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.
When was the last time atheists organized a jihad or crusade aimed at eliminating infidels? When was the last time two atheists had a huge fight over their own specific brands of atheism, or the last time two large factions of competing atheists had a war?
Yet whom have we been told that an all-knowing, benevolent and loving God would save?
Further, insofar as Jews have chosen for themselves a God who deems them to be His special and chosen people, in other words, insofar as Jews have chosen for themselves a racist God, should it come as any surprise if Jews themselves have suffered more racism than other races?
When was the last time atheists organized a jihad or crusade aimed at eliminating infidels?
The Cultural Revolution in China, the killing fields in Cambodia, the murder of millions of Ukrainians by starvation in 1933 Stalinist times, the murder of Jews and other minorities by Hitler (though some might argue he was a pagan and not an atheist). Most of the large scale genocides of the 20th century were orchestrated by atheists.
The Cultural Revolution in China, the killing fields in Cambodia, the murder of millions of Ukrainians by starvation in 1933 Stalinist times, the murder of Jews and other minorities by Hitler (though some might argue he was a pagan and not an atheist). Most of the large scale genocides of the 20th century were orchestrated by atheists.
With respect, Vlad, you know as well as I do that none of the events you mention took place because the people who perpetrated them were doing it so as to stand up for atheism as system of beliefs. Mao, and all of the others you mention were not doing it for the cause of atheism. They had motives completely unrelated.
I don't recall having a "choice" about what religion I was born into. Please advise.
There was no religion in my home, therefore I had no choice but to be born and raised an atheist. Now I have chosen what I might describe as a sort of philosophical theism. I could have embraced Judaism, or any other faith if I had chosen to. People convert from one faith to another, or from faith to non-faith, and vice versa, all the time.
With respect, Vlad, you know as well as I do that none of the events you mention took place because the people who perpetrated them were doing it so as to stand up for atheism as system of beliefs. Mao, and all of the others you mention were not doing it for the cause of atheism. They had motives completely unrelated.
A central tenet of the communist revolution both in China and Russia was atheism. Non Atheists were very much oppressed by those that did not hold the party line. Respectfully your position that the motives are "Completely" unrelated is incorrect.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Thursday, 15th June, 2017, 11:36 AM.
There was no religion in my home, therefore I had no choice but to be born and raised an atheist. Now I have chosen what I might describe as a sort of philosophical theism. I could have embraced Judaism, or any other faith if I had chosen to. People convert from one faith to another, or from faith to non-faith, and vice versa, all the time.
Yes and so? Millions of Jews that did not embrace all of the tenets in the religion or for that matter none of them should be discriminated against? Because they "chose" a biased God? What nonsense are you espousing?
With respect, Vlad, you know as well as I do that none of the events you mention took place because the people who perpetrated them were doing it so as to stand up for atheism as system of beliefs. Mao, and all of the others you mention were not doing it for the cause of atheism. They had motives completely unrelated.
Very convenient. So if you are an atheist and you murder millions of people it is okay. The fact is the murders took place in support of communism or fascism with atheism being one of the central tenets of those socialist political systems. They are clear examples of what happens when you put atheists in charge.
Very convenient. So if you are an atheist and you murder millions of people it is okay. ...
I'm not taking Brad's side in this argument but I am asking you why you twist people's words as you've done above. I don't think Brad said anything close to what you're claiming he said. You complain about trolls and call other posters trolls but isn't provoking people by twisting their words considered troll behaviour?
"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
Okay, this thread has now been hijacked from where I got involved, namely whether or not Sander's line of questioning could be construed as anti-christian. It's devolving into a flame war over religion and atrocities. I'm out of here. Nice while it lasted.
Peter, I'd advise starting any other new Trump threads. The end result is the same every time.
... Peter, I'd advise [not] starting any other new Trump threads. The end result is the same every time.
Yeah, I've learned my lesson. No more Trump threads started by me. :o
p.s. Garland, I will be responding to one of your posts further up the page if you care to have a look at it. If not, that's fine too.
