|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Tue, 27 May 2008, 10:32pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1331
WPP: 138
|
|
| zook wrote: | | wufwugy wrote: | | we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another. |
I think the situations are very different. Most businesses create value with their products or services, making capitalism a positive sum game. Poker is a negative sum game, in which the winners provide little value to the losers, except some entertainment and occasionally education. Poker isn't the only career choice that I have moral qualms about, but it is fundamentally different from almost every other. |
first off, im pretty sure poker is not a negative sum game, but a zero sum game, and this has to do solely with the game, not the players. i wont purport to understand game theory much, but all teh 2p2ers who say they know say poker is zero sum.
now, the reasons you've provided to differentiate poker and other 'valuable' businesses are exactly what i was getting at when i said what i said. the first mistake is that you're attempting to give an objective qualification to value. you cant do that, value is personal. second, the reason you give here
| Quote: | | winners provide little value to the losers, except some entertainment and occasionally education |
is not applied across the board. who's to say that entertainment and occasionally education isn't merited? even then, a ton of established professions do exactly that and only that. is Steven Spielberg immoral for making a living off of that exclusively?
lets look at something entirely different. lets look at love, and apply your thinking. lets say you and i are both in love with the same woman. we do our best to win her heart, and i come out on top; you are the loser. was the value and effect of this game we played any different than when we battle for chips/money and one of us wins and one loses? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 May 2008, 10:35pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1331
WPP: 138
|
|
also, i imagine a thorough understanding of game theory would make this very clear. like i said, my understanding is crap, but i dont think that game theory differentiates between poker and something like getting a degree from school. they're both finite games, and the same fundamental rules apply.
if im wrong about that please set me straight. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 May 2008, 10:44pm Post subject: |
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 105
WPP: 111
|
|
| bigteif wrote: | | wufwugy wrote: | | bigteif wrote: | | wufwugy wrote: | this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.
we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.
not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.
we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.
is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.
Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.
when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything. |
Maybe not all of us believe in evolution. |
do you also not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or electricity or nuclear fission or any thing else that has been analyzed and understood by science? science is, after all, nothing but theory. |
I never made the argument that it was a theory. I said maybe not all of us believe in it. There is also out there the theory of intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there is no way that life spontaneously generated. I believe in natural selection but not in evolution between species. The difference between evolution and these theories are the others mentioned are physical in nature. |
Oh yeah and the theory of general relativity ended up replacing newtons gravitational laws. He noticed that newtons calculations didn't match up for the planet mercury. That is why he developed the theory of general relativity. It exlpained the odd orbit of mercury and showed that there were errors in newton's theory and calculations because it didn't account for certain measures. Newtons theory was around for how many years. Theories can be disproven. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 May 2008, 10:46pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 770
WPP: 109
Location: Watching spoon stroke his own ego
|
|
| wufwugy wrote: | | when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything. | Personally, this doesn't work. I turn down job interviews for some pretty elite corporations because I couldn't bare to work for them. No one would look down on me for working for a fortune 100 company. I come to my own conclusions about my own choices. I am the judge of my own morality. Just because the arguments are common and accepted doesn't make them right. Slavery was accepted by the mainstream. Wage slavery still is. I'm trying to move forward, but it's not easy to justify gambling for profit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 May 2008, 10:52pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1331
WPP: 138
|
|
| bigteif wrote: | | wufwugy wrote: | | bigteif wrote: | | wufwugy wrote: | this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.
we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.
not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.
we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.
is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.
Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.
when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything. |
Maybe not all of us believe in evolution. |
do you also not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or electricity or nuclear fission or any thing else that has been analyzed and understood by science? science is, after all, nothing but theory. |
I never made the argument that it was a theory. I said maybe not all of us believe in it. There is also out there the theory of intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there is no way that life spontaneously generated. I believe in natural selection but not in evolution between species. The difference between evolution and these theories are the others mentioned are physical in nature. |
if richard dawkins said that then he is foolish. first, we dont know enough to know that life cannot spontaneously generate, and second, we know enough to know that life/things likely can and do. the quantum vacuum is an amazing thing.
not all theories are created equal, and many theories should not be rightly labeled as theories, yet they are by their proponents. for example check out Hovind Theory. it is a bunch of hogwash that is as disproven as it gets, yet many still believe it has theoretical basis.
also, dont make the mistake of approaching things with the pseudo-science mindset, which you are unknowingly doing when you say you believe natural selection but not in evolution species. not only is your terminology skewed, but you're picking and choosing what facets of the diamond you consider facets. you're picking and choosing what part of the theory you like and what you dont. natural selection is, afterall, an aspect hypothesized and derived from the theory of evolution. it is intertwined with the theory of evolution. this doesn't mean it cannot be extracted from the theory of evolution, but the problem is that the extraction must be qualified with science behind it. non-evolution beliefs have yet to do this.
this is a very standard creationist thing to do. majorly pseudo-science. they misunderstand terminology and purpose like 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' and develop analyses based in that faulty understanding. its like saying oh i believe in the New Testament, but not the Old Testament |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 May 2008, 10:56pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1331
WPP: 138
|
|
| dev wrote: | | wufwugy wrote: | | when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything. | Personally, this doesn't work. I turn down job interviews for some pretty elite corporations because I couldn't bare to work for them. No one would look down on me for working for a fortune 100 company. I come to my own conclusions about my own choices. I am the judge of my own morality. Just because the arguments are common and accepted doesn't make them right. Slavery was accepted by the mainstream. Wage slavery still is. I'm trying to move forward, but it's not easy to justify gambling for profit. |
i dont quite understand what you getting at. youre imposing the subjective onto the objective.
also, there is a greater than zero chance that driving to your job in the city tomorrow will result in a vehicular collision and your death. looks like your job is a gamble. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 May 2008, 11:19pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1331
WPP: 138
|
|
| bigteif wrote: |
Oh yeah and the theory of general relativity ended up replacing newtons gravitational laws. He noticed that newtons calculations didn't match up for the planet mercury. That is why he developed the theory of general relativity. It exlpained the odd orbit of mercury and showed that there were errors in newton's theory and calculations because it didn't account for certain measures. Newtons theory was around for how many years. Theories can be disproven. |
you exactly right. you're also misapplying many things.
it is very true that gravity is wrong and has been replaced by relativity. it is also true that relativity will be replaced by something like superstring, and that will likely be replaced by something else. to use this as a reason to induct what you did in your previous post is false however. just because something that we know has the most truth to it is not categorically true does not mean that it is just as likely as something entirely unrelated to be true. what im getting at is that the more solid theories get, the further from the truth they get. newton gravity is wrong, but its not as far from the truth as say theorizing that celestial telekinetic elephants push us down.
newtons gravity provided much practical value to humans even though it was not the total truth. this can be the case because theories are nothing more than observations. even if we get to as close to the truth as science and human allows, the universe will still not be a function of those theories since those theories are simply observations with limited capacity. the deeper and stronger our theories get the greater the practical value. you know, all the theories that have bought to us computers and the internet are probably incorrect absolutely, but if it wasn't for those theories then we wouldn't be here.
the theory of evolution is a very strong theory. its about as strong as the theory that the speed of light is constant, and that is about as strong a theory (read: fact) as you're gonna get, even though it may be wrong or at least wrong in some ways.
if youre a student of knowledge, then it is foolish to believe in something contrary to evolution. kinda like how the theory of poker is probably not totally true, but its teh best we have, and if it wasn't for that i would be broke and have to work a real job. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 May 2008, 11:21pm Post subject: |
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 105
WPP: 111
|
|
| wufwugy wrote: | | bigteif wrote: | | wufwugy wrote: | | bigteif wrote: | | wufwugy wrote: | this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.
we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.
not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.
we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.
is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.
Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.
when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything. |
Maybe not all of us believe in evolution. |
do you also not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or electricity or nuclear fission or any thing else that has been analyzed and understood by science? science is, after all, nothing but theory. |
I never made the argument that it was a theory. I said maybe not all of us believe in it. There is also out there the theory of intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there is no way that life spontaneously generated. I believe in natural selection but not in evolution between species. The difference between evolution and these theories are the others mentioned are physical in nature. |
if richard dawkins said that then he is foolish. first, we dont know enough to know that life cannot spontaneously generate, and second, we know enough to know that life/things likely can and do. the quantum vacuum is an amazing thing.
not all theories are created equal, and many theories should not be rightly labeled as theories, yet they are by their proponents. for example check out Hovind Theory. it is a bunch of hogwash that is as disproven as it gets, yet many still believe it has theoretical basis.
also, dont make the mistake of approaching things with the pseudo-science mindset, which you are unknowingly doing when you say you believe natural selection but not in evolution species. not only is your terminology skewed, but you're picking and choosing what facets of the diamond you consider facets. you're picking and choosing what part of the theory you like and what you dont. natural selection is, afterall, an aspect hypothesized and derived from the theory of evolution. it is intertwined with the theory of evolution. this doesn't mean it cannot be extracted from the theory of evolution, but the problem is that the extraction must be qualified with science behind it. non-evolution beliefs have yet to do this.
this is a very standard creationist thing to do. majorly pseudo-science. they misunderstand terminology and purpose like 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' and develop analyses based in that faulty understanding. its like saying oh i believe in the New Testament, but not the Old Testament |
First part I said evolution between species or macro evolution.
Second bolded statement. You say that natural selection is derived from the theory of evolution. How do you know this is true?
I believe evolution is derived from natural selection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 27 May 2008, 11:33pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1331
WPP: 138
|
|
youre right inasmuch as natural selection was one of the first observed phenomena which lead to the theory of evolution. this was however a rudimentary understanding, and it has been advanced from developments in related sciences like genetics and biology.
natural selection is a theorized process of evolution. not the other way around, like evolution is an adjunct to the observations of natural selection or selective adaptation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 28 May 2008, 12:49am Post subject: |
|
|
Straight
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 186
WPP: 66
Location: Sweden
|
|
| Compared to everything else in life, poker is fair enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 28 May 2008, 2:25am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1331
WPP: 138
|
|
| that is easily the best point in the thread |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 28 May 2008, 6:07am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 2810
WPP: 106
Location: #flopturnriver
|
|
| Here's a NLHE Strategy: If people would take poker as seriously as some of the shit in this thread then they would have a shitload of money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 28 May 2008, 6:38am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1328
WPP: 87
|
|
| bigteif wrote: | | Oh yeah and the theory of general relativity ended up replacing newtons gravitational laws. He noticed that newtons calculations didn't match up for the planet mercury. That is why he developed the theory of general relativity. It exlpained the odd orbit of mercury and showed that there were errors in newton's theory and calculations because it didn't account for certain measures. Newtons theory was around for how many years. Theories can be disproven. |
Newton didn't get replaced, he got expanded upon. Newton is still relevant.
Science, while malleable isn't quite THAT fluid, as it generally gets refined up as opposed to doing a complete 180 degree turn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 28 May 2008, 9:00am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 3301
WPP: 85
Location: practicing mindfulness
|
|
| wufwugy wrote: | | first off, im pretty sure poker is not a negative sum game, but a zero sum game, and this has to do solely with the game, not the players. |
It's negative sum (for the players) because of the rake. Because money is taken out of the game every hand, there has to be more money lost than won. On the other hand, the general economy is like a Money Added tourney because value is constantly being created, so theoretically, everyone could win.
| wufwugy wrote: | | the first mistake is that you're attempting to give an objective qualification to value.you cant do that, value is personal. |
I agree that value is personal, but it can still be measured in a variety of ways. Profit is one way. If people are willing to pay more for something than it cost to make, then value was created in its production.
| wufwugy wrote: | second, the reason you give here
| Quote: | | winners provide little value to the losers, except some entertainment and occasionally education |
is not applied across the board. who's to say that entertainment and occasionally education isn't merited? even then, a ton of established professions do exactly that and only that. is Steven Spielberg immoral for making a living off of that exclusively? |
Now this is the argument you have to make to convince me that playing poker is a moral career choice... that the losers get their money's worth in the form of entertainment and education. I think if you talked to most losers they would not agree.
| wufwugy wrote: | | lets look at something entirely different. lets look at love, and apply your thinking. lets say you and i are both in love with the same woman. we do our best to win her heart, and i come out on top; you are the loser. was the value and effect of this game we played any different than when we battle for chips/money and one of us wins and one loses? |
I also don't think that fighting for a woman's love is a moral career choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 28 May 2008, 9:52am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 3124
WPP: 144
Location: spreading fert
|
|
wufungy = Duece Bigalo? i like how you made yourself the winnar.
zook, not everyone is playing with their rent money. and very seldom will you find the one that is...and know it. therefore, if you wish to continue making your living this way, you need to convince yourself that these players are here for entertainment, or because they arent as good...yet. you cant worry/fault yourself for taking money they are handing over. some shouldnt be here...fine. but, most arent degenerate, addicted gamboolers. you said it yourself in the stats you mentioned regarding how often you see the fish a second time.
bottom line: its not YOUR problem. its theirs, assuming they even have one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 28 May 2008, 3:18pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 770
WPP: 109
Location: Watching spoon stroke his own ego
|
|
| wufwugy wrote: | | dev wrote: | | wufwugy wrote: | | when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything. | Personally, this doesn't work. I turn down job interviews for some pretty elite corporations because I couldn't bare to work for them. No one would look down on me for working for a fortune 100 company. I come to my own conclusions about my own choices. I am the judge of my own morality. Just because the arguments are common and accepted doesn't make them right. Slavery was accepted by the mainstream. Wage slavery still is. I'm trying to move forward, but it's not easy to justify gambling for profit. |
i dont quite understand what you getting at. youre imposing the subjective onto the objective.
also, there is a greater than zero chance that driving to your job in the city tomorrow will result in a vehicular collision and your death. looks like your job is a gamble. | Way to completely miss the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 28 May 2008, 3:32pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 770
WPP: 109
Location: Watching spoon stroke his own ego
|
|
| wufwugy wrote: | | is Steven Spielberg immoral for making a living off of that exclusively? | That depends on your point of view.
Just living within the structures of our society is hurting people, and it's obvious to anyone who bothers to open their eyes. Poker for me is less conflicting than writing software for insurance companies. That's really the point I've been trying to make. My understanding is that if we simply live not to hurt anyone, what we do is inherently pointless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 28 May 2008, 6:38pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1331
WPP: 138
|
|
| zook wrote: |
Now this is the argument you have to make to convince me that playing poker is a moral career choice... that the losers get their money's worth in the form of entertainment and education. I think if you talked to most losers they would not agree. |
im not sure that whether or not the losers agree is relevant because their minds change. some losers, those who keep coming back and play the game for fun (which is what poker was created for in the first place i bet), cant be anything other than satisfied. some will say they're not, but thats because they feel like they should be winners. those who are losers yet are trying to be winners are akin to anybody in any job who is trying to be successful yet isn't. great examples of that are those who create and operates businesses. are competing businesses that are better/luckier immoral?
poker is weird. everybody thinks they're tops. if i truly think i can beat Fedor Emelianenko's ass and i put a bunch of money on the line is it immoral for him to take me up on it even if he is supremely confident he could put me in the hospital? how is poker different than this?
when i watched Saving Private Ryan i felt like a got more than my value's worth; when i watched Indiana Jones i felt like i got ripped off. how is Spielberg here any different than you or i when we play vs somebody who wins some and lose some, we may have an edge, we may not, we may have a huge edge but they may run up a ton and vanish with our money.
we're simply working with odds. it is technically possible for a fish to run amazing for a hundred million hands, we're just banking on the odds that this is astronomically unlikely. we work with odds in every thing we do whether or not we know it. i dont challenge Emelianenko because i know how bad my odds are, but if i choose to ignore those odds or believe they dont matter then i am the one at fault, and he would be a fool to not take me up on it.
we're all dealing with intelligent, capable people here. if we were playing a bunch of mentally handicapped people who simply are incapable of making intelligent | | | |
Events Mail - Join this reminder mailing list
