@oj33 finish EIRON paper and stop arguing with keyboard warriors
It's amazing.
@Ender88 said in #126:
> For the millionth time, people can act as they fit : yes
> Club? Not so much
Within the confines of the law it can. That these confines are different (because the law is vastly different for a club and a person) is immaterial to the basic argument and the similarity that they do not require a judge.
> I have answered already exactly this question you already written to me before..why are you repeating?
Because you weren't convincing. But I admit that it is becoming repetitive, which is also true of much of what you are writing by the way. We're both repeating ourselves and not much is happening constructively in this discussion.
> Absolutely not, not in my country at least, not in France AFAIK (even if not my country)
> A store is considered public place, and rejecting a potential customer is illegal
If the store is owned by somebody, it is private property, at least in my country.
> Please please, stop
> Stop confusing what a person privately choose to do with his freedom for whatever reason, and what a club can or can't do.
> A club especially no profit should abide to a plenty of law..
As do people, no difference there.
> And you agree with that?
> Probably you never face any discrimination yourself, would be funny if someone accuse you of the worst only because dislike you or your ideology/religion/ethnicity
I think we have a different view of what constitutes 'funny'.
> Pitchfork mentality at his best.. crazy world
> Witnesses != allegations
Not necessarily. Consider the statement 'Person X was violent to me! Here's how it happened' followed by a detailed description. That is an allegation as well as a witness statement.
> Can you bake any evidence of your claim about the fact that accusation is per se an evidence?
> I mean maybe in Afghanistan, but exactly in which legal framework you think this is true?
> Please provide some details..
I refer as evidence to the body of relevant statements and objects that form the basis of a judgment. This is the meaning used when something is 'entered into evidence' in a court room situation. It is true in many legal framworks, for example in the United States. I think we can also treat it more generally as a concept for any process of discernment or judgment about some claims, also outside of a courtroom.
Accusations, in as much as they are witness statements, can be part of that evidence. "A did B to me" without details is not evidence. "A did B to me" with details to how it allegedly happened, is. That is an example of an allegation that is part of evidence.
I believe you are mixing up something being part of evidence with something being incontrovertible proof of an allegation.
> Ps: i really and deeply dislike this idiotic thinking, that somehow other people have the right (just based on their feelings and beliefs) to "negatively affect an individual without a permission"...
> An euphemism to say that basically is ok to hurt (maybe not physically) people that is not liked.
> SIMPLY CRAZY
One could argue for example that your statement above is a hurtful one, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to make it or that if I were accused of a crime and you were basing it on my alleged actions you couldn't make it until my trial is over. People and actors in society make decisions that negatively (or positively) affect others all the time. That is life. No judge required, just freedom of behavior within the confines of the law.
@svensp said in #134:
> Within the confines of the law it can. That these confines are different (because the law is vastly different for a club and a person) is immaterial to the basic argument and the similarity that they do not require a judge.
>
And we agreed here, we don't agree when you think club can do whatever they want, while in reading they have to obey their own statute.
I cite a law about that, if you are not convicted can you do the same?
>@svensp said in #134:
> Because you weren't convincing.
>
I weren't convincing when I said that people private can't choose to what they want? I weren't convincing when I say that moral question are different from allegations?
But it's exactly what you already said in the previous paragraph..
People != Club
People can do choices for whatever reason, club must comply with theirs international rouling and plenty of law.
Stop comparing a person laying with a club try to police a serious topic.
What a mess will happen if all the private entities can choos for theirs own which is
>@svensp said in #134:
> If the store is owned by somebody, it is private property, at least in my country.
>
So you basically have assumed that all legal framework and what law require is the same everywhere.
Now you see is not.
>@svensp said in #134
> As do people, no difference there.
>
No, I baked you a law citation that displayed exactly the opposite.
You seems to recognise it in the first paragraph when you said that people an club have different rules to follow.
Now you say they are the same an can both freely choose what so do.
Eg:
people can refuse to interact to some ethnicity, it racist behaviour (and bad) but a person can absolutely and legally do that.
