And the Jihad continues...

[CFLarsen]

Try Saudi Arabia, where they have the King's police, and the Church police, to keep people in line and close the shops in time for prayers. There, a real monarchy, autocratic rule, rag heads, oil, and police keeping an eye on you, and an appetite for modern American weapons thrown in as a kicker. The Saudi king has trouble with clerics, but he hasn't had them all killed yet for his own reasons. King Henry II he isnt'.

DR

SaudiArabia is an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional one.

 

[Mycroft]

I'll tell you what: How about you answering the question?

It’s a peripheral point at best, one I don’t think is very important. If you think it’s important, if you think I’ve made a mistake, then you do the work and tell me where my mistake is.

SaudiArabia is an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional one.

Why do you think that's an important distinction?

 

[demon]

Mycroft:
"Why do you think that's an important distinction?"

What??!!

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft:
"Why do you think that's an important distinction?"

What??!!

I don't understand your confusion.

I wish to learn why CFLarsen believes Saudi Arabia being an absolute monarchy invalidates it from comparison with pre-1979 Iran.

That seems very straighforward to me.

If you can think of a good reason why they could not be compared, you're free to share your ideas as well.

 

[CFLarsen]

It’s a peripheral point at best, one I don’t think is very important. If you think it’s important, if you think I’ve made a mistake, then you do the work and tell me where my mistake is.

Peripheral? You have referred to monarchies at least 15 times in many posts in this thread. It sure doesn't look as if you think this is a peripheral point at all.

Why do you think that's an important distinction?

You think it is an important distinction: You pointed to the Shah's Iran as an example of a constitutional monarchy:

The Shah's rule was a constitutional monarchy. Yes, he jailed some of his political opponents, but that's parr for the course in a monarchy. He didn't do anything that isn't done regularly today by Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

However, neither of these are constitutional monarchies. Jordan is a semi-constitutional Hashemite monarchy. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Egypt is a republic.

Now, could you answer the question?

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't understand your confusion.

I wish to learn why CFLarsen believes Saudi Arabia being an absolute monarchy invalidates it from comparison with pre-1979 Iran.

That seems very straighforward to me.

If you can think of a good reason why they could not be compared, you're free to share your ideas as well.

You were the one pointing to constitutional monarchies, Mycroft.

 

[Mycroft]

Peripheral? You have referred to monarchies at least 15 times in many posts in this thread. It sure doesn't look as if you think this is a peripheral point at all.

Then I am happy to correct you in this.

You think it is an important distinction: You pointed to the Shah's Iran as an example of a constitutional monarchy:

I don't recall making a large issue of Iran being a constitutional monarchy. I'm certain I may have mentioned it, but given that chief among the criticisms of the Shah are that he exercised complete authority, I would think it inappropriate to compare the state to other constitutional monarchies.

You likely missed it, but I set the criteria I thought was important for comparison back in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1852395#post1852395

However, neither of these are constitutional monarchies. Jordan is a semi-constitutional Hashemite monarchy. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Egypt is a republic.

Yes indeed, thank you for correcting me on the status of Egypt. However nowhere in that paragraph do I say constitutional is the important distinction.

Now, could you answer the question?

The last question I remember you were asking me to make some silly list. I refused that as a time waster, so what is your question now?

 

[CFLarsen]

Then I am happy to correct you in this.

Despite your many references in many posts? Surely, you don't expect us to believe you, when you now say that it is "peripheral"?

I don't recall making a large issue of Iran being a constitutional monarchy.

You specifically made an effort of pointing to Iran as a constitutional monarchy.

I'm certain I may have mentioned it

I just showed you that you did.

, but given that chief among the criticisms of the Shah are that he exercised complete authority, I would think it inappropriate to compare the state to other constitutional monarchies.

You did, earlier. Do you retract the comparison to constitutional monarchies?

You likely missed it, but I set the criteria I thought was important for comparison back in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1852395#post1852395

That's exactly why you were provided with the list of monarchies.

Yes indeed, thank you for correcting me on the status of Egypt. However nowhere in that paragraph do I say constitutional is the important distinction.

You made a point out of it being a constitutional monarchy. Not just a monarchy, but a constitutional monarchy.

The last question I remember you were asking me to make some silly list. I refused that as a time waster, so what is your question now?

The same. It is hardly a time waster, since you yourself set the criteria for comparison.

Let's hear your answer, Mycroft. You set the criteria for comparison. Let's hear what monarchies you think compare to the Shah's Iran.

 

[Mycroft]

You made a point out of it being a constitutional monarchy. Not just a monarchy, but a constitutional monarchy.

Well I do apologize if it seemed to you I was placing importance on that distinction. I certainly did not mean to. If you look at post #60, I don’t place any emphasis on Iran being a constitutional monarchy there.

The same. It is hardly a time waster, since you yourself set the criteria for comparison.

How does that make it any less of a time waster?

Let's hear your answer, Mycroft. You set the criteria for comparison. Let's hear what monarchies you think compare to the Shah's Iran.

Again I ask, to what purpose?

You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. You can’t even define what it is you want to argue about. Was I wrong somewhere? You’re not sure, you can’t show me where or say how, all you do is make seemingly pointless demands.

Sorry, but I don’t feel the need. Remember, if you want to say something, it’s up to you to say it. If you think a list of monarchies comparable to Iran would be helpful and advance the discussion somehow, please go ahead and make it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well I do apologize if it seemed to you I was placing importance on that distinction. I certainly did not mean to. If you look at post #60, I don’t place any emphasis on Iran being a constitutional monarchy there.

And if we look at posts #46, you do. Does that mean you have retracted the comparison to constitutional monarchies?

Again I ask, to what purpose?

You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. You can’t even define what it is you want to argue about. Was I wrong somewhere? You’re not sure, you can’t show me where or say how, all you do is make seemingly pointless demands.

Sorry, but I don’t feel the need. Remember, if you want to say something, it’s up to you to say it. If you think a list of monarchies comparable to Iran would be helpful and advance the discussion somehow, please go ahead and make it.

You are the one who have been arguing that the Shah wasn't all that bad, Mycroft. To show that, you compared him to other monarchies.

If your point about the Shah not being all that bad is to have any support, you need to tell us which monarchies you are comparing his with. Hopefully also why.

Please do so. It should be far easier than to make excuse after excuse.

....you must have known which monarchies you were comparing him to, right?

 

[Mycroft]

And if we look at posts #46, you do. Does that mean you have retracted the comparison to constitutional monarchies?

I have clarified this in excrutiating detail. If you're still confused, perhaps you should re-read the thread.

....you must have known which monarchies you were comparing him to, right?

I even named three countries, which makes your need for a list even more bizarre. You must know what they are, you even quoted those three countries back to me and corrected me on the status on Egypt.

So say what you want to say, already. You don't need anything more from me. C'mon, grow some cajones and make a statement. Do you think I'm wrong? Fine, tell me how. Move the dialogue forward. You're a grown man, you can do this without trying to make me follow some silly script of yours.

 

[Darth Rotor]

SaudiArabia is an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional one.

Are all constitutions of equal merit?

I see your point, however, in the context of this discussion. I'd like to point out, and maybe this is your point, that the constitutional monarchy tends to be characterized by the maturity of the constitution. The English and European constitutional monarchies have had some generations, some centuries in some cases, to grow. The Constitutional monarchy at the time of The Shah was hardly as mature.

Why, I wonder, didn't you simply make that point?

I may have missed a nuance: was that not your point?

DR

 

[varwoche]

I even named three countries, which makes your need for a list even more bizarre. You must know what they are, you even quoted those three countries back to me and corrected me on the status on Egypt.

I reviewed the thread and can't find them. Can you point to the post or else list them again? TIA.

 

[Mycroft]

I reviewed the thread and can't find them. Can you point to the post or else list them again? TIA.

Check out page 2.

Edited to add:

Although surely, just like Larsen, if you have something you want to say, you should be able to just say it? If you disagree on something, if you think I'm wrong, shouldn't it be a simple matter to just say why and how?

All this smacks of looking for something to disagree on. Truly, if you have to put this much effort into finding something to argue about, maybe it's time to move on to another subject? Something will present itself soon enough, it always does.

 

[varwoche]

Check out page 2.

Got it.

Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia

I agree with you that these three repressive dictatorships are more or less in the same league as the shaw's iran.

Addressing your edits...

All this smacks of looking for something to disagree on.

Simply, it boggles my mind to see repressive dictatorships convienently excused.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have clarified this in excrutiating detail. If you're still confused, perhaps you should re-read the thread.

I have, several times. The only thing I can find is this:

Okay, I give. He was "totalitarian" in the same sense any monarch is.

Is this it?

I even named three countries, which makes your need for a list even more bizarre. You must know what they are, you even quoted those three countries back to me and corrected me on the status on Egypt.

Yeah. But that was when you pointed to constitutional monarchies. As I understand it, you have subsequently given that up. If you still point to these three countries, then what do you base your choice on now? It obviously isn't because they are constitutional monarchies. One of them is even a republic.

So...why these three countries? Are there any more? Why are they comparable to the Shah's Iran?

So say what you want to say, already. You don't need anything more from me. C'mon, grow some cajones and make a statement. Do you think I'm wrong? Fine, tell me how. Move the dialogue forward. You're a grown man, you can do this without trying to make me follow some silly script of yours.

I am trying to move to dialogue forward, Mycroft. It is you who keep dancing around the issue, instead of giving straight answers to straight questions.

This is your point, Mycroft. It is not up to others to drag answers out of you.

I may have missed a nuance: was that not your point?

It isn't my point, but Mycroft's.

 

[CFLarsen]

All this smacks of looking for something to disagree on. Truly, if you have to put this much effort into finding something to argue about, maybe it's time to move on to another subject? Something will present itself soon enough, it always does.

No, it smacks of you trying to run away from your earlier claim.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah. But that was when you pointed to constitutional monarchies. As I understand it, you have subsequently given that up. If you still point to these three countries, then what do you base your choice on now? It obviously isn't because they are constitutional monarchies. One of them is even a republic.

One of them is a republic? I think that’s questionable.

I fail to understand the source of your confusion. Varwoche doesn’t seem to have any problem identifying why I would group Iran with those three countries.

For example, we’ve already said many times the similarity is not in being a constitutional monarchy, yet you keep bringing it up. Why? Are you being obtuse on purpose?

So...why these three countries? Are there any more? Why are they comparable to the Shah's Iran?

What is your opinion of Iran under the Shah? Is it better than the governments that came before, or worse? Did the revolution that installed the Mullahs into power improve things or not? Do you agree or disagree that while the Shah was in power, he attempted to modernize Iran technologically and socially?

Do you have an opinion on these issues? Do you agree or disagree with the opinions I have expressed?

These are the issues that were being discussed, yet instead you have chosen to fixate on a peripheral issue. In fixating on that issue, you cannot even bring yourself to state with certainty if you agree or disagree with what I have already said, but instead ask for endless clarifications.

To what purpose? You’ve been asked that many times, and you fail to come up with an answer.

I am trying to move to dialogue forward, Mycroft. It is you who keep dancing around the issue, instead of giving straight answers to straight questions.

This is your point, Mycroft. It is not up to others to drag answers out of you.

You’re not trying to move anything forward, you’re trying to stall the dialogue on a piece of minutiae apparently in the hope you will eventually find something to disagree with.

C’mon Larsen, you’re capable of expressing an opinion. Did I say something you disagree with? Tell me what it was and why you disagree with it. You’re a big-boy, you can do this.

 

[Mycroft]

No, it smacks of you trying to run away from your earlier claim.

Except that I haven't run away, and instead have spent a fair amount of my time humoring you and your silly demands.

Do you have an objection to any of my previous claims? Can you identify what your objection is? Why should you need to maneuver me into saying any specific thing before you're able to say why and how you disagree with me?

 

[CFLarsen]

One of them is a republic? I think that’s questionable.

Why do you say that?

See? You merely state something, and leave it hanging there. We have to drag it out of you. Explain what it is you mean. Don't troll for other people's opinions.

I fail to understand the source of your confusion. Varwoche doesn’t seem to have any problem identifying why I would group Iran with those three countries.

I am not Varwoche.

For example, we’ve already said many times the similarity is not in being a constitutional monarchy, yet you keep bringing it up. Why? Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Not at all. I bring it up because that was your base for comparison. You listed three countries based on this comparison. You still haven't explained why you keep pointing to these three countries, despite you (apparently) have abandoned your criterion.

What is your opinion of Iran under the Shah? Is it better than the governments that came before, or worse? Did the revolution that installed the Mullahs into power improve things or not? Do you agree or disagree that while the Shah was in power, he attempted to modernize Iran technologically and socially?

Do you have an opinion on these issues? Do you agree or disagree with the opinions I have expressed?

These are the issues that were being discussed, yet instead you have chosen to fixate on a peripheral issue. In fixating on that issue, you cannot even bring yourself to state with certainty if you agree or disagree with what I have already said, but instead ask for endless clarifications.

This is your point, Mycroft. You have simply stated that the Shah was not such a bad guy after all, yet you haven't explained why.

To what purpose? You’ve been asked that many times, and you fail to come up with an answer.

I have repeatedly answered that: You point to the Shah. You have failed to come up with an answer to why you think he wasn't such a bad guy, especially when compared to other countries.

You’re not trying to move anything forward, you’re trying to stall the dialogue on a piece of minutiae apparently in the hope you will eventually find something to disagree with.

C’mon Larsen, you’re capable of expressing an opinion. Did I say something you disagree with? Tell me what it was and why you disagree with it. You’re a big-boy, you can do this.

Just explain what you mean. This is your thread, your point.