Cyprus-Forum.com

[BirKibrisli]

GR

No matter how many one-sided stories you post Bananiot, the FACT still remains that during July and August of 1974, the end result was…

Greek Cypriot casualties: 5,000 odd.

Turkish Cypriot casualties: 200 odd.

The story was not brought up by me. It was brought up by Sevgul, who never shies away to bring out stories involving murders of Greek Cypriots by Turkish Cypriots. In fact, last time I wrote about these sorry incidents, was about Kkitros, who was murdered in cold blood by TC soldiers at Tzaos in August 1974.

GR, of course, thinks that these killings are interesting only for statistical reasons and stupidly believes that those that killed more people are worse murderers. Conveniently, he (along with all other epidermal thinkers) fails to understand that it was the events Sevgul describes in her regular column in "Politis" that brought the disaster in 1974.

The murderers that reigned supreme back then drew massive divisive lines between the communities and this has produced the dreaded Federation as the only feasible solution (sadly along geographical lines), where each community can be safeguarded from the murdering fiends that are still lose among us and many enjoy hero status!

All that matters is the end result…

Greek Cypriot casualties: 5,000 odd.

Turkish Cypriot casualties: 200 odd.

…because everything else is this -->

Really??? so statistics are only what matters,GR???

So if a man is unfaithful to his wife 2000 times and the wife unfaithful to him 200 times (or vice versa),all is sweet???? The man is the only one to blame, because he did it more times???? Is that the only criteria you will be using to analyse this relationship,GR???

Don't you think it is a bit simplistic???

[james_mav]

So if a man is unfaithful to his wife 2000 times and the wife unfaithful to him 200 times (or vice versa),all is sweet???? The man is the only one to blame, because he did it more times???? Is that the only criteria you will be using to analyse this relationship,GR???

Don't you think it is a bit simplistic???

Your example is what thinking people call a false analogy. It's ironic that in attempting to refute someone's point with the accusation of simplistic thinking, you engage in precisely that.

[Get Real!]

All that matters is the end result…

Greek Cypriot casualties: 5,000 odd.

Turkish Cypriot casualties: 200 odd.

…because everything else is this -->

Really??? so statistics are only what matters,GR???

So if a man is unfaithful to his wife 2000 times and the wife unfaithful to him 200 times (or vice versa),all is sweet???? The man is the only one to blame, because he did it more times???? Is that the only criteria you will be using to analyse this relationship,GR???

Don't you think it is a bit simplistic???

I can tell you what I think of your theory but I doubt you'll be very happy...

[BirKibrisli]

All that matters is the end result…

Greek Cypriot casualties: 5,000 odd.

Turkish Cypriot casualties: 200 odd.

…because everything else is this -->

Really??? so statistics are only what matters,GR???

So if a man is unfaithful to his wife 2000 times and the wife unfaithful to him 200 times (or vice versa),all is sweet???? The man is the only one to blame, because he did it more times???? Is that the only criteria you will be using to analyse this relationship,GR???

Don't you think it is a bit simplistic???

I can tell you what I think of your theory but I doubt you'll be very happy...

But don't you think looking just to the "end results" a bit simplistic in evaluating a complicated issue as the Cyprob...????

[BirKibrisli]

So if a man is unfaithful to his wife 2000 times and the wife unfaithful to him 200 times (or vice versa),all is sweet???? The man is the only one to blame, because he did it more times???? Is that the only criteria you will be using to analyse this relationship,GR???

Don't you think it is a bit simplistic???

Your example is what thinking people call a false analogy. It's ironic that in attempting to refute someone's point with the accusation of simplistic thinking, you engage in precisely that.

So GR's theory is not simplistic but my analogy is...?
Your bias is showing james!!! Pray tell me what is wrong with my analogy...

[james_mav]

So if a man is unfaithful to his wife 2000 times and the wife unfaithful to him 200 times (or vice versa),all is sweet???? The man is the only one to blame, because he did it more times???? Is that the only criteria you will be using to analyse this relationship,GR???

Don't you think it is a bit simplistic???

Your example is what thinking people call a false analogy. It's ironic that in attempting to refute someone's point with the accusation of simplistic thinking, you engage in precisely that.

So GR's theory is not simplistic but my analogy is...?
Your bias is showing james!!! Pray tell me what is wrong with my analogy...

If you seek to advance your point of view by way of analogy, the onus is on you to demonstrate why an analogy applies. It's completely invalid to concoct a preposterous analogy and then demand that someone else rebuts your analogy in order to rebut your original argument. Furthermore, I said nothing whatsoever about anyone else's arguments. Finally, it's no secret whatsoever that I am biased, and I have never made any attempt to disguise this fact. If you want to call me out on something, call me out on an error of fact or logic.

As for your analogy: the original position was about the discrepancy in casualties between the two ethnic communities. The occupier has invented and perpetrated a blatant and disgraceful fraud that their invasion was in fact an "intervention", a "peace operation", an effort to "restore the legal order", or some such. You may be aware of the idea of proportionality, especially in a conflict between mismatched powers, as was the case in Cyprus. If the occupier's response to the circumstances was proportionate, the death toll would not be so skewed; the skewed casualty count (not to mention the wholesale violence against and ethnic cleansing of civilians) strongly suggests that the occupier's arguments for the purpose of the invasion were not for the noble causes which they proclaim. The ongoing occupation 35 years after the fact further reinforces this suspicion.

Now, within this framework (or any other reasonable framework you care to state clearly) please explain how your analogy of the morals of skewed degrees of (prodigious!) fornication by a married couple applies to the skewed casualty count.

[Oracle]

I think if anyone is going to post here and beg understanding for the "fearful" position the TCs have been put in, under the hands of the "evil" GCs; they'd better have some evidence to back up the enormity of these charges. That might mean statistics!

And, if anyone is going to come here and accuse the RoC of driving out 10s of thousands of TCs, then he'd better have some evidence to back up such "statistics" ... and I don't mean the 60 TCs who left one time.

So you see, when the TCs come here and play the exaggeration game ... suddenly it's the statistics which are the "problem" and not their exaggerating minds which turn an 11% minority into a 40% land-grabbing tyrant.

And as for an analogy in relative merits of numbers .... Personally, I don't believe in capital punishment for a murderer who made a "mistake" once, maybe twice, maybe in defence. But, when a murderer has enjoyed himself so much that he has stretched to being a serial killer on a killing spree .... well, what can I say?

The TCs' exaggerations would be a joke, if they weren't so harmful to humanity.

[DT.]

All that matters is the end result…

Greek Cypriot casualties: 5,000 odd.

Turkish Cypriot casualties: 200 odd.

…because everything else is this -->

Really??? so statistics are only what matters,GR???

So if a man is unfaithful to his wife 2000 times and the wife unfaithful to him 200 times (or vice versa),all is sweet???? The man is the only one to blame, because he did it more times???? Is that the only criteria you will be using to analyse this relationship,GR???

Don't you think it is a bit simplistic???

I can tell you what I think of your theory but I doubt you'll be very happy...

But don't you think looking just to the "end results" a bit simplistic in evaluating a complicated issue as the Cyprob...????

Bir, your argument would hold more water if these crimes weren't being committed today as we speak. 200,000 GC's are being kept from their homes TODAY by 40,000 Turkish troops.

[BirKibrisli]

So if a man is unfaithful to his wife 2000 times and the wife unfaithful to him 200 times (or vice versa),all is sweet???? The man is the only one to blame, because he did it more times???? Is that the only criteria you will be using to analyse this relationship,GR???

Don't you think it is a bit simplistic???

Your example is what thinking people call a false analogy. It's ironic that in attempting to refute someone's point with the accusation of simplistic thinking, you engage in precisely that.

So GR's theory is not simplistic but my analogy is...?
Your bias is showing james!!! Pray tell me what is wrong with my analogy...

If you seek to advance your point of view by way of analogy, the onus is on you to demonstrate why an analogy applies. It's completely invalid to concoct a preposterous analogy and then demand that someone else rebuts your analogy in order to rebut your original argument. Furthermore, I said nothing whatsoever about anyone else's arguments. Finally, it's no secret whatsoever that I am biased, and I have never made any attempt to disguise this fact. If you want to call me out on something, call me out on an error of fact or logic.

As for your analogy: the original position was about the discrepancy in casualties between the two ethnic communities. The occupier has invented and perpetrated a blatant and disgraceful fraud that their invasion was in fact an "intervention", a "peace operation", an effort to "restore the legal order", or some such. You may be aware of the idea of proportionality, especially in a conflict between mismatched powers, as was the case in Cyprus. If the occupier's response to the circumstances was proportionate, the death toll would not be so skewed; the skewed casualty count (not to mention the wholesale violence against and ethnic cleansing of civilians) strongly suggests that the occupier's arguments for the purpose of the invasion were not for the noble causes which they proclaim. The ongoing occupation 35 years after the fact further reinforces this suspicion.

Now, within this framework (or any other reasonable framework you care to state clearly) please explain how your analogy of the morals of skewed degrees of (prodigious!) fornication by a married couple applies to the skewed casualty count.

I used a valid analogy to show how absurd it is to reduce a complicated issue to one of "end results" or statistics....Nothing you said above is relevant to my point...You cannot reduce a political,social,and human issue to simple statistics...It does not suit you to admit this point now,but that doesn't change the fact...

[james_mav]

You obviously didn't read my post.

I used a valid analogy

Your analogy is not valid simply because you assert that it is valid. In fact I think it is invalid. If your analogy is simply meant to show that "comparing two numbers may not necessarily be valid", well yes, I guess your analogy is valid, but then it's a stupid analogy because it's easier to just say that comparing two numbers is not necessarily valid.

Nothing you said above is relevant to my point

If you say so.