A club or a private party (a society) can't.
That's alone disprove your claim that private parties and people can both choose freely what to do.
>@svensp said in #134
> I think we have a different view of what constitutes 'funny'.
>
I think you aren't understanding what mean, racism, power abuse, lack of coordination in response on serious topics are very serious issues.
The idea you are promoting (private parties policing serious matters) is very dangerous because open the gate for such kind of problems.
I was sarcastic because I have the feeling, from what you write, that you never experience such situations yourself, hopefully and thankfully to a good legal framework that protect you, and impose limitations on private parties (club, company, corporation etc).
>@svensp said in #134
> Not necessarily. Consider the statement 'Person X was violent to me! Here's how it happened' followed by a detailed description. That is an allegation as well as a witness statement.
>
Maybe that in some legal framework an accuser may be a witness for itself, probably you are right here.
But there is a conflict of interest AFAIK, and such kind of witnesses is admissible as only after a judge evaluate it.
So claiming it's some sort of proof by itself always (before and regardless judge intervention), it's pitchfork mentally IMHO.
>@svensp said in #134
> One could argue for example that your statement above is a hurtful one, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to make it or that if I were accused of a crime and you were basing it on my alleged actions you couldn't make it until my trial is over. People and actors in society make decisions that negatively (or positively) affect others all the time. That is life. No judge required, just freedom of behavior within the confines of the law.
What this even means? It's literally mental gymnastics..
You literally wrote that private parties (aka club, corporation and company) can "negatively affect an individual without a permission".
How can that statement be defensible..
This is exactly the kind of mentality I dislike, we are not talking about free speech but marginalisation of people and power abuses.
I never talk about limiting speech abilities or right to criticise, I talked how is dangerous acting (aka punishing) due to suspicious and accusations without waiting for a proved proof.
Some people here are scared of accountability.
And they are easy to identify.
And they are creeps.
-----------------
That is just my opinion though. but until they sue me for defamation, and a court rule on their favor, these creeps have to contradict themselves or let these accusations slide.
Also, people who are aware of racial discrimination and (rightly) fight them, but at the same time are completely oblivious to the mechanisms of sexism and take part on sexual discrimination are... kind of not really bright nor really nice.
Do you take as much precautions when police hurt/kill a black person, do you wait until a Jury gives a verdict? caus if you only look at judiciary ruling, police brutality towards racial minorities is almost non existent. So according to your logic, black people for instance should not be suspicious of the police, and associations organizing against police brutality fall under the same category than lichess in this case?
Do you see the similarity now that it is written white on black (or black on white), or do you internal mechanism still prevent you from seeing?
Curious if you apply your standards to all problems or only those where you don't suffer the consequences yourself.
Also funny how you seem to take the side of the opressed in some cases and opressor in some other.
Dear @Ender88 ,
we are not going to come to an agreement anytime soon and there is a lot of repetition. That's why this is my final reply for the time being. I'll just answer to a few points of yours, I'm aware that there were more.
@Ender88 said in #135:
> No, I baked you a law citation that displayed exactly the opposite.
> You seems to recognise it in the first paragraph when you said that people an club have different rules to follow.
> Now you say they are the same an can both freely choose what so do.
>
> Eg:
> people can refuse to interact to some ethnicity, it racist behaviour (and bad) but a person can absolutely and legally do that.
> A club or a private party (a society) can't.
>
> That's alone disprove your claim that private parties and people can both choose freely what to do.
>
I'm aware that there are different laws that apply to private individuals and clubs. What they share however is that it is these laws that bind them and not having to wait for the outcome of a trial before they can do something in accordance with those laws.
The existence of a criminal proceeding does not mean that the judge in that proceeding is now in charge of every interaction anybody has with the accused outside of the trial. That would be far beyond the authority of that judge. The judge is in charge of that case and that case only. The judge is not in charge of how everybody else reacts to allegations. For them, there might as well be no trial, but within the law (=the specific laws and regulations that apply to them specifically) they can do what they want and are free.
>
> I think you aren't understanding what mean, racism, power abuse, lack of coordination in response on serious topics are very serious issues.
> The idea you are promoting (private parties policing serious matters) is very dangerous because open the gate for such kind of problems.
>
> I was sarcastic because I have the feeling, from what you write, that you never experience such situations yourself, hopefully and thankfully to a good legal framework that protect you, and impose limitations on private parties (club, company, corporation etc).
I do understand that these are serious topics. That's why there are laws prohibiting discriminating behavior. You repeatedly suggest that I'm implying discriminating or unfair behavior by third parties was okay. It is not and I have never argued otherwise. My point was that they are bound by laws (depending on who or what they are, depending on the jurisdiction, depending on a million things), but that they are not bound by having to wait for the outcome of criminal proceedings before they do anything else.
To bring it back to earth: If there are allegations of sexual misbehavior or abuse against a member of a club or an association they can take action against that person without having to await the outcome of a trial. It's not as though they cannot do anything as soon as there is a criminal proceeding against a person. They are not violating the legal rights of that person in that criminal trial, because they are not part of that trial. They are of course still bound by the law and standards of fairness, truthfulness etc.
>
>
> Maybe that in some legal framework an accuser may be a witness for itself, probably you are right here.
> But there is a conflict of interest AFAIK, and such kind of witnesses is admissible as only after a judge evaluate it.
> So claiming it's some sort of proof by itself always (before and regardless judge intervention), it's pitchfork mentally IMHO.
>
That you bring up a judge again shows how we are talking past each other. Organizations, churches, political parties, clubs, individuals all are regularly confronted with situations where they have to make decisions how to react. These decision should be based on evidence, meaning the available witness statements or objects related to the situation at hand. You don't need a judge for this.
When somebody says that they have been abused by somebody else and they are providing a detailed statement, that is evidence. Mind you, evidence does not equal incontrovertible proof.
Evidence in this context just means: 'This is the body of statements and objects that we are going to base our decision on'
> What this even means? It's literally mental gymnastics..
> You literally wrote that private parties (aka club, corporation and company) can "negatively affect an individual without a permission".
> How can that statement be defensible..
That can be defensible when it is within the confines of the law as I have stressed a million times already. They do not need permission by a judge, they do need to keep within the law.
There is no need for a judge, private individuals and associations can act without a prior special permission by a judge and the existence of some parallel criminal proceedings doesn't change that. There are special protections in such a trial process, but those apply to participants in the trial process, not to third parties.
It's just two separate worlds.
> This is exactly the kind of mentality I dislike, we are not talking about free speech but marginalisation of people and power abuses.
I never argued in favor of abuses of power or marginalisation to be permissible.
yayyy
@TurtleMat said in #136:
> Some people here are scared of accountability.
>
> And they are easy to identify.
>
> And they are creeps.
>
> -----------------
I am not quoted, so not sure if this rant is addressed to me or not.
But if the answer is yes seems that you see enemies in people with different ideas than yours.
That's alone is telling... I feel sympathy for you and hope that you will find the way to accept diversity and others people views.
@TurtleMat said in #136:
> Also, people who are aware of racial discrimination and (rightly) fight them, but at the same time are completely oblivious to the mechanisms of sexism and take part on sexual discrimination are... kind of not really bright nor really nice.
>
Completely agree, both are egregious crimes.
You seems to think I am somewhat an enemy just because I have different values from yours.
To me guaranteeism is paramount, that doesn't mean I am sexist nor racist, if you think otherwise your view is quite limited I think.
@TurtleMat said in #136:
> Do you take as much precautions when police hurt/kill a black person, do you wait until a Jury gives a verdict?
I don't like police brutally, where you get the idea I approve such behaviour?
But of course police in the social contract have the right and the duty to apply the lowest possible amount of force to guarantee security.
I start from the assumption that police, when apply force, is doing so because have no options.
I trust them, until is proven the opposite in the very few cases in which happens that some bad apples are acting bad
@TurtleMat said in #136:
>caus if you only look at judiciary ruling, police brutality towards racial minorities is almost non existent.
>So according to your logic, black people for instance should not be suspicious of the police, and associations organizing against police brutality fall under the same category than lichess in this case?
>
What? I lost you.
Not true, police brutality unfortunately is a thing, there were cases about that.
Why are you putting in my mouth argument I never made and position I never believed in?
Stop please, is pointless and intellectually dishonest.
Ps : association against police (or against any other state organism) is considered subversive and unlawful where I live.
Probably you meant associations that monitor police to help them find deviated cop, that use force unlawfully.
But seems that your opposition mindset doesn't grasp the fact that police in the first place have all the interest to catch bad apples
@TurtleMat said in #136:
> Do you see the similarity now that it is written white on black (or black on white), or do you internal mechanism still prevent you from seeing?
>
> Curious if you apply your standards to all problems or only those where you don't suffer the consequences yourself.
>
> Also funny how you seem to take the side of the opressed in some cases and opressor in some other.
I don't agree and don't see your logic.
You seem sided, and so your surprise when I am not.
I am basically a guaranteeing person who expects others to be good citizens not criminals.
I trust the police even if there are some bad apple sometimes..
I trust "black people" as you call them :(
I trust people of any ethnicity and religion and expect them acting honesty until proven otherwise.
I don't like the mentality that people are alleged honest, and a mere suspect may cast consequences against them.
Accusations are cheap and apply for anyone..very very dangerous.
But I see from your argument, from the adjective you use (the way as you refer to other ethnicities as "black people") how much your reasoning is biased..
Take care of yourself and try to enlarge you vision of the world. Try to grow and learn every day.
I wish you the best.
@svensp said in #137:
> Dear @Ender88 ,
>
> we are not going to come to an agreement anytime
Agree on something was even the objective here?
Mine was confronting on an interesting topic and explain my view about that.
@svensp said in #137:
> The existence of a criminal proceeding does not mean that the judge in that proceeding is now in charge of every interaction anybody has with the accused outside of the trial. That would be far beyond the authority of that judge. The judge is in charge of that case and that case only. The judge is not in charge of how everybody else reacts to allegations. For them, there might as well be no trial, but within the law (=the specific laws and regulations that apply to them specifically) they can do what they want and are free.
>
Exactly and within the law a private entity (not a person, I mean a club a corporation, a company) couldn't marginalise people for no reason.
Till a fact isn't proved what remains are suspect and gossip.
Marginalising people on the base of gossip and suspects would be quite bad.
@svensp said in #137:
> To bring it back to earth: If there are allegations of sexual misbehavior or abuse against a member of a club or an association they can take action against that person without having to await the outcome of a trial.
Let's assume for absurdum it's true.
Basically you are saying that every private organisation have to be competent to handle correctly and coherently such situations.
Do you see what unreasonable and absurd is expecting that grandma's sewing club have the competence and knowledge to handle that.
So not only is wrong because as I said the principle, innocent until proven guilty is paramount; it's also practically unfeasible
@svensp said in #137:
>That can be defensible when it is within the confines of the law as I have stressed a million times already. They do not need permission by a judge, they do need to keep within the law.
Damaging others, or as you like to say "negatively affect an individual without a permission" isn't something that may happen lawfully.
And we are talking about corporation, club, churches and so on Vs a person.
That's not something that should be endorsed, the weakest party is the person and need guarantees.
But you seem convinced of otherwise so please make an example (not about speech) where a corporation in yours view may unilaterally choose to "negatively affect an individual without a permission" based only on claims
@Ender88 said in #139:
> I start from the assumption that police, when apply force, is doing so because have no options.
> I trust them, until is proven the opposite in the very few cases in which happens that some bad apples are acting bad
Do not ever claim ever again that you are on the right side when talking about racial discrimination.
If that is the level we are having this discussion on, i'm out.
Edit :
Congrats, you "won" this discussion.
Your prize?
The right to keep being wrong and thing you're right !
Amazing !
(might not feel different than usual for you, though.)