"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
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 is under consideration for a senior public service position. The bureaucracy of the federal U.S. government is 'supposed' to be a secular, non-partisan operation. In theory, any citizen, regardless of things like his/her personal appearance or gender or religious beliefs, etc., should be able to expect fair, appropriate, and timely treatment at the hands of his/her federal government. So, when a candidate for a fairly high-ranking job allows this statement to be published under his/her name ...
Originally posted by Vought
"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."
... then that statement deserves some scrutiny to determine whether the job candidate might be harbouring a prejudice which could affect his/her job performance. That's all Bernie Sanders was doing. I don't think Bernie helped himself by getting pissed off at Vought but I also think it's ludicrous to call Bernie an anti-Christian bigot, as some have done.
Certainly Vought's statement lacks tact. If you were a Muslim, Garland, is it possible that you could be deeply offended by an official in a supposedly secular government who publicly stated that your religion (in the land of the free, no less) was deficient and that you stood condemned (for all eternity presumably)? And as Bernie attempted to point out, to be consistent Vought's comments would have to apply to all non-Christians, right?
Also, Vought's statement is not entirely correct. He generalized that all Muslims have rejected Jesus. I don't know how old you are, Garland, but there were no religious studies courses in my elementary and secondary schools. If someone had said to me, when I was fifteen years old, that I had rejected Allah, my response would probably have been, "Who's Allah?" Maybe it's the same thing for a lot of non-Christians - "Who's Jesus?"
Finally, don't Christians have some responsibility to share the good news? I don't see any mention of that in Vought's arrogant statement. It's just: their religion is deficient...they stand condemned. Frankly, if I was an American, I'm not sure that I would want someone like Vought occupying a senior civil service position.
I think people need to relax a bit and try to consider all sides of a question before they jump on someone.
"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
Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God ... and they stand condemned.
I wonder if someone said that same sentence but with "Christians" in place of "Muslims," how quickly Drkulec would jump on them for being anti-Christian?
Vought is without a doubt Islamophobic. Belzberg tries to argue that people like he and Vought are not Islamophobic. He makes a horrible argument. He makes a horrible argument because all he cites are reasons why Islam is potentially dangerous. That's not a reasonable argument that he's not Islamophobic. It is, however, the basis of a reasonable argument that his Islamophobia is rational. I don't necessarily agree with that (more on that in a second), but it's not a completely unreasonable argument (unlike the argument that he's not Islamophobic).
On that note, there is nothing inherently discriminatory about opposing the elements of a particular religion. Religion is not an immutable characteristic. It is a set of beliefs. One's religion is more akin to one's macroeconomic leanings than to one's race, for instance.
That being said, opposing Islam for the reasons Vought does are idiotic; Belzberg's reasons, for instance, are far more lucid.
But Trump is the American president and this thread is about America and America's president. And fearing Islam while living in the United States, if you're a secular person, is fucking stupid. Radical Islam is not the potent form of religious extremism alive and well in the United States; radical Christianity is.
In the United States, we have a President who stated that women should be punished for receiving medical care, because that kind of medical care goes against his Christian beliefs. We have a Vice President that believes gay children should be electrocuted to "cure" their homosexuality, because homosexuality goes against his Christian beliefs. We have an entire political movement in the United States that's based on amending the law to conform to Christian morality, and this movement makes up the base of the most powerful political party in the country.
I understand that Belzberg is more afraid of radical Islam than he is of radical Christianity. But Belzberg is also a straight, cis, white male. Those fighting against personal freedom and for a religious takeover in the United States are not threatening his rights. I can relate, I guess. They're not really threatening my rights either. Unlike Belzberg, however, I can feel empathy for those whose rights they are threatening. It is for that reason that I oppose Trump and the other extremists that make up the "religious right" in the United States.
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Okay, this thread has now been hijacked from where I got involved, namely whether or not Sander's line of questioning could be construed as anti-christian. It's devolving into a flame war over religion and atrocities. I'm out of here. Nice while it lasted.
Peter, I'd advise starting any other new Trump threads. The end result is the same every time.
Hi Garland:
Thanks for trying. I read the article you linked to. Thanks.
Tweet
Comment