Breaking the Silence

@Molurus said in #366:
> So is extreme moral relativism.

Insisting on human rights is not moral relativism.

Misrepresenting someone's stance is extremely questionable and wrong...
Insinuating, that insistance on human rights is "moral relativism" (Orwellian term to coerce consent?), might be a sign though.. as is to disregard basic law principles.. (#355..)

@Nowaythisnameistaken #365

The world is good and evil. It's easy to give examples of both. Evil: Torturing animals and people for satisfaction. Good: The opposite, caring for people and animals and not on expense of anyone else, and not for fame.

Sometimes evil deceives people. Sometimes good people gets harassed for being good etc.

But generally even a child knows good from evil.

@Nowaythisnameistaken I can tell good from evil. It's simple: You will know a tree by it's fruits.

@Nowaythisnameistaken said in #366:
> Insisting on human rights is not moral relativism.
>
> Misrepresenting someone's stance is extremely questionable and wrong...
> Insinuating, that insistance on human rights is "moral relativism" (Orwellian term to coerce consent?), might be a sign though.. as is to disregard basic law principles..

You're not pleading for human rights, you're pleading for letting men get away with sexual misconduct. That has nothing to do with human rights.

Classic lichess.org W

@somethingpretentious said in #325:
> The stupidest thing about the innocent until proven guilty arguments here is that US Chess and STLCC did find sufficient evidence to take action. The problem was the years of inaction and dismissal beforehand.

If I understand these cases correctly, it is basically a word against a word. Gareyev and Ramirez are accused, while they themselves deny allegations. If US chess would've have an evidence they would share it with police (Maybe they did, but then article came out too early). Now it seems like public pressured them into action, because it isn't just to ban someone (Considering the fact that you are a big chess organisation), since *allegedly* he did something bad.

@CyberShredder said in #369:
> If I understand these cases correctly, it is basically a word against a word. Gareyev and Ramirez are accused, while they themselves deny allegations. If US chess would've have an evidence they would share it with police (Maybe they did, but then article came out too early). Now it seems like public pressured them into action, because it isn't just to ban someone (Considering the fact that you are a big chess organisation), since *allegedly* he did something bad.

It seems that you don't understand the cases correctly. In both cases it's a repeated set of behaviours observed and reported by many people.

@danielmayor said in #366:
> "The world is good and evil. It's easy to give examples of both. Evil: Torturing animals and people for satisfaction. Good: The opposite, caring for people and animals and not on expense of anyone else, and not for fame. Sometimes evil deceives people. Sometimes good people gets harassed for being good etc.
>But generally even a child knows good from evil.

I have yet to witness a war where not both sides marched into battle thinking they are the goodies. Catholics condemning protestants, Jews condemn Muslims, etc.. Communists capitalists, poor rich, rich poor, men women, women men

One may tell, yet many cannot, and what was once condemned as evil, seemed close ordinary, yet those who I thought fought for me, turned out to be evil, so do not tell, easily..

Jesus was for the Jews clearly a baddie, insulting their god, for the young Christians a god himself, how to tell? and by whom?..

@somethingpretentious said in #369:
> It seems that you don't understand the cases correctly. In both cases it's a repeated set of behaviours observed and reported by many people.

I do know about all those reports. It isn't sufficient proof that these men are sexual assaulters. If it is, USA has justice system to decide.

@Molurus said in #368:
> "You're not pleading for human rights, you're pleading for letting men get away with sexual misconduct. That has nothing to do with human rights."

It seems you still have not read any of the posts I numbered in my responses and you insist on misrepresenting my words (#193). How can you tell without legal procedures? You cannot, therefore you have no issue hanging a random person for mere words and try to paint yourself as "morally superior" yet your proposals reveal the opposite.