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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset
Thanks Pargat - for a start, re Statement # 3 - you are dead on........though I believe Libertarians, under freedom, do hold this, no Libertarian here has said this. So, though I would keep it in as legitimate Libertarian policy, in this group, it is perhaps premature.......I will wait 'til the topic of self-harm comes up under Human Self Government here, before I make a submission to put it back in. I will treat your position as a Challenge that this is not legitimate Libertarian policy, and it will be processed.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 3
The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.
The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.
Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:
The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.
[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]
Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.
Bob A (Group Secretary).
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 09:47 PM.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 3 (Proposed Revision)
The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.
Challenge (this Statement # 3 is Libertarian policy, and it is unworkable): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:
Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is 'harmful to others/society'? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF WHAT IS HARMFUL TO OTHERS / SOCIETY? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?
Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 1
Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.
Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:
Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is "more restrictive than necessary"? Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is meant by 'restrains the freedom of the individual'?
These are terms that need laws to be codified! Which goes against the very nature of Libertarianism, therefore Libertarianism is an ILLOGICAL construct!
Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 09:42 PM.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 2
The main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".
[Note: Secretary did minimal editing to the original Statement for clarity]
Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:
Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what is honoured and not honoured? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF THE NATURAL LAW? HOW IS THE OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?
Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 09:41 PM.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 4
The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.
Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:
Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is 'common sense' and what 'maximizes the freedom of the individual'? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF WHAT MAXIMIZES THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?
The maximizing of the freedom of the individual is ANARCHY, in which there are no laws at all.
Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 09:41 PM.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 5
Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.
Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:
Who decides, and what is the mechanism of that decision, what constitutes 'discretion' of the police? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF POLICE DISCRETION? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?
Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 09:40 PM.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 6
Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.
Challenge (The Libertarian policy is unworkable) - Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19:
Who decides, and what is the mechanism of that decision, what constitutes 'discretion' of the police? WHO IS THE OVERSEER OF POLICE DISCRETION? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER APPOINTED? HOW IS THIS OVERSEER REGULATED?
Processing: Libertarians, and others, MUST now "Defend" the Statement as good policy. The time limit for defending a Statement does start to run until a "Defence" has been posted. The Statement is just noted for the time being as "Challenged". Eventually, the Challenger must produce an "Opposing Statement" as to what is the true fact. From that time the two opposing Statements will be posted together.
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 09:39 PM.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 3
The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.
The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.
Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:
The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.
[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]
Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.
Bob A (Group Secretary).
Hi Bob, I think what you meant to write in Statement 3 was: The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.
Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 02:03 PM.
And Bob, the objection from PP you allude to in all your other posts today, has a simple answer: Judges and police, understanding and believing in the concept of Libertarianism would be the overseers. And being an experienced lawyer, you know that the Jury and Judges use common-sense in interpretation of the law, though they often have to struggle with contradictory laws we all face today. How they are appointed is an issue that can be easily worked out by the writers of a Libertarian constitution, which we are not doing at this stage...
And of course, it should be added that the solution of the non-Libertarians -- the people who do not want increased digital surveillance -- is to continue to formulate and create laws to cover ever more and more situations and create precedent, and to prosecute those laws.
Simply an impossible task... to create a separate law for each and every possible action, in each and every possible situation, each and every individual may take in the future...
Liars (lawyers) may want you try to do it ad infinitum, as it would increase their business with all the complicated laws resulting from the endeavor.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 1
Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.
what is "more restrictive than necessary"? Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is meant by 'restrains the freedom of the individual'?
These are terms that need laws to be codified! Which goes against the very nature of Libertarianism, therefore Libertarianism is an ILLOGICAL construct!
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Bob, why is it so difficult for you to understand that any restrictive law which goes beyond prevention of harm to others is unnecessary? Being a lawyer, are you so threatened by this simplicity that you are baselessly calling it illogical?
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 02:21 PM.
I am re-posting and editing my Post # 244 (23/8/19) - It is incomplete and ambiguous. So Dilip (Post # 252 - 23/8/19) thinks I am the Challenger. Here is what the post intended:
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 1
Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.
Challenge (Libertarian position is unworkable): Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19
What is "more restrictive than necessary"? Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is meant by 'restrains the freedom of the individual'?
These are terms that need laws to be codified! Which goes against the very nature of Libertarianism, therefore Libertarianism is an ILLOGICAL construct!
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Note: I made the same omission in a number of my posts putting Pargat's Objections into standard format; I have now gone back and completed them.
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 09:36 PM.
I am re-posting and editing my Post # 244 (23/8/19) - It is incomplete and ambiguous. So Dilip (Post # 252 - 23/8/19) thinks I am the Challenger. Here is what the post intended:
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 1
Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.
Challenge (Libertarian position is unworkable): Pargat Perrer - Post # 240 - 23/8/19
What is "more restrictive than necessary"? Who decides, and what is the mechanism of the decision, what exactly is meant by 'restrains the freedom of the individual'?
These are terms that need laws to be codified! Which goes against the very nature of Libertarianism, therefore Libertarianism is an ILLOGICAL construct!
Bob A (As Group Secretary)
Note: I made the same omission in a number of my posts putting Pargat's Objections into standard format; I have now gone back and completed them.
Bob,
You are the one who is doing this project and have to exercise some common-sense. If you wish to know what exactly is meant by what I said earlier, i.e. 'Any restrictive law which goes beyond prevention of harm to others is unnecessary', please consult the dictionary for the meanings to make it clearer for you, and let PP do the same. And also, in a post earlier today (#250), I have already responded to what you and PP want to know about the other statements.
Thanks.
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 19th August, 2023, 09:54 PM.
Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.
Statement # 3
The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.
The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.
Challenge (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Pargat Perrer, Post # 240 - 23/8/19:
The last sentence should be removed. No Libertarian here, nor other person, has raised as an issue self-harm.
[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Pargat; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]
Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.
Proposed Revision 2 (Of Revision 1):
The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one does something which even the vast majority thinks is harming him/herself and illogical, one is free to do so.
Challengeto Proposed Revision 1 (that this is inaccurate re Libertarian Policy): Dilip Panjwani, Post # 249 - 23/8/19
Sid and Neal and IM O'Donnell may well be absolutely right, though in the minority, that a young healthy person should not take modRNA vaccines... and no one has the right to force them to do so. (We know that it is very very unlikely that an unvaccinated person can harm someone who is already vaccinated, by transmission). The other examples are MAID even in the absence of a terminal dying state, and abortions which every woman has a right to in Canada (with all the scientific evidence we have to date indicating that the fetus does not have 'individual consciousness', but is just a part of the mother's body).
[Note: Secretary's effort to put into formal form the post of Dilip and his Statement # 3 2nd revision; if not satisfactory, will he please post a revision and we will amend his Challenge.]
Processing: Support for the existing Statement must be posted by the deadline of Saturday, 23/8/26 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Similarly for anyone "supplementing" the Challenge. Otherwise the Statement will be revised as requested.
Tweet
Comment