Cyprus-Forum.com

[ChomskyFan]

This post and some of the subsequent ones were split from the following thread by erolz
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/modcp.php?m ... bca7a0423f


Look, lets be honest here and cut to the chase, those living in properties that don't belong to them are simple thieves, plain and simple thieves. No intellectual acrobatics, no comparitive hypotheticals, no flawed logic of 'compensation'. Those who occupy these properties are thieving criminals.

[erolz]

Look, lets be honest here and cut to the chase, those living in properties that don't belong to them are simple thieves, plain and simple thieves. No intellectual acrobatics, no comparitive hypotheticals, no flawed logic of 'compensation'. Those who occupy these properties are thieving criminals.

Again maybe you would be advise to think on Chomsky's words about such absolutism as you claim to be a fan of his

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm

Now there is a tendency to assume that a stand based on an absolute moral judgment shows high principle in a way that's not shown in a stand taken on what are disparagingly referred to as "tactical grounds." I think this is a pretty dubious assumption. If tactics involves a calculation of the human cost of various actions, then tactical considerations are actually the only considerations that have a moral quality to them. So I can't accept a general and absolute opposition to violence, only that resort to violence is illegitimate unless the consequences are to eliminate a greater evil.

How here Chomsky is talking about the use of violence and it's legitamcy but it seemd to me it would also aplly to you 'absolute moral judgement' re the issue of TC living on lands and in houses that were GC prior to 74.



[/quote]

[ChomskyFan]

Look, lets be honest here and cut to the chase, those living in properties that don't belong to them are simple thieves, plain and simple thieves. No intellectual acrobatics, no comparitive hypotheticals, no flawed logic of 'compensation'. Those who occupy these properties are thieving criminals.

Again maybe you would be advise to think on Chomsky's words about such absolutism as you claim to be a fan of his

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm

Now there is a tendency to assume that a stand based on an absolute moral judgment shows high principle in a way that's not shown in a stand taken on what are disparagingly referred to as "tactical grounds." I think this is a pretty dubious assumption. If tactics involves a calculation of the human cost of various actions, then tactical considerations are actually the only considerations that have a moral quality to them. So I can't accept a general and absolute opposition to violence, only that resort to violence is illegitimate unless the consequences are to eliminate a greater evil.

How here Chomsky is talking about the use of violence and it's legitamcy but it seemd to me it would also aplly to you 'absolute moral judgement' re the issue of TC living on lands and in houses that were GC prior to 74.

[/quote]
Just because your Aunt is one of the thieves Erolz it does not mean you can adopt that tone with me. You seem to believe your Aunt has a right to steal other people's homes. Is this the case? Does she enjoy it in her new home? How much else did she manage to steal? The pots, the pans, the TV, maybe even some money in the upstairs cabinet? How does she justify it to herself, does she use the flawed logic of compensation? Or does she even try and justify it to herself at all, does she even have a conscience? You sir, and your Aunt, are thieves, nothing more, nothing less.

"I think there is a right of return. There are lots of rights of return. For example, I think there's a right of return for the people who were driven out of this place, those who survived. They have a right of return."

[erolz]

Just because your Aunt is one of the thieves Erolz it does not mean you can adopt that tone with me.

I adpot no tone with you. If you percieve one then I am sorry but I can not control what you chose to percieve or not.

My point is a simple one. You maintain that any TC living in a property that was not thiers before 74 is a thief - plain and simple. I am saying that such absolutism is misplaced in this senario. These people imo are not simply 'thieves'. The situtation that led to this is a complex one and has many causes. In support of the view that such 'moral absolutism' is not the right (or moraly superior) approach to such problems I offerd a quote from Chomsky on this very point - as you apprently respect his views.

You seem to believe your Aunt .....

To be blunt I am not willing to discuss my Aunt with you, for in my view you have not earnt my respect that would be necessary for me to enter into such a discussion with you. There are members of this forum that I would discuss this issue with and you are not one of them.

When you make accusations about on my 'position' on the 'kurds', refuse to susbstantiate these false claims and ignore it when I show the evidence that you accusation is not just wrong but actualy the reverse of what I have previously said on the issue, you eran very little respect in my eyes.

[ChomskyFan]

No, I have heard you use the term 'compensation' before, Ok, lets look at the logic behind this:

"I didn't know the person I stole the house off, I just knew they were a Greek Cypriot who fled, ergo, because I have suffered at the hands of some Greek Cypriots, I will exact my 'compensation' by holding an entire race accountable for the actions of a few"

Now let's listen to this one:

"I didn't know the person I killed, I just knew they were a Turk, I have suffered at the hands of some the Turks, ergo, I will exact my revenge by holding the whole race accountable."

.....

[erolz]

No, I have heard you use the term 'compensation' before, Ok, lets look at the logic behind this:

As far as I am concerned the discussion we were having was not about compensation, but about the validity and value of your absolutist moral assertion that 'anyone living in a house that was previously someone elses' is a theif - end of story'. I think that this absolute moral assertion that ignores the specific situation and presents itself as the 'superior' moral view is as chomsky says a "pretty dubious assumption".

If you wish to discuss compensation and how it should apply to Cypriots that have lost homes and those that have lost loved ones and what these approaches mean - I suggest you start a seperate thread about it.

[ChomskyFan]

No, I have heard you use the term 'compensation' before, Ok, lets look at the logic behind this:

As far as I am concerned the discussion we were having was not about compensation, but about the validity and value of your absolutist moral assertion that 'anyone living in a house that was previously someone elses' is a theif - end of story'. I think that this absolute moral assertion that ignores the specific situation and presents itself as the 'superior' moral view is as chomsky says a "pretty dubious assumption".

If you wish to discuss compensation and how it should apply to Cypriots that have lost homes and those that have lost loved ones and what these approaches mean - I suggest you start a seperate thread about it.

Yes, I still believe all of them are thieves, so what? Your not going to get me to change my mind.

link to webspace advertisment removed by erolz

[erolz]

Yes, I still believe all of them are thieves, so what? Your not going to get me to change my mind.

You are intitled to believe what ever you want to believe, just as I am entitled to disagree with that belief and explain why I think it is not a 'valid' belief.

[ChomskyFan]

Yes, I still believe all of them are thieves, so what? Your not going to get me to change my mind.

You are intitled to believe what ever you want to believe, just as I am entitled to disagree with that belief and explain why I think it is not a 'valid' belief.

Ok then, tell me why people should be forced out of their homes against their will, only to be inhabited by someone else.

This is exactly why we can't live with Turks, they want full RoR for themselves and nothing for us. We can't live with them.

[erolz]

Ok then, tell me why people should be forced out of their homes against their will, only to be inhabited by someone else.

People should not be forced out of their homes against their will for any reason. However that does not change the fact that in Cyprus many were. Saying that we should now force people from their homes of 30+ years to solve the problem of those that it was done to 30 years ago, without any consideration for how responsible those to be forced from homes today are for being in someones home of 30 years ago and without any considerations of the wider issues that led to the prior forcing of people from their homes (and ignoring the forcing of people from thier homes prior to that), is to me not a sensible or constructive appraoch

This is exactly why we can't live with Turks, they want full RoR for themselves and nothing for us. We can't live with them.

You have asserted this many times before (and ignoring you lack of disctionction between T and TC). It is in my view simply not the case that TC want full RoR in a Cyprus settlement. This is a GC 'red line' (to some degree or other). If anything TC want a right to not now be forced from their homes against their will.