Tweet
To debate (these Greeks) or not to debate – that certainly, is a debatable question!
Gandeto
August 07, 2009
When does one enter into a debate with his opponent?
I believe it all depends upon the circumstances under which the debate will be taking place, the significance and the importance of proving the point and perhaps the stature and the reputation of the opponent you are going to debate.
However, if the immediate premise is to (a) furnish enough pertinent light on the resources that served as a base for your assumed position and thereby, provide strength and reliability to your argument, then the answer is yes. If the immediate concern is to (b) elaborate your position by displaying comparatively analogous situations and from them draw parallel conclusions and thus, through documented evidence illustrate the veracity and the admissibility of your claim, then, again, the answer is a resounding yes. And, furthermore, if the immediate desire or impulse is to (c) prove your opponent wrong and expose his weaknesses, the porosity and the solubility of his assertions to withstand logical scrutiny, then the answer is definitely yes.
But if your opponent lacks the capacity to even comprehend what is being asked, possesses no rudimentary subject knowledge to analyze and evaluate the structural components essential to the answer being sought, then you ought to stop and rethink your commitment. If he, instead of bringing coherent and well formulated answers to points being debated, conversely, as if being pre-programmed, spews stupidities and insults, then, you ought to seek alternative ways to bring home the bacon. And finally, if your opponent resorts to personal attacks and repeats ready-made slogans found circulated among the hate-mongers on websites, then the answer is irrevocably NO.
I have no illusions that engaging a fellow of these dimensions can only bring you to the level in which he is accustomed to operating, namely, the shadowy whirlpool of prejudice from where he draws his daily hate-nourishment and cultivates his ego-boosting bigoted/racist sustenance. This is why many of his so-called "rebuttals", which carry the familiar odor of shallowness and abhorrence, have been noticed, but left by the wayside as unworthy of a response.
Today, in spite of all these unpleasant indices that point to the opposite, I will make an exception and click the switch on, again, having no hopes that the light that he so much needs, will not illuminate the abyss in which he is found.
He goes by the name of "Astor the Macedonian" and he thinks or perhaps hopes, that he has adequately answered and rebutted my article "Who is afraid of Macedonia" published by American Chronicle on 6/18/2009.
One of the points in the article I´ve raised was about the differences between the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks, where I used a quote from Justin (8.4.7-8), to indicate that he, Justin, referred to Macedonia as a foreign country. Here it is:
I wrote:
"If ancient Macedonians were considered Greeks, how come Justin, when reporting on the Greek embassy´s visit to Philip´s court in Macedonia in 346 BC, described the visit as ´waiting at a foreign court to beg for peace´?"
And here is the answer this fellow provided in his rebuttal:
He wrote:
"By foreign Justin means "from another land". Or he didn´t know what he talked about. Does he say something about Macedonian and southern Greeks´ language of communication?
5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Greeks were divided by ´race´ in three main tribes: Ionians, Dorians and Aeolians. Greek tribes fought each other ceaselessly. That´s why they created a specific term for inter-Greece peace lovers: Philhellene. The term was for the Greeks who wanted the unification and reconciliation of all Greeks, beyond city states. http://www.network54.com/Forum/41592...age/1118870604 (why do you SlavoSkopians write again and again the same questions that have been answered by us Greeks wisely? Stupidity or lack of arguments?). Anyway, maybe SlavoSkopians need to know about civil wars or divided peoples. Did Southern Americans ever say a good word for Northern ones during American Civil war? Are Northern Koreans less Korean than Southern ones? Livius clearly states that Macedonian was a Greek dialect." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Livy.
I wonder if this person has ever read anything other than the propaganda pamphlet he is periodically updated with. Be that as it may, I will encourage him to take a second look at
Diod.17.62.1
In the following passage from Deodorus, we find that even the sufferings inflicted on Greeks by other Greeks bear different weight and are easier to endure than the sufferings inflicted by people of different race and origin. The ´suffering´ caused by the Macedonians, in this case a non-Greek people, is obviously not only not acceptable, but poignantly degrading. The exclusion of Macedonians from the Hellenes is evident, and the under-current of hate is noticeable.
"Ay, and you know this also, that the wrongs which the Greeks suffered from the Lacedaemonians or from us, they suffered at all events at the hands of true-born sons of Greece, and they might have been regarded as the acts of a legitimate son, born to great possessions…(Diod.17.62.1)
Yes, Greek city-states warred against each other and they greatly suffered as a consequence there of, but in the words of Demosthenes, at least they suffered in the hands of true Greeks and not from the Macedonians.
