chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

There is a clue unsolved right now on the Holiday Contest Clues Page!   [Official Contest Rules]
 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

twinlark
Member since Nov-17-05
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My wrap of our Chessgames Challenge: The World vs A Nickel, 2006 against ICCF Grandmaster Arno Nickel is at User: World Team Tribute.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.>

― Geoffrey Chaucer, The Parliament of Birds

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"What we’re seeing are the puppets’... shadows jumping all over the screen. ...sometimes the puppets move in a seemingly incoherent fashion. But the puppet master is always in control, moving them, giving them voice, in a rational fashion vis-a-vis his plot for the play. The wise old Prussian, Clausewitz, wrote that war is conducted for a reason ie it has certain aims and objectives. The conduct of war may appear chaotic but war, any war, is conducted for a rational end.

So to come back to the shadow play, what’s the best way to stop a bad — and potentially deadly one for all of us — shadow play? Why, talk to the puppet master of course and tell him in no uncertain terms that he’s in the play too." - Basil @ http://thesaker.is/rex-tillerson-me...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Click here to see twinlark's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   twinlark has kibitzed 18144 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Dec-11-17 twinlark chessforum (replies)
 
twinlark: <optimal play> <But it's still "whataboutery"> No. I had previously agreed with <visayanbraindoctor>'s comments about Indonesia and Islam (at twinlark chessforum (kibitz #9358) ), about which you had initially sought opinion from myself, so the "whataboutery" ...
 
   Nov-24-17 Kenneth S Rogoff (replies)
 
twinlark: <HeHateMe> It was a four hour chapter and verse denunciation that left the congress completely lost and speechless. Seems like a major political risk to destroy the country's idol in such a fashion, one that you probably won't see parallels for elsewhere. Krushchev lost ...
 
   Oct-28-17 Kirill Shevchenko
 
twinlark: Congratulations to GM Shevchenko, who gained his title nearly two months before his 15th birthday.
 
   Oct-17-17 jessicafischerqueen chessforum (replies)
 
twinlark: <offramp> <For <quite literally> I think you mean <not literally>.> It wasn't overly popular back in the day because there was a cognitive dissidence between what the movie projected and urban Australia's idealistic view of outback Australia. It did ...
 
   Oct-03-17 Anton Smirnov
 
twinlark: Well done, Grandmaster Anton Smirnov.
 
   Sep-18-17 Oluwafemi Balogun
 
twinlark: Balogun would probably need to compete on the European circuit to significantly improve his chess, as Africa's top players Bassem Amin and Ahmed Adly have been doing with great success.
 
   Sep-05-17 Phiona Mutesi
 
twinlark: <alexrawlings> Well said. I loved the movie as well, but had to smile at the scene where she shows her mother the house they moved into out of the Katwe slums. It's a recursive subplot, because she was able to buy the house from the proceeds of the money she received from ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 360 OF 360 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-08-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <optimal play- Yahya Cholil Staquf says, "Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam.>

If he is a learned Islamic cleric, he has probably memorized large parts or even all of the Koran. The Koran says God shall strike terror into the hearts of the infidels. So he knows. Politicians should consider that terrorizing the opposition may actually be regarded as 'good' rather than 'bad' by the typical jihadist. Morality (our ideas of right or wrong) has always been influenced or determined by sacred scriptures. Our modern day morality (much influenced by Roman civilization) I believe comes mainly from the New Testament ever since Constantine propagated Christianity in the Roman Empire. If the NT ordered that you should behead, crucify, or dismember those who create trouble in the land, we would not think of these forms of capital punishment applied to the political and religious opposition as being immoral.

Dec-08-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Regarding MBS and his purge, I believe it's understandable if his aim is to strike terror on his recalcitrant cousins. From the Western point of view, it looks like political suicide. In Arabia, such behavior could well have been the norm for more than a thousand years. It may look shocking to outsiders, but in their culture, it may be quite fine.
Dec-09-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <optimal play>

I spent nearly a day preparing comprehensive replies to your questions before it occurred to me to check and discover you're a politically literate Aussie.

I feel like a bloody goose for not checking earlier.

Not sure why you're asking me these questions, as you seem politically knowledgeable, but I'll give some shortish answers:

<Do you think the Federal government response to the 'Little Children are Sacred' report was misguided or deliberately deceitful?>

Of course it was. The chair of the report and the authors are disillusioned about the government's response. Pat Anderson who co-wrote the report criticised the intervention as "neither well-intentioned nor well-evidenced", was "based on ignorance and prejudice", and ignored the report's central recommendation to consult indigenous people.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...

Brough's bureaucrat, Greg Andrews, pretending to be the "youth worker" on Lateline was a major deception, lying about everything important.

The Sacred Child inquiry was held in good faith and misused. You've probably seen these but I'll post them for anyone who wants to know the legacy of 10 years of Intervention:

- " a costly political stunt" - http://www.news.com.au/finance/econ...

- <"There is a deep hurt and distress expressed at the sheer brutality of the Intervention process that revived bitter memories for older people of being treated as legal minors by the colonial authorities during the assimilation era, a sense of deep hopelessness and disempowerment, and a sense of injustice that the belief that western norms are superior and need to be adopted by Indigenous people can prevail."> https://newmatilda.com/2017/07/28/t...

- Stan Grant commenting on the continuation of the "torment of powerlessness" ten years on: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-...

- <1. Many more Aboriginal children are being forcibly removed from their family and culture ...
2. Punitive measures have not increased school attendance ...
3. The Intervention saw an increase in youth suicide and huge spike in self-harm ...
4. The Intervention housing program has had a minimal impact on shocking rates of overcrowding ...
5. Income Management has made life harder for many and remains racially discriminatory ...
6. The abolition of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) has created mass unemployment and exploitation ...
7. Restrictions on courts considering Aboriginal culture, custom and law in bail and sentencing decisions continue ...
8. The number of Indigenous people in prison has exploded ...
9. Discriminatory alcohol bans remain in force and there is no evidence they have reduced harmful drinking ...
10. 10. Extreme rates of family violence have not decreased>

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article...

All of which resulted from heavy handed paternalism (again), a lack of respect for aborigines and the victims they were professing to protect, and contrary to the recommendation and spirit of the Sacred Child Report.

The Lateline fraud and fiasco was dealt with at some length in Pilger's "Utopia": https://vimeo.com/167556065

Another article by New Matilda titled
<A Decade On, The Fraud Of The NT Intervention Is Exposed> https://newmatilda.com/2017/06/28/a...

This final article by Michael Brull that spells out the extent of bad faith and fraudulence speaks for itself:

https://newmatilda.com/2017/06/28/a...

Dec-09-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <optimal play>

<Hyperbole>

Not at all. The massacres and the shoot on sight philosophy that extended settlement had done its job. The modern genocide is "kinder and gentler", slowly starving indigenous cultures to death, starting with their languages and moving on from there, and ensuring that they never regain their equilibrium.

All the vital social statistics concerning aborigines, including birth and death mortality stats, longevity stats, rates of disease, unemployment and incarceration, and just about every other indicator of social health spells out the extent of continuing disadvantage and oppression.

Most recently, Cabinet's decision to simply jettison, without discussion, the principle recommendation from Uluru that a consultative committee be enshrined in the Constitution was a pretty sordid and clear indication that Aboriginal welfare and reconciliation is not really on the agenda in any meaningful way.

Labor is not much better. Macklin's response to the Intervention was token.

A pox on both their houses.

Dec-09-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <optimal play>

<Indonesia, Muslims>

I defer to <visayanbraindoctor> and his comments and observations on this subject.

Dec-09-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <It may look shocking to outsiders, but in their culture, it may be quite fine.>

Honestly can't see him surviving his jihad on fellow billionaires.

Dec-09-17  optimal play: <twinlark: <optimal play> I spent nearly a day preparing comprehensive replies to your questions before it occurred to me to check and discover you're a politically literate Aussie. I feel like a bloody goose for not checking earlier. Not sure why you're asking me these questions, as you seem politically knowledgeable>

I never sought to deceive and my questions were sincere.

Your comment on our recent SSM plebiscite caught my attention and I was interested as to why you thought those 17 electorates which voted 'No' were considered to be demographically atypical, since for example 'Kennedy' voted 'No' as well as 'Blaxland'.

Your answer prompted a couple of other questions regarding your thoughts on these matters, but it never occurred to me it might be necessary to provide full disclosure of my background. Sorry I didn't clarify that but certainly no reason for you to feel like a goose.

<The chair of the report and the authors are disillusioned about the government's response.> Yes, there is now widespread criticism of the NT intervention but whether the Howard government's intention was misguided or deliberately deceitful is still a matter of opinion.

At the time there was bi-partisan support, and even now Howard himself maintains that it was "absolutely necessary" and has no regrets.

<It was right to step in, Howard insists>

<"Clearly, it has changed the attitudes of many in relation to school attendance and to nutrition. To the extent that the intervention has led to more police being in place in the Northern Territory, it would have had a very beneficial effect in relation to attacks on children.">

http://www.smh.com.au/national/it-w...

I'm not sure quoting Stan Grant adds a great deal to supporting any argument, but it does seem that a decade on, not much if anything has improved for Australia's indigenous population in the NT.

<The modern genocide is "kinder and gentler", slowly starving indigenous cultures to death, starting with their languages and moving on from there, and ensuring that they never regain their equilibrium.>

Do you really believe that "genocide" is a true and fair description of the federal government's policy towards aborigines?

In all sincerity?

In excess of $30 billion is spent each year on Indigenous-specific programs for 500,000 aboriginal Australians!

That's some expensive "kinder and gentler" genocide!

And as for that key recommendation of the Uluru statement endorsing a referendum to establish a permanent Indigenous advisory body, it was impractical and would have been unnacceptable to most Australians.

And you know who would end up sitting on this committee? The usual bunch of white-skin suburban 'aborigines' fixated on identity politics, while full-blooded indigenous Australians remained in the outback no better off.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on these matters. You show a good deal of insight into some important issues.

Dec-09-17  optimal play: <visayanbraindoctor: <optimal play: Are you referring to Islamic theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran?> No, I had the Libyan and Syrian jihadists in mind when I wrote that statement. I do agree that both Saudi Arabia and Iran are theocracies, if that was your implied question to me.>

Okay, but would you say that the Libyan and Syrian jihadists (who I think are Sunni?) are funded and supported by the Saudi government while Iran supports the various Shia jihadists?

Is that what you meant by <neo-colonialism in modern times has often taken advantage of the above scripture-based already existent historical violence.>?

<visayanbraindoctor: <optimal play- Yahya Cholil Staquf says, "Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam.> If he is a learned Islamic cleric, he has probably memorized large parts or even all of the Koran. The Koran says God shall strike terror into the hearts of the infidels. So he knows. Politicians should consider that terrorizing the opposition may actually be regarded as 'good' rather than 'bad' by the typical jihadist. Morality (our ideas of right or wrong) has always been influenced or determined by sacred scriptures. Our modern day morality (much influenced by Roman civilization) I believe comes mainly from the New Testament ever since Constantine propagated Christianity in the Roman Empire. If the NT ordered that you should behead, crucify, or dismember those who create trouble in the land, we would not think of these forms of capital punishment applied to the political and religious opposition as being immoral.>

Exactly right, so the Islamic fundamentalists are simply obeying the letter of the Koran.

Thus when Western politicians parrott "Oh, this latest terrorist attack has nothing to do with Islam", they're displaying their ignorance of true Islam according to the Koran.

No wonder esteemed Islamic scholars such as Yahya Cholil Staquf are exasperated with Western politicians!

Whilst he and others like him are trying to reform traditional Islam and bring it into the 21st century, governments in Europe and elsewhere continue to undermine those efforts and make matters worse by their irrational fixation on political correctness.

Dec-09-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <optimal play>

<it does seem that a decade on, not much if anything has improved for Australia's indigenous population in the NT.>

Quite the reverse, as outlined in my extract from the NITV commentary.

<it has changed the attitudes of many in relation to school attendance and to nutrition.>

Kind of like a band aid applied to a cut when someone's arms and legs have been broken. Take another look at the 10 points made by NITV.

<In excess of $30 billion is spent each year on Indigenous-specific programs for 500,000 aboriginal Australians!

That's some expensive "kinder and gentler" genocide!>

Because it smacks of complete cluelessness about working with people on the ground, it's simply a version of fiscal paternalism.

Throwing money at a problem, without due concern about how it is spent or how it is accounted for can only worsen the problem and generate corruption, both within the bureaucracy and within the aboriginal communities.

What actual durable benefits has throwing all this money at indigenous affairs actually done for Aborigines? Has it reduced their incarceration rates, created employment, housing, reduced infant mortality, fought diseases such as diabetes and alcoholism? To what extent did it enable the man who ran down and killed Elijah Doughty with his ute near Kalgoorlie to be punished? https://newmatilda.com/2017/07/30/t...

What are the material benefits of this amount of money being spent? There isn't even a treaty? This looks and smells like very ordinary progress to say the least.

<And as for that key recommendation of the Uluru statement endorsing a referendum to establish a permanent Indigenous advisory body, it was impractical and would have been unnacceptable to most Australians.>

That was the exactly the reasoning taken by Turnbull. He (and you) may be right, but he could have asked and consulted before making such a high-handed decision that has pissed off Aborigines across the country. The Uluru group's recommendation for an advisory body was key, and one that was simply dismissed with a casual wave of the hand before proceeding to such important matters as making life easier for MPs by amending section 44.

<And you know who would end up sitting on this committee? The usual bunch of white-skin suburban 'aborigines' fixated on identity politics, while full-blooded indigenous Australians remained in the outback no better off.>

Seriously? How can you possibly know who would sit on this committee? And why would you mock light skinned Aborigines? Do you know why they are light skinned for heaven's sake? And why would you assume they would automatically exclude their "full-blooded" cousins in the outback?

Dec-09-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: The New Testament may not have the violent blandishments of the Koran, but the following issue demonstrates IMO how largely irrelevant this is becoming:

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/th...

