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.
Wow, that's the first credible thing you have said. End of the year is fine. I am not sure how we would prove the marks to each other. Online was easy because I took a screen shot of the result.
Anyone can doctor a screenshot. We have time to figure this out, anyway, if we have until the end of the year. We'll probably have to meet up somewhere to prove results.
I'll ask the question for the fourth time:
Why didn't they just ban all males under 50, instead of just Muslim males under 50? How would that have led to their citizens being murdered?
1) Borders. A country isn't a country without borders. There are very few tasks that federal governments should be involved in, imo, and guarding borders is one of them. If people are in a country illegally, and it can be proven they are there illegally, it isn't unreasonable to deport them. A nation of laws and all that. When you have a welfare state you need borders even more.
You know nothing about America, clearly. This country would come to a screeching halt without the labor of undocumented immigrants.
Linda Sarsour helped organise the Million Women March. She describes herself as a feminist. Yet she is pro-Sharia.
So she's pro-what? What has she actually advocated for? Don't just say "pro-Sharia" like some scare tactic. I've heard that being pro-Sharia, to some, means following Islamic law in their personal life. I don't give a fuck if she thinks that. What has she actually advocated for that you don't like?
Trump said a bad thing in a private conversation - well before he was a candidate - and he's a fascist, yet it is okay to have someone supposedly speaking for women to advocate for a system that basically sees women as property? She claims that Muhammad was a feminist. Don't get me wrong, she's certainly entitled to her view and no way should her speech be limited because of it. The same should go for Trump the private person.
What are you even on about here? When has Sarsour every advocated for a system that sees women as property?
And anyway, Trump bragged about committing sexual assault. Trump has committed sexual assault. He's the fucking President. Why are you not sickened by him? You're dodging the point here. You said his bragging about committing sexual assault was normal "locker room" talk. I'm saying it takes a dumb fucking idiot of a man to think that, and the fact that you're more sickened by Sarsour indicates how misplaced your outrage is.
I think people voted for Trump because they didn't like Clinton. You find it objectionable yet it sounds like you choose to live amongst these rubes despite them being clueless and dumb. That seems irrational to me.
Why is that irrational? I'm here to help save this great country from worthless, bigoted, conservative imbeciles. Go me. Such a hero.
Edit: also I wouldn't live somewhere that's not a liberal city, and don't associate with people who aren't liberals, so it's not like I have to deal with these idiots directly very often.
Last edited by Ben Daswani; Wednesday, 26th July, 2017, 05:52 PM.
For real? That adds some legitimacy. Okay, fine, you're on. When do we have to write the test by? End of the year? How will we prove our marks to each other? Let's bang out the logistics here.
Wow, that's the first credible thing you have said. End of the year is fine. I am not sure how we would prove the marks to each other. Online was easy because I took a screen shot of the result.
He banned trans people from the military. That's a fascist move. He turned a Boy Scouts convention into a political rally, railing against past leaders and political opponents. That's a fascist move. That was just this week. That's been his game for a while now, though. He spent years fostering bullshit, racist rumors about the legitimacy of the birth certificate of a political opponent, and then parlayed that into political popularity. That's a fascist fucking move.
There are lots of reasons why people vote for Trump; it's usually a combination of factors. Here are some things I think on the matter:
1. Lots of people are dumb. Half of people are dumber than average. They can't reason well at all.
2. Because many people can't reason well, they sometimes vote against their own interests.
3. Additionally, people have interests that are different from my own. My interests are freedom, and applying freedom equally among actors.
4. Most people are very self-interested.
5. People are xenophobic.
6. People who can't reason well are often xenophobic.
7. Xenophobia is not always the result of stupidity. Sometimes smart people are xenophobic.
8. There are a lot of people who suffer from systemic prejudice because of their immutable characteristics.
9. Conservative people and conservative sympathizers are less likely than average to be the type of person described in #8.
10. When one is xenophobic, coping with one's xenophobia can often be a primary interest.
Studies indicate that social liberals are more intelligent than social conservatives. Studies indicate that social liberals are more educated than social conservatives. Studies indicate that social liberals are more trusting of higher education than social conservatives. These are established facts. I won't even bring up the correlation between irreligion and intelligence and the correlation between irreligion and liberalism, and what that implies... oops, already did. :)
So, different people are Trump supporters, or Trump apologists, or just oblivious non-partisans failing to recognize the severe magnitude of the affront to freedom to which the Trump presidency and the religious conservative takeover speaks, for different reasons.
You?
3. Additionally, people have interests that are different from my own. My interests are freedom, and applying freedom equally among actors.
I think you value freedom from the state, but that's not valuing freedom, and certainly not the application of freedom equally among actors. You're more anti-state than pro-freedom, at least in my book. Like, as I've mentioned before, you were dismissive of the President bragging about committing sexual assault. Sexual assault is an egregious affront to freedom. One in six women will be the victim of rape in her lifetime, and that's just rape. Other, less severe forms of sexual assault are much more prevalent. Tens of millions of women have been the victim of sexual assault and you dismiss the President bragging about committing it as normal "locker room" talk. It seems like you're only really aggrieved about affronts to freedom when they're committed by the state, not citizens.
4. Most people are very self-interested.
You don't seem that worried about Trump violating the freedoms of groups you don't belong to. You also seem interested in the maintenance of your privilege.
9. Conservative people and conservative sympathizers are less likely than average to be the type of person described in #8.
You're definitely not the type of person described in #8.
A supposed libertarian suddenly cares about the state's border laws? Why would a libertarian care about undocumented immigrants who come somewhere, work, contribute to the economy, and live their lives peacefully?
Not yet, because the Supreme Court doesn't have the votes for it yet. But Trump appointed a Supreme Court justice who's voted in favor of religious fundamentalist policies which tighten restrictions on abortions.
I can't even imagine the cognitive dissonance that goes into facilitating such a thought.
I've never used the word evil. That's Drkulec talk. I think we have different interests. I don't think my interests are in any way "better" or "more just" or "more good" than yours. I am a moral anti-realist, to be honest. But I do want my interests, and not yours, furthered. Don't we all? I consider my interests to be under threat right now, so I've taken a hard-line view. There's a culture war going on, between people fighting for freedom and tolerance, and people fighting against it. Anyone claiming to be in the middle is on the other side.
And don't give me some bullshit about how I'm intolerant of others' views. Tolerance is about being tolerant of immutable characteristics. People should, in fact, be judged on their views.
Contrary to what you're claiming, I don't care if you share my views or not. You can believe whatever you want. But I'm going to call shit as I see it. And what I see is you calling Linda Sarsour a "feminist activist" (using quotation marks yourself, as if there's some sort of illegitimacy or suspension of reality embedded in the term), even though she's mostly known as an activist in the Muslim-American and Arab-American communities, not explicitly feminist communities, and then describing her views as sickening. You went out of your way to tie feminism to something you deem sickening, but you dismiss you-know-what-by-now as "locker room" talk. It's not a good look for a supposed libertarian.
I will tackle two of your neverending stream to keep this thread manageable:
1) Borders. A country isn't a country without borders. There are very few tasks that federal governments should be involved in, imo, and guarding borders is one of them. If people are in a country illegally, and it can be proven they are there illegally, it isn't unreasonable to deport them. A nation of laws and all that. When you have a welfare state you need borders even more.
2) Linda Sarsour helped organise the Million Women March. She describes herself as a feminist. Yet she is pro-Sharia. Is it the racism of low expectations to apply one standard to one set of people and another to a different set? Trump said a bad thing in a private conversation - well before he was a candidate - and he's a fascist, yet it is okay to have someone supposedly speaking for women to advocate for a system that basically sees women as property? She claims that Muhammad was a feminist. Don't get me wrong, she's certainly entitled to her view and no way should her speech be limited because of it. The same should go for Trump the private person.
I think people voted for Trump because they didn't like Clinton. You find it objectionable yet it sounds like you choose to live amongst these rubes despite them being clueless and dumb. That seems irrational to me.
P.S. I am an atheist or maybe more accurately from what I've read an apatheist.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Wednesday, 26th July, 2017, 05:37 PM.
No...you can only write the Mensa admission test once. Nice try.
For real? That adds some legitimacy. Okay, fine, you're on. When do we have to write the test by? End of the year? How will we prove our marks to each other? Let's bang out the logistics here.
By the way, one of the reasons I don't want to do a bet in the manner you suggested is that there is no way to avoid cheating. You could write the test multiple times and only submit to me your best score. How would I know? I trust your shady ass about as far as I can throw it.
All in all, I find it pretty hilarious that a professional business owner is afraid to write a GMAT against someone with no business experience.
No...you can only write the Mensa admission test once. Nice try.
By the way, one of the reasons I don't want to do a bet in the manner you suggested is that there is no way to avoid cheating. You could write the test multiple times and only submit to me your best score. How would I know? I trust your shady ass about as far as I can throw it.
All in all, I find it pretty hilarious that a professional business owner is afraid to write a GMAT against someone with no business experience.
Besides, at this point I am comfortable that you have demonstrated to everyone on this board what you are, so whether or not you went through with the bet is now irrelevant to me.
LSAT or GMAT, buddy. I'll do a test anytime. Name the date. $1000. You're the only one who's backing down.
No, I put the phrase "religious discrimination" in quotation marks. I am sure that even you can figure that out and am surprised that you apparently did not notice that.
So? What the fuck? Fine, you don't admit it; you're still being an idiot then.
Also, you dodged a direct question, as usual.
Why didn't they just ban all males under 50, instead of just Muslim males under 50? How would that have led to their citizens being murdered?
But less than 0.1% of people who write them ace them. Are you saying that despite the fact that acing the test guarantees a scholarship to a top school, less than 0.1% "want[] to practice" since they're the only ones who ace it? This is the logic you're bringing to the table? I can see why you're afraid to write the LSAT and GMAT.
Also, it's true for any IQ test, obviously, that you can improve by practicing it. The LSAT and GMAT are not special in that regard. So I don't buy that that's the reason you don't want to write it. And anyway, couldn't you just practice and ace it then?
Finally! You admit it was religious discrimination.
Why didn't they just ban all males under 50, instead of just Muslim males under 50? How would that have led to their citizens being murdered?
Originally posted by Ben Daswani
less than 0.1% "want to practice"
Practicing and "mindful learning" are quite different. Many pianists for example practice for hours but few practice with mindful learning that really does separate the good from the truly great.
Originally posted by Ben Daswani
couldn't you just practice and ace it then?
Yes, but there is no reason for me to do that when I am confident I can do fine on a standard IQ test without having to practice. You remind of Bill Clinton "define sex". Besides, at this point I am comfortable that you have demonstrated to everyone on this board what you are, so whether or not you went through with the bet is now irrelevant to me. i got what i wanted out of this by bringing up the subject of your challenge. Not bad for a dumb conservative huh?
Originally posted by Ben Daswani
Finally! You admit it was religious discrimination.
No, I put the phrase "religious discrimination" in quotation marks. I am sure that even you can figure that out and am surprised that you apparently did not notice that.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 26th July, 2017, 05:02 PM.
The GMAT and LSAT can easily be aced by anyone that wants to practice.
But less than 0.1% of people who write them ace them. Are you saying that despite the fact that acing the test guarantees a scholarship to a top school, less than 0.1% "want[] to practice" since they're the only ones who ace it? This is the logic you're bringing to the table? I can see why you're afraid to write the LSAT and GMAT.
Also, it's true for any IQ test, obviously, that you can improve by practicing it. The LSAT and GMAT are not special in that regard. So I don't buy that that's the reason you don't want to write it. And anyway, couldn't you just practice and ace it then?
As for Israel targeting based on "religious discrimination' because they don't want their citizen's murdered at a particular place at a particular time.
Finally! You admit it was religious discrimination.
Why didn't they just ban all males under 50, instead of just Muslim males under 50? How would that have led to their citizens being murdered?
Trump is a fascist ... in your opinion. Shockingly other people disagree.
He banned trans people from the military. That's a fascist move. He turned a Boy Scouts convention into a political rally, railing against past leaders and political opponents. That's a fascist move. That was just this week. That's been his game for a while now, though. He spent years fostering bullshit, racist rumors about the legitimacy of the birth certificate of a political opponent, and then parlayed that into political popularity. That's a fascist fucking move.
Evidently tens of millions of people have a different opinion, unless of course you believe that: 1) these people are a bunch of idiots and/or 2) these people want to live under fascism. Or perhaps they are all just straight white males and you are simultaneously heterophobic, racist and sexist. If so, bravo to you in your efficiency.
There are lots of reasons why people vote for Trump; it's usually a combination of factors. Here are some things I think on the matter:
1. Lots of people are dumb. Half of people are dumber than average. They can't reason well at all.
2. Because many people can't reason well, they sometimes vote against their own interests.
3. Additionally, people have interests that are different from my own. My interests are freedom, and applying freedom equally among actors.
4. Most people are very self-interested.
5. People are xenophobic.
6. People who can't reason well are often xenophobic.
7. Xenophobia is not always the result of stupidity. Sometimes smart people are xenophobic.
8. There are a lot of people who suffer from systemic prejudice because of their immutable characteristics.
9. Conservative people and conservative sympathizers are less likely than average to be the type of person described in #8.
10. When one is xenophobic, coping with one's xenophobia can often be a primary interest.
Studies indicate that social liberals are more intelligent than social conservatives. Studies indicate that social liberals are more educated than social conservatives. Studies indicate that social liberals are more trusting of higher education than social conservatives. These are established facts. I won't even bring up the correlation between irreligion and intelligence and the correlation between irreligion and liberalism, and what that implies... oops, already did. :)
So, different people are Trump supporters, or Trump apologists, or just oblivious non-partisans failing to recognize the severe magnitude of the affront to freedom to which the Trump presidency and the religious conservative takeover speaks, for different reasons.
You?
3. Additionally, people have interests that are different from my own. My interests are freedom, and applying freedom equally among actors.
I think you value freedom from the state, but that's not valuing freedom, and certainly not the application of freedom equally among actors. You're more anti-state than pro-freedom, at least in my book. Like, as I've mentioned before, you were dismissive of the President bragging about committing sexual assault. Sexual assault is an egregious affront to freedom. One in six women will be the victim of rape in her lifetime, and that's just rape. Other, less severe forms of sexual assault are much more prevalent. Tens of millions of women have been the victim of sexual assault and you dismiss the President bragging about committing it as normal "locker room" talk. It seems like you're only really aggrieved about affronts to freedom when they're committed by the state, not citizens.
4. Most people are very self-interested.
You don't seem that worried about Trump violating the freedoms of groups you don't belong to. You also seem interested in the maintenance of your privilege.
9. Conservative people and conservative sympathizers are less likely than average to be the type of person described in #8.
You're definitely not the type of person described in #8.
If Trump is deporting people I imagine it is because they are breaking the law in being there. I imagine if I just walked across the border tomorrow and tried to live in the US they would try to deport me, too.
A supposed libertarian suddenly cares about the state's border laws? Why would a libertarian care about undocumented immigrants who come somewhere, work, contribute to the economy, and live their lives peacefully?
What medical procedures? Has Roe v Wade been overturned? I must have missed that.
Not yet, because the Supreme Court doesn't have the votes for it yet. But Trump appointed a Supreme Court justice who's voted in favor of religious fundamentalist policies which tighten restrictions on abortions.
I have no idea specifically why Trump tweeted what he did. Maybe he wants to protect trangendered people, since being in the military seems a dangerous job
I can't even imagine the cognitive dissonance that goes into facilitating such a thought.
I find it scary that you would consider yourself libertarian. I consider you no less authoritarian than the Christian Coalition types of the late 1980s / early 1990s (see: Pat Robertson). Different set of convictions, but all of them of the type that because you believe in something I must believe it, too. Further I must walk lockstep with you or I am some sort of evildoer. Sorry, try again. I'm not buying it.
I've never used the word evil. That's Drkulec talk. I think we have different interests. I don't think my interests are in any way "better" or "more just" or "more good" than yours. I am a moral anti-realist, to be honest. But I do want my interests, and not yours, furthered. Don't we all? I consider my interests to be under threat right now, so I've taken a hard-line view. There's a culture war going on, between people fighting for freedom and tolerance, and people fighting against it. Anyone claiming to be in the middle is on the other side.
And don't give me some bullshit about how I'm intolerant of others' views. Tolerance is about being tolerant of immutable characteristics. People should, in fact, be judged on their views.
Contrary to what you're claiming, I don't care if you share my views or not. You can believe whatever you want. But I'm going to call shit as I see it. And what I see is you calling Linda Sarsour a "feminist activist" (using quotation marks yourself, as if there's some sort of illegitimacy or suspension of reality embedded in the term), even though she's mostly known as an activist in the Muslim-American and Arab-American communities, not explicitly feminist communities, and then describing her views as sickening. You went out of your way to tie feminism to something you deem sickening, but you dismiss you-know-what-by-now as "locker room" talk. It's not a good look for a supposed libertarian.
I offered Whissell and Drkulec; then you stepped in and challenged me
Correct, and at the time you suggested you saw no evidence that I was a racist and therefore had no interest in kicking me off this board. Since then you have posted numerous times that you consider anyone that supports Trump (you put me in that category) as a racist and therefore your original reason is gone so I suggested that by your reasoning I qualify for your challenge.
You then said I need to risk a $1000.00 also "your a rich guy" and I agreed to that. Now you don't consider the Mensa IQ test as acceptable (by the way who cares if we write it a few weeks apart) and have said all kinds of other baloney.
The GMAT and LSAT can easily be aced by anyone that wants to practice. I have a relative who did terrible on the LSAT the first time and aced it the second time. I know a women who makes her living successfully training all kinds of kids to ace the GMAT. So I will stick to the regular Mensa IQ test. I think you could even practice your way to a higher IQ score, however, I do not know this for sure, I do know for sure that is the case with LSAT and GMAT. So, yes, I would trust a standard IQ test as more reliable then LSAT or GMAT. The Mensa workout quiz suggested I would do just fine on their main test as did one other randomly selected online IQ test so that is what I will stick with.
By the way when you declined my initial challenge it was you who offered the other challenge involving both sides putting up money. You don't want to agree to a standard Mensa admission test just shows how full of crap you are. So that alone is worth the price of admission for me.
Originally posted by Ben Daswani
Republicans distrust higher education, according to a recent poll. It's not surprising that you'd not trust the results of tests which higher education institutions across the board use to measure intellectual aptitude.
As for not trusting higher learning institutions I have a Bsc from the University of Alberta with a major in molecular genetics and a minor in physics. i also worked as a young man in a research lab at the U of A in the department of Genetics and have always had a keen interest in nature and fully appreciate the importance of higher learning institutions. You are all about what you claim to be fighting (tarring large groups of people with the same brush). In short you are the bigot not me.
As for Israel targeting based on "religious discrimination' because they don't want their citizen's murdered at a particular place at a particular time. That's about as laughable as your proclivity to honor your bets. Islam the way it is in Gaza, Saudi Arabia and Iran is a theocracy, not a religion. So if Israel wants to target those that believe it is a great idea for Israel not to exist I stand 100 percent behind them.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Wednesday, 26th July, 2017, 04:28 PM.
Ben you are just making up excuses because you do not want to lose $1000.00.
... You made the offer not me.
First of all, you made the offer. I offered Whissell and Drkulec; then you stepped in and challenged me. If you want me to accept the challenge, suggest a challenge that meets the material terms of the challenge I set forth to Whissell and Drkulec.
Second of all, I don't want to lose $1000? Let's look at what I've proposed. I've proposed writing the LSAT. I've proposed writing the GMAT. Both of these tests are considered by Mensa to be IQ tests, and both of these tests offer identical tests at multiple cities simultaneously. If you think about it, I'm a lawyer so I should have an edge in the LSAT, and you're a businessman so you should have an edge in the GMAT. The fair thing might well be to write both tests and either parlay or add the scores somehow. But who has time for that?
I am not surprised that you did not want to use the LSAT or GMAT for a bet. As I mentioned in this thread, Republicans distrust higher education, according to a recent poll. It's not surprising that you'd not trust the results of tests which higher education institutions across the board use to measure intellectual aptitude.
As for distracting from the real issues you simply want to make Israel look bad for trying to prevent loss of life.
No, I want to point out that Israel isn't perfect, and that religious discrimination goes on there. You have, many times, complained about the Democrats' treatment of Israel. You have said that Obama "stabbed Israel in the back" (or something to that effect) when the US abstained from a UN Security Council vote that, besides the States' abstention, went 14-0 against what you believe are Israel's interests. All I'm pointing out is that maybe, just maybe, sometimes Israel is the aggressor; sometimes Israel is at fault; sometimes Israel has policies which are not in the interests of freedom and equality.
There's no doubt that Israel is far from the worst actor as far as nations in the region go, but here's the thing: no one on ChessTalk is claiming that criticizing other nations in the region is anti-Muslim. You, however, accuse anyone who doesn't side with Israel on every issue as being anti-Israel, even when 14 other nations (out of 14) side against Israel. That is an extremist view.
No one needs to point out that Saudi Arabia is fucked; everyone knows this. You, however, evidently don't realize that Israel has problems, too. That's why I pointed out the religious discrimination. And, sure enough, you displayed your extremism, not by justifying the religious discrimination, which would have been one thing, but by arguing that it wasn't religious discrimination when it, by the most literal definition ever, was.
You are busy arguing with points you're imagining I'm trying to make.
Internet trolls almost never show up for their challenges. I say almost never because once a troll showed up for a social gathering on a usenet group after I guaranteed his personal safety.
Daswani is a typical social justice warrior criticizing the only open democracy in the middle east where jewish and muslim residents get to vote on an equal basis and where all of his designated groups are not persecuted.
Islam the way it is in Gaza, Saudi Arabia and Iran is a theocracy, not a religion. So if Israel wants to target those that believe it is a great idea for Israel not to exist I stand 100 percent behind them.
Leave a comment: