Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
What do you do incredibly well ?
Do you make a living at it ?
What makes it more worthwhile than a game ?
Bobby Fischer Dead
- Thread starter Walk The Line
- Start date
Do you make a living at it ?
What makes it more worthwhile than a game ?
And Leonardo Da Vinci was good at drawing pictures...
Anyway...I'm sorry, Checkmite...but "Bobby Fischer was a raving anti-semite, therefore Bobby Fischer was an insignificant person and/or did nothing of note" is not valid logic either.
You're still expressing your disgust at Fischer's anti-semitism in invalid ways.
Last edited:
Why wouldn't they? It's betrayal...
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
He advocated genocide and denied the Holocaust. OK, so doing those things is not really a big deal in your opinion - fine. But it is in mine.
Sure. And the only reason anyone is aware that David Irving spouted similar filth is...
...
...?
That's even better than the "no class" comment. It's funny you should mention him, though; while we're on the subject, how about a Fred Phelps quote?
"Homosexuals and Jews dominated Nazi Germany...just as they now dominate this doomed U.S.A....The Jews now wander the earth despised, smitten with moral and spiritual blindness by a divine judicial stroke...And god has smitten Jews with a certain unique madness, whereby they are an astonishment of heart, a proverb, and a byword (the butt of jokes and ridicule) among all peoples whither the Lord has driven and scattered them...Jews, thus perverted, out of all proportion to their numbers energize the militant sodomite agenda...The American Jews are the real Nazis (misusers and abusers of governmental power) who hate God and the rule of law."
You won't have found me saying anything like that - feel free to do a forum search if you wish. The sentiments expressed by Phelps here, however, do sound strangely familiar, don't they? Hmmm....
Last edited:
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Well, you're right. I posted it mostly out of spite; but since there's no such thing as Hell, it doesn't quite have the intended bite, does it? I'll take it out.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
That might be true, and it might not. I'd have to wait for a Jew who dislikes Fischer to participate and share his thoughts here. As far as I'm concerned, Fischer's being Jewish is rather ironic, but I don't think it makes what he said any worse (assuming such is even possible).
Where do you see this?
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I'm not really saying anything like that; you're combining seperate sets of ideas.
My original point was, "Bobby Fischer was a raving anti-semite." This statement was rebutted with, "Yeah, but that's OK because X".
I'm responding that "Well, X isn't really completely true, and even if it was, it isn't powerful enough to outweigh my premise." The argument indeed supports my premise, but it isn't a continuation of my premise, it's a counter-rebuttal of a different idea.
If your original point was that Bobby Fischer was a raving Anti-Semite, then no one has attempted to argue that point. Everyone agrees with you 100%.
But his raving Anti-Semitism does not, in any way, invalidate or stop me from saying "Damn, Bobby Fischer was a helluva chess player, probably the best ever." Or "Bobby Fischer was a source of national pride in the 1970's." Or any number of other, similar statements that you might view as positive.
The two things have nothing to do with each other. No one has said that Bobby Fischer was an all-around great person. But they are making other statements about his chess playing abilities, or what he accomplished otherwise that you seem to be rebutting or responding to by pointing out his Anti-Semitism.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
He hated Jews, he hated Commies, he hated the USA.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
He invented things which were of practical use to people; for instance, a convex lens-grinding machine, and the notion of a strut-supported bridge, among other things. Da Vinci is usually celebrated for being a great artist, but his influence spread beyond the confines of the world of art.
He also inspired one of the worst books I've ever read, if that counts.
But his major inventions were not implemented in his time...and ended up being discovered by others...and his minor ones didn't make much difference.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
No, I don't feel that's a correct characterization of the debate here. The people I'm arguing with aren't making statements about his chess-playing abilities in a vaccuum; they're indicating that they think Fischer's proclivity toward anti-Semitism, holocaust denial, and his advocation of genocide are forgivable (or, if not forgivable, at least not as reprehensible as I make them out to be) because of his chess-playing abilities. The argument is, essentially, "None of that stuff matters compared to how awesome Fischer was at chess". I'm countering by maintaining that I don't think that's true; in my opinion, "Fischer's bad characteristics are more bad than his good characteristics are good", if that makes sense to you.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
That's true of many of his inventions; however, the ones I mentioned are credited directly to Da Vinci, during his time. The ones that were implimented after his time still count, because he influenced them. Are you trying to change the goalposts?
Who said that?
