Turkey for the sins of the Ottomans.

  3. #23
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    I do have a slight grasp on the history of the Ottoman Empire, since our history has been linked for 150 years. Your assumption that I'm unable to distinguish an Empire from a nation state or a theocracy (I presume that's what you meant) is unfounded, I'm sorry for my use of words though. I'll try to express myself better next time.

    I'm not the only one though.

    "[The Treaty of Lausanne] also led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the new Republic of Turkey as the successor state of the defunct Ottoman Empire."

    (source: Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

  4. #24
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    As a "successor" state explain why it should be held accountable for the misdeeds of the Ottomans?

    After all, the Hungarians are the "successors" to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, are they not?

    Thanks for the Wiki link. Here's some for you: Treznea massacre or Ip massacre

    I'm sure you'll agree that you and your family should be punished for these terrible war crimes.

  5. #25
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    I'm sure you'll agree that you and your family should be punished for these terrible war crimes.
    I'll play along.

    Individuals should be punished only as part of the collective.
    But yes, my nation should be punished for these crimes, amongst many other terrible things.

    Unless,

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak
    we may initiate a UN resolution declaring a "clean slate" for all of the aforementioned countries, including Turkey.

  6. #26
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    Individuals should be punished only as part of the collective.
    I think you will find collective punishment is against the Geneva Conventions and the laws & customs of war.

    But yes, my nation should be punished for these crimes, amongst many other terrible things.
    How should we go about punishing your nation, Litvyak? Should we make you live in Bratislava for a month?

    Unless,

    we may initiate a UN resolution declaring a "clean slate" for all of the aforementioned countries, including Turkey.
    Well, the question remains: were the Ottoman Turks guilty of genocide? If they are not, they do not need a "clean slate" (as you put it) from the UN (or anybody else); if they are guilty of genocide, then granting them a "clean slate" would be akin to making exemptions that permit genocide.

    Your logic is puzzling. You don't seem to think the problem through, and you present glib "solutions" that fall to pieces at the slightest scrutiny.

  7. #27
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    I think you will find collective punishment is against the Geneva Conventions and the laws & customs of war.
    I see how this is impossible under the current international frames, yet I still think this is the right thing to do, from a moral perspective. Our quasi-fascist, extremely militant and chauvinist (later stalinist) government made crime become law between 1919 and 1955, and our leaders managed to get away with it with almost full support from the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    How should we go about punishing your nation, Litvyak? Should we make you live in Bratislava for a month?
    Once again: stop the ad hominem, it doesn't go well with your bow-tie.

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    if they are guilty of genocide, then granting them a "clean slate" would be akin to making exemptions that permit genocide.
    You do not want to understand what I mean, and I'm pretty tired to wage a 3-pages battle with a random internet stranger, who tries to prove his intellectual superiority with disparage.

    There is nothing to prove here, I gladly acknowledge that you're very well informed in IR, which of course doesn't explain your behavior to pick on words and twist my remarks.

    Last attempt.

    If we 1) recognize which states can be held responsible for their predecessors (insert whatever word you'd like to use) sins, and 2) collectively annull them in the name of avoiding "idiotic national vendettas" in the future with a consensus as large as possible - then no, this act in itself would not necessarily justfiy any genocides or war crimes in the future.

    I am aware of the kemalian reforms and that Turkey's case is special, since it's a geopolitical bridge between East and West - still, I think (and apparently, I'm not the only one) that modern Turkey is a successor of the Ottomanian Empire, and they are guilty of not recognizing said event as genocide. The only rightful solution for such unpunished crimes is either giving a "clean slate" to all, or to none imo. The difficult task of drawing a border-line between predecessor and successor / "new" states without such legal heritage belongs to international law.

    I also think "there are several, quite different possible connotations of successor state". Succession of states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    That is all. I wish you more meaningful disputes in the future, since you were so dissatisfied with this one.

  8. #28
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    I see how this is impossible under the current international frames, yet I still think this is the right thing to do, from a moral perspective. Our quasi-fascist, extremely militant and chauvinist (later stalinist) government made crime become law between 1919 and 1955, and our leaders managed to get away with it with almost full support from the people.
    Well you've hit the nail on the head. It's impossible to punish a country for crimes of a former state, however right it seems someone should be held to account..

    The various ad hoc trials for crimes against humanity and genocide are prosecuted against individuals. It's difficult to see which individual to punish in the case of Turkey because all of the agents died a very long time ago.

    So I agree with you. There seems to be a need to hold someone to task for heinous crimes, but an impotence as to how one should actually go about this.

    Once again: stop the ad hominem, it doesn't go well with your bow-tie.
    It was not an ad hominem. Oh, no. It was a retorical question followed by a little snipe at Hungarian-Slovak relations. I've been to Bratislava. It's not that bad. They do good pizzas there.

    BTW. Ad homs do suit my bow tie. And my hat.

    But seriously, how should we punish Hungary for its crimes? What must one do to a man in Gyor for the crimes of his forefathers (even if they weren't directly involved)? If it seems absurd it is because it is absurd.

    You do not want to understand what I mean, and I'm pretty tired to wage a 3-pages battle with a random internet stranger, who tries to prove his intellectual superiority with disparage.
    I'm just curious if you can justify your position. Little disputes are bound to arise.

    Last attempt.

    If we 1) recognize which states can be held responsible for their predecessors (insert whatever word you'd like to use) sins, and 2) collectively annull them in the name of avoiding "idiotic national vendettas" in the future with a consensus as large as possible - then no, this act in itself would not necessarily justfiy any genocides or war crimes in the future.
    That sounds fair enough.

    I am aware of the kemalian reforms and that Turkey's case is special, since it's a geopolitical bridge between East and West - still, I think (and apparently, I'm not the only one) that modern Turkey is a successor of the Ottomanian Empire, and they are guilty of not recognizing said event as genocide.
    I think it's you that still does not get it, Litvyak. Genocide is the "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".

    How slow would you like me to speak? Unless there is proof that the Armenian massacres were systematic and deliberate then there was no genocide.

    If it is labelled genocide without a requisite degree of proof that the Ottomans acted systematically and deliberately then you are using the term incorrectly and devaluing its seriousness.

    The only rightful solution for such unpunished crimes is either giving a "clean slate" to all, or to none imo. The difficult task of drawing a border-line between predecessor and successor / "new" states without such legal heritage belongs to international law.

    I also think "there are several, quite different possible connotations of successor state". Succession of states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I disagree with you on that score, for reasons previously stated.

    That is all. I wish you more meaningful disputes in the future, since you were so dissatisfied with this one.
    Thanks. And you too.

    All the best.


Similar Threads

  1. MBTI with more axis and higher resolution?
    By labyrinthine in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-25-2015, 02:53 PM
  2. Britain drafts U.N. resolution on Srebrenica genocide
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-13-2015, 04:35 PM
  3. Pope Calls Killings of Armenians ‘Genocide,’ Provoking Turkish Anger
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-12-2015, 03:20 PM
  4. Convince me to drive 10 hrs to see a friend
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 01-12-2008, 10:34 PM
  5. Jonathan Edwards: Life Resolutions
    By Usehername in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2007, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO