@hangmysack said in #100:
> The fallacy you're engaging in is called "begging the question"
No.
Also :
1- innocent until proven guilty (and due process, The right to a fair hearing, and Right of reply ) only concerns courts of law, not any other organization/person. Lichess can have an opinion and express it. Do you only have opinions on matters for which a court of law ruled? Do you have no opinions of your own? Well, that I could believe actually.
2- men whose *only 7* participation on Lichess forums is to defend sexual aggressors are *really* suspect (But don't worry, you're not the only one).
@Minerscale said in #101:
> Lichess is not merely a service, if they were, they would be taking your money, or serving ads to you to perform said service for you. No, Lichess is a charity, and to provide chess to the world—for absolutely, completely free—is an inherently political thing to be doing in the first place. It's a rejection of the deep-seeded capitalist systems we find ourselves in.
>
> So for an organisation like Lichess to make a stand on a topic like this is not surprising in the slightest and I for one much appreciate them doing so. They are leading by example it is wonderful to see.
https://lichess.org/about
"With no investors demanding profits, Lichess staff can focus on improving the site as their only goal."
As others have pointed out already.
I was there when lichess wouldn't try to dictate my colors, when lichess servers status was possible to lookup not only with an account on fringe political social media, when there was no peddling courses on main site "because that aren't ads", when there was no political agenda involving purges of potential chess opponents.
I'm fine if lichess decides to go full activist, but at least be transparent and honest about it in the "about" section, if this is the consensus. at the moment lichess is the meme that asks "chess?" in the last panel.
@TurtleMat said in #102:
> No.
>
> Also :
>
> 1- innocent until proven guilty (and due process, The right to a fair hearing, and Right of reply ) only concerns courts of law, not any other organization/person. Lichess can have an opinion and express it. Do you only have opinions on matters for which a court of law ruled? Do you have no opinions of your own? Well, that I could believe actually.
> 2- men whose *only 7* participation on Lichess forums is to defend sexual aggressors are *really* suspect (But don't worry, you're not the only one).
The principles that apply in a court of law are there for a reason. And just as Lichess has a right to have an opinion, the users have a right to an opinion too.
Your attempt at winning arguments by suggesting that the other person is a sexual predator is also fallacious. You can say "no" all you want but just fyi the fallacy is called "ad hominem"
Look it up.
Yes it was the best of my time with my family in New Orleans so we had to get out there for the weekend so I had a good day at the beach with a game that I was really sick and had a good night at the game with you and the family at church and the kids are doing great things in our life as a game and a great experience and we will make it a success for our family to grow and to be a game that is not just the same thing that we have to deal on with our relationship with you please
@hangmysack said in #104:
> Look it up.
I've done that for a long time. I know much more than you about fallacies. Also, A Hominem is something else, so again :
No.
I just have better to do than explain them to you, and it's also not my responsibility.
Also, I didn't suggest that you or the others are sexual predators. Just that it's a red flag to only participate in discussions to defend quite obvious sexual predators. That doesn't make you guys sexual predators, but it does make you creeps.
Have fun in your life :)
@hangmysack said in #100:
> The fallacy you're engaging in is called "begging the question"
>
> You are assuming that the *alleged* aggressor is guilty based on accusations. Most people who are opposing Lichess' actions are not defending Ramirez, they're defending principles, specifically one or more of the following:
>
> 1) Innocent until proven guilty
> 2) Due process
It is not a violation of the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty when a chess club does something or doesn't do something. Why? Because a chess club is not an inherent part of the judicial proceeding. They are neither the police, the prosecutor, the judge nor the jury. So they cannot violate due process or innocent until proven guilty.
They might violate other laws by their action or inaction, they might violate standards of fairness or ethical standards or any number of things, but not "innocent until proven guilty" in the judicial sense, because they are not players in this process. Therefore they cannot violate its rules.
Nobody to my knowledge has ever argued that chess clubs should replace judicial proceedings, certainly I haven't. This is also a fallacy that is being repeated over and over again in these discussions - the strawman.
Fighting against an argument that wasn't made by one's opponents in a debate, but is easier to defeat than the actual one.
Many people have however argued that chess clubs have obligations in reaction to alleged behavior and I agree. This is not at all the same thing as arguing that chess clubs should replace a judicial process.
The argument that because a judicial proceeding is ongoing in a matter nobody else can or should react to that matter doesn't make sense to me. It's also illogical: Somebody is behaving in a way close to breaking the law, people can say something, but once they cross that line and behave even worse, everybody needs to fall silent? That would be the logical conclusion to that line of thinking.
> 5) Chess clubs/organizations are not the proper venue to litigate alleged crimes. Expecting chess clubs/organizations to have a whole host of policies and procedures to investigate alleged sexual abuse is an unreasonable request, especially when that's what the judicial system is for.
Hypothetical situation: Somebody comes in for work and starts beating up employees. Are you saying it is inappropriate for the employer to fire that guy at once? Do they have to wait for the judicial proceedings to conclude?
It is my view that the company in that example is well within its rights to immediately terminate the person's employment (provided that is within the confines of labor law of course). In fact, they should fire him, because they have a duty to maintain a safe workplace for the other employees. This does not mean that they intent to or have replaced the judicial process by firing the person. They are also not violating his rights under the judicial process (including 'innocent until guilty'), because they are not players in this process at all. The judicial process is independent of it, it's not violated by it. They are outside of this process therefore not violating its rules.
Similar to the company in that example, a chess club and a chess federation have the moral (and maybe legal?) duty to prevent participants in their events and tournaments from being exposed to predictably harmful situations. So if you have a guy where you know he might do something bad to somebody, you cannot just sit there and do nothing and grant that person access to more potential future victims. Otherwise when something 'happens' later that is not just on him, but on you as the responsible institution and decision makers as well.
@hangmysack
Since I'm in a good mood : Ad hominem would be if I said that your arguments are wrong because you're a creep.
That's not what I say. I say your "arguments" are wrong, and in our social context, that makes you a creep.
@svensp said in #107:
" Hypothetical situation: Somebody comes in for work and starts beating up employees. Are you saying it is inappropriate for the employer to fire that guy at once? Do they have to wait for the judicial proceedings to conclude? "
I'm very confused by this example. It is miles away from what allegedly happened in the situation in question. I will admit I'm not entirely familiar with the details, but I seriously doubt the S.A. is said to have happened right in front of other players and administrators, did it? If the owners/administrators of the club witness the situation in fraganti then of course they don't need to wait for the legal system nor for the police to arrive. Again, these are very different situations.
> They are also not violating his rights under the judicial process (including 'innocent until guilty'), because they are not players in this process at all. The judicial process is independent of it, it's not violated by it. They are outside of this process therefore not violating its rules.
I don't think anyone is saying they are violating any laws by taking action against potentially innocent people, what they are violating are principles.
(( So if you have a guy where you know he might do something bad to somebody, you cannot just sit there and do nothing and grant that person access to more potential future victims. ))
Oh, wow, that's a big umbrella. A guy who might potentially do something harmful to someone? That would eliminate just about 100% of guys, anyone can "potentially do something harmful to someone."
Chess clubs/organizations are not anyone's nanny. If you are too afraid to go out into the world, then stay home and play on Lichess.
> I don't think anyone is saying they are violating any laws by taking action against potentially innocent people, what they are violating are principles.
The principles that are quoted apply to judicial proceedings. They are meant for defendants and prosecuted people to protect them from abuse of power by prosecutors, police, juries and judges. Chess federations and clubs do not fall in any of these categories.
Sure, their own proceedings need to follow fairness standards as well, but given that the argument repeatedly made has been that courts are the proper place for this instead of actions by chess clubs / federations, clearly the principles referred to are those of the judicial process.
They simply do not apply here.
> (( So if you have a guy where you know he might do something bad to somebody, you cannot just sit there and do nothing and > grant that person access to more potential future victims. ))
> Oh, wow, that's a big umbrella. A guy who might potentially do something harmful to someone? That would eliminate just about 100% of guys, anyone can "potentially do something harmful to someone."
Multiple witness statements make that umbrella much smaller though.
@hangmysack said in #100:
> The fallacy you're engaging in is called "begging the question"
>
> You are assuming that the *alleged* aggressor is guilty based on accusations. Most people who are opposing Lichess' actions are not defending Ramirez, they're defending principles, specifically one or more of the following:
>
> 1) Innocent until proven guilty
> 2) Due process
> 3) The right to a fair hearing
> 4) Right of reply
> 5) Chess clubs/organizations are not the proper venue to litigate alleged crimes. Expecting chess clubs/organizations to have a whole host of policies and procedures to investigate alleged sexual abuse is an unreasonable request, especially when that's what the judicial system is for.
Wow thank can't be said more clearly
@TurtleMat said in #108:
> @hangmysack
>
> Since I'm in a good mood : Ad hominem would be if I said that your arguments are wrong because you're a creep.
> That's not what I say. I say your "arguments" are wrong, and in our social context, that makes you a creep.
Seems the same thing to me, and when you start being on charge to decide what is "our social context"? Exactly who is "our" and why you expect people from around the world share the same social context?
Were you serious or were you just trolling?