|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dev
Well, I'd rather believe that there is a true right and wrong, if only to allow myself the idea that there is actually meaning to existence. I don't claim to know exactly what is right and wrong, and I'm not so pompous as to try to designate rules to it.
Of course there are exceptions to rules like murder=bad! Can you explain why we all tend to agree that rape is a bad thing while, say, picking up trash on a beach is a good thing? We all have a moral compass. Sure, it's relative, but that doesn't mean it's not real. I understand your point, but for those of us that disagree, this thread was very meaningful and interesting.
|
assuming that human morality is an effect of the meaning of the universe is a ginormous leap of logic on par with that found in religion. besides, the real 'meaning to life' is happiness, as far as the purpose behind that question is. happiness is a far better meaning than propriety.
we have a moral compass because we are genetically disposed to due to being the offspring of people who agreed on the same stuff, for the most part, in order to operate a flourishing society. also how we are raised and our society affects this but to a lesser degree.
rape, and probably torture, are perhaps the most 'wrong' things in the human mind, but even those have their place, even if beyond rare. for example, even though its ludicrously extreme its still applicable, if me and some chick are the last humans alive due to some catastrophe or whatever and we gotta repopulate the earth but she doesn't wanna have anything to do with me then i gotta rape her to repopulate the earth. im pretty sure you cant say in that case rape is wrong. stupid example but it works.
when you look at all the mega immoral things in our society, notice how without those things being 'wrong' and punished our society would be in havoc. this is not a coincidence. if rape and murder and theft were not punished then things would be up in flames, but this doesn't make them inherently wrong.
what if the very first female mammal didn't wanna bang the very first male mammal, which is actually kinda likely, where would we be if the male mammal didn't force himself upon her?
animals do some pretty crazy shit as far as morality goes, and there is absolutely nothing different from humans and other animals with regards to 'moral objectivity'.
the effect is big
|
|
|
|
BankItDrew
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Losing Prop Bets
Posts: 2,789
|
|
Wufwugy/dev : Are you a god? you two made this thread what it is.
Quote:
|
if me and some chick are the last humans alive due to some catastrophe or whatever and we gotta repopulate the earth but she doesn't wanna have anything to do with me then i gotta rape her
|
I LOL
|
|
|
|
d0zer
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,529
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
there is no objective morality, yet its philosophical basis tends to ignore this.
i do believe there is tremendous value in right/wrong conduct. when applied practically it has insurmountable effects on society.
|
yesthis.
|
|
|
|
Jack Sawyer
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Old School
Posts: 2,535
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dev
You see, to some of us, it actually does matter. That's why we're discussing it. Your stance seems to be that morality is unimportant.
|
Maybe.
Everything/All is relative, though.
|
My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...
Quote:
|
VHS is like a book and a book is like a stack of kindles.
|
Hey, I'm in a movie!
http://youtu.be/lGdnIrRKDTI
|
|
sarbox68
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: wondering where the 3 extra chairs at my 6max table came from
Posts: 871
|
|
I'd like to say I read the whole thread... but that would be a lie, and the type of lie that's immoral. Not to be confused with the "No your @ss doesn't look fat in those jeans" lie that isn't immoral. Except for those people who think it is.
Point is, since morality is a wholly human construct, it can (and is...) pretty much what anyone thinks it is. We then as cultures set the common boundaries, punish those who step over them, etc. It's also a constantly changing playing field (crusades, inquisitions or witch hunts anyone?) and is completely culturally dependant (no booze for you sunni's or devout baptists and don't offend the anti-capitalist morality of your local neighborhood maoist...)
So now that's out of the way...
Poker is just one of a billion variants of "I'll trade finite resources for others" -- the only difference being that one of those resources, the money resource, may exchange in a positive or negative flow. And that appears to be part of the root of the morality question.
Problem is that there's more than one resource exchanged, and all at the absolute free will of the participants. I decide to risk $100 to play poker for an hour. I have given up an hour of my time (a finite resource with a real opportunity cost) and potentially $100. But I may end up at the end of the hour with $200... and even if I end up with 0, it's absolutely no different than my decision to order a $100 meal and proceed to eat every last bite of it, only to wish I'd stayed home for the fish sticks instead...
