Blegoo, previously profiled and published here, took some time off from shovelling to write an article for this blog, as a guest. I’m publishing it here as encouragement (longer version), with the spelling mistakes left uncorrected but listed at the end, and also detailing there the formatting work I (still) had to do.
Now, a "debate" (wiki-db8) is defined as broadly as a dispute in a discussion. I say "black", the opponent says "white".
In real life, especially in a romanian "discussion", debates are punctuated with curses of various offensive degrees - such as addressing one's family afiliation with the business of prostitution (usually one's mother) or perceived mental retardness or alcohoolism (usually one's father) or one's extended family, one's faith, degree of intelligence (as measured by standard IQ tests) and so on.
Romanians are known for their inventiveness - but they exceed in cursing. My favorite:
Out of respect for non-romanian speaking readers here, I'll not attempt a translation. Rest assured, it is offensive.
Back to the issue of debating, rules and regulations thereof.
Honourable "Zeamo" is fond of certain thereabove mentioned rules and regulations governing any "debate". While I concede that he has a point, I would like to submit to the readers of this site that he's behind the times. "Debates" in this day and age are not governed by any rules; indeed, the debates do not even have address the topic. Anything (and everything goes) - just as shown in last year CEDA debate win: (1, 2, 3). In case the reader is confused about the "subject" of the debate... it's War Power Resolution (wiki-wpr). Now, I'll offer a quote from some article:
Several college debate clubs that feature members preoccupied with minority issues have decided the traditional tournament format promotes white privilege. They have responded by refusing to play by the official rules, ignoring time limits and rebutting their opponents with rap and spoken-word poetry. (dc-prep)Since the rules are going to be refused to be played by the blacks, I would claim the same privilege. We're equal, right, Zeamo? Blacks, whites, brown, yellow. Hence Oxford rules, Paris rules and other junk mandated for civilized debates will be jettisoned with anger and great satisfaction. Here, in the land of "Zeamo" (formerly known as "Zamolxis") where the law of the land is "romgleza", we claim to debate by "Romglish Rules"! Any "rebuttals" to the article in question will not contain references to historical, biological sociological or cultural facts (established alredy). Instead, we'll just rap our point. We'll hip-hop the issue. "Hopa-hopa, Penelopa", cum ar zice Neamțu Țiganu (nt-ai). It's only fair, considering that I'm sporting mostly black hair and I'm a dog. Yeah, I know: "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog". Back to the article (as it is - full of pitifull complains and lachrymose accusations) - such as "...the other person is no longer commenting on this blog..." and "...I don’t debate or engage in conversation to win, but rather to have my views and ideas challenged...". Bleah and double bleah. Perhaps "the other person"got tired of your attitude? Hollier than you-type? Smarter than you-type? Full of links-type? In the example offered - "legalisation of drugs" - you did not offered ANYTHING or ANY ARGUMENT beyond imbecilic and self-contradicting statements and I quote:
"...Argumentez ca decriminalizarea consumului personal combinata cu mentinerea ilegalitatii traficarii..."How idiotic is this? No criminal charges for consumption, but criminal charges for providing? So, somebody wants to do heroine, or cocaine on a daily basis... and that person will get the fix from... where? Since trafficking is illegal, that is; portugal model, that is, according to Zeamo. There is no consumption without delivery. Singapore and Indonesia drug laws come to mind. There's no problem of alcoholism or theft in Saudi Arabia, is it? Problem is always in ENFORCING the laws, not the existence of said laws. To accept (and even condone - by not prosecuting) consumption of mind-altering chemicals by an ever-increasing segment of the population is a sure receipe for destroying the society. To even defend - in a debate - such a position is mind boggling - no pun intended. Let me offer another pearl of Zeamo-wisdom:
"4. Exemplul american in ce priveste lupta impotriva consumului de droguri este extrem de relevant. Statele Unite au pornit de la un regim legislativ foarte liberal in sensul clasic (deci aproape libertarian). In timp, pe masura ce oamenii au devenit tot mai subjugati de propriul stat si implicit mai nefericiti, nevoia de decuplare de la realitate a crescut si, sub diverse pretexte, consumul de droguri a trebuit sa fie “controlat” crescand aceasta nevoie intr-un positive feedback loop..."So. Drugs were free to use and sell. But then, the people became unhappy because of the State? And the people started using drugs more and more? Since those drugs were legal to use, produce and sell? Woauuu... that's very deep, man... I dig it... pass it over, looks like good shit. To sum it up: your arguments are so lacking of substance that I'm not at all surprised that "the other person" is no longer willing to discuss or "debate" with you on any given topic - be it legalizing any and all drugs for everybody anywhere or the role of culture in the gypsy community. Going back to your article and your
"...bothers me only insofar as their ability to challenge my own viewpoints..."
Problem here is that you don't accept any opposing arguments or facts, as presented by any opponents. You stick to yours, totally and absolutelly sure of your truth. Mention of "cognitive dissonance" is smile provocking, in this context. I can criticize the article sentence by sentence - but what's the purpose? Zeamo will still think that he's "debating" - Indiana University-style - while throwing out the door (and windows) any and all contrary arguments, statistics or common sense. Zeamo... you belong on a team of debaters with Ameena Ruffinb and Korey Johnson. (ba-2bl)
.......................
Any and all following posts (if any) will contain NO links to ANYTHING whatsoever. I trust that the readers are smart enough to navigate around internet, common sense and available statistics. Relying on "authority" is a common fallacy (wiki-ipse) - mostly employed by Zeamo.
I refuse to be dragged down into this liberal, democratic, socialistic infested mud.
Ham-ham!
* * *
As promised, I’m listing here the changes I had to made, in the hope that if he bothers to write again for this blog, he’ll manage to make my job easier next time.
- Added top photo – necessary for the recommendation code below the article and the Top column on the right in the desktop version.
- Moved external links at the bottom, in Sources / More info, (except those that can open in the logo window) added proper title tags, _blank target, and referenced them in text. This is done because readers have complained in the past of too many links which made it difficult for them to read the article.
- Translated the insult and encrypted it with “I understand that this a Romanian insult translated.” Just enter whatever is within quotes, without the actual quotes, when prompted for password.
- Made YouTube videos easier to watch and with no loading time penalty – look at the code to understand how and why; process automated with WLW. For instance, <strong><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8">Interview.</a></strong> has become <a title="YouTube Video (opens to the right if you are on the main site): Interview" href="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fmO-ziHU_D8?autoplay=1&modestbranding=1&nologo=1&showinfo=0&rel=0&iv_load_policy=3" rel="ytvid" target="tutub">2</a>.
- Misspelled words (use a spell checker, FFS):
- “romanian”, “portugal” – ethnonyms and country names must be capitalized
- “retardness” – try retardation
- “afiliation” – missing an “f”
- “alcohoolism” – portmanteau for “alcohol” + “hooliganism”?
- “pitifull” – extra “l”
- “alredy” – missing “a”
- “hollier” – extra “l”, unless you’re hollering
- “receipe” – extra “i”
- absolutelly, provocking – you figure it out
- It is best to submit an article in HTML format, attached to an email or, if you prefer, at zamoca.tumblr.com/submit as that is the best way to retain formatting and links; failing to do so may cause the formatting to be lost - (this last point added after publication).
As for my comments/response, I’m running out of time, but will try to add later.
LE: Actually, I won't. Here's why: “Does that exchange sound familiar: a debate that starts with testable factual statements, but then, when the truth becomes inconvenient, the person takes a flight from facts.” (SciAm) There’s nothing in Blegoo’s diatribe that warrants a second look or a rebuttal, it’s all just nonsense. Either that, or I have a problem deriving sense out of it. And furthermore, he has yet to pay me. Moreover:
- (..) when people’s beliefs are threatened, they often take flight to a land where facts do not matter. In scientific terms, their beliefs become less “falsifiable” because they can no longer be tested scientifically for verification or refutation.
- For instance, sometimes people dispute government policies based on the argument that they don’t work. Yet, if facts suggest that the policies do work, the same person might stay resolvedly against the argument based on principle. We can see this on both sides of the political spectrum, whether it’s conservatives and Obamacare or liberals and the Iraqi surge of 2007.
See also NYT & The New Yorker or Tismaneanu, in Romanian.
Sources / More info: wiki-db8, wiki-wpr, dc-prep, nt-ai, ba-2bl, wiki-ipse
),
discriminare - PC (),
guest (),
romi (),
societate ()
. Dacă ţi-a plăcut articolul, PinIt-uieste-l, ReddIt-eaza-l, stumble-uieste-l altora, trimite-l pe WhatsApp
yMess şi consideră abonarea la fluxul RSS sau prin email. Ma poti de asemenea gasi pe Google. Trackback
Aici vei găsi ştiri inedite, articole hazoase, perspective originale in politică, societate, economie şi relaţii interumane. QUESTIONS (Intrebări)? We got Answers (Răspunsuri există)!
