Iran bans weightlifter for life after he shakes Israeli’s hand on podium
Iran bans weightlifter for life after he shakes Israeli’s hand on podium
Committee for veteran weightlifters also dissolved after the two athletes take photo at championships in Poland.
Iran has banned a weightlifter from sports for life and dissolved a sports committee after the athlete greeted an Israeli counterpart on a podium.
Mostafa Rajaei, a veteran weightlifter, finished second in his category in the 2023 World Master Weightlifting Championships in Poland and stood on a podium with an Iranian flag wrapped around him on Saturday.
On anther step of the podium stood Maksim Svirsky from Israel, who finished third.
The two athletes shook hands and took a picture together, which led to the Iran Weightlifting Federation banning Rajaei from all sports for life due to what it called an “unforgivable” transgression.
You're viewing a single thread.
You’ve gotta be pretty insecure to have a complete breakdown over a minor issue. Really makes Irans government appear weak.
Assigning human traits to governments is so weird lol
politics for liberals are just a big reality show
Hold up, assigning traits to a government made up by people (a group of people) is weird, but assigning traits to a different group of people isn't? I don't really disagree, but you can't agree with the comment above you and agree with your comment also.
you can't agree with the comment above you and agree with your comment also.
of course i can; if i couldn't, i wouldn't, but i did it, which is proof that i can do it
You can't while being a reasonable, logically consistent person. You can if you argue in bad faith, which I expect but usually people don't take pride in that.
Did he assign a trait to liberals? Because if not, there's no inconsistency.
Then a follow up question: is there a difference between 'liberals' as a group (i.e. not liberalism) and a government (i.e. an institution)? If so, there may be no inconsistency.
What I mean is, when people talk about governments it's often as a non-human legal person, which can act, omit, sue, and be sued, but which does not have the full range of human traits, like insincerity. Whereas a group that does not have legal personality and only describes a collection of humans, albeit in the abstract, like 'liberals', can demonstrate a fuller range of human traits.
Then, as an experiment, switch the terms and see if it has the same ring to it:
politics for [governments] are just a big reality show
Does this anthropomorphise 'governments' in the same way as attributing human emotions to them?
I don't necessarily have answers to these questions but it seems that you can't be calling someone out for bad faith unless you can strongly argue yes, no, yes, to the above questions.
i admire the willingness to spell it out lol but that other guy has big reddit debatebro energy and i don't think it can go anywhere
It's often the way. Hopefully someone else reading will see the flaw in forever calling an alternative viewpoint 'bad faith' because it's presented with humour.
Did he assign a trait to liberals? Because if not, there's no inconsistency.
Let's see...
politics for liberals are just a big reality show
It sure seems like it. Liberals treat politics as a reality TV show seems to be a trait described.
Then a follow up question: is there a difference between 'liberals' as a group (i.e. not liberalism) and a government (i.e. an institution)? If so, there may be no inconsistency.
Sure, there is a difference. They're both institutions though. They can both be assigned traits in perfectly valid reasonable ways.
I don't necessarily have answers to these questions but it seems that you can't be calling someone out for bad faith unless you can strongly argue yes, no, yes, to the above questions.
I can strongly answer that "anthropomorphising" things made of anthropomorphic beings is perfectly reasonable. Giving traits to a building can be silly, but sometimes still useful literarily. Using human characteristics to describe humans is totally normal, useful, and reasonable.
They're not comprised of robots. Apply synecdoche.
They are made by people in the end
Oh wow, I did not know that.
Well, yeah it's obvious, but when people say that X company or country looks weak/happy/pissed, they are refering to the board of directors or congress that are taking the decisions, naming the country instead of the whole sentence is easier.
You can still find it weird ofc, I was just trying to explain why people do it.
Please teach me more of your liberal ways, I'm really starting to understand how the world works now.
I really don't get the need of being so passive aggresive with someone trying to hold a conversation. Have a nice day.
If you were actually interested in a conversation you would have answered my other replies to you.
I am answering them, although those are in a different thread of comments. I have literally 5 comments from your user in my inbox and all of them have been answered.
Permanently Deleted
That was like a 2/10 on the “being a dick” scale
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
This is the problem people have with Hexbear specifically. You can almost never have a normal conversation with them. The other day someone (who happened to be from hexbear, but I didn't realize it at the time of posting) posted an article and said it said something totally different than the actual contents. I pointed out that they were wrong, and they then went through my entire comment history to pick things out and misrepresented them to make themselves feel better I guess. It was weird, but it's similar to at least half of my interactions with hexbear users.
Thank you for calling them out.
That's the second person from hexbear that you didn't realise at the time of posting. You're going to have to get better at spotting us if we're so awful.
I generally don't care what instance people are from. I notice hexbear after the fact often because of how bad (aka, not logical) their arguments tend to be. They're usually fallacious at best if they even defend a position, but often they just go on offense on something random because their original position was indefensible.
You're likely getting that response because Hexbear has developed it's own culture of having earnest conversations that are intended to enrich and inform the users taking part in the discussion.
The derisive, dismissive responses are a reaction to someone breaking that etiquette by grandstanding, accusing people of logical fallacies, or resorting to insults: these are things that indicate that the person isn't sincerely interested in trying to understand the person they are speaking to.
And here I thought I left reddit...
Well governments are made of people...
If you're assigning human traits to the building the government is in, sure it's stupid. Recognizing the traits of the people representing the state is pretty normal though.
If they act like children...
Governments are made by humans so… I guess human traits carry over
Yeah, all this does is broadcast weakness. It’s a pathetic reaction.
Islamists are fragile nut cases
As much as I despise islam/Iran, it has nothing to do with weakness. It's a religion thing. It's one of the core principles of Islam to hate the Jews. It's literally in the very first of the Quran. Former Muslim here.
"The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace[4] , not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger [5] (i.e. those who knew the Truth, but did not follow it) nor of those who went astray (i.e. those who did not follow the Truth out of ignorance and error)."
And here is the whole thing. Read 7 and what's under it.
Edit: even though this doesn't mention Jews per se, there are other "tafaseer" (which means translations of the Quran by different "experts") that put as Jews alongside Christians and whomever doesn't believe in Islam. Their beef with the Jews goes back thousands of years.
This isn't even remotely true or historically accurate. I'm not going to sit and do your homework for you, but look up Dhimmis in relation to Jewish people or the Golden Age of Moslem. Jews were typically treated as People of the Book and mostly left to their own whims. Jewish people were actually better off in Muslim lands during this era/time.
LOL. Sounds like you need to do more home work. Search a bit on how the jews were massacred by muslims in the "crusade of banu qeinu-qa" in the year 624 here, and banu qurayzah in the year 627. They literally slaughtered them to the last man. It was literally called by some historians "the massacre of banu qurayzah". Here. Translate it to english if you can't read arabic. These are just known historic facts.
Telling me to do home work. lol
Oh, and "people of the book" who were treated fair are christians (they just had to pay Jizyah, which is a form of taxation to keep their religion under islam), not Jews. Jews were/are just universally hated by muslims throughout history.
People of the Book absolutely applied to Jews. Ever heard of the Muslim prophets Noah, Moses, and Abraham? It is the main reason for them fleeing to Muslim countries during Christian persecutions of their communities. Second class, sure, but to say they were only mistreated is a blatant historical accuracy. Iran and Turkey are home to large Jewish communities to this day. Sephardic Jews, from Spain, were expelled by Catholics, after living for several hundred years under the Umayyad Caliphate.
Iran's issue is with the existence of a Jewish state. Not the existence of Jews in the world.
Please educate yourself before acting like you know better. A basic Google search can literally disprove much of what you claim.
Sure, buddy. You are the one who was born a muslim and was indoctrinated to shit to hate the Jews since a very young age. LOL. Please educate me. Good talk
Permanently Deleted
Soft as puppy shit
Where have you been?