Until next time…
Gandeto
August 07, 2009
When does one enter into a debate with his opponent?
I believe it all depends upon the circumstances under which the debate will be taking place, the significance and the importance of proving the point and perhaps the stature and the reputation of the opponent you are going to debate.
However, if the immediate premise is to (a) furnish enough pertinent light on the resources that served as a base for your assumed position and thereby, provide strength and reliability to your argument, then the answer is yes. If the immediate concern is to (b) elaborate your position by displaying comparatively analogous situations and from them draw parallel conclusions and thus, through documented evidence illustrate the veracity and the admissibility of your claim, then, again, the answer is a resounding yes. And, furthermore, if the immediate desire or impulse is to (c) prove your opponent wrong and expose his weaknesses, the porosity and the solubility of his assertions to withstand logical scrutiny, then the answer is definitely yes.
But if your opponent lacks the capacity to even comprehend what is being asked, possesses no rudimentary subject knowledge to analyze and evaluate the structural components essential to the answer being sought, then you ought to stop and rethink your commitment. If he, instead of bringing coherent and well formulated answers to points being debated, conversely, as if being pre-programmed, spews stupidities and insults, then, you ought to seek alternative ways to bring home the bacon. And finally, if your opponent resorts to personal attacks and repeats ready-made slogans found circulated among the hate-mongers on websites, then the answer is irrevocably NO.
I have no illusions that engaging a fellow of these dimensions can only bring you to the level in which he is accustomed to operating, namely, the shadowy whirlpool of prejudice from where he draws his daily hate-nourishment and cultivates his ego-boosting bigoted/racist sustenance. This is why many of his so-called "rebuttals", which carry the familiar odor of shallowness and abhorrence, have been noticed, but left by the wayside as unworthy of a response.
Today, in spite of all these unpleasant indices that point to the opposite, I will make an exception and click the switch on, again, having no hopes that the light that he so much needs, will not illuminate the abyss in which he is found.
He goes by the name of "Astor the Macedonian" and he thinks or perhaps hopes, that he has adequately answered and rebutted my article "Who is afraid of Macedonia" published by American Chronicle on 6/18/2009.
One of the points in the article I´ve raised was about the differences between the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks, where I used a quote from Justin (8.4.7-8), to indicate that he, Justin, referred to Macedonia as a foreign country. Here it is:
I wrote:
"If ancient Macedonians were considered Greeks, how come Justin, when reporting on the Greek embassy´s visit to Philip´s court in Macedonia in 346 BC, described the visit as ´waiting at a foreign court to beg for peace´?"
And here is the answer this fellow provided in his rebuttal:
He wrote:
"By foreign Justin means "from another land". Or he didn´t know what he talked about. Does he say something about Macedonian and southern Greeks´ language of communication?
5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Greeks were divided by ´race´ in three main tribes: Ionians, Dorians and Aeolians. Greek tribes fought each other ceaselessly. That´s why they created a specific term for inter-Greece peace lovers: Philhellene. The term was for the Greeks who wanted the unification and reconciliation of all Greeks, beyond city states. http://www.network54.com/Forum/41592...age/1118870604 (why do you SlavoSkopians write again and again the same questions that have been answered by us Greeks wisely? Stupidity or lack of arguments?). Anyway, maybe SlavoSkopians need to know about civil wars or divided peoples. Did Southern Americans ever say a good word for Northern ones during American Civil war? Are Northern Koreans less Korean than Southern ones? Livius clearly states that Macedonian was a Greek dialect." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Livy.
I wonder if this person has ever read anything other than the propaganda pamphlet he is periodically updated with. Be that as it may, I will encourage him to take a second look at
Diod.17.62.1
In the following passage from Deodorus, we find that even the sufferings inflicted on Greeks by other Greeks bear different weight and are easier to endure than the sufferings inflicted by people of different race and origin. The ´suffering´ caused by the Macedonians, in this case a non-Greek people, is obviously not only not acceptable, but poignantly degrading. The exclusion of Macedonians from the Hellenes is evident, and the under-current of hate is noticeable.
"Ay, and you know this also, that the wrongs which the Greeks suffered from the Lacedaemonians or from us, they suffered at all events at the hands of true-born sons of Greece, and they might have been regarded as the acts of a legitimate son, born to great possessions…(Diod.17.62.1)
Yes, Greek city-states warred against each other and they greatly suffered as a consequence there of, but in the words of Demosthenes, at least they suffered in the hands of true Greeks and not from the Macedonians.
Until next time…
Comment