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 à Henry Lam à 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.
Would that be the same base which did not appear in the polls because they didn't want to sleep on the couch when they answered the phone in front of their wife. The base is still solid. The polls are Fake News.
Vlad, I don't rely on any particular poll. Real Clear Politics website gives a rolling average of several major polls, including Rasmussen which is usually more favourable to Trump. But even Rasmussen has a significant negative score for Trump.
Real Clear Politics also has an excellent array of editorials, both positive and negative towards Trump. It is fascinating to read them across the political spectrum. To my pleasant surprise, I found one written by Bernie Sanders giving advise to Democrats on how to start winning elections.
Vlad, I don't rely on any particular poll. Real Clear Politics website gives a rolling average of several major polls, including Rasmussen which is usually more favourable to Trump. But even Rasmussen has a significant negative score for Trump.
Real Clear Politics also has an excellent array of editorials, both positive and negative towards Trump. It is fascinating to read them across the political spectrum. To my pleasant surprise, I found one written by Bernie Sanders giving advise to Democrats on how to start winning elections.
How would Bernie know? Unlike Trump he was not able to beat Hillary. Bernie is an anti-Christian bigot. He attacked a budget director office appointee for his Christian beliefs and seems to believe that Christians should not be allowed to hold such offices.
... Bernie is an anti-Christian bigot. He attacked a budget director office appointee for his Christian beliefs and seems to believe that Christians should not be allowed to hold such offices.
Would you please provide some links to support those statements?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
How would Bernie know? Unlike Trump he was not able to beat Hillary. Bernie is an anti-Christian bigot. He attacked a budget director office appointee for his Christian beliefs and seems to believe that Christians should not be allowed to hold such offices.
Uh, Vlad, that's not what I got out of reading what he said. He questioned Vought on comments Vought had made about Muslims.
Here's what was said (courtesy Fox "news"):
Sen. Sanders: "'Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.' Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?"
Mr. Vought: "Absolutely not, Senator. I'm a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith...
Sanders: "...Forgive me, we just don't have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?"
Vought: "Again, Senator, I'm a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College..."
Sanders: "I understand that. I don't know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that these people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?"
Vought: "Senator, I'm a Christian..."
Sanders [shouting]: "I understand you are a Christian, but this country [is] made of people who are not just -- I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?"
Vought: "Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that's how I should treat all individuals..."
Sanders: "...Do you think that's respectful of other religions?... I would simply say, Mr. Chairman that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about."
I don't get "anti-Christian bigot" out of that exchange.
'Trump - New Thread' has been captured by pirates. 'Trump - The NEW, New Thread' will now be the place where ChessTalkers can engage in civil discourse about Trump. : /
The pirates dropped a cannonball, and it crashed through the deck and down through the hull, sinking the ship. "Trump, the New Thread" is now in deep water, for future treasure hunters to dive for and bring up priceless nuggets.
All it took was to repeat the message of Vlad Drkulec's hate speech of May 27th. Larry Bevand knows what's what. He won't let that message appear here on ChessTalk, and I commend him for that.
If only CFC voting members had as much sense of responsibility and morals.
I am giving them a few weeks to do what needs to be done. After that, if Vlad hasn't been removed, I will contact various media outlets including Windsor media outlets and make it public what Vlad Drkulec, President of the CFC, thinks about atheists.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
... I don't get "anti-Christian bigot" out of that exchange.
Steve
I agree with you.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Uh, Vlad, that's not what I got out of reading what he said. He questioned Vought on comments Vought had made about Muslims.
[/INDENT]I don't get "anti-Christian bigot" out of that exchange.
Steve
I got anti-Christian bigot from watching the exchange. I did not see the transcript. He was trying to get a Christian to deny what is written in the Bible in order to be acceptable to Bernie.
So far Bernie's people have been engaged in one terrorist attack against Republicans and two murders arising out of a hate crime against Muslims in which two good Samaritans were killed. Bernie did denounce today's attack but he has certainly been ratcheting up the attacks on Republicans.
I got anti-Christian bigot from watching the exchange. I did not see the transcript.
Then I suggest you pay more attention to the words, and less to your own prejudices about the person asking the questions.
He was trying to get a Christian to deny what is written in the Bible in order to be acceptable to Bernie.
No, he was questioning Vought's views on Muslims. It was Vought who kept dodging the question by starting every reply with "I am a Christian".
I cannot think of any reason why Vought's religious beliefs, or his views on muslims should have much to do with his suitability for the particular office involved. Neither man exactly covered themselves in glory.
So far Bernie's people have been engaged in one terrorist attack against Republicans and two murders arising out of a hate crime against Muslims in which two good Samaritans were killed. Bernie did denounce today's attack but he has certainly been ratcheting up the attacks on Republicans.
I am not aware of any statements by Sanders advocating physical attacks or anything even close to that. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have radical supporters. If any fault is to be laid at Sanders feet then it would be for not properly screening volunteers to weed out the unstable ones. To make that claim, you would have to get real specific about how Sanders and/or his team is responsible.
Going off the transcript, I can see how Sanders questioning can be interpreted as an attack against Christians. Because it is an attack on a person which uses one of the key tenets of scripture and is one many Christians, including myself find difficult to deal with.
The critical passage is Mark 16:16, which says "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe shall be condemned." Also John 3:18, which pretty much says the same thing. I have spoken with several Muslims on religion and my understanding is that they consider Jesus, like Moses before and Mohammad afterwards, a prophet. But they do not consider him to be the son of god. So if you are a biblical literalist, then you are forced to the conclusion that Muslims are condemned, as are Buddists, Confucians, atheists, Wiccans, what have you.
So this fellow Vought makes this statement some time in the past that Muslims do not know god because they rejected Jesus and thus stand condemned. Unfortunately I do not know the context that this was taken from, but yeah he probably believes it, given the passages I listed above, which are preached extensively. Sanders proceeds to first imply that the statement is Islamophobic, and then uses the statement to declare that Vought was not an acceptable candidate. And Vought was not allowed to complete a single sentence to clarify his position.
The thing is one can believe the passages in question and yet not be Islamophobic, anti-Jew, any of it. As Vought stated, "I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs." And this is captured in scripture as well. The parable of the good Samaritan is one example.
So yeah, this looks like the use of the person's religious beliefs to show him as being unfit for some public office. Given that this person is Christian, it looks like an anti-Christian attack.
Christianity has it warts, big ones. I'm not denying it. So do the other religions, major and minor. But I am of the opinion that if this was an interview say between Newt Gringrich and a Muslim politician was attacked in the same manner regarding the passage in the Qur'an that says to fight those who do not believe in Allah, the persons posting would have a considerable different opinion on whether or not it was an Islamophobic attack.
PS: For the sake of full disclosure, I don't believe that the only way to avoid being condemned in the afterlife is to believe in Jesus and be baptized. I prefer to believe that there are many ways to salvation all that involve loving others as you love yourself, a position almost universally common to all religions.
Vought's statement that Sanders was hammering about, particularly removed from context, could definitely be perceived as islamophobic. As such I can see how it would be brought up in questioning by Sanders of a Trump appointee. Islamophobia is a spreading problem in the U.S. at the moment and a lot of it is being whipped up by the sitting president.
IMO Vought waffled, but once he made his final statement that should have been the end of it. Sanders' final assessment of Vought is not one I share based on that transcript, but I don't see anti-Christian bigotry. I would have concerns about Vought if he were being chosen for a post where sensitivity to other religions/cultures was important. I don't think Mr. Vought would be a good choice to be a diplomat to a primarily muslim country for example. But in this case, meh.
There was a good opinion piece in the Washington Post on this tempest in a teacup:
Still, reading through this and the background of the original post that Sanders quoted, it seems more clear to me that Sanders used Vought's post describing Christianity's tenet on salvation as an example of Islamophobia and was willing to deny the person the position as a Deputy Director of the OMB based on his religious beliefs. At best, Sanders attack is based on not not taking the time to understand the person's beliefs. At worst it is being intolerant of those beliefs. To deny Vought the position based on his beliefs is doing exactly the thing Sanders is saying he is against.
Muslim politician was attacked in the same manner regarding the passage in the Qur'an that says to fight those who do not believe in Allah
First off other then the statement above I agree with Garland's entire post. The difference between Islam and the other major religions in the modern world is that a disproportionate number follow the Qu'ran the way it was prescribed 1500 years ago. Unfortunately the "warts" in this religion have lethal consequences when practiced literally. I could not give a toss that a Christian believes that I am condemned in the afterlife if I do not accept Jesus. I do give a toss when a visiting cleric to a mosque in Montreal calls for the killing of Jews as happened recently. See link http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...sque-1.4037397
For me "Islamaphobia" does not figure into it...it is about self preservation.
It is unfortunate that you took that particular passage that way. Yes there is a highly visible faction that use this passage to justify violence. However there are also passages in the bible and the Torah that are also used to justify violent actions against others and their own. Most Muslims that i have spoken with have used the passage in question to describe the need to resist the loss of their beliefs to the influences of those who do not believe. But they don't use it to condone violence. Islam itself is not the problem. Radicalism is, and radicalism can and has occurred in all three of the religions being discussed, just in very different eras.
It is unfortunate that you took that particular passage that way. Yes there is a highly visible faction that use this passage to justify violence. However there are also passages in the bible and the Torah that are also used to justify violent actions against others and their own. Most Muslims that i have spoken with have used the passage in question to describe the need to resist the loss of their beliefs to the influences of those who do not believe. But they don't use it to condone violence. Islam itself is not the problem. Radicalism is, and radicalism can and has occurred in all three of the religions being discussed, just in very different eras.
Yes I agree with everything you have said. The problem is that other religions do not have highly visible factions in the same numbers as Islam that use passages to practice violence.I do not hear about other religions on a weekly basis using passages as a rationalization towards violence. Here is an ex muslim I have spoken to that has a very different view. My cousin in Jerusalem introduced him to me. My cousin financed a film about his life. My cousin's organization supports 12000 bereaved families in Israel who have had members that were victims of Islamic terror.
For me it is not theoretical it is very real . http://www.jpost.com/Annual-Conferen...problem-454703
Tweet
Comment