Namely that evangelical maniacs...err...Christians in the US are loving the recognition of Jerusalem as meeting the initial criteria for the Apocalypse, the Biblical end of days aka the end of the world that will come to pass at the Battle of Armageddon so that Jesus can come back to earth and punish all evil doers (ie non believers including Jews).

It's ironic that evangelical Christians are mainly Zionists, not because they like Jews, quite the opposite, but to fulfil these prophecies which will actually result in the death of all Jews who don't convert.

Dec-09-17  optimal play: <twinlark> I agree that throwing money at the problem, without due concern about how it is spent or how it is accounted for only worsens the problem and generates corruption, both within the bureaucracy and the aboriginal communities. That's what has been happening with no real solution in sight.

I think 'misguided fiscal paternalism' would be a more accurate description of the federal government's policy towards Indigenous Australians than deliberate genocide.

The general consensus now seems to be that the aboriginal communities should have been consulted from the beginning and their full compliance obtained regarding implementation of the Little Children are Sacred Report.

<What are the material benefits of this amount of money being spent? There isn't even a treaty?> Why are those two questions linked? They're completely separate issues.

There are negligible material benefits or social improvement to Indigenous Australians based on the amount of money being spent, but that won't improve with any kind of treaty.

I agree that Turnbull could have handled the Uluru statement better, but wasn't the original intent of the so-called "First Nations Convention" to discuss the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians? But then they unexpectedly popped up with that "permanent Indigenous advisory body"?

<How can you possibly know who would sit on this committee?> The usual suspects: Stan Grant, Noel Pearson, Geoffrey Clark, Marcia Langton, Michael Mansell, The Dodson Brothers, you can probably guess the rest.

<And why would you mock light skinned Aborigines?> I'm not mocking them but it's generally the light skinned aborigines who are sitting on all these high-paid government committees while full-blooded indigenous Australians continue to languish in poverty in the outback.

All Australians want to see a vast improvement in the quality of life for our Indigenous people, but when you see the usual clique of light-skin aborigines always in the media complaining, and the only solution they can come up with is another committee, then it's hard not to feel cynical about their bombast rhetoric.

<The New Testament may not have the violent blandishments of the Koran ...> Nor the Old Testament for that matter.

Whilst any violence in the Old Testament is historical, in that it records what happened during the ancient history of the Israelites, the violence in the Koran is directive, in that it tells its adherents to carry out acts of violence against non-muslims today, wherever they are.

The rest of your post is nothing but 'whataboutery".

"Oh ... well ... umm ... err ... what about those terrible Christians, hey? They're a bunch of maniacs who hate Jews!"

Come on <twinlark>, you're better than that, mate.

Dec-09-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <optimal play>

<But then they unexpectedly popped up with that "permanent Indigenous advisory body"?>

Unexpected for whom? And so what? Really don't see your point.

<<How can you possibly know who would sit on this committee?> The usual suspects: Stan Grant, Noel Pearson, Geoffrey Clark, Marcia Langton, Michael Mansell, The Dodson Brothers, you can probably guess the rest.>

Maybe, maybe not, but that is up to the Aborigines, and I'm not sure why you feel you can predict let alone judge such outcomes. The aboriginal population is relatively small, so their spokespeople are a small group, for sure. Bit like the spokespeople of any group, probably. There are always new leaders coming through: https://www.creativespirits.info/ab...

The idea of a constitutionally based advisory body didn't get off the drawing board so there is no possible way to know how the advisory body would have been selected. Even if you're right, these people would die off, retire, resign etc and be replaced by others as the constitutional amendment to enable such a body would outlive them and the rest of us.

<<And why would you mock light skinned Aborigines?> I'm not mocking them but it's generally the light skinned aborigines who are sitting on all these high-paid government committees while full-blooded indigenous Australians continue to languish in poverty in the outback.>

You're assuming they would be sitting there without the consent of their "full blooded" (ie darker skinned) compatriots. And yes you did doubt their aboriginality when you posted:

<The usual bunch of white-skin suburban 'aborigines' fixated on identity politics>

It's quite patronising. As long as the selection or election process for appointing members to the advisory body is democratic and transparent, then it would be up to the aboriginal electors, light skinned and dark skinned alike, to choose those who will represent their views.

Dec-09-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: Part 2:

<There are negligible material benefits or social improvement to Indigenous Australians based on the amount of money being spent, but that won't improve with any kind of treaty.>

Says who? Oz is the only Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty or treaties with any of its indigenous inhabitants. For the benefits that aborigines think might stem from a treaty, read the following:

https://www.creativespirits.info/ab...

<The rest of your post is nothing but 'whataboutery".

"Oh ... well ... umm ... err ... what about those terrible Christians, hey? They're a bunch of maniacs who hate Jews!">

Whataboutery? Not really. The evangelicals (as distinct from the rest of Christianity, let alone humankind) are a menace to the world, working as they do for the Rapture, Armageddon, or the End of Days or whatever conception of ultimate paradise jollies these ideologically driven morons along in their pursuit of exclusive and righteous salvation.

Evangelicals lobbied Trump to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel, because of the abovementioned biblical imperative. The following is typical:

<There are no fewer than 50 million evangelicals in America who, according to research, are convinced of the literal truth of Biblical prophecy. A recent survey found that 82 per cent of white evangelicals believe that God gave Israel to the Jewish people; a conviction shared by just 40 per cent of American Jews. Among these evangelicals there are those who believe in the prophecy of the “End of Days” foretelling Jewish control of all Jerusalem, a war of civilisations, and a choice of Jews to either embrace Christianity or die in the wrath of God.>

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...

The evangelicals are Trump's hard core supporters, along with white supremacists - it seems the protest voters have distanced themselves from Trumps antics. The decision to recognise Jerusalem catered to the arsewipes as well as distracting from an increasingly painful and proximate probe...<visayanbraindoctor>, until recently happy to give Trump the benefit of the doubt where there was none involving Hillary, wondered whether Trump might let off a small nuke somewhere near DRK as a further distraction.

My worry is that rather than allow himself to be impeached, which seems increasingly likely, he would rather hit the big red button and go out in a blaze of nuclear rapture. I just hope there is someone to disable this bastard before he can get to the nuclear football.

Dec-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: It's ironic that evangelical Christians are mainly Zionists, not because they like Jews, quite the opposite, but to fulfill these prophecies which will actually result in the death of all Jews who don't convert.>

I find the above belief terribly ironic.

<The evangelicals (as distinct from the rest of Christianity, let alone humankind) are a menace to the world, working as they do for the Rapture, Armageddon, or the End of Days or whatever> and

<1. The human race would have the ability to exterminate itself (nuclear weapons) 2. A Jewish homeland had to be reestablished in the Middle East (Trump has now proclaimed Jerusalem the capital) 3. There must be two leaders: The end-time king of the North and king of the South

“At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them and pass through. He shall also enter the Glorious Land [the Holy Land], and many countries shall be overthrown” (Daniel 11:40-41).

4. An end-time union of European nations (European Union) 5. End-time rise and fall of Israel and Judah
6. The gospel will be preached in all the world (YouTube) 7. Instant worldwide communications and God’s final witnesses (The internet)>

From evangelical usually pro-rapture Christians, I know of criteria 2 to 5. The key in relation to Trump's latest action is criterion 2. However, from my own discourses with them, I do know that many of them already believe that #2 has been fulfilled since Israel gained official Independence after WW2.

Note the quote from the Old Testament. I find that American based 'evangelical' Christianity is the subset in Christendom that most often cites the OT, which is far more militant than the NT. Mainline churches always tend to cite the more peaceful NT first and more often. I believe that this has concrete consequences on Christian comparative theology. American Evangelicals and their offshoots IMO are the most aggressive in missionary work (which is probably why they are called evangelicals in the first place), and the most hostile to people that they deem as unbelievers.

These doctrines have taken a very specific turn among some Evangelical groups. It takes some complex reasoning to begin with NT passages and end up with the above. I think their particular theology came into existence when they handpicked certain NT passages and admixed militant OT passages in.

Regarding Islamic fundamentalism, just imagine if the NT contained orthograde passages ordering the reader to commit acts of violence. Evangelicals would be literally beheading, crucifying and dismembering unbelievers. Not only Evangelicals but some of the mainline churches as well.

It's debatable of course, but I believe that if the USA and USSR were both predominantly Muslim (and especially if they were of different sects), humanity would most probably have already experienced a nuclear WW3. The Koran says <God has bought the souls and possessions of the believers, and promised them paradise in return. They fight in God's cause, and they kill and are killed. It is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Koran.>

With a divine mandate like that, a true believer with a finger on the nuclear button, and desirous of paradise, would have a far greater probability of pressing NUKE than a Hindu, Buddhist, or Christian.

Dec-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: Trump might let off a small nuke somewhere near DRK as a further distraction.>

Yes I think this has now become a distinct option for Trump. I still do not think he will launch a nuke at Russia though. His recent actions in Syria of cutting off weapons to Nusra (as confirmed by most secular Syrians in the internet) and his relatively friendly meeting with Putin indicate IMO that he is still in the realm of sanity. (Unlike HRC who was openly announcing she will shoot down Russian planes, and in general wanted to escalate the Syrian war.)

Dec-10-17  optimal play: <twinlark> <Permanent Indigenous Advisory body> The First Nations Convention at Uluru was supposed to be another step in the long-running debate on the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. Fair enough, that has wide ranging support.

But instead of constitutional recognition they unveiled a proposal for some Permanent Indigenous Advisory body!? Turnbull was blindsided and wouldn't have a bar of it. My point is that they overplayed their hand and have now probably set back the movement towards constitutional recognition.

Aborigines are equal citizens and have an equal vote with all Australians and thus already have equal representation in parliament. A special race-based committee would contravene our non-discriminatory principles, and I'd bet that most of those highly-paid cosy positions would end up going to white-skin suburban 'aboriginals' who are about 1/16th indigenous and nothing would improve for Australia's full-blooded outback aborigines.

<yes you did doubt their aboriginality when you posted: <The usual bunch of white-skin suburban 'aborigines' fixated on identity politics>> Yes, I suppose I was mocking them, but who is worse off? Light-skin suburban aborigines who are 1/16th indigenous or black outback aborigines who are full-blooded?

I just don't think these aboriginal "representatives" are doing a great deal to help aborigines in general. For example, after the abolition of ATSIC, the NCAFP was formed in 2010 but then dissolved in 2016 because the government argued that the Congress was not functioning as a representative body. In fact many aboriginal people in remote communities didn't even know it existed years after it was established!

<As long as the selection or election process for appointing members to the advisory body is democratic and transparent, then it would be up to the aboriginal electors, light skinned and dark skinned alike, to choose those who will represent their views.> During elections for the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples — the body aiming to represent the views of Aboriginal people nationally — less than 13.5% of eligible voters cast a vote.

https://www.creativespirits.info/ab...

<Oz is the only Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty or treaties with any of its indigenous inhabitants.> So what?

A treaty implies the cessation of hostilities between two warring parties. Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians are not at war. Indigenous Australians are full and equal citizens. A treaty wouldn't improve anything.

<Whataboutery? Not really.> Yes really.

<visayanbraindoctor> and myself were engaged in an interesting and informative exchange of ideas regarding the nature of Islam and its entanglement with the West by a well-respected and leading Islamic scholar in Indonesia. There was no Muslim-bashing or Islamophobia but an honest and critical look at the impact of Koranic-inspired Islam in the 21st century.

You declined to become involved in our discussion, but obviously felt uncomfortable about some pertinent points relating to Islamic violence. So you belatedly tried to divert the discussion with "Hey look over there! There's some crazy Christians! Aren't they terrible?!"

Nice try twin, but no-one's buying it.

Dec-10-17  optimal play: <visayanbraindoctor> <I think their particular theology came into existence when they handpicked certain NT passages and admixed militant OT passages in.> Yes, it doesn't reflect mainstream Christianity and is based on a confusing misreading of certain biblical texts.

<Regarding Islamic fundamentalism, just imagine if the NT contained orthograde passages ordering the reader to commit acts of violence. Evangelicals would be literally beheading, crucifying and dismembering unbelievers. Not only Evangelicals but some of the mainline churches as well.> Good point!

You've nailed a basic and very important difference between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.

All religious fundamentalism is wrong, but some are a lot more dangerous than others.

<It's debatable of course, but I believe that if the USA and USSR were both predominantly Muslim (and especially if they were of different sects), humanity would most probably have already experienced a nuclear WW3. The Koran says <God has bought the souls and possessions of the believers, and promised them paradise in return. They fight in God's cause, and they kill and are killed. It is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Koran.>>

Precisely why Iran cannot be allowed to become nuclear.

Stalinist North Korea is bad enough, but at least Rocket-man-Kim isn't anticipating a trip to paradise for starting a nuclear war!

Dec-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <optimal play: Whilst any violence in the Old Testament is historical, in that it records what happened during the ancient history of the Israelites, the violence in the Koran is directive, in that it tells its adherents to carry out acts of violence against non-muslims today, wherever they are.>

I posted several times on this several scrolls up. I call it <orthograde> directives.

<Annie> posted some exceptions. In the OT, there are a couple of orthograde commands to execute <witches>. In general though you are right. OT violence usually consists of narratives of past violent events.

I think you should scroll up above to the original discussion on this.

There are also several outstanding differences between NT and Koranic theology. These two books are approximately the same length, and I highly recommend that you read both of them line for line.

1. The word <love> isn't mentioned in the Koran. <Love> is an important theme in the gospel of John.

2. The Koran is much stronger than the NT in advocating justice and <giving alms>. However, there is no passage that promises paradise for those who engage in these, unlike for martyrs. (God has promised paradise for those who slay and are slain for his cause.) The emphasis on justice without love, plus specific Koranic punishments for specific crimes, makes up for a penal code that can be deemed as quite cruel in modern societies.

3. God in the Koran is transcendent- far away, can't be approached easily or at all. God is immanent in the NT- made into man, we can talk to him, etc..

4. The Koran has a very negative attitude toward women. You can do with them as you please since they are loot if captured in jihad (legalized rape), a man can beat his wives if they displease him (legalized assault), a man can marry several women, a man can divorce a woman by saying so for any or no reason at all, women have to cover themselves, no woman is mentioned by name except Mary, a man is provided women in paradise, etc.. NT for its time is uniquely pro-woman. It commands husbands to love their wives- essentially turning a marriage from a contract (which it essentially is in the Koran ) into a covenant. The apostle to the apostles is described to be a woman (the other Mary). Between the lines, one can glean that many of the financial supporters of Jesus and the disciples were women. There is mention of a woman deacon and other female authority figures.

5. Paradise in the Koran is quite a material world. It's described specifically as a place with silver dwellings, fountains and streams of milk, companions of the female (and the young boy, which can be a shocker to non-LGBT Christians) sort, etc.. Hell likewise is described as a specific place of fire, where you are forced to eat thorns or your feces, drink boiling water, etc.. forever. Nothing much on the descriptions of these in the NT. I believe that this enhances the appeal of paradise and the fear of hell for Muslims.

Dec-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: 6. The Koran is very strong in the prohibition of sects. There should only be one form of religion. (NT does not discuss this issue much.) The obvious problem is that if my view of Islam differs from yours, I can always label you as sectarian, and you in turn can label me as the sect. Given the numerous orthograde violent commands in the Koran, we could then cite them in justifying killing each other.

7. The way to spread religion is by war in the Koran. <Make war until God's religion reigns supreme.> (Also struggle or jihad has no equivalent in the NT at all.) Unbelievers are subjected to capital punishment. There is some leeway for People of the Book, mentioned specifically as Jews, Christians, Sabaeans, but they have to pay a jizya 'tax', (until they convert). (Modern society would see this as extortion.) In marked contrast, there is NOT a single orthograde NT passage that orders the reader to commit violence. Propagation of religion is achieved by convincing unbelievers by verbal means- talking to them in their own languages in the Pentecost passage (which makes the NT remarkably pro-minority- it respects the languages of minorities and encourages evangelists to preach in them.)

8. Muslims and potential Muslims are to be greeted by the word <peace>. However, I cannot find passages that define this word, and it's obviously NOT reserved for unbelievers, idolaters, infidels, apostates, as these are to be killed.

9. The attitude toward Christians and Jews of the Koran is generally quite hostile, and they are mentioned by name. <Do not say three, God is but one; God forbid that he should have a son.> Christians are polytheists with three gods. <Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your friends or you will become one of them.> <Jews shall be your most obdurate opponents, Jews are cursed by God, etc..> The NT is also hostile to Jews, but not as much as the Koran. The NT hostility can be specifically deduced to stem from Jesus' conflict with the Jewish authorities and official Jewish teachings at that time. Koran is hostile to Jews in past, present, and future tense.

10. The talion law is upheld by the Koran, but discarded by the NT.

11. There are passages in the Koran that can be read as encouraging deception/ lying under certain conditions. (Probably the origin of Taqiya.) There is none in the NT.

12. Many of the suras are written almost like a legal code. This also occurs in the OT, but not in the NT.

There are more, but these IMO these are the ones that create a lot of trouble between Muslims and followers of other religions, and modern secular society.

Dec-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <optimal play: Precisely why Iran cannot be allowed to become nuclear.>

I agree, but in general I am against any proliferation of nukes.

After having said that, I must also point out that the Shiites and Iran have not done any proven terrorist act in the name of religion in the past two or three decades. In the middle east, the Shiites have done quite a lot to stop the proliferation of Wahabbi (Sunni fundamentalist) groups.

Again debatable but IMO they have done the world a great service in this matter. (Actually if you read up on secular Arab Cristian chatter in the internet, you'll find out that most Arab Christians are deeply grateful to some of the Shiite groups for saving them from Wahabbis.

It's hard to explain these things in one go, unless you have read a lot of alternative media. You could scroll up and in your free time review the extensive stuff already posted before.

Dec-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Hey look over there! There's some crazy Christians! Aren't they terrible?!>

Actually I think <twinlark> stated his opinion of a particular group of Christians, not all. Specifically it's this group

<The evangelicals (as distinct from the rest of Christianity, let alone humankind) are a menace to the world, working as they do for the Rapture, Armageddon, or the End of Days or whatever>

that believes in

<1. The human race would have the ability to exterminate itself (nuclear weapons) 2. A Jewish homeland had to be reestablished in the Middle East (Trump has now proclaimed Jerusalem the capital) 3. There must be two leaders: The end-time king of the North and king of the South

“At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them and pass through. He shall also enter the Glorious Land [the Holy Land], and many countries shall be overthrown” (Daniel 11:40-41).

4. An end-time union of European nations (European Union) 5. End-time rise and fall of Israel and Judah 6. The gospel will be preached in all the world (YouTube) 7. Instant worldwide communications and God’s final witnesses (The internet)>

Dec-10-17  optimal play: <visayanbraindoctor> Thanks so much for your very interesting and informative posts on this topic.

As you have so clearly pointed out, there are stark differences between the Bible and the Koran.

Most notably, the <orthograde> nature of violence in the Koran as distinct from the <historical> nature in the Old Testament, and the complete absence in the New.

Thank you for pointing out the previous discussion on this and I will certainly scroll back and read over it.

Your clear and concise parallels of each topic, ie love, God, women, Paradise, differing sects, violence, peace, intolerance, lex talionis deception and legality, enable a direct contrast and comparison between the Islamic Koran and the Christian Bible.

It's vitally important that many more people understand the nature of Islam and how it is interpreted through the Koran.

Your insights into this subject shed a great deal of light on matters that are often confused and misunderstood.

The message is getting out but there's still a lot of people who mistakenly think that Islam is a religion of peace and that there's nothing to be concerned about.

The wilfully ignorant will still reject irrefutable evidence, but most people with an open mind are eager to learn and know the truth.

<I am against any proliferation of nukes.> Who isn't?

<Actually if you read up on secular Arab Christian chatter in the internet, you'll find out that most Arab Christians are deeply grateful to some of the Shiite groups for saving them from Wahabbis.> I didn't know that!

<Actually I think <twinlark> stated his opinion of a particular group of Christians, not all.> Fair enough.

But it's still "whataboutery"

Dec-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <optimal play: highly-paid cosy positions would end up going to white-skin suburban 'aboriginals' who are about 1/16th indigenous>

I am not sure but if I got your meaning right, we have 'equivalent' problems. Philippines has a 'National Commission of Indigenous Peoples'. This NCIP is IMO one of the most corrupt government organizations in my country. Let me tell it from personal experience.

One afternoon, a patient came to my clinic for consultation on headache. After I had made a diagnosis and prescribed meds, we had a little chat. He said he was a high officer of the regional NCIP; and that he was a member of a small local ethno-linguistic group. (A small locally limited ethno-linguistic group is called a <tribo (Spanish) or tribe (English)> in the Philippine setting.)

I immediately switched to talking in one of our region's smaller minority languages. He did not understand me. I asked him if he knew of any minority language at all. He did not. I was already thinking: This guy claims to be a member of an ethnolinguistic people. Why the hell does he not speak their language?

It turned out that one of his grandfathers was a member of that tribe, and that's it. He essentially was a political appointee.

I then mentioned to him that I was glad that the NCIP had government funds for tribal scholars. However, I mentioned that I had met several scholars of his tribe, and they did not know how to speak the tribal language too. He could not give me any answer and just looked surprised. He knew as well as I do that may of these scholars got their scholarship by virtue of being sons and daughters of politicians, not by being genuine members of an impoverished and marginalized 'tribe'. He knew I was criticizing the NCIP but in a polite manner.

I then suggested to him that knowledge of a tribal language should be an important criterion in accepting a scholar. But we both knew that this would never come to pass, because it would automatically disqualify many of the children of politicos. (And because he owed his position to same politicos.)

Claim to being a member of a small ethnolinguistic group (called a <tribe> in the Philippine setting) is a major racket by which politicos can grab land by claiming ancestral rights and scholarships for their children.

(BTW I am not a member of these small tribes but I work my head off trying to preserve their languages and with it their existence. See links to some of the videos I have made for them in my profile page.)

One other time a college student also came to my office. He wanted a discount for his uncle, saying that they were poor tribal members, and that he was an NCIP scholar. I knew immediately that they simply had political connections. I again started talking in one of our region's minority tribal languages. Huh? He could not understand me. I was a bit irritated and told him that since he was already graduating thanks to the claim being a member of a local tribe, he should at least promote their languages in order to preserve their existence as ethno-linguistic groups. Maybe start by learning their languages?

Dec-11-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <optimal play>

<But it's still "whataboutery">

No.

I had previously agreed with <visayanbraindoctor>'s comments about Indonesia and Islam (at twinlark chessforum (kibitz #9358)), about which you had initially sought opinion from myself, so the "whataboutery" you're accusing me of has no launch point.

Please don't foist this bullshytte on me again.

Dec-11-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Colonel Mortimer: <optimal> <The wilfully ignorant will still reject irrefutable evidence>

Without knowing it, fundamentalists often give themselves away by exhibiting and often projecting onto others the following..

1) Ignorance
2) Fear
3) Denial
4) Hate

As <optimal> has fairly and admirably demonstrated, this is a widespread phenomenon across many monotheistic religious cults, religious cults that proclaim to offer the one and only "true path".

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 360)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 360 OF 360 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC