religious grandmasters?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am sorry this is simply unacceptable! it is well understood that the Arabs are Semites, therfore, when Israel very recently entered Palestine and killed hundreds of people were they accused of being anti Semitical? No, but why not for the Arabs are also Semites! therefore i am not accepting this definition of antisemitism for it is flawed and er ...[text shortened]... , nor ever will, but rest my hope in Gods Kingdom to establish peace and justice upon the earth!

And they hae tied him hand and foot,
And led him up thro' Stirling town;
The lads and lassies met him there,
Cried 'Bobby Fischer thou art a loun'

:'(

Originally posted by divegeester
It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to my wife moaning about how much time i spend on it, and some of my collegues calling me a nerd as I play it online! My wider point in my post is that you cannot logically assosiate chess masters with a lack of religion.

Likewise to your point Andrew, you cannot infer that because bad things have been done in t ...[text shortened]... d of those done in the name of religion, in no way diminishes those done with other motivations.

….Likewise to your point Andrew, you cannot infer that because bad things have been done in the name of religion = therefore religion is bad.

..…

Yes, I know. Your assertion ONLY implied the existence of hostility AGAINST the religious and not the other way around so I thought it was rather unbalanced because of this. I was just trying to point out that there is much hostility and cruelty done in the name of religion against those that don’t have a religion/particular religion as well as the other way around.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am sorry this is simply unacceptable! it is well understood that the Arabs are Semites, therfore, when Israel very recently entered Palestine and killed hundreds of people were they accused of being anti Semitical? No, but why not for the Arabs are also Semites! therefore i am not accepting this definition of antisemitism for it is flawed and er ...[text shortened]... , nor ever will, but rest my hope in Gods Kingdom to establish peace and justice upon the earth!

therefore i am not accepting this definition of antisemitism

I honestly don't care what you accept or don't accept. The fact is that anti-jewish is a legitimate definition for anti-semitism in the English language. Whether you accept that or not doesn't change that fact.

I don't really care to continue a discussion on the semantics though since I honestly don't see any real use in it.

For example when he stayed in Hungry he stayed at the family home of the Polgars, Sophia Polgar relates this on you tube if anyone is interested, were they not Jewish?

Aaah.. the "I have jewish friends" argument which is flawed at best. This doesn't excuse the statements that he has made, nor does it change them.

Many prejudiced people have had friends that are of the category of people they are prejudiced against. Prejudice isn't a black and white issue of refusing to associate with any of the group.

No, what Fischer was referring to was specifically what he felt was a global conspiracy of bankers, financiers, publishers and media moguls, who for the best part were of Jewish extraction and were not only intent on having him silenced but were subversive and manipulative in politics and elsewhere, is anyone prepared to deny that this is the case?

A global conspiracy of bankers etc who are Jewish? Sounds like a common anti-semitic paranoid canard frankly. This is the same canard that Hitler used to justify his own anti-semitism.

http://everything2.com/?node_id=785448

So when he said :

"You know they invented the Holocaust story. There's no such. there was no holocaust of the Jews in World War II. "

He was referring to... what?

When he said:

They've been pulling this **** from time immemorial about persecution. They're a filthy lying ******* people. That's all they ever do. that's all they'll ever be."

(asterisks added so the post will be allowed to be posted... pm me if you want to know what the word is if you can't figure it out).

That's not anti-semitic? This kind of ridiculous accusation?

The canard that Jews are conspiring to rule the world is not new - it was popular through many, many years. Hitler used it and it was published near the turn of the 20th century in the form of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that inspired numerous pogroms.

No amount of chess genius or apologetics that somehow this was just his view that people who happened to be Jewish were conspiring against him.

He became increasingly paranoid and he turned that paranoia into his own prejudice against Jews.

Another quote about him indicates that he was definitely not always anti-semitic:

http://www.academicchess.org/Focus/Fischer/Fischerquotes.shtml

"And, by the way, there was no trace of anti- Semitism in him back then. That came later, after his religious phase in the early 70's. When he got involved with The Church of God he blamed the Jews for killing Christ and then, when he became an atheist, he blamed them for everything." -- Ron Gross

So I don't think Fisher was always espousing the hateful and prejudiced views as I showed above and I don't doubt that he thought individual Jews might not be part of the fictional conspiracy. That doesn't justify or excuse the prejudiced and hateful views he did express and no amount of apologetics suggesting that he only hated *some* Jews forgives the fact that he did lump ALL Jews into one in a number of his statements.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b] therefore i am not accepting this definition of antisemitism

I honestly don't care what you accept or don't accept. The fact is that anti-jewish is a legitimate definition for anti-semitism in the English language. Whether you accept that or not doesn't change that fact.

I don't really care to continue a discussion on the semantics th ...[text shortened]... fact that he did lump ALL Jews into one in a number of his statements.[/b]

if you don't care then why should i read you're post, infact i must tell you here and now that because of this initial statement i did not read any further, for you cannot expect others to show you the same consideration if you are unwilling to give consideration to their views, can you? but you don't care, right, so there is nothing further to say to you, cya!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you don't care then why should i read you're post, infact i must tell you here and now that because of this initial statement i did not read any further, for you cannot expect others to show you the same consideration if you are unwilling to give consideration to their views, can you? but you don't care, right, so there is nothing further to say to you, cya!

I DO give your views consideration and I have. I have read everything you wrote. I did not say that I didn't care about anything you say and I definitely did not mean that and I'm sorry if you got that from what I said.

I did NOT mean that I don't care what you say. I meant that my use of the term anti-semitism is based on the fact that its definition in the english language and whether you accept that or not is not relevant to whether I should use it or not use it or whether it is part of the english language.

I am willing and I HAVE given your views consideration.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I DO give your views consideration and I have. I have read everything you wrote. I did not say that I didn't care about anything you say and I definitely did not mean that and I'm sorry if you got that from what I said.

I did NOT mean that I don't care what you say. I meant that my use of the term anti-semitism is based on the fact that its definition ...[text shortened]... is part of the english language.

I am willing and I HAVE given your views consideration.

yes, its my misunderstanding, i really apologize, sorry psychopawn, really i feel bad, you are correct, i will re read the text in the morning, its 2.am, my brain is cooking like Zahpansys fishes on a Friday and i am done in - kind regards Robbie.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b] therefore i am not accepting this definition of antisemitism

I honestly don't care what you accept or don't accept. The fact is that anti-jewish is a legitimate definition for anti-semitism in the English language. Whether you accept that or not doesn't change that fact.

I don't really care to continue a discussion on the semantics th ...[text shortened]... fact that he did lump ALL Jews into one in a number of his statements.[/b]

yes, but you are prepared to admit that he was ill, your statements says that he suffered from paranoia which can also be corroborated from third party statements, if so, can we hold an ill man responsible for the statements that he made while under his delusion?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, but you are prepared to admit that he was ill, your statements says that he suffered from paranoia which can also be corroborated from third party statements, if so, can we hold an ill man responsible for the statements that he made while under his delusion?

!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, but you are prepared to admit that he was ill, your statements says that he suffered from paranoia which can also be corroborated from third party statements, if so, can we hold an ill man responsible for the statements that he made while under his delusion?

Can we hold an ill man responsible for his statements when he is ill?

The question is, was Bobby Fischer too mentally ill to be responsible? I think not.

Paranoia isn't necessarily debilitating and it didn't appear to be so in his case. He took care of himself and I don't see why he wasn't able enough to get help for the problems he had or recognize that he had one.

I simply think that he was a great chess player and his games should be revered and studied for people to learn how to play the game better. We should also remember the problems he did have and know that even people who have such an incredible ability in one area can fall prey to problems in other areas.

I don't think of Bobby Fischer as a lesser person for having had such hateful views for whatever reason, but I just see him as what he was - human.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Can we hold an ill man responsible for his statements when he is ill?

The question is, was Bobby Fischer too mentally ill to be responsible? I think not.

