A bit of a weird post....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    1. Social Democracy - Sweden
    2. Democratic Socialism - Venezuela
    3. Old-Style Fascist-Communism - China
    4. Almost Democratic Marxism - Chile - 1970-3 - President Salvadore Allende's Socialist Party in Coalition with the Old-style Chilean Communist Party (as a coalition unity government).

    The Platonically perfect systems/ideals can become degraded when the Ideal's Shadow hits the ground and becomes the 2nd level of reality. So, yes, the interpretation and the implementation can be totally counter to what the ideal system might propose.

    Tigran used the Boa Constrictor approach to chess (Just making sure my post has some chess content )

    Bob A
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 26th February, 2019, 08:46 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

      A quibble: Was it 'socialism' (however defined) that was the unmitigated disaster or was it the people in power, who attempted to implement socialism, who were unmitigated disasters? Also, very broadly, is socialism any more of a disaster than capitalism, a system that concentrates wealth for the advantage of the few over the many?

      Tigran Petrosian is one of my chess heroes! (just making sure my post has some chess content :) )
      So keeping within the norms of "chess content" I will put this in chess terms. I consider the Grob a poor opening and can usually gain a nice positional advantage by the self inflicted holes created on the h4 squares and often the f4 squares. However if a grandmaster choses to play this opening against me (at least one I know use to regularly) I would get beaten. The opening is still a bad opening relative to other choices but it helps when a good player is running the show. Compared to other systems that are not perfect Socialism is still a bad system even if the excuse is that it often had the misfortune of attracting bad actors to run the show.
      Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 26th February, 2019, 02:00 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
        Paul ,
        I am very sorry about to hear about your loved one's health. For what it's worth some clinics in Beijing and Mumbai have had some success treating patients with stem cell therapy.

        Thank you for your concern. I hope now Sid you understand why my prized variant has not been turned into a working business model even though the business plan was laid out. And no, this is not Option Chess which I gave as a gift to the chess community to do with what they will, even if that be nothing.

        I have not yet revealed the brand name that this variant would have had if I had launched it by now. I know you expressed some interest in discussing it some years ago and I wasn't yet ready for that stage. Now I am, and you are into other things in a major way and so the timing would still be wrong, since this project doesn't just need capital, it needs ambitious energetic people to put 100% commitment into it.

        No doctor has mentioned stem cell therapy to me, so I guess research in that area isn't going on in the U.S.?



        Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
        I don't advocate the specific statements you are referring to that Vlad made.

        I can't remember... did I provide you the statement that Vlad made that I believe is a violation of the Canadian Criminal Code?



        Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
        Furthermore Vlad and I disagree on several other things. I do agree with Vlad that socialism has proven to be an unmitigated disaster wherever it has been tried and has resulted in countless deaths and misery for humanity.

        I recall that you consider Sweden , Norway and Denmark as socialist countries. They are not. Everyone there pays higher taxes equally and not just the rich. More importantly capital gains taxes are low and comparable to America's rates. The governments there do not control large swaths of industry such as energy or transportation. Billionaires thrive in all of these countries. Incidentally, the per capita GDP and standard of living in all of these countries is lower then in the US.
        Socialism... I did not bring that word up, Vlad did. So I really shouldn't even respond to it, but.... just a point. Afaik Bernie Sanders is not advocating government takeover of large swaths of industry, yet Bernie Sanders freely calls his platform as socialism for the U.S. I suppose there are "degrees" of socialism. But again let's not even get into that debate, it's a total distraction from what this thread is about.

        Oh... one more point. I don't believe in GDP as any kind of reliable measure of anything. Why? Because GDP goes up when the U.S. has a major hurricane event (just to use one example) and homes, cars, businesses are destroyed. The rebuilding expands GDP. Yet nothing is really "better". This is perhaps why Trump doesn't want to do anything to mitigate the effects of climate change. All these major weather events boost GDP and appear to boost the economy. The reality is much different. One of the great threats to the Trump economy could be the collapse of the insurance industry as these weather events continue unabated.



        Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
        Your assertion that Vlad has violated Canada's hate crime laws is simply incorrect. "Identifiable group", used in the three offences in s. 318 and s. 319, is defined by s. 318(4) as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability."
        Political ideology is not within this legal definition and atheisim is neither a belief system or a religion. Calling atheism a religion is akin to calling not collecting stamps a hobby. The American Atheist Society website is very clear on this point. We went over this point in some detail in another thread. Your dislike of someone does not give you free license to accuse them of a crime by inventing your own interpretation of a clearly spelled out law to fit your argument.
        Again, this is all a distraction from what this thread is about, but you are not reading the pertinent clause of the CCC accurately.

        First of all.... "Calling atheism a religion is akin to calling not collecting stamps a hobby". A faulty analogy. Collecting stamps is not the definition of a hobby, it simply is one of many hobbies. Just as Christianity is one of many religions. Yet we do not call a Buddhist an atheist just because s/he is not a Christian. So nice try, but no cigar.

        Your point about being a religion is entirely moot. Atheism doesn't have to "BE" a religion in order to be an identifiable group. It simply has to be "DISTINGUISHED BY" religion. And this is exactly how we define an atheist: one who has no religion. Atheism is defined as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".

        Any decent lawyer can make this point in a court of law and win the day. Therefore I didn't as you claim invent my own interpretation. The words are right there in the CCC: "distinguished by religion".

        Your point about political ideology is correct, although in this time of Trump, it would seem something should be done about adding that category since it seems now that there is no middle ground, there is right and there is left and there is a definite line between them. No one seems to straddle the line any more, not even close. That is why I believe the U.S. may be heading for another civil war. The only ingredient missing is the collapse of the economy, which I believe is coming and will set upon us very suddenly.

        Having proven now that Vlad did indeed violate the CCC, I nevertheless recognize that there is no "teeth" to the law and there would be no one pursuing justice in this matter. As far as I'm concerned, Vlad can have his little "victory" and continue to think of himself as a purveyor of great wisdom, such as his oft-repeated "do nothing which is of no use". What has Vlad's great wisdom got him? A tin pot dictatorship of a tiny niche group, complete with the title of "President" to make him feel powerful despite the fact that he has the post mainly because no one else wants it. Have at it, Vlad!

        My bigger concern with Vlad Drkulec is that he is being given time with children, and the parents of said children are ignorant of who he REALLY is. Given his expressed vitriolic hatred for atheists and liberals, that is EXTREMELY dangerous. I can only hope it is not doing any harm to the children.

        Only the rushing is heard...
        Onward flies the bird.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Paul Bonham
          "DISTINGUISHED BY" religion.
          That is a very fanciful interpretation. By your logic anybody without a mental disability could also be distinguished as an identifiable group. Sorry but clearly that was not the intent of these words and your arrogant proclamation proving that a law was broken is nonsense.
          Here is an article about stem cell therapy and MD in the US.

          https://www.cellmedicine.com/first-d...n-us-turns-30/
          Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Thursday, 28th February, 2019, 04:31 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post

            My bigger concern with Vlad Drkulec is that he is being given time with children, and the parents of said children are ignorant of who he REALLY is. Given his expressed vitriolic hatred for atheists and liberals, that is EXTREMELY dangerous. I can only hope it is not doing any harm to the children.
            Hey Paul,

            From my post #186

            https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...n-chess/page13

            Their reply about this quality of person was and still is priceless!

            It was my pleasure to introduce Vlad Drkulec to Autism Canada ... the more we can shine the light on him ... the quicker will be his recovery.




            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
              That is a very fanciful interpretation. By your logic anybody without a mental disability could also be distinguished as an identifiable group. Sorry but clearly that was not the intent of these words and your arrogant proclamation proving that a law was broken is nonsense.
              Here is an article about stem cell therapy and MD in the US.

              https://www.cellmedicine.com/first-d...n-us-turns-30/

              Excuse me, Sid, I wasn't aware that you are the final authority on what the authors of the Canadian Criminal Code hate speech provision had in mind when they wrote the section.

              Of course, that was sarcasm and we all know you are NOT any such final authority. Therefore your proclamation that my proclamation was nonsense is itself nonsense. I think you are just annoyed that you didn't read the actual clause and take note of the "distinguished by" wording.

              Whatever the original intent may have been, the authors still chose the phrase "distinguished by" and atheism is indeed "distinguished by" religion. No court would rule against that. Therefore the legal interpretation is clear. Atheists are protected by hate speech law in Canada, period. For what it's worth which could very well be nothing.


              Thanks for the links. I didn't know there was a Stem Cell Institute, and it's remarkable that it is in Panama, not exactly a bastion of democracy. The fact it isn't in the U.S. speaks volumes for where stem cell therapy is going in the U.S.
              Only the rushing is heard...
              Onward flies the bird.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post


                Excuse me, Sid, I wasn't aware that you are the final authority on what the authors of the Canadian Criminal Code hate speech provision had in mind when they wrote the section.

                Of course, that was sarcasm and we all know you are NOT any such final authority. Therefore your proclamation that my proclamation was nonsense is itself nonsense. I think you are just annoyed that you didn't read the actual clause and take note of the "distinguished by" wording.

                Whatever the original intent may have been, the authors still chose the phrase "distinguished by" and atheism is indeed "distinguished by" religion. No court would rule against that. Therefore the legal interpretation is clear. Atheists are protected by hate speech law in Canada, period. For what it's worth which could very well be nothing.


                Thanks for the links. I didn't know there was a Stem Cell Institute, and it's remarkable that it is in Panama, not exactly a bastion of democracy. The fact it isn't in the U.S. speaks volumes for where stem cell therapy is going in the U.S.
                You were given a counter example of why your logic is incorrect. In mathematics a single counterexample is a well known technique to disprove a "proof". One does not need to be an authority to disprove something by providing a counter example. I was actually not annoyed at all but quite pleased that I could disprove your "proof" without having to be an authority on the subject. That is why I really liked chess from the first time I was taught the game. As a teenager I did not have to be an "authority" to checkmate an adult. To quote Lasker "On the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in the checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite".

                Your welcome as far as the links go. Stem cell institutes exist in many other countries and in fact the US is by far the largest producer of stem cell research after President Obama's 2009 executive order reversed G W Bush's overly restrictive executive order of 2001. The article you read was about a patient who first started the treatment during Bush's restrictive policies. I would urge you to not dismiss this alternative out of hand and seriously research this alternative.

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772010/

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

                  You were given a counter example of why your logic is incorrect. In mathematics a single counterexample is a well known technique to disprove a "proof". One does not need to be an authority to disprove something by providing a counter example. I was actually not annoyed at all but quite pleased that I could disprove your "proof" without having to be an authority on the subject. That is why I really liked chess from the first time I was taught the game. As a teenager I did not have to be an "authority" to checkmate an adult. To quote Lasker "On the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in the checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite".

                  Your welcome as far as the links go. Stem cell institutes exist in many other countries and in fact the US is by far the largest producer of stem cell research after President Obama's 2009 executive order reversed G W Bush's overly restrictive executive order of 2001. The article you read was about a patient who first started the treatment during Bush's restrictive policies. I would urge you to not dismiss this alternative out of hand and seriously research this alternative.

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772010/

                  Your "counterexample" is quite laughable because it does not prove a thing. You wrote "By your logic anybody without a mental disability could also be distinguished as an identifiable group" and my answer to that is, "Yes". Absolutely. And what is wrong with that? If people WITH mental disability are protected, is it not logical to also protect those WITHOUT mental disability?

                  Of course, in order for such a case to even come up, someone would actually have to incite hatred against those WITHOUT mental disability... and if the person inciting the hatred were without mental disability, s/he would be condemning himself or herself (*** see below). If the person inciting the hatred were with a mental disability, the case would go nowhere because it could be argued as being part of their disability. So the whole idea is laughable, BUT in concept, those without mental disability are an identifiable group and are protected against hate speech.

                  Similarly with physical disability. In fact, that is a more realistic case because someone with a physical disability could incite hatred against those without physical disability, and the inciting of that hatred would not be considered part of their physical disability. So that person could be prosecuted if the evidence held up.

                  You didn't "disprove" anything, I can't even believe you would make such a claim. The fact that none of the above scenarios have happened doesn't preclude them from ever happening. We could argue till the cows come home and you can continue to argue your beliefs, but I know that legally your beliefs don't hold water because the meaning of "distinguished by" cannot be logically argued against.

                  How are you going to argue that "distinguished by religion" doesn't include atheists when there is no other way to identify an atheist? There is the truth of your chessboard! 'But... we'll never know until such a case happens and goes to court.

                  I am not dismissing stem cell therapy at all, I will keep it in mind. At the current moment, my wife is slated to be transferred to a major hospital and have a "world famous" surgeon take on her case. I'm not going to mention names or other details, but this surgeon is supposedly world famous because he has done surgery on major entertainment stars (for improving their breathing and respiration, I don't know if muscular dystrophy has been involved). It may bankrupt me, but she's worth every penny. If that option fails, then I'll look into stem cell therapy.


                  *** A person without any known mental disability inciting hatred against all those without mental disability would likely get that person diagnosed for the first time as having a mental disability.
                  Last edited by Paul Bonham; Friday, 1st March, 2019, 02:55 PM. Reason: added *** section
                  Only the rushing is heard...
                  Onward flies the bird.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post


                    Your "counterexample" is quite laughable because it does not prove a thing. You wrote "By your logic anybody without a mental disability could also be distinguished as an identifiable group" and my answer to that is, "Yes". Absolutely. And what is wrong with that? If people WITH mental disability are protected, is it not logical to also protect those WITHOUT mental disability?

                    Of course, in order for such a case to even come up, someone would actually have to incite hatred against those WITHOUT mental disability... and if the person inciting the hatred were without mental disability, s/he would be condemning himself or herself. If the person inciting the hatred were with a mental disability, the case would go nowhere because it could be argued as being part of their disability. So the whole idea is laughable, BUT in concept, those without mental disability are an identifiable group and are protected against hate speech.

                    Similarly with physical disability. In fact, that is a more realistic case because someone with a physical disability could incite hatred against those without physical disability, and the inciting of that hatred would not be considered part of their physical disability. So that person could be prosecuted if the evidence held up.

                    You didn't "disprove" anything, I can't even believe you would make such a claim. The fact that none of the above scenarios have happened doesn't preclude them from ever happening. We could argue till the cows come home and you can continue to argue your beliefs, but I know that legally your beliefs don't hold water because the meaning of "distinguished by" cannot be logically argued against.

                    How are you going to argue that "distinguished by religion" doesn't include atheists when there is no other way to identify an atheist? There is the truth of your chessboard! 'But... we'll never know until such a case happens and goes to court.

                    I am not dismissing stem cell therapy at all, I will keep it in mind. At the current moment, my wife is slated to be transferred to a major hospital and have a "world famous" surgeon take on her case. I'm not going to mention names or other details, but this surgeon is supposedly world famous because he has done surgery on major entertainment stars (for improving their breathing and respiration, I don't know if muscular dystrophy has been involved). It may bankrupt me, but she's worth every penny. If that option fails, then I'll look into stem cell therapy.
                    You remind of a poor poker player that does not know when to release a losing hand.

                    Originally posted by Paul Bonham
                    is it not logical to also protect those WITHOUT mental disability?
                    No, that is not logical as that would be the entire remaining population of Canada that goes beyond the scope of the legal definition of an identifiable group.
                    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 1st March, 2019, 09:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post


                      Excuse me, Sid, I wasn't aware that you are the final authority on what the authors of the Canadian Criminal Code hate speech provision had in mind when they wrote the section.
                      Look lady, sir, zhir, zir or whatever pronoun you desire, if the thought police came after me over this, it would be the end of them and any politicians that signed off on it. If you feel strongly that you have a case, make a complaint. You don't have a case, and therefore you won't. Socialism and socialist dictators murdered many tens of millions of people. Live with that fact and the fact that the democrats want to do the same here but they won't be able to when Trump wins again in 2020.

                      If the radical democrats had their way in the U.S. with their green new deal and high speed rail going nowhere and no more carbon emissions the U.S. would quickly descend into starvation and cannibalism. The stated program is just brain dead but that is par for the course for totalitarian regimes which is what their end goal is.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                        1. Social Democracy - Sweden
                        2. Democratic Socialism - Venezuela
                        Bob A
                        Democratic Socialist is also what Bernie Sanders proclaims himself as. He also declines to denounce what is happening in Venezuela.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Paul Bonham
                          ....is it not logical to also protect those WITHOUT mental disability?


                          Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post
                          No, that is not logical as that would be the entire remaining population of Canada that goes beyond the scope of the legal definition of an identifiable group.
                          There is no size provision in the legal definition of an identifiable group in the Canadian Criminal Code hate speech provision.

                          You have lost the debate and are resorting to desperado measures. So sad, to use a Trump expression.
                          Only the rushing is heard...
                          Onward flies the bird.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post

                            Look lady, sir, zhir, zir or whatever pronoun you desire, if the thought police came after me over this, it would be the end of them and any politicians that signed off on it. If you feel strongly that you have a case, make a complaint. You don't have a case, and therefore you won't. Socialism and socialist dictators murdered many tens of millions of people. Live with that fact and the fact that the democrats want to do the same here but they won't be able to when Trump wins again in 2020.

                            If the radical democrats had their way in the U.S. with their green new deal and high speed rail going nowhere and no more carbon emissions the U.S. would quickly descend into starvation and cannibalism. The stated program is just brain dead but that is par for the course for totalitarian regimes which is what their end goal is.

                            Now, now, Vlad, let's wipe all that foam off your mouth and you sit still while the doctor gives you a rabies shot.

                            Just what chess needs after the Bobby Fischer era... more crazy people with crazy theories and hateful vitriol against major groups within modern society.

                            Hey Neil Frarey, you should send THIS latest Drkulec gem to those companies considering sponsorship of CFC chess events.
                            Only the rushing is heard...
                            Onward flies the bird.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post


                              Now, now, Vlad, let's wipe all that foam off your mouth and you sit still while the doctor gives you a rabies shot.

                              Just what chess needs after the Bobby Fischer era... more crazy people with crazy theories and hateful vitriol against major groups within modern society.

                              Hey Neil Frarey, you should send THIS latest Drkulec gem to those companies considering sponsorship of CFC chess events.
                              I think that most potential sponsors would be savvy enough to understand that the Green New Deal is simply impossible to implement. Given what the Democratic Party is becoming it will be very surprising if they don't collapse in upon themselves like a black hole under the weight of their socialist dogma. Lots of low IQ people are trying to make names for themselves. They got the wrong idea about their victory in 2018 which was largely built upon Dems running as moderates.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Neil Frarey the only guy who ever ran for CFC president asking the voters to unanimously endorse him prior to running. Paul Bonham the guy whose chess variant will never see the light of day because he thinks it is more important to slag me and chess than to actually do any of the work to make anything of his variant. Bonham was quite offended when I informed him that I was not interested in promoting his silly variant.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X