Chess grandmaster Sergey Karjakin received a six-month ban from the international competitions, and his appeal was dismissed. When the international chess federation FIDE initiated the case, it accused Karjakin of supporting the unjustified war:
"FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action..."
https://fide.com/news/1603
(The concepts of "justified war" or "just war" can be found in the encyclopaedias:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/just-war )
However, Karjakin not only approved that war but also presented some arguments to convince us that this war was justified.
In sum, Karjakin's fault seems to be the following:
He tried to justify the unjustified war.
If a sportsperson tries to justify the unjustified war, it results in 6 months ban from international competitions.
But what if a sportsperson presents strong arguments to justify the unjustified war? Whether the punishment should also be more serious? For example, it results in a 6-year ban from international competitions.
But what if a sportsperson succeeds in justifying that war?
He presented compelling arguments to justify the unjustified war.
Probably, that sportsperson should be jailed for 170-years. Because it is impossible to justify the unjustified war, and if someone succeeds in doing the impossible, it should be regarded as the greatest crime.
@eintaluj saidwtf are you talking about.
Chess grandmaster Sergey Karjakin received a six-month ban from the international competitions, and his appeal was dismissed. When the international chess federation FIDE initiated the case, it accused Karjakin of supporting the unjustified war:
"FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action... ...[text shortened]... d war, and if someone succeeds in doing the impossible, it should be regarded as the greatest crime.
Did you get bitten by a radioactive fortune cookie and you now have the power to be vague and barely coherent?
@eintaluj said"He presented compelling arguments to justify the unjustified war. "
Chess grandmaster Sergey Karjakin received a six-month ban from the international competitions, and his appeal was dismissed. When the international chess federation FIDE initiated the case, it accused Karjakin of supporting the unjustified war:
"FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action... ...[text shortened]... d war, and if someone succeeds in doing the impossible, it should be regarded as the greatest crime.
This is part of the hypothetical or you actually think there are arguments for this war. Non-insane, non-fabrication arguments?
@eintaluj saidBut he obviously did not present a convincing argument regarding the justification of this war because there obviously isn’t one.
Chess grandmaster Sergey Karjakin received a six-month ban from the international competitions, and his appeal was dismissed. When the international chess federation FIDE initiated the case, it accused Karjakin of supporting the unjustified war:
"FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action... ...[text shortened]... d war, and if someone succeeds in doing the impossible, it should be regarded as the greatest crime.
@eintaluj saidThis is the same type of intelligence-free thinking that got Donald Trump elected in 2016.
Chess grandmaster Sergey Karjakin received a six-month ban from the international competitions, and his appeal was dismissed. When the international chess federation FIDE initiated the case, it accused Karjakin of supporting the unjustified war:
"FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action... ...[text shortened]... d war, and if someone succeeds in doing the impossible, it should be regarded as the greatest crime.
@metal-brain saidWhich American chess players defended those wars?
Were American chess players subjected to the same discrimination after the USA invaded Iraq and Libya?
@zahlanzi saidIn my original text, it is in italics. The formatting has been lost here.
"He presented compelling arguments to justify the unjustified war. "
This is part of the hypothetical or you actually think there are arguments for this war. Non-insane, non-fabrication arguments?
Of course, it is hypothetical, conditional.
Suppose that he presents compelling arguments. Then, the accusation would be:
"He presented compelling arguments to justify the unjustified war."
It is not my fault if it sounds strange. It sounds strange from the very beginning:
"He supported and tried to justify the unjustified war."
It is what FIDE officials are talking, it is not my logic.
@kevcvs57 saidI do not argue that he presented a compelling argument. What I argue is that IF he presents a compelling argument, then...
But he obviously did not present a convincing argument regarding the justification of this war because there obviously isn’t one.
I disagree that there obviously is no convincing argument. Differently from you, I do not pretend to know all relevant facts.
@metal-brain saidProbably none.
Were American chess players subjected to the same discrimination after the USA invaded Iraq and Libya?
But Kasparov demands now, that only those Russian chess players should be allowed to participate in international tournaments, who publicly disapprove of the Ukrainian war. In that case, however, all the American chess players should be banned because they have not publicly disapproved of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
There is only one exception.
Only Bobby Fisher said publicly that Bush is a criminal and should be hanged.
@metal-brain saidNo they weren’t which would indicate to anyone with an ounce of intelligence and / or integrity that whilst the 2nd Iraq war was not justified it wasn’t as unjustified as an authoritarian state invading a peaceful neighbouring democracy for the purposes of expansion.
Were American chess players subjected to the same discrimination after the USA invaded Iraq and Libya?
Do you think that the US intended to officially annex any part of Iraq?
@eintaluj saidWell if he put forward a compelling justification for the invasion then I guess he would not have been banned.
I do not argue that he presented a compelling argument. What I argue is that IF he presents a compelling argument, then...
I disagree that there obviously is no convincing argument. Differently from you, I do not pretend to know all relevant facts.
Stop pretending that a powerful neighbouring nation invading a relatively weak neighbour in order to annex it or large chunks of it is too complicated for the average intellect to figure out, it comes across as dishonest and disrespectful to your fellow posters.
