663
Iran bans weightlifter for life after he shakes Israeli’s hand on podium (www.aljazeera.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent