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.
Oh, I C, and that proves that CO2, which is .04% of the Earth's atmosphere, impacts a star 100 times larger than the Earth. Couldn't be the
Sun that is the driver of climate change? nah....not according to Chesstalk's brainless troll.
Maybe it would be good if you didn't think it was a good idea to subject yourself to 25,000 PPM of CO2 and then attempt to show how witty and clever
your demented, hypoxic brain has become.
Hmmm.... somebody is having a hissy fit!
Whoever said CO2 levels on Earth are impacting the Sun? Not me, not anyone! Get a grip, man! Don't have a stroke!
Maybe you DO have property in Dubai.... well, wherever you have property, you are surely paying much more for climate insurance than just a few years ago!
Whether you (Sid) think it is "nonexistent" will not matter at all .... meanwhile Dubai is flooded in just 1 day like never before in recorded history ..... hope you didn't have any property there Sid ... although maybe it would be good if you did .....
Originally posted by brain dead troll
Meanwhile, Dubai is flooded in just one day like never before in recorded history
Oh, I C, and that proves that CO2, which is .04% of the Earth's atmosphere, impacts a star 100 times larger than the Earth. Couldn't be the
Sun that is the driver of climate change? nah....not according to Chesstalk's brainless troll.
Originally posted by brain dead troll
] hope you didn't have any property there Sid ... although maybe it would be good if you did .....
Maybe it would be good if you didn't think it was a good idea to subject yourself to 25,000 PPM of CO2 and then attempt to show how witty and clever
your demented, hypoxic brain has become.
Whether you (Sid) think it is "nonexistent" will not matter at all .... meanwhile Dubai is flooded in just 1 day like never before in recorded history ..... hope you didn't have any property there Sid ... although maybe it would be good if you did .....
Agreeing in the sense that I am more understanding of your position now, and I imagine many here are.....it has been a very productive exchange. It has helped that we each feel the other is well-intentioned, though misguided.
It is another thing entirely as to whether your "Theoretical Libertarianism" could ever be successfully implemented "at ground zero".
IMHO, DM has more chance!
So, given this thread, I think Pargat (I know he is not your favourite poster) has a good question:
Major Greenhouse Gas Emitters [CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide] -
It is argued that their criminal pollution causes damage/harm to humans, animals and the planet.
1, How does the Natural Law analyze this "criminal charge"?
2. Is the "Except in fair competition" exemption somehow applicable here?
Bob A
The problem is that the rationale for Carbon tax is for a nonexistent climate emergency, not pollution.
It seems that you are setting up The Natural Law as overriding the will of the majority, when it "harms" the rights of the minority......am I right on this?
If so, then it is acting like a Constitution, it seems to me.
I think I now get your position on "majority rule", and how you "Improve" Democracy by an overriding Natural Law to guard against the excesses of the majority.
Let me know if I am still missing something.
Bob A
Actually Bob A., the Natural Law as Dilip has defined it with the "fair competition" clause where fair means "NOT using any means that harms others" has this consequence:
It must necessarily shut down any economic activity which utilizes fossil fuel sourced energy, until such time as that activity can use green energy. Green energy must be the ONLY energy we use worldwide, or at least in any nation state ruled by Natural Law Libertarianism.
It isn't just the "excesses of the majority". It is everything we do that harms others that Natural Law must eliminate.
I see in his reply that Dilip says .... "the 'carbon tax' is one of the things the Canadian government has gotten right, to compensate for whatever 'harm' the pollution may be causing..."
The fact that he puts the word "harms" in single quotes means that he doesn't accept that fossil fuel pollution harms anything or anyone. Yet that is an absolute fact, that it does harm millions around the world, and I don't just mean climate change ... all kinds of lung and breathing disorders are caused by fossil fuel pollution.
But at least Dilip is saying (in agreeing with the carbon tax) that something needs to be done about pollution ... the Natural Law would eliminate it altogether, wouldn't it Dilip? LOL
Major Greenhouse Gas Emitters [CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide] -
It is argued that their criminal pollution causes damage/harm to humans, animals and the planet.
1, How does the Natural Law analyze this "criminal charge"?
2. Is the "Except in fair competition" exemption somehow applicable here?
Bob A
Hi Bob,
As I have said before, the 'carbon tax' is one of the things the Canadian government has gotten right, to compensate for whatever 'harm' the pollution may be causing...
Agreeing in the sense that I am more understanding of your position now, and I imagine many here are.....it has been a very productive exchange. It has helped that we each feel the other is well-intentioned, though misguided.
It is another thing entirely as to whether your "Theoretical Libertarianism" could ever be successfully implemented "at ground zero".
IMHO, DM has more chance!
So, given this thread, I think Pargat (I know he is not your favourite poster) has a good question:
Major Greenhouse Gas Emitters [CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide] -
It is argued that their criminal pollution causes damage/harm to humans, animals and the planet.
1, How does the Natural Law analyze this "criminal charge"?
2. Is the "Except in fair competition" exemption somehow applicable here?
It seems that you are setting up The Natural Law as overriding the will of the majority, when it "harms" the rights of the minority......am I right on this?
If so, then it is acting like a Constitution, it seems to me.
I think I now get your position on "majority rule", and how you "Improve" Democracy by an overriding Natural Law to guard against the excesses of the majority.
It seems that you are setting up The Natural Law as overriding the will of the majority, when it "harms" the rights of the minority......am I right on this?
If so, then it is acting like a Constitution, it seems to me.
I think I now get your position on "majority rule", and how you "Improve" Democracy by an overriding Natural Law to guard against the excesses of the majority.
If it is not "Democracy", then it is some version of "Authoritarian" rule.
Bob A
No, the 'democracy' of 50.1% trampling over the desires of 49.9% can be improved with enforcement of the Natural Law, with which 100% agree, and which gives the 'circles within circles' all the freedom to fulfil their wishes within the enforcement of the Natural Law...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Thursday, 11th April, 2024, 07:49 AM.
The "Notwithstanding" Clause is, I believe, uniquely Canadian....it was a compromise forced on the federal government by the provinces to get the Charter of Rights and Freedoms passed.
Normally, the Constitution of most countries will protect the rights of the lions (The Minority) against Majority Rule (Both the majority itself, and its government - The Wolves).
Uniquely in Canada, a province can force this protection down to the provincial level, where it is somewhat vulnerable.
The Canadian "Notwithstanding" Clause is no argument against "Democracy/One person-one vote/Rule by the Majority". And good luck on your very valid campaign to get rid of the "Notwithstanding" Clause......not going to happen......
If it is not "Democracy", then it is some version of "Authoritarian" rule.
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 11th April, 2024, 06:26 AM.
I read Post # 1955 again - I got what I got, and have the same problem with your version of Libertarianism.
You have a definite problem with rule by majority after a vote....seems it may stem from some belief that the majority are inferior, and cannot be trusted to govern.
I'll move on..........
Bob A
So it is all right for the DM majority wolves to use the 'notwithstanding' clause to exterminate the lions, despite the courts saying it is unconstitutional? That is what today's democracy threatens us with, and hence there is a lot we can improve it by... Libertarianism with enforcement of the Natural Law is democracy in perfection!
The extreme weather. The melting glaciers. The weirdly warm oceans. They’re all the product of global warming, which is being driven by the release of the three most important heat-trapping gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
Global average carbon dioxide concentrations jumped last year, “extending the highest sustained rate of CO2 increases” in NOAA’s 65 years of record-keeping. Methane and nitrous oxide levels also rose sharply last year. All this despite a wave of global policy measures and economic incentives designed to wean the world off fossil fuels.
These weren’t just one-off anomalies. In each case, the rising emissions continued a long-term trend.
I read Post # 1955 again - I got what I got, and have the same problem with your version of Libertarianism.
You have a definite problem with rule by majority after a vote....seems it may stem from some belief that the majority are inferior, and cannot be trusted to govern.
Leave a comment: