Armenian Genocide (?)

Do you believe?

  • Yes

    Votes: 208 61.7%
  • No

    Votes: 129 38.3%

  • Total voters
    337

Users who are viewing this thread

@RecursiveHarmony
An invocation of Hitler or Nazism is not a reductio ad Hitlerum if it illuminates the argument instead of causing distraction from it.
Here the point that eddiemccandless has made is to illustrate that the argument makes no sense logically. Basically, you were committing a logical fallacy yourself and he used that logical fallacy to demonstrate how fallacious it is. It's a technique in debating which is used to deconstruct and destroy fallacies. In short, if an argument is fallacious, it can be countered by the same kind of fallacy used in the argument. The example is extreme on purpose to better illustrate the illogical property of the argument being countered.
 
Last edited:
@eddiemccandless

The problematic quote. I can't quote it properly cause you put it into my quote box.


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.
See, that wasn't so difficult now was it? Why didn't you just answer this way instead of trying to call the mod police over nothing?

However, the analogy is not false. And you are the one who brought Nazis into the conversation, not me:
In the third statement, i mentioned victor's justice. That's the reason why Nazis are punished and USA can get away with nuking Japan twice and invading Iraq when they don't have nukes. Sometimes you can't declare someone guilty without overpowering them. It's not fair, and i don't like it either but it's what it is.
which sure comes off as apologetic towards the Nazis.

And given that as @Zombie Warrior also pointed out, the Armenian genocide was also known as Holocaust, I would say that the comparison is very much relevant and illuminates your argument. And thus is acceptable, according to that very same Wikipedia article that you linked (or rather, the source it cites on that point).

Edit: @Zombie Warrior ninjaed me and pretty much said the same thing just in a more concise manner! noice.
 
See, that wasn't so difficult now was it? Why didn't you just answer this way instead of trying to call the mod police over nothing?
I already explained why the way misquote is wrong. I'm not gonna do that again.
In the third statement, i mentioned victor's justice. That's the reason why Nazis are punished and USA can get away with nuking Japan twice and invading Iraq when they don't have nukes. Sometimes you can't declare someone guilty without overpowering them. It's not fair, and i don't like it either but it's what it is.
I'm criticising the fact that USA can get away with the things that can be considered war crimes if they were defeated. I'm saying both should be punished. That's what i mean by "it's not fair". You can punish the Nazis however much you want, it's not the topic here.
However, the analogy is not false
I said this
Maybe some of the Turks were also innocent, and unlawfully and unethically murdered by some Armenian rebels. It creates a good reason to exclude those criminal rebels from genocide.
Also said this.
Here is a link of a video. Unfortunately it's in Turkish. Kazım Karabekir's daughter talking about some civilians mounted on spikes by Armenians. I think Armenians would count those guys as innocent civilians if they were killed somewhere during those events.
For them to be analogically equivalent, you should present some "Germans were also innocent, and unlawfully and unethically murdered by some Jew rebels" cases. Do you have any? If you don't, it can't be used for nazi apologism.
Any argument has the potential to be used for another case if the words are replaced correctly. What makes them analogically equivalent is their validity.
And given that as @Zombie Warrior also pointed out, the Armenian genocide was also known as Holocaust,
By that logic Rwandan Genocide can be called Holocoust too. I don't have to question their name in this topic. You can argue their names in the respective threads, if there is any. As i said to @Zombie Warrior
I use 'Holocoust' cause everyone understands what i mean by that. I don't like to have another discussion about Nazi stuff in this thread. Other people come up with Nazi comparisions and i tried to explain my opinions in words they can understand.
It's commonly known as The Holocoust. This stuff is called "Armenian Genocide". Our government and historians calls it "So-called Armenian Genocide". Usage of common words. Also i compared Nazi stuff to USA's stuff to illuminate victor's justice. You brought it into conversition by this. I haven't compared it to Armenian Genocide at that point. I made the comparisions after you said this.
@RecursiveHarmony as a general rule, I'd say you can safely assume you are doing something wrong when your line of thought leads you to defending Hitler :smile: .

@Zombie Warrior
Here the point that eddiemccandless has made is to illustrate that the argument makes no sense logically. Basically, you were committing a logical fallacy yourself and he used that logical fallacy to demonstrate how fallacious it is. It's a technique in debating which is used to deconstruct and destroy fallacies. In short, if an argument is fallacious, it can be countered by the same kind of fallacy used in the argument. The example is extreme on purpose to better illustrate the illogical property of the argument being countered.
As i quoted before
Here is a link of a video. Unfortunately it's in Turkish. Kazım Karabekir's daughter talking about some civilians mounted on spikes by Armenians. I think Armenians would count those guys as innocent civilians if they were killed somewhere during those events.
I don't consider people who mount other people on spikes as victims of a genocide. If you do, it's pointless to argue. I symphatize with every Armenian who didn't commit any of those kind of atrocities. That's why i consider this topic in terms of law and ethics.
 
Lol yeah, I am not about to go look up cases of jews who committed violence on Germans during Nazi times, thank you very much. Given that millions of jews were murdered in the process, I think it's safe to say that some of them were criminals, and some of them committed violent crimes towards Germans. It does not justify the systematic extermination of their entire population, just like the episodes that you mention do not justify the death of over a million of people who had nothing to do with it, even if they were true.

As for your video, there's all sorts of Turkish propaganda that you could share here, I am sure. You will forgive me if I don't take it at face value (especially when it's not even in a language I understand...). Like at this point you might as well say "I am right and you are wrong because I said so", which is, well, kind of what you are doing :smile:.

Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here?
 
The Nazis said at the time that the Jews brought their mass murder on themselves. You could easily imagine how disgusting it would be if a contemporary German repeats this.
And today it's some Turk using the same justification for the Armenians a century ago. but he sees no problem with it. For those that don't care about silly concepts like Turkishness, this is just as disgusting.

Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here?
He's trying to leave while smiling, but failing.
I'm just smiling at this post and leaving this thread.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here?
Nothing actually. :smile: You guys try to refute my arguments and i answer. If noone said anything about my initial post, i would never have written anything else.
Lol yeah, I am not about to go look up cases of jews who committed violence on Germans during Nazi times, thank you very much. Given that millions of jews were murdered in the process, I think it's safe to say that some of them were criminals, and some of them committed violent crimes towards Germans. It does not justify the systematic extermination of their entire population, just like the episodes that you mention do not justify the death of over a million of people who had nothing to do with it, even if they were true.
As i said before, criminals only, not everyone. It would be guilt by association and i'm against that. If one day, two nations come together and make trials about these events using every available piece of evidence and testimonies available, i would accept the verdicts and act accordingly.

These conversations aren't gonna end. I'll just stop posting here. Have a nice day everyone.
 
For them to be analogically equivalent, you should present some "Germans were also innocent, and unlawfully and unethically murdered by some Jew rebels" cases. Do you have any? If you don't, it can't be used for nazi apologism.
The Nazis employed this logic specifically to justify massacring soviet citizens and yugoslav citizens. It was official policy to kill 10 "potential partisans" for every german soldier or civilian who was killed or wounded. Soviet and Yugoslav partisans even deliberately attacked germans to invite retaliatory violence because it kept the movement alive. However even something as cynical as this doesn't justify genocidal violence. People don't waive away their humanity the moment they pick up a rifle.

By saying that partisan activity justifies retaliatory violence you are coming dangerously close to "the state should be allowed to massacre rebels in retaliation". It may piss you off that people are saying you sound like a nazi for saying this, but believe it or not most people are horrified by anything resembling "they deserved it" when you are talking about millions and millions of murdered people.
 
Biden is about to recognize the Armenian genocide as such, since the remembrance day is in two days.
Hopefully @RecursiveHarmony will join us in remembering this tragic historic event and accept responsibility on behalf of his dictatorship for the murders and the exile of many Armenians.
This indirectly led to the Kardashians being on TV, so he needs to show sincere regret or I'll report him for disagreeing with me.
 
...accept responsibility on behalf of his dictatorship...
I'm totally uninformed about the topic's subject but this sentence is so wrong on so many levels. I believe you judge historical events on today's circumstances which I believe is the wrong approach for any historical subject.

I'm also avoiding giving any opinion of mine on this very subject but I wish to inform you about 1915's Turkey aka disassembling Ottoman Empire or what's left of it. There was no central power in that state. The country was tired of unending wars and in turmoil. There was no stability at all. At the time even the government came into power with a military coup and there was a puppet Sultan at the throne.

I believe you all are very informed about the events in 1915 so I skip that part to avoid controversial discussions since I'm not trying to enter that topic. So why did I disagree with this sentence of yours? The answer is simple. Today's government in Turkey totally differs from 1915 both ideologically and practically. I know from the outside perspective it seems the same but it's not. I also get why it seems the same but this is not the topic nor it gives any insight about our topic.

As I said I'm totally less informed than you guys about 1915 events but when people misinform people in a historical discussion, I feel like I need to give first-hand information about the current status of that country to make people avoid judge things from today's perspective.

Thank you,
Have a nice discussion :smile:
 
@Kiron your greatest sin is not your lack of information about the events, but the fact that you take the liberty to state these things without having any knowledge of the debate. Your reply is unfortunately unnecessary and doesn't fit with the context with which MadVader's post was written. I suspect that an individual such as yourself wouldn't have reacted the way you did if you had taken the time to know a little bit more about the context.

The person MadVader is referring to holds controversial opinions on the legality of genociding people and justifies such reasoning by saying that since a part of the population were criminal rebels, they deserved what was coming to them. Not only that, but also that person has threatened to report people who disagree with him and he did actually do that on at least one account. This is what MadVader's post is about. You wouldn't get the joke if you weren't there to see it.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for explaining the context @Zombie Warrior It's now more clearer but let's say I gave a reaction not because I thought it wasn't a joke but for its sub-message beneath. I believe that joke wasn't really addressing just a forum member. That's actually why I thought clarification was necessary BUT if it was addressing just a forum member, then my point is void. I believe we need to ask the owner :smile:
 
Thank you for explaining the context @Zombie Warrior It's now more clearer but let's say I gave a reaction not because I thought it wasn't a joke but for its sub-message beneath. I believe that joke wasn't really addressing just a forum member. That's actually why I thought clarification was necessary BUT if it was addressing just a forum member, then my point is void. I believe we need to ask the owner :smile:
Apart from the Biden news, it's cruel, but deserved mockery of our latest thread antagonist.
I'm amazed someone could take it seriously. :smile:
 
I do not know how you could deny the Armenian genocide, but then again, people still deny the Holocaust and all of its victims (Jews, Poles etc) so I guess I'm not too surprised.
 
@Kiron
The person MadVader is referring to holds controversial opinions on the legality of genociding people and justifies such reasoning by saying that since a part of the population were criminal rebels, they deserved what was coming to them.
As i said before (it turned into an as-i-said-before-ception)
As i said before, criminals only, not everyone. It would be guilt by association and i'm against that. If one day, two nations come together and make trials about these events using every available piece of evidence and testimonies available, i would accept the verdicts and act accordingly.
I've talked about trials in absentia, localization of trials,victor's justice, ex post facto laws, presumption of innocence, definition of genocide, differences between Nazi's case and this case, and whole bunch of other stuff. You can read my 17 other posts in this topic.
Not only that, but also that person has threatened to report people who disagree with him and he did actually do that on at least one account.
I explained those cases in this post. "threatened to report people who disagree with him" :lol:
I will explain it with your quotes Kiron.
You said:
As I said I'm totally less informed than you guys about 1915 events but when people misinform people in a historical discussion
And what he did was something like this.
As I said I'm totally less informed than you guys about Holocoust events but when people misinform people in a historical discussion
He changed the words to make a variation of the argument to point something. It's okay, but he did put them into the quotation box like that. This way it looks like you said the second sentence too. That's the problem. It's not about the content, it's about the technique.
Also
he did actually do that on at least one account
Why do you talk about yourself like some other guy ? :unsure: I reported you. You can say "He reported me for flamebaiting, and me and the moderator don't think my words were or can be considered as flamebaiting". Only explanation i can find is that you're trying to make your words sound more objective than they actually are. Don't present your opinions as facts.
 
Last edited:

It is a political statement aiming largely at regional instability. The policy of acting as it suits with democrats in some countries and with antidemocrats in others, is just as wrong as the purpose of seeking profit..





If u ask me;

US must let the law process work.. >The two countries must open the archives, bring all the legal decisions taken on time > And, solve the past & future together in universal/valuable law.

>US must stop acting mostly for political behavior as now.



And, again if u ask my idea in the subject;

Wars are too bad. Unfortunately, many ppl at many countries, including at United States, had bad times. Let lawyers decide if there is a reciprocal massacres, or not(or whatever). Let the truth come.. Let the world be better from past to future..
 
Lawyers? What lawyers? Why lawyers? There's no law process at work or any that will ever be at work. The country which committed the crimes is dead, no longer exists and all that people want is an acknowledgement of the facts. Turkey staked its pride on this and made it political for reasons which elude the entire world. The Ottoman Empire's ally, the German Empire, knew about it and its successor state, Nazi Germany, sought to emulate the massacres. By the way, no, looking at the archives in Turkey are probably not reliable since the state has produced forgeries which support the official stance of the state.

The evidence of the genocide is already widely available in the rest of world. Denying it is like denying that water is not really blue; it's not a secret anymore.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom