Syria and UN Security Council Decision

[magellan]

It's because I do know what it means that I question its use here.



I think if you want to make an argument for Asad's legitimacy you should look at how he came to power, how he stays in power, and how that corresponds to the laws of Syria.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Well, why don't you share your knowledge of it's meaning with the whole class, and explain what makes you question it's usage here?

 

[Mycroft]

Well, why don't you share your knowledge of it's meaning with the whole class, and explain what makes you question it's usage here?

Because the rule is that it's up to the person who makes the claim to back it up, so since Henry McPhee claimed the Assad government is legitimate, it's up to him to back up the claim.

Previous experience with Henry McPhee leads me to believe he will not do that, so feel free to act as his proxy if you wish. It should be easy if Assads legitimacy is so obvious and unquestionable, correct?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[magellan]

Because the rule is that it's up to the person who makes the claim to back it up, so since Henry McPhee claimed the Assad government is legitimate, it's up to him to back up the claim.

Previous experience with Henry McPhee leads me to believe he will not do that, so feel free to act as his proxy if you wish. It should be easy if Assads legitimacy is so obvious and unquestionable, correct?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Nope. You made the claim that the government of syria is not legitimate.
You are the one to explain why.

 

[Mycroft]

Nope. You made the claim that the government of syria is not legitimate.
You are the one to explain why.

If I did that it should be easy for you to quote me doing it.

Go on, I double-dirty-dog dare you.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[magellan]

What makes it legitimate?


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Are you trying to say that you were "just asking a question"?

 

[Mycroft]

Are you trying to say that you were "just asking a question"?

No.

Are you going to act as McPhee's proxy and defend his assertion or not?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[magellan]

No.

Are you going to act as McPhee's proxy and defend his assertion or not?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

If you weren't "just asking a question" what was your intent with that question? Please stop wasting my time.

 

[Mycroft]

If you weren't "just asking a question" what was your intent with that question? Please stop wasting my time.

Clearly my intent is to challenge an assertion that was made. Now either answer the challenge or quit wasting my time.

Again, if Assads regime is so obviously legitimate, then it should be easy to demonstrate, right? Far easier than the effort you've already spent trying to shift the burden of proof away from the claimant.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[magellan]

Clearly my intent is to challenge an assertion that was made. Now either answer the challenge or quit wasting my time.

Again, if Assads regime is so obviously legitimate, then it should be easy to demonstrate, right? Far easier than the effort you've already spent trying to shift the burden of proof away from the claimant.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

If that was your intent you did so poorly.
That's not a challenge. That's just saying "Really?"
If you want to challenge it please go ahead.
But don't expect me to make your argument for you and then debunk it, so you can then go "But that wasn't my argument in the first place."

 

[Mycroft]

If that was your intent you did so poorly.
That's not a challenge. That's just saying "Really?"

Asking "What makes it legitimate" is quite sufficient to challenge the assertion that it is legitimate. That you had a problem with it and attempted to shift the burden of evidence away from McPhee to me says much about you.

If you want to challenge it please go ahead.

Already have. That's why you're arguing with me, remember?

But don't expect me to make your argument for you and then debunk it, so you can then go "But that wasn't my argument in the first place."

I'm more than capable of making my own arguments and never depend on others to do it for me, but you're demonstrating an inability to make arguments of your own.



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[magellan]

Asking "What makes it legitimate" is quite sufficient to challenge the assertion that it is legitimate. That you had a problem with it and attempted to shift the burden of evidence away from McPhee to me says much about you.



Already have. That's why you're arguing with me, remember?



I'm more than capable of making my own arguments and never depend on others to do it for me, but you're demonstrating an inability to make arguments of your own.



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

You stated that you wanted to challenge.
Still waiting for the actual challenge.
If you are capable of making your own argument please make it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If some folks would simply put the same effort into laying out their cases as they do into insisting they shouldn't have to, they might have actually accomplished something meaningful by now.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

You stated that you wanted to challenge.
Still waiting for the actual challenge.

You quoted it twice, bro. Post #3585, where I challenged the assertion that the Assad government is legitimate by asking what makes it legitimate. Answer the challenge or not, your choice. I can't dumb it down any more than I already have.

If you are capable of making your own argument please make it.

Will do, but for right now we'll see if anyone can demonstrate the legitimacy of the Assad government. So far neither you nor Henry McPhee has even attempted.

Just a reminder because you don't seem to understand, the burden of proof is on the claimant. That doesn't put any obligation on the one who demands that proof to make any argument themselves.

What that means, and I'm trying to dumb this down as much as possible, is that if you're waiting for me to make some argument, then you're missing the point. The next step is for you, Henry McPhee, or whoever wants to, to produce some factual evidence that supports the legitimacy of the Assad government.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

If some folks would simply put the same effort into laying out their cases as they do into insisting they shouldn't have to, they might have actually accomplished something meaningful by now.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Yes. I could definitely move things along by just stating several facts that put the legitimacy of the Assad government in question, but magellan with a little "m" should learn the fundamentals, so time spent here will likely save time later.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Childlike Empress]

The next step is for you, Henry McPhee, or whoever wants to, to produce some factual evidence that supports the legitimacy of the Assad government.

Nope, the next step is for you to stop your derail/trolling attempts. I delivered that factual evidence already pointing out that the current Syrian government has a seat at the UN and is therefore the legal representative of the Syrian people on international terrain. Your more or less (nobody cares) wacky ideas about what legitimizes a government you can take up with the King of Saudi Arabia in another thread.

 

[Mycroft]

Nope, the next step is for you to stop your derail/trolling attempts. I delivered that factual evidence already pointing out that the current Syrian government has a seat at the UN and is therefore the legal representative of the Syrian people on international terrain. Your more or less (nobody cares) wacky ideas about what legitimizes a government you can take up with the King of Saudi Arabia in another thread.

At least you answer the question, the Assad government is legitimate (in your opinion) because it has a seat on the UN.

Now, reasons not to consider the Assad government legitimate include:

1)Syria is not a monarchy, yet Assad inhereted the presidency from his father.

2)Subsequent plebiscites gave him ridiculous majorities around the 98th percentile. Naturally, these elections were widely condemned worldwide except for the usual suspects that did not.

3)The most recent plebiscite, the only contested plebiscite in the history of Syria (contested in this context means there was someone else to vote for) won him a ridiculous majority around the 89th percentile. Naturally, this election was widely condemned worldwide except for the usual suspects that did not.

4)There is a fricken civil war going on.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Childlike Empress]

At least you answer the question, the Assad government is legitimate (in your opinion) because it has a seat on the UN.

Nope, it is de facto legitimate, not in my opinion, and I told you the value of the rest of your post already.

There are claims by some badly beaten "FSA" sub gangs about a new chemical attack now. It doesn't look like it's hitting big "western" news so far, and maybe that's because of the idiocy of Spicer and cohorts. Remains to be seen.

 

[Mycroft]

Nope, it is de facto legitimate, not in my opinion,

Use a little Latin to make an unsupported assertion seem more legit, eh?

There are these other organizations called the Syrian National Council and the Syrian National Coalition, one of which (and I'll be honest and admit I forget which is which) holds Syrias seat in the Arab league as well as the recognition of a majority of the members of the United Nations Security Council. So is your assertion as absolute as your use of Latin suggests? I don't think so.

... and I told you the value of the rest of your post already.

Sometimes earning someone's enmity is a source of pride. Thank you.









Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[magellan]

At least you answer the question, the Assad government is legitimate (in your opinion) because it has a seat on the UN.

Now, reasons not to consider the Assad government legitimate include:

1)Syria is not a monarchy, yet Assad inhereted the presidency from his father.

2)Subsequent plebiscites gave him ridiculous majorities around the 98th percentile. Naturally, these elections were widely condemned worldwide except for the usual suspects that did not.

3)The most recent plebiscite, the only contested plebiscite in the history of Syria (contested in this context means there was someone else to vote for) won him a ridiculous majority around the 89th percentile. Naturally, this election was widely condemned worldwide except for the usual suspects that did not.

4)There is a fricken civil war going on.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Finally! Was that so hard?

1) He is the head of state, called president, and was elected. Therefore it is a republic. That's the only difference between a republic and a monarchy. Not that there aren't any monarchies that are legitimate governments

2) I am not aware that elections have to have results in a certain percentile range. If so could you please tell me who defined this and where the threshold is.

3) See 2

4) So does Iraq. Actually with the very same people. And Ukraine. I am unaware of anybody not recognizing any of those governments.

Actually I don't know why but I was expecting something a little more substantial. Something that makes me have to google stuff to rebutt at least.

 

[Mycroft]

Finally! Was that so hard?

She presented some(weak) evidence that supported Henry McPhee's claim. You should have done that.

1) He is the head of state, called president, and was elected. Therefore it is a republic. That's the only difference between a republic and a monarchy. Not that there aren't any monarchies that are legitimate governments

Earlier you made a big deal about knowing the definition of "legitimate".

It means legal. Note the "leg" at the beginning of both words, same root.

Bashir al-Assad inhereted the presidency from his father. This illegal but not unexpected seizure of power was "legitimized" by an election rigged in that they only allowed one candidate.

2) I am not aware that elections have to have results in a certain percentile range.... blah , blah, blah.. []

Ignoring the obvious rigging of an election doesn't make the issue go away, it only makes you look disingenuous. If you want to pretend there is nothing unusual about results that one sided in a nation that fractured (even before the civil war) go on, but the rest of us don't need to pretend stupidity.

Some people support Assad because of his closeness to Putin. They believe Putin will be able to prop up Assad, prevent the formation of a Kurdish state which would likely be friendly to the United States. A state that could someday host a US military base uncomfortably close to Iran, Syria, and a whole slew of territories Russia might want to expand into soon.

Actually I don't know why but I was expecting something a little more substantial. Something that makes me have to google stuff to rebutt at least.

That suggests you are perfectly aware of issues with Assad's legitimacy.



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk