1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Cheating in Chess

« on: November 27, 2023, 07:36:13 PM »

Cheating in chess has garnered much attention over the past year, commencing with the former World Champion (2013-2023), GM Magnus Carlsen, withdrawing from the 2022 Sinquefeld Cup after losing to GM Hans Niemann in their third-round match of the event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsen%E2%80%93Niemann_controversy

Since that event last year, much of the news involving cheating in chess has been centered on steps that major online platforms, such as Chess.com and Lichess, have taken in an effort to detect cheating on their websites.

Most recently, GM Hikaru Nakamura, who is the second-highest-rated blitz player on the Chess.com platform, has been effectively accused of cheating on the platform by former World Champion (2000-2007), GM Vladimir Kramnik. Kramnik has started a petition demanding Chess.com perform and publish an analysis of the results Nakamura has achieved over a recent sixty-day period of play on Chess.com.
Petiton]https://tinyurl.com/yznvyxhw]Petiton

When the Carlsen-Niemann controversy erupted, I was questioning the governance policy/procedure FIDE (the governing body of professional chess worldwide) had in place concerning inviting or allowing admitted or proven cheaters to participate in FIDE-sanctioned tournaments, even those held in person and over-the-board. I do not believe persons found to have cheated during online chess should be invited or allowed to participate in FIDE-sanctioned tournaments.

This latest bit of news involving Nakamura becomes even more interesting given that Nakamura has qualified to participate in the next Candidates tournament.   

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 21, 2023, 10:02:14 AM »

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Perhaps for you, but that isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the English speaking world.

1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one

"Crafty" and "secret" don't always imply criminal or fraudulent.

^markjo is seriously claiming this.

Unbelievable.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 20, 2023, 10:56:50 PM »

There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 20, 2023, 11:56:18 AM »

"Sometimes friends will use the term (scheme)among themselves to simply mean making plans together...

^Srsly...just srsly...

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 08, 2023, 01:27:53 PM »

two more weeks

21 weeks later...

two more weeks

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 24, 2023, 07:44:37 AM »

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.

Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment.

You don't tell the truth or give testemony if you plead the 5th.  Kinda the whole point.

A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.

Lets cut to the chase, shall we?
I'll ask you to quote the law.
You'll refuse, likely atating something about 'do your own research'
I'll say the burden of proof is on you.
You'll say its on me and probably insult me.

Repeat.

You need someone to prove to you that prosecutors cannot ignore or violate the US Constitution?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/544

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao153_0.pdf

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 23, 2023, 01:39:07 PM »

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.

Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 23, 2023, 11:42:40 AM »

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

Again, its not forcing.
Because she's not forced to take the deal.
The prosecution is not forced to offer any deal or even honor it.

So again, if the prosecution feels she did not live up to the deal, they'll simply end it.  It will be null and void.  As if it never happened.

So, there is no deal at all -  and like I wrote, it is simply a report about her agreeing to testify truthfully, like everyone else who testifies in court.

Sounds like another nothing burger.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 23, 2023, 10:16:00 AM »

Jesus, you cannot force anyone to testify against anyone.

Period.

If a person gets on the stand and states truthfully, "I decline to answer because the answer might incriminate me," that's the end of it.

Other than that, she is simply agreeing to testify truthfully, something anyone does the minute they take the stand.

It sounds like the story is nothing more than a report of what the bailiff asked her when she raised her right hand.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 22, 2023, 06:51:01 PM »

In regards to the validity of pleading the fifth, refusing to testify is a different concept than not testifying truthfully. She agreed to testify truthfully. She did not agree to the extent of her testimony.

The deal was

"...agreed to testify truthfully against her co-defendants at future trials."
So yes, she did agree to the extent of her testimony.
You can't truthfully testify againat your co-defendants if you plead the 5th.

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 22, 2023, 11:20:00 AM »

True.  Allow me to rephrase:
If she invokes it, the deal is off.

Seems you are truly for weaponizing prosecution against US citizens, then.

No surprise there.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 22, 2023, 06:35:34 AM »

You are arguing that some kind of hidden language is being employed here, but that wouldn't work. What happens when Powell doesn't "flip" against Trump and supports his narrative and claims that she was "testifying truthfully"?

The same thing that happens to any co-defendant who is expected to flip and then reneges; evidence is produced to impeach them and discredit their testimony, and the deal is called off because of their dishonesty. Prosecutors are not taking a gamble when they offer a witness a deal to testify in the hopes that they'll say something that will hurt another defendant. They know what the facts of the case are, they know what the answers to the questions they ask are, and presumably they're prepared to handle a witness who tries to be tricky. I'm sure they have to phrase any deal they make carefully so as not to say that a specific kind of testimony from her is what's being rewarded, and I'm also sure that they wouldn't make such a clumsy mistake in a case as high-profile as this one.

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

Any "deal," cannot circumvent any part of the US Constitution.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 21, 2023, 12:11:50 PM »

not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.

Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence

Six years of probation is what was printed.

And what was the sentencing guidelines for the crimes she was accused of?

You asked me to look up the sentencing for the verdict, not the guidelines.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 21, 2023, 10:08:40 AM »

not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.

Maybe.  Feel free to find the official court sentence

Six years of probation is what was printed.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 21, 2023, 08:25:21 AM »

not as bad as what she was facing.  (Up to 5 years jail time)

I doubt she received more probation time (six years) than the potential jail time.

Looks more like a "GRAB THE HEADLINES," story than the truth.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 21, 2023, 08:20:19 AM »

While I do that, please define lethal for me.  Just so we're on the same page.

You and I on the same page? Nice joke.

If something has 0.1% lethality it still means it can kill you. That's what lethality means if you didn't guess. Even 0.1% is pretty significant - I wouldn't want to take that chance, would you? COVID vaxx have up to 1% lethality according to the study (so I guess you did take that chance after all, and then some). And that says nothing about damages in the living.

Really? So... showering is lethal?  Peanuta are lethal?  Sugar is lethal?  God damn man... you must be one hell of a coward!

And yes, 1% is about right.  I mentioned this before.  In some people, the vaccine causes bloodclots to form after infection with covid resulting in a 1% death rate(roughly).
Also some are deathly allergic.

Without the vaccine, its 5%.

Where did you come up with a 5% death rate for Covid-19?

The study I read about it.  Which i haven't found again.  But it tracks with global average.

You need to find that study again, because the death rate for Covid is nowhere near 5%.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 21, 2023, 08:14:37 AM »

Criticizing the military is not morally wrong at all.

Period.

End of sentence.

Do you realize that there's an actual context to what's being discussed here? The subject under discussion here isn't whether or not criticizing the military is inherently morally wrong (of course it's not), but why it's generally seen as conservative dogma that the military should never be criticized or insulted, and then those same conservatives ignore or downplay the contempt that Trump regularly shows for the military. I've allowed for the possibility that this dogma may have shifted somewhat since Trump's election, but no - once Biden was elected, conservatives promptly began scolding him for disrespecting - or just seeming to disrespect - the military the same way they regularly did with Obama. And now that Trump is campaigning again and his usual lack of respect for the military is making the news, conservatives have once more dropped into apathy.

^Look everyone, Sadaam is claiming Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, are notorious conservatives!

I disagree it is generally seen as "conservative dogma," the military should never be criticized or insulted. Neocons, yeah...

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 20, 2023, 03:56:59 PM »

You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."

Ok. Well allow me to clarify.
IF you take the position that criticising the military is bad then do so consistently. It can't be bad for Biden to do it and OK for Trump, just because he happens to like Trump and not like Biden. This is the logical inconsistency I'm highlighting. Tom routinely shows double standards and logical inconsistency, he'll defend person A to the hilt because he likes person A, person A is on his side. But if person B does the exact same thing, or often something much less serious, then Tom will hold it up as evidence that person B is terrible. Because person B isn't on his side. It's pretty silly.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

You do the very same thing here all the fucking time.

Most of us do...no need to post a bunch of troll posts to state such an obvious fact.

If the military deserves to be criticized (and it does , most of the fucking time, as it does very little good for anyone) then it should be criticized.

You call a spade a spade.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 20, 2023, 03:43:21 PM »

You don't need to bother pretending she's on your side. Trump will no doubt be yelling about how he's never even heard of her and also that he never liked her to begin with, if he hasn't done so already.

Also, it's not polarizing to point out that a stance of "criticizing/insulting the military is morally wrong" should logically apply to everyone regardless of whether or not you like them.

Criticizing the military is not morally wrong at all.

Period.

End of sentence.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 20, 2023, 12:54:03 PM »

...Either criticising them is bad or it isn't,...

^This doesn't sound polarizing at all...

On the contrary, it sounds extremely well thought out and reasoned...

Are you struggling with logical consistency?

Not at all.

It has been clearly demonstrated that vocalizing or writing polarizing positions is an extremely logical course of action and has absolutely no possible adverse consequences on any significant level.

I mean, Jesus H. Christ...

You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."

Who the fuck are you trying to fool?

GTFO with your claims that I might be struggling with "logical consistency."

You have no fucking clue what that means.

You should just quit writing here on this forum in any topic.