Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Is chess racist in your opinion?


  • 10 months ago · #221

    Huragok

    It's not racist. Even if it was intended to be we don't have to perpetuate that bullsh*t.

  • 10 months ago · #222

    VULPES_VULPES

    ScorpionPackAttack wrote:
    VULPES_VULPES wrote:
    ScorpionPackAttack wrote:

    I didn't mean "race" as a label. I meant "race" as a concept.

    God doens't play hide and seek at all. You are not looking for him. Also, God speaks morals through people, just like he did through the prophets. That explains MLK.

    I) It's very convenient to claim such.  "Oh, I have a 'right' to steal this land because God told me I could".  II) There's also an impressive smokescreen of unified scientific laws that work quite well without factoring him in.  III) People speak of him, but like people who speak of aliens the topic itself is missing.  IV) It's okay to believe in a god, but understand that his existence isn't an objective fact. 

    I) One under God does have a right to do what He (sic) wills.

    II) And who created those laws for the great scientific minds to discover? Who decided that force have to equal mass times acceleration? God. God created the laws of science as the engine that keeps the universe running, the same way a computer programmer write code to run a program. Science is designed to stitch the universe together without need for intervention from its Creator.

    III) Right. And unless the topic itself leaves relics that tell plainly of its existence, one would have the right to claim the topic a mere "fantasy".

    IV) He's not a god. He's the God. And your statement "his existence isn't an objective fact" is a subjective statement in itself. This statement is only true within the realm of your understanding.

     

    I don't want to debate about God here. We were debating race.

    That doesn't change the fact that Pilgrims are objectively more immoral than gay people, which doesn't hurt anyone since it's two consenting adults not hurting anyone whereas stealing from and actively murdering Natives (not just through diseases) has measurable effects.  I) Who decides what "God's" opinion is?  

    II) And again, what is your proof?  That's the difference between science and religion, science doesn't pretend to have the answer whereas religion says, "here's the answer, try justifying this).  The burden of proof is also on the believer, III) and no magical powers from Jesus or any other prophets have been documented outside of a select few sources that are very likely mythological.  IV) Religion depends on faith, meaning one believes despite the lack of evidence whereas science is dependent on knowledge.  

    Even if there is a god how do you know yours is the correct one and not Shiva or Raiden? 

    I) Well, God, obviously. However, one's interpretation of God's ideas are obviously vulnerable to deviation. That includes me, but knowing God, I have a good idea of what He wants and I plan to stay loyal to his wisdom (not mine).

    II) And what makes you fear to tread beyond your realm of understanding? Proof may be required in the scientific realm, but in the superscientific realm, it is not needed. This is where you falter: religion is not science, and science is not religion, but the two could - no, do - coexist in perfect harmony. Can science explain how one develops his/her ideas of right and wrong? Good and bad? Can science explain how we could even have opinions, thoughts, and beliefs different enough to spark intense debates? In order to discover the meaning of religion, one must see religion as a religion and not as a science. Understand?

    III) You think 66 books of historical evidence is not enough? I find it quite adequate to convince me!

    IV) Religion depends on not faith, but the knowledge that there is something beyond the realm of scientific understanding.

  • 10 months ago · #223

    Irontiger

    VULPES_VULPES wrote:
     Can science explain how one develops his/her ideas of right and wrong? Good and bad? Can science explain how we could even have opinions, thoughts, and beliefs different enough to spark intense debates?

    Actually... Yes ?

    For the rest, I don't want to be responsible for the locking.

    EDIT : oh, maybe the 66 books of 'historical knowledge', still. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of editions and variants of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it doesn't make them a valid document.

  • 10 months ago · #224

    VULPES_VULPES

    Irontiger wrote:
    VULPES_VULPES wrote:
     Can science explain how one develops his/her ideas of right and wrong? Good and bad? Can science explain how we could even have opinions, thoughts, and beliefs different enough to spark intense debates?

    Actually... Yes ?

    For the rest, I don't want to be responsible for the locking.

    I'm hardly convinced.

  • 10 months ago · #225

    waffllemaster

    Psychology, sociology, and anthropology are pretty interesting to dabble in.  To look at something and not understand it is fine (in fact it's unavoidable).  But to look at something and say we can never understand i.e. there can only be a supernatural explanation is, IMO, foolish.

    To use ignorance about something to support the supernatural is a weak argument anyway.  I think you'd agree that just because you can't explain something doesn't mean God can't be ultimately responsible for its existence.  And if God is defined by what we don't know yet, it confines God to an ever shrinking box.

  • 10 months ago · #226

    macer75

    osw wrote:
    macer75 wrote:

    I find it very interesting that OP has not posted once in this thread after his initial post.

    I find it interesting that you actually checked twelve pages to find that out.

    Not really actually. I've been posting in this thread quite frequently (as you may have noticed), and gradually I noticed that I hadn't seen the OP posting. So I just checked the first 2 pages and last 2 pages to make sure before "announcing" my observation.

  • 10 months ago · #227

    VULPES_VULPES

    waffllemaster wrote:

    Psychology, sociology, and anthropology are pretty interesting to dabble in.  To look at something and not understand it is fine (in fact it's unavoidable).  I) But to look at something and say we can never understand i.e. there can only be a supernatural explanation is, IMO, foolish.

    II) To use ignorance about something to support the supernatural is a weak argument anyway.  III) I think you'd agree that just because you can explain something doesn't mean God can't be ultimately responsible for its existence.  IV) And if God is defined by what we don't know yet, it confines God to an ever shrinking box.

    I) I never said that there can only be a supernatural explaination to things we can never understand. Thus, I agree with your opinion nonetheless.

    II) It may be a weak argument, but a valid one nonetheless.

    III) Doesn't that mean that God is responsible for whatever I can explain?

    IV) You might not know, but many others do.

  • 10 months ago · #228

    macer75

    Frankiebones7983 wrote:
    macer75 wrote:

    I find it very interesting that OP has not posted once in this thread after his initial post.

    I suppose I will make a post since you asked so nicely. Chess was created in a different time. The earliest recorded chess game was in 1619 nearly 500 years ago, but it is said that chess has been around about 3 times as long. During that time everyone did not have equality like we see today.

    According to the rules of chess: These things are subtle, but they are there never the less.

    -The white pieces get first move, and never the black pieces.

    -When setting up a chess board it always "white to the right". (Right wing white's, and left wing blacks)

    -If the king is taken out a female may not rule the kingdom. (Ya check mating a queen would be super hard... but still no woman is allowed to rule)

    -Queen on color (No white women on the black squares, no black women on the white squares, sort of anti interracial)

    lol didn't know you were still following the thread. Interesting observations, especially the last one.

  • 10 months ago · #229

    waffllemaster

    VULPES_VULPES wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

    Psychology, sociology, and anthropology are pretty interesting to dabble in.  To look at something and not understand it is fine (in fact it's unavoidable).  I) But to look at something and say we can never understand i.e. there can only be a supernatural explanation is, IMO, foolish.

    II) To use ignorance about something to support the supernatural is a weak argument anyway.  III) I think you'd agree that just because you can't explain something doesn't mean God can't be ultimately responsible for its existence.  IV) And if God is defined by what we don't know yet, it confines God to an ever shrinking box.

    I) I never said that there can only be a supernatural explaination to things we can never understand. Thus, I agree with your opinion nonetheless.

    II) It may be a weak argument, but a valid one nonetheless.

    III) Doesn't that mean that God is responsible for whatever I can explain?

    IV) You might not know, but many others do.

     

    This should have been "can't" in original post.  I went back and edited it.

    II) Just as valid as supporting aliens or ghosts or monsters that live in the center of the earth.  Take your pick :p

    III) Saying something is not impossible and saying something definitely is true are very different statements.

    IV) I didn't say I, I said we, as in the collective knowledge of humanity.

  • 10 months ago · #230

    Irontiger

    VULPES_VULPES wrote:

    (...) It may be a weak argument, but a valid one nonetheless.

    (...)

    Huh ?

  • 10 months ago · #231

    VULPES_VULPES

    waffllemaster wrote:
    VULPES_VULPES wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

    Psychology, sociology, and anthropology are pretty interesting to dabble in.  To look at something and not understand it is fine (in fact it's unavoidable).  I) But to look at something and say we can never understand i.e. there can only be a supernatural explanation is, IMO, foolish.

    II) To use ignorance about something to support the supernatural is a weak argument anyway.  III) I think you'd agree that just because you can't explain something doesn't mean God can't be ultimately responsible for its existence.  IV) And if God is defined by what we don't know yet, it confines God to an ever shrinking box.

    I) I never said that there can only be a supernatural explaination to things we can never understand. Thus, I agree with your opinion nonetheless.

    II) It may be a weak argument, but a valid one nonetheless.

    III) Doesn't that mean that God is responsible for whatever I can explain?

    IV) You might not know, but many others do.

     

    This should have been "can't" in original post.  I went back and edited it.

    II) Just as valid as supporting aliens or ghosts or monsters that live in the center of the earth.  Take your pick :p

    III) Saying something is not impossible and saying something definitely is true are very different statements.

    IV) I didn't say I, I said we, as in the collective knowledge of humanity.

    II) Meh... it's no fact that they exist (within the realm of reality), but it's no fact that they don't exist (there) either.

    III) Thanks for your clarification. I didn't really understand the initial statement.

    IV) What you (as in the collective accepted knowledge of humanity) don't know, but the rest do know.

  • 10 months ago · #232

    mmuurrii

    "collective accepted knowledge of humanity"  ?

     What is this?  

  • 10 months ago · #233

    waffllemaster

    IV)  I don't know how useful it is to clarify it any more (also, I don't understand what your rewording implies).  However the original point was defining God by "things that are unknown" is not a good definition.

  • 10 months ago · #234

    theMagicRabbit

    Wait, stop everything.

  • 10 months ago · #235

    VULPES_VULPES

    waffllemaster wrote:

    IV)  I don't know how useful it is to clarify it any more (also, I don't understand what your rewording implies).  However the original point was defining God by "things that are unknown" is not a good definition.

    Perhaps I wasn't clear with my replies.

    The rewording implies the collective knowledge accepted among the scientifically- and logically-minded (which, judging by your posts, you must be). There are other types of knowledge, which comes from a realm outside science. And by "things that are unknown" I meant "things that are unknown to you (the second person plural of your 'we', the definition of which I have corrected)" because I certainly know what I am talking about.

  • 10 months ago · #236

    mmuurrii

    VULPES_VULPES wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

    IV)  I don't know how useful it is to clarify it any more (also, I don't understand what your rewording implies).  However the original point was defining God by "things that are unknown" is not a good definition.

    Perhaps I wasn't clear with my replies.

    The rewording implies the collective knowledge accepted among the scientifically- and logically-minded (which, judging by your posts, you must be). There are other types of knowledge, which comes from a realm outside science. And by "things that are unknown" I meant "things that are unknown to you (the second person plural of your 'we', the definition of which I have corrected)" because I certainly know what I am talking about.

    "scientifically and logically minded".    ?  rather vague....don't you think.  To what degree of science or logic are these people "minded"?  Wrong science, faulty logic is the universal, human norm.  If you don't believe me, just ask the planet.

  • 10 months ago · #237

    theMagicRabbit

    If chess is racist, does playing it make you guilty of a hate crime?

    If you kill someone, doesn't that mean you hate them?

    Did that last question have anything to do with the racism of chess?

    Does VULPES_VULPES last post have anything to do with the racism in chess?

    Does racism even exist anymore?

    Does this post make sense?


Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.