Paranoia isn't necessarily debilitating and it didn't appear to be so in his case. He took care of himself and I don't see why he wasn't able enough to get help for the problems he had or recogni ving had such hateful views for whatever reason, but I just see him as what he was - human.

actually there is a case that his illness was extremely debilitating and this is the reason he died when he did, for he was suffering from kidney problems and was so paranoid that he refused to seek treatment for it, and thus he suffered the ultimate consequence. this is also testified by third part also which states he even refused dental treatment because of his paranoia, therefore i think that we cannot hold him responsible for his views nor condemn him, for quite clearly he was quite ill.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually there is a case that his illness was extremely debilitating and this is the reason he died when he did, for he was suffering from kidney problems and was so paranoid that he refused to seek treatment for it, and thus he suffered the ultimate consequence. this is also testified by third part also which states he even refused dental treatment ...[text shortened]... e cannot hold him responsible for his views nor condemn him, for quite clearly he was quite ill.

Jehovah's witnesses refuse treatment for diseases that could have been cured otherwise. Are they also too ill to be responsible for their actions or words? So do other religious groups, are they too ill to be responsibel for their actions?

No matter how ill he was, he is the sole person responsible for his own words or actions. He chose not to get help for his illness. He was not completely out of control.

I definitely do condemn his words and what he espoused as should any moral person. I have some sympathy for him that he was mentally ill, but I don't see how that somehow makes him completely innocent or not responsible.

Fischer, like everyone, was a flawed individual and should be understood for those flaws and his genius. I don't see why we need to ignore or explain away his flaws in order to admire his genius.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Jehovah's witnesses refuse treatment for diseases that could have been cured otherwise. Are they also too ill to be responsible for their actions or words? So do other religious groups, are they too ill to be responsibel for their actions?

No matter how ill he was, he is the sole person responsible for his own words or actions. He chose not to get hel s. I don't see why we need to ignore or explain away his flaws in order to admire his genius.

No, there is only one form of medical treatment that Jehovah's witnesses refuse and that is whole blood or one if its four main constituent parts (red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma), they may of course accept blood fractions (e.g. albumin) depending on the individuals conscience and as medicine advances many of these are now recombinant (synthetically produced), such as Erithropoetin etc etc. Now this is based primarily on two principles, a religious one and a philosophical one, that being self determination, therefore you cannot call these acts irresponsible, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, for they have as their basis clearly defined principles and the individual decisions that persons may make are clearly informed choices in adherence with their understanding and acceptance of certain principles.

this is not the case with someone who is mentally ill, nor may they be aware of their illness, many schizophrenics who also experience paranoia think that they are perfectly healthy, why, because their views and experiences are real to them! thus when they say or act in a strange way, its perfectly normal to them, for they cannot see anything untoward. this was also clearly the case with the special one, R J Fischer, he was clearly mentally ill, thought he was perfectly normal, did not therefore seek help and remains therefore not responsible for his thoughts or actions. we need to explain his thoughts for clearly they have their basis in illness, therefore this is important, for you cannot condemn a man for being ill, can you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No, there is only one form of medical treatment that Jehovah's witnesses refuse and that is whole blood or one if its four main constituent parts (red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma), they may of course accept blood fractions (e.g. albumin) depending on the individuals conscience and as medicine advances many of these are now recombinant (s ...[text shortened]... s in illness, therefore this is important, for you cannot condemn a man for being ill, can you?

It's not definite that he had a clinical illness, first of all.

I am not condemning him for being ill. I am condemning his statements and saying they were immoral and prejudiced no matter what the reason he uttered them. I think whether he was ill or not, his hateful and prejudiced statements still mar his legacy.

I don't see it as a matter of condemning him or not condemning him.

The fact is that we don't know how ill he was. This is just speculation that he somehow was too ill to know this or that. The facts we have is what he has said and some other information about his actions throughout his life. We shouldn't be excusing them away or seeing them as somehow "ok" no matter why he uttered them.