Maybe I didn't want to end up with $0? Maybe I'd hoped to end up with $200? Aside from "who gives a sh!t", this doesn't make it a moral problem, let alone assign immoral behavior to the person who ended up with your $100 in trade for their potential financial risk and similar real time investment. I really wish that f-in Cuba Gooding Jr. movie hadn't been such a POS on pay-per-view, but does that mean the cable company's immoral for taking my $4 in an obvious exploitation of my ability to make good entertainment decisions?
Looked at another way... Assume I have $1 million dollars. I decide my goal in life is to learn to play poker well, and the best way to do that is to play against people who can challenge me with thoughtful play. I sit down to play $10NL and proceed to play 40 hours of poker against you, a total donkfish f-cktard.
Here's the catch. I have terminal cancer and less than 3 weeks to live. I can lose very hand I play and give you all the money introduced to that session and it doesn't mean sh!t 'cause the amount is irrelevant. However, you just wasted 1/3 of my most precious asset - my remaining life expectancy - by pissing away my opportunity to learn (the reason I engaged in the act of playing poker with you in the first place) because you suck. Immorality at work? Nope... just another series of choices that didn't quite work out as planned.....
|
|
|
|
DaNutsInYoEye
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,921
|
|
Author is a losing poker player.
|
|
TheXianti: (Triptanes) why are you not a thinking person?
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
very nice post sarbox
|
|
|
|
zook
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,676
|
|
I'm not sure why the moral relativists (wufwugy and sarbox) are dominating this thread. It's unsurprising that you have no moral problem with playing poker for a living.
|
|
|
|
sarbox68
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: wondering where the 3 extra chairs at my 6max table came from
Posts: 871
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zook
I'm not sure why the moral relativists (wufwugy and sarbox) are dominating this thread. It's unsurprising that you have no moral problem with playing poker for a living.
|
I dominate with one post!  Wish my K9o fared so well....
|
|
|
|
zook
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,676
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sarbox68
I dominate with one post! |
It WAS a long post.
(Ok, I was talking about wufwugy.)
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
i cant help but dominate. its in my blood
|
|
|
|
dev
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: swonging and swonging
Posts: 1,550
|
|
seriously, what zook said.
|
Check out my self-deprecation here!
|
|
sarbox68
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: wondering where the 3 extra chairs at my 6max table came from
Posts: 871
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dev
seriously, what zook said.
|
I think zook called me long-winded....
"The ultimate expression of humanity is the privilege and power to define morality."
- me, circa 1997 after two 40s and a monster spleef
|
|
|
|
littleogre
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,344
|
|
well i play micro stakes so to me if someone loseses 5 bucks to me over a session i don't feel bad at all nor do i expect them to feel bad for me. as far as compulsive idiots that gamble away their famlies food money well they are a tiny percentage of gamblers and i feel for them but i doubt they play 2 nl
|
|
|
|
BankItDrew
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Losing Prop Bets
Posts: 2,789
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye
Author is a losing poker player.
|
nail on the head
|
|
|
|
Seabass
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: trying not to die
Posts: 205
|
|
I am surprised to find such strong opposition to poker here in this forum. It makes no sense to me.
It's unfair, you have an advantage. (And still, this is a big part of this forum, to become a better player, to create a bigger advantage.)
If you feel you don't give anything back, begin donating to charity. You will most likely do more good that way.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that you can take the high moral ground just because you don't play for a living. You use your skill to win money from people just like the pros. If you have a big problem with that I think it's high time that you quit.
There is a immoral side to poker, but that goes for a lot of things in life.
|
|
|
|
sarbox68
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: wondering where the 3 extra chairs at my 6max table came from
Posts: 871
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seabass
It's unfair, you have an advantage.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that you can take the high moral ground just because you don't play for a living. You use your skill to win money from people just like the pros.
|
If making money because of a competitive advantage is immoral, then every form of business, professional sports, or anything else where resources are distributed according to inherent or acquired ability is immoral. I guess which fundamentally means "that's life"...
|
|
|
|
dev
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: swonging and swonging
Posts: 1,550
|
|
I'm amazed that people who don't even understand or respect the idea of morality are involved in this thread.
|
Check out my self-deprecation here!
|
|
d0zer
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,529
|
|
The idea that morality is some static set of truisms that we all adhere to on varying levels is probably a result of very narrow-minded religious paradigms leftover from an even more spiritually primitive time than the one we currently live in.
|
|
|
|
Andrew
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 210
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by d0zer
The idea that morality is some static set of truisms that we all adhere to on varying levels is probably a result of very narrow-minded religious paradigms leftover from an even more spiritually primitive time than the one we currently live in.
|
A-men.
|
|
|
|
bigslikk
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 445
|
|
Lol @ Social Darwinism being pulled in.
Charles Darwin's Natural selection: certain favorable genes become more frequent in a population over time. Typically, genes that make individuals more suited for the environment. (such as those of the one-toed sloth).
Social Darwism (not from Darwin): The biggest, baddest, meanest mother-fuckers around deserve success because they are the meanest, baddest mother-fuckers around.
See how the second one has a moral tone to it? The theory of evolution has no place in this argument. Just because we may or may not be wired a certain way / have natural survival instincts doesn't mean it's "right" to exercise them. In fact I'd argue that most moral systems belief the opposite.
(e.g. though I might obtain immense pleasure from stabbing a random on the street, ("surival of the fittest, nukka!"), many would deem my actions to me antisocial / immoral.
As for my opinion on poker, the jury's still out. It's one thing to sit down with other players, everyone knowing full well that a game of risk and deception is being played. It's another when you talk / act like you suck at poker away from the table, try to lure known fish to games in order to bleed them etc. But hey marketers and salesmen are just as bad!
I guess what I'm saying is that, poker is not the noblest profession (contribution to society: selling false hope to others) but it's no better or worse than most of today's jobs.
|
|
|
|
Keilah
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Northern BC, Canada
Posts: 658
|
|
This is a late response but I LOL'ed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigteif
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.
|
You don't believe in evolution between species but you do believe in natural selection? Is that a joke?
In case you really don't understand, natural selection selects for whatever is best adapted to its current environment. A huge gigantic enormously important aspect of its current environment is THE OTHER SPECIES NEARBY. So every species selects within itself according to other species in the region, who then change to adapt to the new situation, and so on forever. Duh!
|
|
|
|
Keilah
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Northern BC, Canada
Posts: 658
|
|
I agree with most of what Wufwugy says, he's apparently a smart guy.
Morality IMO is just a balancing act between what works best for society as a whole and what works best for each individual. One thing a lot of people forget is that what is good for the whole is often best for the individual in the long run.
EG - stabbing a guy in the street to take the $100 in his wallet is short term good for me and probably bad as a whole. I run the risk of being caught or developing a bad reputation, and that's just if someone else catches wind of it. Even if they don't, people are VERY perceptive and if I'm the type of person who will take massive advantage of other people for even slight selfish gain, other people will pick up on that and of course this is bad for me.
OTOH, if I see a guy being attacked in the street and I help him, this is very bad for me at first as I run the risk of being injured/killed. But in the long run I reap benefits for the opposite reasons of my first example.
There's a long-winded chat on morality.
As far as poker goes, I think it's fine, after all we're all openly competing with each other and to the best men go the spoils. The only qualm I have is that what I do is of little/no immediate value to society (and therefore little/no long term value to MYSELF)... but I can make a lot of money relatively quickly playing poker, and from there I can create a lot of value for myself and others. Score!
|
|
|
|
Keilah
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Northern BC, Canada
Posts: 658
|
|
"Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life."
That's an Einstein quote I particularly like. See, there really is no objective good or evil, the way I see it. But maybe morality can make us happier by giving us an ideal to strive for.
|
|
|
|
sil693
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 610
|
|
Poker would be immoral if the people we were taking money off did not want to be playing, if we were forcing them to play against us knowing that we had an advantage. This is not the case.
Is is immoral to bet on sports etc.? When we win we are taking money away from the betting company. But the whole point of the company is that it knowingly puts itself in that position of risk - so why feel immoral when you win? Same applies to poker IMO. Taking money in situations in which the other party knowingly "risks" their own cash is surely fine, as they themselves have decided to "gamble".
|
|
|
|
sarbox68
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: wondering where the 3 extra chairs at my 6max table came from
Posts: 871
|
|
Peoples.... if we was talking digging ditches or cleaning out Andy Gumps or some other Grapes of Wrath sh!t here on a "I know I said I'd pay you, but maybe I won't" basis, that's one thing.
But it's f$*@ing poker! It's a game... And last time I checked, none of my Full Tilt villains was duct taped to they chairs trading CIBs for water rations!!
We play 'cause it's fun. If we win money, that's even funner. If we hated poker, we could spend that time selling slushies at 7-11, walking people's dogs for minimum wage or any other number of ways to spend our time.
If you can't afford to play, you shouldn't be playing anyway -- regardless of whether you suck or not, 'cause lets not forget variance hits everyone. If you play, and you suck, and you lose money -- f-ck it, hopefully you had some fun into the bargain. I pay $60 for a round of golf or $30 for a night of bowling and I'm a f-in freak show at both. Does that make the greens keeper or the man de-smelling the shoes immoral?? F--k no.
Yes, there are people with gambling problems. So call me immoral when I drag my home made poker table and box of Costco chips to the next Gamblers Anonymous meeting trying to spot games... Until then.....
Now if I could find a way to swap my golf and bowling scores, then I might actually enjoy the b!tch...
|
|
|
|
Ltrain
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 514
|
|
This thread reminds me of an animation short I saw once where a man in a druid cloak and walking stick goes to a stone idol and asks what is the meaning of my life. The idol comes to life... and eats the man.
Poker, with all its angles (learning the skill, luck, trying to gain an edge, the rake) is a microcosm of the real world (getting an education, job opportunites and business cycles, use of technology for efficiency, taxes). If poker is immoral, then the real world is immoral. Also, making a "moral" judgment is a metaethical decision that something is displaying characteristics of being either "good", "bad" or a mixture of both. It also implies a judge exists to make the decision. Is there anyone other than a being with omnicient powers (i.e. god) that is really qualified to make this metaethical judgment?
If someone sits at a poker table and plays, I am going to play by the rules with the options available to me to take their money and they will do the same regardless of our race, color, gender, nationality, criminal record, beliefs, family heritage, the identity of our parents, who we "know", where we went to school or any other factor other than the rules and the plays we make. In this context and setting aside morality, poker is actually more "fair", "pure" and is more of an "equal playing field" than the real world.
|
|
"Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. Then you are a mile away, and have his shoes." - Anon.
|
|
sarbox68
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: wondering where the 3 extra chairs at my 6max table came from
Posts: 871
|
|
STONEIDOLEATINGMANLOLAMENTS! 
|
|
|
|
acesn8tz
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: tokyo
Posts: 15
|
|
This topic has surprised me. I don't think that playing poker however you do it, for entertainment or for a living, is immoral. I kinda liked Zooks point about wanting to give something back, ie, producing something of inherint value for society, but I don't think being a professional poker player and being a productive member of society are mutually exclusive.
I guess my take on it is that the people you are playing are all playing by the same rules. Regardless of their skill they have decided to sit down and wager money on a game of skill and chance. To refuse to let adults make their own decisions about how they want to spend their time, to me sounds immoral.
The only time I feel bad about playing poker is when I have taken time away from my family, and that is my fault, not pokers.
|
|
|
|
mbiz
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Orstraya
Posts: 178
|
|
i think the point is kinda moot. there is no way to tell if they are a gambling addict using their babies food money at the table. if they said they were, you still cant be sure.
as a hypothetical if i did for a fact know that they were as described above, id just move table. if every table was full of these people, then hell, id just play. I'm not saying its morally defensible though (im not sure either way if it is or not), just that i'd do it.
but as it is, its not something i consider or think that i ever will consider.
|
|
|
|
eugmac
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 739
|
|
I missed this discussion the first time around, so bump, in case others missed it too. No I'm not going to offer my stance on the subject, apart from saying that if I had the ability to make my living solely from poker income, I probably wouldn't be able to do so without feeling empty and unfulfilled inside.
|
|
|
|
bikes
|
|
a hot damn mess
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,468
|
|
"we all have to decide how much sin we can live with"
- Nucky Thompson
|
|
"the world def needs more bikeses"
|
|
rpm
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: maaaaaaaaaaate
Posts: 2,056
|
|
epic bump eug. very interesting read. oh, and
Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
The idea that morality is some static set of truisms that we all adhere to on varying levels is probably a result of very narrow-minded religious paradigms leftover from an even more spiritually primitive time than the one we currently live in.
|
+1
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
06-02-2012, 08:10 PM Merge Network 6.0 Looks to Retain Current Player Base
Linear Mode
