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.
On BBC:
Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer who has Trump's ear, swaying the president on top personnel decisions, called the new Pope "anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis"
Congratulations, Bob Armstrong! Maybe you have an ally in the Vatican?
Personally, though, I think Laura Loomer is wildly exaggerating in calling these Popes Marxists... they are far from that... and Bob perhaps feels the same way...
All I know is that it is in a Pope's interest to not get labelled "politically", and just be labelled as "a good person doing good things" (By both believers and non-believers).
If it was possible to have the same feelings and actions between all individuals in society, as exist between the members of one's immediate family, which however is not possible however much you may stretch your imagination, then Marxism would make everyone "a good person doing good things"...
There's a church about three blocks from my home. It's a non-denominational Christian church. I would think that if I were a long-standing member of that church, and I found myself in some sort of minor trouble (let's say I lost my job, or my wife and I were experiencing relationship issues), there would be support from the members, as best they can. Why? Because after years of seeing us at services, and at various events, and perhaps socializing with them outside of the church, they would have some insight into our character and if we are the authors of our own problems.
A lot of this sort of thing is now delegated to the state. The difference is that the state has no idea if I spend my days sitting around drinking and making trouble, and even if they did, it doesn't affect what they are obligated to do for me.
A church group is like an extended family. Government cannot be, and should not be, operated like a family would operate. "Good" in the context of "a good person" or "good things" will differ wildly from person to person and society to society.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
All I think is that it is up to society, not charity, to provide the residents of a country with a financial livable income, where they are unable, for myriads of reasons, to do so for themselves.
"Livable" to me is that Maslow's hierarchy of basic needs are those to which they have a right, as a member of society. There is no guarantee possible for honouring these rights from "charity". And charity is being overwhelmed at the moment trying.........as societal quality of life is deteriorating under our vaunted "Capitalism".
Charity:
Definition: The voluntary giving of help (out of love), usually financially, to those in need.
One does this invariably within the innermost of one's circles, and in diminishing extent, towards successive outer circles.
This is what religions cherish, and what is inborn human nature.
Marxism:
Definition: The involuntary, forced, giving of help, financially, to those in more need than oneself, even in the outermost of the circles, whose members one may never have interacted with or know anything about.
Since one has to 'sweat' and 'sacrifice pleasures' in order to generate finances to provide finances to even unknown individuals who need it more, and since it is not human nature to 'love' those one has never interacted with and do not know whether they are decent or crooks, one chooses to opt for pleasures and give up 'sweating', and the society as a whole therefore becomes less productive and poorer... eventually everyone is 'in need' beyond what they generate...
That is why Marxism, whether democratic or not, has always failed in history, and will always do so... and Society whose rules are aligned with human nature (Libertarianism), evolves to become happier...
We don't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism. Capitalism has resulted in creating more wealth and raising average living standards than ever in human history. Even a poor person in a First World country lives better than 99+% of people throughout human existence. As for Canada, it is the choice of our governments over the last decade, that has caused Canada's living standard to flatten:
Note that in 2013 it was $52,638.12, and in 2023 $53.371.70 an increase of less than 2%. Over a decade. Terrible.
Compare to the "greedy" Americans which have seen about a 50% increase over the same period.
Capitalism aligns with human nature. Not with how we wish people acted, or some utopian vision of how we view humans, but how they actually behave. You incentivize the behaviours that you want and you get more of those behaviours.
About twenty-five years ago I briefly dated a lady who used to work in the Bill Clinton administration. I remember having a discussion with her about welfare. She kept talking about how we need to do this or that for poor people. So I asked her if she had ever actually spoken with someone on welfare, or lived in an area with a bunch of welfare recipients. She had not. I get a sense this is how most government bureaucrats see poor people but in my actual experience most are poor because they constantly make poor choices.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Sunday, 18th May, 2025, 10:37 AM.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
We don't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism.
The reason crony capitalism exists is that we have given too much power to the politicians. Libertarianism takes away all that power from them, leaving them only with the ability to enforce Natural Law, and manage the nation's defense (even the latter is not necessary if we have 'one world, one nation' !)
The difference between regular capitalism and Libertarianism is that while in the former 'capital' gives one the ability to earn more of it, in the latter, because of free access to capital for all, only one's hard and smart work determines how much one earns...
"Livable" to me is that Maslow's hierarchy of basic needs are those to which they have a right, as a member of society.
Bob
Given that the society's infrastructure benefits all its members, the Marxist belief that "one 'owes it' to society for one's ability to earn" implies that just because a customer exists is the entrepreneur able to sell; however, the opposite is also true that just because the seller of goods/services exists, the customer is able to buy what he/she needs! Thus society owes to entrepreneurs just as much as the entrepreneur owes to society. Right, Bob?
A right that requires someone else do something is not a right. It is an obligation.
An example of a right: free speech. That obligates no one. No one has to read anything I write nor provide me for free with the tools to write it.
I imagine that many Leftists will say something like "it takes a village ..." to cover things that aren't rights. Perhaps true when people lived in villages where everyone had pretty much identical belief systems, knew each other's families for generations, probably never travelled more than a day's ride in any direction, and had a pretty good idea of the character of their fellow villagers. We have none of these things anymore.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Sunday, 18th May, 2025, 11:18 AM.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I personally think this a pretty good reason why entrepreneurs who make a lot of money providing goods/services to people who voluntarily buy them should pay less in taxes, not more. If someone makes millions of people's lives better, why shouldn't they be encouraged to do this indefinitely?
Given that the society's infrastructure benefits all its members, the Marxist belief that "one 'owes it' to society for one's ability to earn" implies that just because a customer exists is the entrepreneur able to sell; however, the opposite is also true that just because the seller of goods/services exists, the customer is able to buy what he/she needs! Thus society owes to entrepreneurs just as much as the entrepreneur owes to society. Right, Bob?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I personally think this a pretty good reason why entrepreneurs who make a lot of money providing goods/services to people who voluntarily buy them should pay less in taxes, not more. If someone makes millions of people's lives better, why shouldn't they be encouraged to do this indefinitely?
Many people "voluntarily" buy fentanyl, heroin, Not that the sellers would put this on their tax return, of course, but the general idea that sellers of high-selling goods/services are doing society a favor is very simple-minded. The examples I gave are illegal substances, but many legal examples abound. I remember SNL back in the late 70s did an example, with Dan Ackroyd playing an entrepreneur who sold products like a bag of broken glass. Sure, exaggeration, but there is a kernel of truth in all comedy.
The big problem is trying to objectively determine what "makes people's lives better". No one will ever agree.
The reason crony capitalism exists is that we have given too much power to the politicians. Libertarianism takes away all that power from them, leaving them only with the ability to enforce Natural Law, and manage the nation's defense (even the latter is not necessary if we have 'one world, one nation' !)
The difference between regular capitalism and Libertarianism is that while in the former 'capital' gives one the ability to earn more of it, in the latter, because of free access to capital for all, only one's hard and smart work determines how much one earns...
No, in the former (capitalism) one must DEMONSTRATE that they deserve the capital, whereas in Libertarianism capital is distributed willy-nilly and 80 to 90% of recipients of this capital will by human nature waste it on stupid non-sensical non-beneficial "business" that cannot survive in a supply / demand economy. Therefore a Libertarian system soon ends up in massive bankruptcies as happened in the year 2000 dot com crash.
Total losses in business usually occur when the money is fraudulently diverted elsewhere. When the borrower knows that he would have to slog to pay it back if he is careless, total losses would be exceeding rare.
Tweet
Comment