Re: A protest to Nigel Haranham
Wow, what a double standard, and a totally illegitimate one at that! Did Sasha or anyone else here accuse KI or anyone at all in Ukraine or Russia of being implicit in stoning little girls to death or of throwing acid in their faces or having them sold to slavery? NO! Any trial judge would have your remarks stricken from the record, totally inappropriate and inflammatory. I find your inappropriate use of such crimes for your own political gain absolutely disgusting. You have now earned my complete disrespect.
The double standard is your mention of moral equivalency, and then saying "Kirsan = Putin = Hitler is a distraction". Well.... UNLESS IT'S TRUE! If indeed Kirsan is guilty of crimes such as deliberate starvation of whole populations, then the so-called "real baggage" that Kasparov carries has NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE. And you, Vlad Drkulec, would be hoisted by your own petard.
Let me ask you a direct yes-or-no question. Your "Kirsan = Putin = Hitler is a distraction" statement is basically you claiming Kirsan is innocent of any such charges. Please be more direct: ARE YOU CLAIMING WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT KIRSAN IS TOTALLY INNOCENT OF ANY CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?
We are all familiar with the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', but we also know that at the highest levels of government and business, guilt can be papered over. Vlad, if you see even a 1% probability that Kirsan is guilty of crimes against humanity, then you cannot under any semblance of morality vote for him.
In that case, where you have even the slightest doubt of Kirsan's innocence, your own statement about moral equivalency gives you only one proper and decent political way forward. You must declare that you personally are in favor of an abstention by Canada in the FIDE Presidential election. And I only say abstention because of your stated claims against Kasparov which as far as we know... are only substantiated by mysterious emails, perhaps from climate change scientists (D'oh!).
By the way, I'm assuming that an abstention would be a matter of public record, whereas an actual vote either way would not?
Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec
View Post
Wow, what a double standard, and a totally illegitimate one at that! Did Sasha or anyone else here accuse KI or anyone at all in Ukraine or Russia of being implicit in stoning little girls to death or of throwing acid in their faces or having them sold to slavery? NO! Any trial judge would have your remarks stricken from the record, totally inappropriate and inflammatory. I find your inappropriate use of such crimes for your own political gain absolutely disgusting. You have now earned my complete disrespect.
The double standard is your mention of moral equivalency, and then saying "Kirsan = Putin = Hitler is a distraction". Well.... UNLESS IT'S TRUE! If indeed Kirsan is guilty of crimes such as deliberate starvation of whole populations, then the so-called "real baggage" that Kasparov carries has NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE. And you, Vlad Drkulec, would be hoisted by your own petard.
Let me ask you a direct yes-or-no question. Your "Kirsan = Putin = Hitler is a distraction" statement is basically you claiming Kirsan is innocent of any such charges. Please be more direct: ARE YOU CLAIMING WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT KIRSAN IS TOTALLY INNOCENT OF ANY CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?
We are all familiar with the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', but we also know that at the highest levels of government and business, guilt can be papered over. Vlad, if you see even a 1% probability that Kirsan is guilty of crimes against humanity, then you cannot under any semblance of morality vote for him.
In that case, where you have even the slightest doubt of Kirsan's innocence, your own statement about moral equivalency gives you only one proper and decent political way forward. You must declare that you personally are in favor of an abstention by Canada in the FIDE Presidential election. And I only say abstention because of your stated claims against Kasparov which as far as we know... are only substantiated by mysterious emails, perhaps from climate change scientists (D'oh!).
By the way, I'm assuming that an abstention would be a matter of public record, whereas an actual vote either way would not?
Comment