I asked what he accomplished besides scribbling in his notebook and drawing pictures. If you invent something and no one uses it, all you accomplished was scribbling in your notebook.Checkmite said:
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
You, for one, opined only a few posts ago that while Fischer's genocide advocation and holocaust denial were "simple and childish", they weren't bad enough to eclipse his being good at chess.
Strut-supported bridges are used in all sorts of places. As once were a type of bobbin-winder, and the aforementioned convex lens grider, invented by Da Vinci. Everything is electric now - but when things weren't, a couple of Da Vinci's inventions got used.
Last edited:
No, they have nothing to do with how good he was at chess. That is the point.
So, viewed as accomplishments outside of drawing and scribbling in his notebook...that's all his genius amounted to. An alternate bridge support, and a temporarily useful way to wind bobbins and grind lenses. Thus, I think that judging by pure accomplishment...it's pretty easy to discredit intellectual achievement.
tomwaits
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,288
While I do find Fischer's opinions pretty disgusting and frightening, there is such a mental ailment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
This is the condition that it seems most conspiracy theorists and tax protesters fall under. They may seem normal by all other standards, yet they have an obsession that someone is out to "get" them (or the world). It is mostly untreatable, since the patient refuses to believe that he has a problem and gets very angry when refuted.
It seems to me that the internet has changed the nature of this disorder. Previously, these people were marginalized because no one around them could relate to their whacky views. However, the invention of the internet has allowed delusional people from all over to talk to eachother and reinforce their whacky views (eg "I'm not the only one who believes this stuff! I must be on to something!"). It's a shame....but I doubt their distorted mind allows them to change.
linusrichard
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,710
I'm not sure if I do anything incredibly well. I don't see how that takes away from my point. I am uncommonly good at what I do, which is study law. But I don't see how that helps or hurts my point.
Not directly, but it will hopefully lead to the practice of law, which I can make a living at. Again, I don't see how that helps or hurts my point.
That depends on whom you ask. Some might say that it's more worthwhile because lawyers help people defend their rights. Others might say it's less worthwhile because lawyers are parasites who foment and then feed off of people's disputes. Still others will say other things. But again, how does that relate to my point?
It doesn't matter if I happen to be incredibly good at anything, or if I can make a living off of it, or if what I do is more or less worthwhile than playing a game. My point is that if you are a vile human being, you can't make up for that by being incredibly good at anything, especially playing a game. I mean, let's say Bill Gates were an anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, 9/11 lover. At least he gives billions with a 'b' to starving children or whatever. Do you see how that's more worthwhile than playing a game?
And yet that still probably wouldn't redeem him. If Bill Gates were a vile anti-Semite, his charity work probably wouldn't make up for it. So if Bobby Fischer was a vile anti-Semite, why would being good at chess make up for it?
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
True, the two have nothing to do with each other. However, they are both equally relevant when considering a person as a whole person.
You're not understand what I'm trying to say. Perhaps I'm not being clear, so I'll try a different approach.
Let's try to quantify things to make them easier to understand. I'll propose that people, over a lifetime, develop a reputation, and we'll measure that reputation with units that, for the sake of this argument, are called Cool Points.
Bobby Fischer, by winning a World Championship while simultaneously being American (certainly no small feat when it comes to chess, considering it's only been done twice), against the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cold War, earned an incredible +2500 CPs. However, by turning around and bashing his country (Death the the US, the US must be destroyed, etc), denying the Holocaust, and publically advocating genocide, Fischer earned -2950 CPs. The result is, Fischer's reputation is -450 CPs, an overall negative total. One can certainly acknowledge that Fischer was a good player and consider his achievements when calculating his reputation, but - and this is the underlying theme of my objections here - those achievements aren't enough to get Fischer out of the red.
This applies to Da Vinci as well. Perhaps you're right, and all Da Vinci has is his intellectual achievements. But Da Vinci is different from Fischer, in that he has no huge CP deficit to dig himself out of; those intellectual achievements are not overshadowed by anything atrocious, so Da Vinci skates to the finish line.
And this certainly isn't the first time in history that a person who, after a lifetime of accruing many, many CPs, made a few mistakes (or even a single mistake) which just totally negated them all, and then some.
Now, perhaps one could argue that the CP values I've attributed to Fischer's actions are completely arbitrary. Well, that's certainly true - we're dealing with reputation here after all, of which the observer's personal views and politics are a dependent variable. You could argue that you think Holocaust denial, advocating genocide, and etc. is only worth -300 CPs, putting Fischer clearly over the top. When we simplify things in this way, we find that what we're really arguing over here is whether chess is more important than personal humanity. I feel that it isn't. Your mileage may vary.