Armenian Genocide (?)

Do you believe?

  • Yes

    Votes: 208 61.7%
  • No

    Votes: 129 38.3%

  • Total voters
    337

Users who are viewing this thread

Well, in this specific context, ie turning someone's point around to poke some holes in it, you absolutely can yeah.
I interpret this as "you change people's quotes under some circumstances".
His way is this exactly.
you change people's quotes under some circumstances
This makes you look like you said those words precisely. That's why i think that's against rules.
 
I wrote a couple posts here and all of them has attracted some weird hostility.
I wonder why. You posted some pretty controversial posts defending the legality of genociding people and saying some parts of the armenian genocide aren't true. I don't believe you when you say you're surprised people are confronting you on that. Btw, judging by the history of this thread, you got away with it pretty much scott free. Mostly because those with the hard bites have yet to manifest themselves.

The word 'genocide' comes with criminal punisment and moral judgement.
Not according to the 6 dictionaries I went through.
The wiktionary article even comes with a usage note which doesn't mention anything about punishment or moral judgment.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genocide

'Punishment' becomes the unlawfullness part which is in the realm of Law.
In this thread, people against the notion of the armenian genocide often say that turkey would have to compensate the victims in some way. I don't know where that is coming from. All the world wants is for turkey to say "Yes, we acknowledge it happened and we apologize in the name of our forefathers", then the world would swiftly move on to the next hot controversy and we'd all forget about it.

Says 'me'.
I'm sorry, but you're not an established expert on that topic.

i tried to explain my opinions in words they can understand.
You're openly admitting to patronizing people and I'm the bad one?

Ottoman cases were mostly rebellion oriented.
I would call a history of slaughtering armenians since the middle ages and organizing progroms because of different religious beliefs to be very open discrimination, but I'm not sure, what do the others think?

Ottoman cases were mostly rebellion oriented.
I wonder why the ottomans faced resistance from the people they were trying to eradicate. It's very strange. As if people don't like to be massacred. Oh, yeah, right! Because self defence now counts as rebellion.

- Scale: Nazis were hunting Jews globally.
That is simply untrue. The nazis "hunted" the jewish population that was in their conquered territories and in nations where they held a strong influence like Italy. Which is what the Ottoman empire was doing. There was no global nazi hunt, it was confined to their area of influence. Off course, whether or not it happened one could say that the nazi would have wanted to do that to which one can reply the ottomans would have wanted to hunt the armenians in that same way as well.

Edit: also, if you look up the definitions provided, you'll see words like "attempt", which doesn't always scale up since it's an attempt.
Some even say "or parts of".

- Content: Basically what happened. Josef Mengele was a good example of it. What this guy was accused of doing is just ****ed up.
As you can see it's more simple and based than a delusional dictator's racism oriented manhunt.
Then by your logic, no other genocide ever happened in history because they didn't have their own Josef Mengele to do even more wicked stuff than plain old murder.

@eddiemccandless Edit it with taking your reversal out of my quote or i'm gonna report it. I don't think you did it with malice, but you can't change someone's words and make him look like he said those words.
I see you've taken a liking to threaten people who disagree with reports. Ever heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf? Or the man who abused the court system so much he no longer has the right to sue? Also, that's not how debates work. You can't just ask people to censor their posts because their arguments are in opposition to your position.
 
Last edited:
I interpret this as "you change people's quotes under some circumstances".
His way is this exactly.

This makes you look like you said those words precisely. That's why i think that's against rules.
Ok, and you can just click the quotes to see the very original post with the very original words. Same page, even. Non issue, back to the topic of the Armenian genocide.

Oh, before I forget,
I see you've taken a liking to threaten people who disagree with reports. Ever heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf? Or the man who abused the court system so much he no longer has the right to sue?

Abusing the report system is indeed against the rules.
 
Last edited:
I wonder why. You posted some pretty controversial posts defending the legality of genociding people and saying some parts of the armenian genocide aren't true. I don't believe you when you say you're surprised people are confronting you on that. Btw, judging by the history of this thread, you got away with it pretty much scott free. Mostly because those with the hard bites have yet to manifest themselves.
I see you've taken a liking to threaten people who disagree with reports. Ever heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf? Or the man who abused the court system so much he no longer has the right to sue? Also, that's not how debates work. You can't just ask people to censor their posts because their arguments are in opposition to your position.
I'm talking about people assuming me (and Turkish people in general) acting in bad faith. I'm don't go and talk to Armenians in that way especially in the first words.
I stand for both reports. I explained second one to the moderator.
Not according to the 6 dictionaries I went through.
The wiktionary article even comes with a usage note which doesn't mention anything about punishment or moral judgment.
I explained it multiple times. No need to reiterate again.
In this thread, people against the notion of the armenian genocide often say that turkey would have to compensate the victims in some way. I don't know where that is coming from. All the world wants is for turkey to say "Yes, we acknowledge it happened and we apologize in the name of our forefathers", then the world would swiftly move on to the next hot controversy and we'd all forget about it.
SOAD - PLUCK. If you listen carefully, you can hear "Recognition, Restoration, Reparation".
You're openly admitting to patronizing people and I'm the bad one?
No patronizing. It just means simple and common words used by other people related to that topic.
I would call a history of slaughtering armenians since the middle ages and organizing progroms because of different religious beliefs to be very open discrimination, but I'm not sure, what do the others think?
I wonder why the ottomans faced resistance from the people they were trying to eradicate. It's very strange. As if people don't like to be massacred. Oh, yeah, right! Because self defence now counts as rebellion.
This is Armenian narrative. Turkish side is quite the opposite. Pick whatever you want.
That is simply untrue. The nazis "hunted" the jewish population that was in their conquered territories and in nations where they held a strong influence like Italy. Which is what the Ottoman empire was doing. There was no global nazi hunt, it was confined to their area of influence. Off course, whether or not it happened one could say that the nazi would have wanted to do that to which one can reply the ottomans would have wanted to hunt the armenians in that same way as well.
Then by your logic, no other genocide ever happened in history because they didn't have their own Josef Mengele to do even more wicked stuff than plain old murder.
I tried to explain it simply. I'm not gonna explain it for pages. It doesn't help with anything here.

Ok, and you can just click the quotes to see the very original post with the very original words. Same page, even. Non issue, back to the topic of the Armenian genocide.
I'm just smiling at this post and leaving this thread. This place started started to sound like the Armenia subreddit rather than a game forum.
I'm tired of writing.
 
I'm talking about people assuming me (and Turkish people in general) acting in bad faith. I'm don't go and talk to Armenians in that way especially in the first words..

If it helps, I don't assume that you are talking in bad faith because you are Turkish. I do it based on what you write, the semi pro nazi attitude, the unapologetic whataboutism and the fact that you resort to reporting people when you are called out on all of that (and you tell them that you did, which is honestly just weird and definitely looks like an attempt at deflection and distraction from the topic at hand).
 
you are ... nazi ... and ... weird
:grin:
I admire your patience and calm logic in debating a subject that's emotionally difficult for the other side, and especially pointing out the rhetorical fallacies. Not that it changed hearts and minds, but it's the right way to do this and few people can pull it off.

What is the best way to debate Turks about their favorite genocide? A confrontational approach doesn't do anything. I suspect it's the same as talking to conspiracy believers - you have to make them question their sources of information, in this case, Turkish indoctrination with national myths through schooling or nationalist historians presenting denial arguments, that are used as a playbook for online denial.
 
:grin:
I admire your patience and calm logic in debating a subject that's emotionally difficult for the other side, and especially pointing out the rhetorical fallacies. Not that it changed hearts and minds, but it's the right way to do this and few people can pull it off.

What is the best way to debate Turks about their favorite genocide? A confrontational approach doesn't do anything. I suspect it's the same as talking to conspiracy believers - you have to make them question their sources of information, in this case, Turkish indoctrination with national myths through schooling or nationalist historians presenting denial arguments, that are used as a playbook for online denial.

??? I actually did lol at this one (as opposed to the mildly amused expression one usually has when writing lol).

Thank you, the conspiracy theory angle is exactly where I am coming from. And in general I feel that there's too many angry people in this world. Now don't get me wrong, I lose it just like everyone else does every now and then, but I try not to. And I guess I have been on the internet long enough to know better than to get ragey.
 
SOAD - PLUCK. If you listen carefully, you can hear "Recognition, Restoration, Reparation".

I always love it when this comes up. Also System of a Down. If you listen closely, you can hear Daron describe his scheme for financial restitution following the Armenian Genocide. Maybe it's best not to take one band as the mouthpiece of an entire nation?

Just waiting for someone to bring up the Kardashian Armenian Media Conspiracy again.
 
