On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:35 PM, ravi wrote:
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Shane Mage wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:02 PM, ravi wrote:
>>> For #2 to not be a *general* statement about the poor/
>>> disenfranchised, #5 has to be significant i.e., Y > X. But given
>>> that Ahmadinejad...runs up huge numbers...That makes it highly
>>> unlikely that those who support Mousavi from that community (the
>>> subset Y) is anywhere close in number to those who support
>>> Ahmadinejad (subset X).
>> But since almost all Iranians are poor, and all but the mullahs and
>> their minions are disenfranchised, and given that a winning
>> candidate's sponsors have no reason blatantly to falsify the
>> actual vote the way they have in fact done--it is clear that this
>> argument is completely false.
>
> But Dabashi didn't write "poor" and "disenfranchised". He wrote
> "poorest" and "most disenfranchised".
*You* are the one who wrote "poor/disenfranchised." If you had
included "est" and "most" your argument would be patently invalid
without a census showing the percentage of the poor/disenfrachised
comprising the lumpen.
>
>
> I cannot understand the second part of your refutation of my
> argument: are you saying that the powerful clerics falsified the
> vote because in truth, Ahmadinejad does not draw support from the
> [majority of the] poor and disenfranchised?
Again, you write "poor and disenfranchised." Not poorest and most disenfranchised. The blatant falsification of the election is all the proof needed that "in truth, Ahmadinejad does not draw support from the [majority of the] poor and disenfranchised."
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos