If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér ŕ Henry Lam ŕ chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Has anyone else read it recently? If so, got any review of it for the rest of us plebs?
Bob A
Marx is always an interesting read, philosophically speaking, but because his political rivals were the "utopian socialists" he was wary of making prescriptions, like the founder of modern sociology August Comte, of a future society. If you want to read current ideas of 21st century socialism, based on actual practice, you might do better to look at Michael Lebowitz. See, for example, The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development, or browse through the back issues of Monthly Review to read his essays that address the same subject.
The late President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, liked an author by the name of István Mészáros. However, Mészáros is a very difficult read.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Wednesday, 17th December, 2014, 03:50 PM.
Reason: link to IM
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Hi Kevin: In his early days, Marx was a humanist philosopher.....there is a most interesting book from him during this period (may be called the Young Marx or Writings of the Young Marx - if anyone could get me the accurate title it would be appreciated). In there, he is very impressive in his belief in human nature and positiveness about our future. It is from this background that he criticized the capitalist system. And I agree with you that almost all those regimes alleging themselves to follow Marx, were in fact "Facist Communism" (my label).....ruling not with the support of the people, but by military suppression of dissent (Marx would not have agreed, as far as I know....unless someone can refer me to one of his texts). But the one country situation that most approximates what a Marxist government should be, is the Socialist/Communist Alliance of Chile under Dr. Salvadore Allende. It did not seek control of the population by military force......but at the same time, this was its undoing. General Pinochet took care of the peoples' experiment, and installed his brutal military dictatorship. So I think those who reject "communism" as we've seen it implemented in history, are quite justified in doing so. But I believe they should further evaluate the potential of implementation of true "Marxist government".
Bob A
Hi Bob
Marx started out his life as he ended it, believing in God, as one televangelist I listened to once told it. Marx apparently did not feel happy at all about his prospects in the afterlife near the end of his time.
As someone who has had personal spiritual experiences, I know for a fact that philosophical materialsm doesn't apply to reality. Proving it is another matter. Being aware of any number of my faults (including as a poster), I don't see myself as even very persuasive, on that count alone.
The results of socialism so far have been mixed at best when it has been tried in Canada, in my view. However, I pay attention to mostly right wing sources of information these days. Along with having my memories of the impact of various left wing politicians at all levels of government.
Capitalism, warts and all, at least has so far led to a higher standard of living in the West than is the case elsewhere, as I understand it.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
...Capitalism, warts and all, at least has so far led to a higher standard of living in the West than is the case elsewhere, as I understand it.
Which brings up a fascinating quote, from whom I do not know: "The United States has the highest standard of living in the world. Too bad they can't afford it."
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The USA is naturally an interesting case. Any number of people think that the USA has been only an illusory democracy since at least JFK's assasination. Eisenhower once warned about the military-industrial complex possibly taking over some day, for example. Unprofitable foreign wars (at least for the American taxpayer), along with huge expeditures on the military, are a large part of the reason the USA is now tremendously in debt, I suppose most everyone knows. There have already been sober-minded predictions for when the USA will go bankrupt.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 18th December, 2014, 10:36 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
...
The results of socialism so far have been mixed at best when it has been tried in Canada, in my view. However, I pay attention to mostly right wing sources of information these days. Along with having my memories of the impact of various left wing politicians at all levels of government.
Capitalism, warts and all, at least has so far led to a higher standard of living in the West than is the case elsewhere, as I understand it.
One example of socialism that has done some good has to do with health care provided by governments, though it is largely a provincial matter in Canada. At the same time, trying to force people to use government provided health care, without allowing other options, is not so good.
Regarding capitalism, another issue is the role of unions. In times of sweatshops and little government regard for the average workers' welfare, they can be a good thing. Nowadays in Canada, for example, unions can inhibit productivity far too much, wield so much power that they influence politics far too much, and they can inconvenience the public far too much during strikes which can all too often be justified by nothing but selfishness, e.g. greed. At the moment I can think of few positive things unions in this country do that government regulations together with adequate enforcement measures probably wouldn't do.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
One example of socialism that has done some good has to do with health care provided by governments, though it is largely a provincial matter in Canada. At the same time, trying to force people to use government provided health care, without allowing other options, is not so good.
It's interesting that you make that comment today of all days. Perhaps you saw this news item from today: the Vermont state government (perhaps the most socialist government within the U.S.) just today announced they are giving up on the idea (for now) of a single-payer 'universal' health care system. The reason: the business and personal taxes required to support it would be too big a hit on the state economy. Perhaps the real problem is that health care costs are sky high due to a pervasive for-profit health care infrastructure.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I understand that in the US a lengthy hospital stay can be ruinously costly, due to the costs attached to even such otherwise minor items as syringes.
Vermont may have left setting up a universal health care system too late. The size of their population may be a factor too, as far as spreading the cost involved.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
As someone who has had personal spiritual experiences, I know for a fact that philosophical materialsm doesn't apply to reality.
This is a big claim. It is tantamount to claiming you are God and can have absolute knowledge based on (as you admit) no convincing evidence.
You seem to be claiming to "know" something on the basis of "spiritual experience". But unless you are omniscient you cannot know that your "spiritual experience" was not a hallucination. Multitudes of people have "spiritual experiences" (including me) but they don't usually go around claiming that this gives them absolute authority. And when they do they risk being laughed at. Moreover when you examine their descriptions of these "spiritual experiences" you find that they often entirely contradict other people's "spiritual experiences". If "spiritual experience" could give on absolute knowledge you would think that all these "spiritual experiences" would agree with each other, wouldn't you?
So claiming to "know" facts about reality without observing said reality (which is what you appear to be doing) is the same as claiming equality with God.
So claiming to "know" facts about reality without observing said reality (which is what you appear to be doing) is the same as claiming equality with God.
...
The results of socialism so far have been mixed at best when it has been tried in Canada, in my view. However, I pay attention to mostly right wing sources of information these days. Along with having my memories of the impact of various left wing politicians at all levels of government.
Perhaps someone can remind me of exactly how the Liberals under Pierre Trudeau put Canada deeply into debt for the first time. At the least, he brought us such expensive joys as the National Energy Policy, and enforced (as opposed to voluntary) multiculturalism and official bilingualism (official, that is, now everywhere except Quebec).
To be fair, as the Reform Party once pointed out prominently in its campaign literature, the PCs under Brian Mulroney increased the federal debt in an equally tremendous manner. However, at least Mulroney spent a considerable portion because of the Cold War, I seem to recall.
It was during Mulroney's time that the NDP under Bob Rae came into power in Ontario, putting the province billions of dollars into debt for the first time. Some apologists for Rae think that times were tough, and that excused the man. Rae Days were unforgettable. Mike Harris of the PCs came in and got the province out of the hole, along with cutting welfare cases down. The province's voters didn't like his bitter medication. Subsequently, the Ontario Liberals under McGuinty and Wynn proved to be socialists of a crooked and/or wrong-headed sort. They've managed to dwarf the debt the NDP put the province into, and made Ontario a have-not province, thanks in large part due to their terrible Green Energy policy. Also, one of their more perverse schemes is their radical sex education agenda for young children. After a first attempt to introduce it was dropped due to a backlash, a second, more stealthy, attempt to introduce it is in the works.
In my city, Jim Watson is mayor. He jumped the Liberal ship at a time it looked like McGuinty was going to lose an election. Meetings at city hall in Ottawa became a lot faster - the left wing councillors became known as the bobbleheads. Once, a left wing mayor lost an election after wanting a light rail project that cost about $1 billion. Now, Watson is going ahead with a $2 billion light rail project that goes a much shorter distance and is more disruptive - after Ottawa voters re-elected him when they would have been aware of it if they paid attention at all.
I blame the bad governments we get on bad voters.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Thursday, 18th December, 2014, 11:59 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
This is a big claim. It is tantamount to claiming you are God and can have absolute knowledge based on (as you admit) no convincing evidence.
You seem to be claiming to "know" something on the basis of "spiritual experience". But unless you are omniscient you cannot know that your "spiritual experience" was not a hallucination. Multitudes of people have "spiritual experiences" (including me) but they don't usually go around claiming that this gives them absolute authority. And when they do they risk being laughed at. Moreover when you examine their descriptions of these "spiritual experiences" you find that they often entirely contradict other people's "spiritual experiences". If "spiritual experience" could give on absolute knowledge you would think that all these "spiritual experiences" would agree with each other, wouldn't you?
So claiming to "know" facts about reality without observing said reality (which is what you appear to be doing) is the same as claiming equality with God.
Maybe what Kevin "knows" is that this reality itself is a hallucination. That would agree with many ancient philosophers from very different cultures, and it would agree also with the direction that modern physics is pointing to.
If you are going to say that every claim of absolute knowledge based on faith / spiritual experience is the same as claiming equality with God, then we are all guilty of it. How many religions, including atheism, claim to have this absolute knowledge? All of them! Even agnostics, who claim to be searching for the truth, are in effect claiming absolute knowledge that none of the 'truths' of the other religions is truth for them.
With respect to spiritual experiences all agreeing with each other, there is one example of that. From this web page, http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Archi...hives_main.htm
you can read almost 4,000 accounts of near death experience. Almost all of them are from persons who were clinically dead for some period of time. Or... maybe somebody is making it all up, just for kicks and giggles.
I've read through many of them, and the one thing they seem to agree unanimously on is: the other side is more real and solid and vivid than this physical reality could ever be even on the clearest, sunniest day imaginable. This is consistent no matter what the religious or philosophical viewpoint of the person was before having the experience.
But to return to the main point, Ed, your whole argument is the pot calling the kettle black. Your last statement is a statement of fact in which you use the word 'reality' as if you have final authority on what that is. And yes, you could counter that I'm doing the same thing.
It boils down to: we all have our own version of reality. This forum is proof enough of that.
I didn't take Kevin's statement as him preaching to anyone but you apparently did, and you responded by preaching back to him, and not in private but in public, which seems to imply a desire to put your version of reality out to a wider audience. Well, we're all guilty, that's part of what this forum is all about. But I think Kevin was fine to state things as he did and I seriously doubt you convinced him that his "spiritual experiences" weren't real.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Maybe what Kevin "knows" is that this reality itself is a hallucination. That would agree with many ancient philosophers from very different cultures, and it would agree also with the direction that modern physics is pointing to.
Well, you are just factually wrong there, especially about modern physics. It is true that our senses do not provide us with direct knowledge of the "external" world as it is. For example, colour does not exist in the physical world outside our own minds. Materialism is in fact still the underlying philosophy of physics, and quantum dynamics hasn't changed that.
But that doesn't mean that there isn't a "reality".
If you are going to say that every claim of absolute knowledge based on faith / spiritual experience is the same as claiming equality with God, then we are all guilty of it.
That doesn't follow, but even if it did that doesn't make it true.
How many religions, including atheism, claim to have this absolute knowledge?
You are wrong about atheism. Atheists do not claim that they know absolutely there is no god, only that they know beyond a reasonable doubt, or even on the balance of probabilities, that there is no sufficient evidence that there is one.
There is a difference between a claim of infallible knowledge and a claim of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. Science never claims the former, only the latter. Science provides knowledge that is never absolute, but which is often sufficiently strong for you to reasonably bet your life upon it's truth.
All of them! Even agnostics, who claim to be searching for the truth, are in effect claiming absolute knowledge that none of the 'truths' of the other religions is truth for them.
I don't think that statement contains any semantic content.
With respect to spiritual experiences all agreeing with each other, there is one example of that. From this web page, http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Archi...hives_main.htm
you can read almost 4,000 accounts of near death experience. Almost all of them are from persons who were clinically dead for some period of time. Or... maybe somebody is making it all up, just for kicks and giggles.
I've read through many of them, and the one thing they seem to agree unanimously on is: the other side is more real and solid and vivid than this physical reality could ever be even on the clearest, sunniest day imaginable. This is consistent no matter what the religious or philosophical viewpoint of the person was before having the experience.
But even if this were true (and it actually isn't), we rarely hear from those who have been near death and have not had these experiences. It's not a situation where we can take a random sample. By the way Kevin didn't mention NDE's in talking about "spiritual experiences", and you seem to be bringing that in out of left field.
But to return to the main point, Ed, your whole argument is the pot calling the kettle black. Your last statement is a statement of fact in which you use the word 'reality' as if you have final authority on what that is. And yes, you could counter that I'm doing the same thing.
And here you imply that you can read my mind. I think there is a "reality", but that does not imply any claim to be able to dictate exactly what that reality is.
I didn't take Kevin's statement as him preaching to anyone but you apparently did
Pretty funny that you accuse me of putting words in Kevin's mouth and then do the exact same thing to me! I didn't take Kevin's statement that way at all. Nor am I preaching in any way.
I won't bother with the other fantasies about me in the last part of your posts save to point out that they are indeed fantasies.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Friday, 19th December, 2014, 07:50 PM.
I take the timing, alone, of some of my many unusual experiences over the years as being extremely probable proof to me personally that my experiences are real. An example would be that in my teens in troubled times I started reading the bible, began to believe in God (though not with 100% certainty at the time) and started hearing a constant low level background ringing in my ears. Eventually I told my strong-willed father about this and he managed to convince me that a person's mind can play tricks on them. At that point I stopped believing in God and the low level background ringing in my ears also then ceased. Decades later I was having a hard time, and finally apparently was made to recall a dream I had in my youth. Part of the dream was a floral arrangement by a stairway, which I now had in my then current home. I started believing in God again, and soon it dawned on me to repent in a general way (certain aspects of my past lifestyle had been wrong). At that point I heard the low level background ringing in my ears again, on a constant basis.
If one has 100% conviction that God exists, one's prayers can have a greater chance of being realized. Even if they are very great miracles that benefit more than people I know, as some are that I have asked for, and that I feel that I was meant to ask for. A lesser prayer of mine once came true, though coincidence would be significantly more probable if that's how one wished to explain it. I lady I liked had a cat allergy, but owned cats, so I prayed she lose the allergy. Shortly after, she did. She told me her doctor said that such allergies can sometimes disappear on their own, but I suspected otherwise... Of course I can't prove all this, no more than the many people who have made claims about anything supernatural in various media. My point is that I am telling Bob that for me personally, I know philosophical materialism is dead wrong. I thought Bob might be interested, even if he didn't believe me at all.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I take the timing, alone, of some of my many unusual experiences over the years as being extremely probable proof to me personally that my experiences are real. An example would be that in my teens in troubled times I started reading the bible, began to believe in God (though not with 100% certainty at the time) and started hearing a constant low level background ringing in my ears. Eventually I told my strong-willed father about this and he managed to convince me that a person's mind can play tricks on them. At that point I stopped believing in God and the low level background ringing in my ears also then ceased. Decades later I was having a hard time, and finally apparently was made to recall a dream I had in my youth. Part of the dream was a floral arrangement by a stairway, which I now had in my then current home. I started believing in God again, and soon it dawned on me to repent in a general way (certain aspects of my past lifestyle had been wrong). At that point I heard the low level background ringing in my ears again, on a constant basis.
If one has 100% conviction that God exists, one's prayers can have a greater chance of being realized. Even if they are very great miracles that benefit more than people I know, as some are that I have asked for, and that I feel that I was meant to ask for. A lesser prayer of mine once came true, though coincidence would be significantly more probable if that's how one wished to explain it. I lady I liked had a cat allergy, but owned cats, so I prayed she lose the allergy. Shortly after, she did. She told me her doctor said that such allergies can sometimes disappear on their own, but I suspected otherwise... Of course I can't prove all this, no more than the many people who have made claims about anything supernatural in various media. My point is that I am telling Bob that for me personally, I know philosophical materialism is dead wrong. I thought Bob might be interested, even if he didn't believe me at all.
Hi Kevin:
I guess the accusation that we have gone off on a tangent would stick......
So..I'll be brief:
1. There is a "Supra-Natural" (to be distinguished from the "Supernatural" of many religions). It is not provable by our senses or scientific investigative equipment.
2. It is able to be "intuited" by humans - this is the reason throughout man's history, he has generally believed in God, gods, Spirits, etc. The attempt to describe this "other" is limited by the time, culture, etc. in which the attempt is being made....thus the great variety of such descriptions throughout the human race's existence.
It shouldn't be unusual that someone who believes in equal income distribution and/or the top 1 percent to believe in the tooth fairy. Looking at the Toronto Mayoral election those with money did well and the poor got an predictably small percentage of the vote. As soon as you tell people you want to take away their stuff and give it for programs from which they won't benefit their vote evaporates.
To get in the spirit of the supernatural theme which has evolved, I have to tell you my late dog, Beware, was uncanny in predicting the future. Possibly a Ouija board would be in order to try to find out the future. Now I must run. I have some tea leaves to read.
Tweet
Comment