Let's clarify a couple things.
I reported this post. I specified added the parts that i found as 'flamebaiting'.
You derailed it because it's easier to defend the genocide that way
I would love to see you squeeze yourself out of that one
Definitions of flamebaiting and flaming.
Flamebait: Content in an online forum, such as a newsgroup, with the intent of provoking anger, resulting in flames and sometimes flamewars.
Flame: Intentionally insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger.
Those look like they match the definition of the flamebaiting, especially the second one. Considering we don't know each other and never argued before, i think you shouldn't talk like that to a stranger in your first post.
The moderator rejected the report, and i haven't objected to his decision. You may not consider those words as 'insulting remarks' or simply think they're in the limits of freedom of speech. I don't have to agree, but i can play under those flexible rules as long as they are fairly applied to me as well.
Also i answered the post i reported.
Eddie's case is different.
the fact that you resort to reporting people when you are called out on all of that (and you tell them that you did, which is honestly just weird and definitely looks like an attempt at deflection and distraction from the topic at hand).
I also missed to answer this part as well.
Also, that's not how debates work. You can't just ask people to censor their posts because their arguments are in opposition to your position.
I didn't ask him to censor his post. I asked him to fix his mistake.
You can see i explained in the original post after editing it while preserving my post's original content. You can point whatever you want, but can't misquote people in that way. I explained it to the moderator. I also sent a message to a global moderator too. Eddie's way is unacceptable. It can't be considered under the freedom of speech. It's related to how forum's quoting mechanism works. It makes me look like i said that German and Jew rebels quote. It's his words not mine. I said the one with the Turks and the Armenian Rebels.
Also i didn't said i resort to report people. I said this.
I stand for both reports. I explained second one to the moderator.
Which means my reasons were justifiable. I explained my reasons before. I explained them above more explicitly. I can answer that post after the situation is resolved.

Maybe it's best not to take one band as the mouthpiece of an entire nation?
Vocal minorities are important. They can kickstart good or evil movements. SOAD raised more than a quarter million for the Aid For Artsakh Campaign. That's a good amount of charity money.
Also Hitler was some random soldier in the German army in the World War 1. You know the rest of his story.
 
You are not very good at this debating thing, you keep using poor analogies and threaten to call the cops on anyone disagreeing with you. Good luck with that, you are more likely to get moderated for abuse of the reporting system than to silence people.
 
@RecursiveHarmony I think you're mistaking disgreement and arguments for 'flaming'. But back on topic:

A book

A book (this one has a shorter chapter summarizing the genocide)

Overview from Wikipedia
At the orders of Talat Pasha, an estimated 800,000 to 1.2 million Armenian women, children, and elderly or infirm people were sent on death marches leading to the Syrian Desert in 1915 and 1916. Driven forward by paramilitary escorts, the deportees were deprived of food and water and subjected to robbery, rape, and massacre. In the Syrian Desert, they were dispersed into a series of concentration camps; in early 1916 another wave of massacres were ordered, leaving about 200,000 deportees alive by the end of 1916. Around 100,000 to 200,000 Armenian women and children were forcibly converted to Islam and integrated into Muslim households. Massacres and ethnic cleansing of Armenian survivors were carried out by the Turkish nationalist movement during the Turkish war of independence after World War I.
 
@Zombie Warrior sent me a message about those words and what he didn't mean anything malignant by them. I believe in his sincerity and close that case. Sorry for any misunderstandings.
threaten to call the cops on anyone disagreeing with you. Good luck with that, you are more likely to get moderated for abuse of the reporting system than to silence people.
That was actually my first time reporting someone. Eddie's one was rejected without even pushing the report button by the moderator comment. I don't really go and report people a lot.
 
Please go ahead and report me if you think I did something wrong, I absolutely encourage it.

On the other hand, I refuse to believe that you really don't get the point I was making. So I guess now you have a few choices. You can keep flailing around about things that have nothing to do with the topic, or you can try and have a honest conversation with people who might have views that are very different from yours, but are nonetheless trying to talk to you. Or I guess you could leave, but I think that at this point you are too fond of us to do that ?.

Edit: also, I love how you completely ignored @Adorno's post.
 
On the other hand, I refuse to believe that you really don't get the point I was making.
I got your point. You were trying to make a point. I refuse to believe that you really don't get the point i was doing too.
Edit: also, I love how you completely ignored @Adorno's post.
@Adorno Thanks for the sources. I read wiki from time to time. I'll try to read the other one sometime. About disagreements and arguments, as i said i believe in his sincerity of his message. If he didn't send a message me, i would answer your post differently.
@MadVader Maddie, I don't even understand what you're trying to do with that quote omission games, but if you like that, keep doing. I think i should let the children play games. :smile:
 
@eddiemccandless
and ultimately if you think that way you *are* being apologetic towards the holocaust as well, whether you are aware of it or not.
The problematic quote. I can't quote it properly cause you put it into my quote box.
Maybe some of the Germans were also innocent, and unlawfully and unethically murdered by some Jew rebels. It creates a good reason to exclude those criminal rebels from genocide.
I'm not against him making a point, i'm against him making a point in that manner. You can't change someone's quote that way.
What you do here is called playing the Nazi card. You're basically trying to create a variation of my quote to prove your point,but it's a false analogy. Armenian rebels are closely related to the Armenian National Movement. There is even some sort of small, short-lived state-like thing in the occupied Ottoman lands. There is also the Wilsonian Armenia stuff. As far as i know, there were no Jew rebels in that manner. Jews wanted the current Israel and British helped them. They haven't wanted any Jewish state in the German lands. So i consider any Jew revolt as a result of the Nazi's inhuman policies.
 
Back
Top Bottom