I hate poker. - Page 3

On December 28 2006 12:00 pinbaLL wrote: Tillerman quote: Show nested quote + Poker is about as close to soulless as you can get. I am cursed with being good at it!

WHUT CAN I DEW?

On December 28 2006 12:03 Fraser wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 11:17 Fraser wrote: In life there are a million and one ways to win and lose, financially, socially etc... Poker is just one of them, although admittedly the wins and losses in poker are more explicitly defined than most. Some wins and losses we cant control (disease, earthquakes, whatever), poker however is a voluntary competition. People have the freedom to make their own decisions, and thats all you can give them. In the end, if a person is self-destructive theres no way you can protect them from themself without taking away their freedom, and at the same time, their humanity. You can help a single person, or maybe a few people, but you cannot protect all people from themself. If there was no poker, no gambling at all, people would still lose, still die, still make bad choices. If we're going to stop competition in poker where do you suggest we draw the line? i hate to quote myself, but i wanna hear where ur answer.

I dont think it we can realistically stop the self destructive from doing what they do. But is it morally wrong to enable them? You say poker is voluntary, it is, but I think compuslive gamblers arent really voluntarily gambling.

On December 28 2006 12:00 pinbaLL wrote: Tillerman quote: Show nested quote + Poker is about as close to soulless as you can get. I am cursed with being good at it!

meh i'm going to go to bed and wake up a little further from heaven i guess since i'm not going to quit poker tonight

On December 28 2006 12:07 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 12:03 Fraser wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:17 Fraser wrote: In life there are a million and one ways to win and lose, financially, socially etc... Poker is just one of them, although admittedly the wins and losses in poker are more explicitly defined than most. Some wins and losses we cant control (disease, earthquakes, whatever), poker however is a voluntary competition. People have the freedom to make their own decisions, and thats all you can give them. In the end, if a person is self-destructive theres no way you can protect them from themself without taking away their freedom, and at the same time, their humanity. You can help a single person, or maybe a few people, but you cannot protect all people from themself. If there was no poker, no gambling at all, people would still lose, still die, still make bad choices. If we're going to stop competition in poker where do you suggest we draw the line? i hate to quote myself, but i wanna hear where ur answer. I dont think it we can realistically stop the self destructive from doing what they do. But is it morally wrong to enable them? You say poker is voluntary, it is, but I think compuslive gamblers arent really voluntarily gambling.

as mentioned before by someone, degenerate gamblers who can't afford to lose make up a small percentage of the fish

On December 28 2006 12:05 kantoiki wrote: I dont actually understand how in purchasing something like a lottery ticket, or sex from a prostitute for that matter isn't the purchase of a form of entertainment?

In its purest sense they arent. Realistically I think there is a big difference between buying a dollar lottery ticket and logging onto PS and sitting down with several hundred even a few thousand dollars.

On December 28 2006 12:09 kantoiki wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 12:07 Maynard! wrote:   On December 28 2006 12:03 Fraser wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:17 Fraser wrote: In life there are a million and one ways to win and lose, financially, socially etc... Poker is just one of them, although admittedly the wins and losses in poker are more explicitly defined than most. Some wins and losses we cant control (disease, earthquakes, whatever), poker however is a voluntary competition. People have the freedom to make their own decisions, and thats all you can give them. In the end, if a person is self-destructive theres no way you can protect them from themself without taking away their freedom, and at the same time, their humanity. You can help a single person, or maybe a few people, but you cannot protect all people from themself. If there was no poker, no gambling at all, people would still lose, still die, still make bad choices. If we're going to stop competition in poker where do you suggest we draw the line? i hate to quote myself, but i wanna hear where ur answer. I dont think it we can realistically stop the self destructive from doing what they do. But is it morally wrong to enable them? You say poker is voluntary, it is, but I think compuslive gamblers arent really voluntarily gambling. as mentioned before by someone, degenerate gamblers who can't afford to lose make up a small percentage of the fish

Even if its not a degenerate gambler we are taking advantage of a working man who is sitting down with a big percentage of his expendable income. He has no idea that he has close to 0 chance of winning or holding onto his money.

lol u have to be kidding fish take my money all the time.

On December 28 2006 12:07 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 12:03 Fraser wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:17 Fraser wrote: In life there are a million and one ways to win and lose, financially, socially etc... Poker is just one of them, although admittedly the wins and losses in poker are more explicitly defined than most. Some wins and losses we cant control (disease, earthquakes, whatever), poker however is a voluntary competition. People have the freedom to make their own decisions, and thats all you can give them. In the end, if a person is self-destructive theres no way you can protect them from themself without taking away their freedom, and at the same time, their humanity. You can help a single person, or maybe a few people, but you cannot protect all people from themself. If there was no poker, no gambling at all, people would still lose, still die, still make bad choices. If we're going to stop competition in poker where do you suggest we draw the line? i hate to quote myself, but i wanna hear where ur answer. I dont think it we can realistically stop the self destructive from doing what they do. But is it morally wrong to enable them? You say poker is voluntary, it is, but I think compuslive gamblers arent really voluntarily gambling.

do cigarette companies have a moral obligation to put the welfare of their clients before their own livelihood?

On December 28 2006 12:14 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 12:07 Maynard! wrote:   On December 28 2006 12:03 Fraser wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:17 Fraser wrote: In life there are a million and one ways to win and lose, financially, socially etc... Poker is just one of them, although admittedly the wins and losses in poker are more explicitly defined than most. Some wins and losses we cant control (disease, earthquakes, whatever), poker however is a voluntary competition. People have the freedom to make their own decisions, and thats all you can give them. In the end, if a person is self-destructive theres no way you can protect them from themself without taking away their freedom, and at the same time, their humanity. You can help a single person, or maybe a few people, but you cannot protect all people from themself. If there was no poker, no gambling at all, people would still lose, still die, still make bad choices. If we're going to stop competition in poker where do you suggest we draw the line? i hate to quote myself, but i wanna hear where ur answer. I dont think it we can realistically stop the self destructive from doing what they do. But is it morally wrong to enable them? You say poker is voluntary, it is, but I think compuslive gamblers arent really voluntarily gambling. do cigarette companies have a moral obligation to put the welfare of their clients before their own livelihood?

Many would say that selling cigs is morally wrong.

On December 28 2006 12:12 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 12:09 kantoiki wrote:   On December 28 2006 12:07 Maynard! wrote:   On December 28 2006 12:03 Fraser wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:17 Fraser wrote: In life there are a million and one ways to win and lose, financially, socially etc... Poker is just one of them, although admittedly the wins and losses in poker are more explicitly defined than most. Some wins and losses we cant control (disease, earthquakes, whatever), poker however is a voluntary competition. People have the freedom to make their own decisions, and thats all you can give them. In the end, if a person is self-destructive theres no way you can protect them from themself without taking away their freedom, and at the same time, their humanity. You can help a single person, or maybe a few people, but you cannot protect all people from themself. If there was no poker, no gambling at all, people would still lose, still die, still make bad choices. If we're going to stop competition in poker where do you suggest we draw the line? i hate to quote myself, but i wanna hear where ur answer. I dont think it we can realistically stop the self destructive from doing what they do. But is it morally wrong to enable them? You say poker is voluntary, it is, but I think compuslive gamblers arent really voluntarily gambling. as mentioned before by someone, degenerate gamblers who can't afford to lose make up a small percentage of the fish Even if its not a degenerate gambler we are taking advantage of a working man who is sitting down with a big percentage of his expendable income. He has no idea that he has close to 0 chance of winning or holding onto his money.

In not having any idea that he has no chance of holding onto his money, does he believe he has an edge over us/ other players? If so doesn't that make his mindset similar to ours? In that we play believing we are better and while we play or at least while i play i am being entertained? The result of losing or winning doesnt' affect the entertainment had on the way, although it does take away or add to the overall enjoyment of playing.

thank you for smoking
interesting movie

On December 28 2006 12:16 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 12:14 Ket wrote:   On December 28 2006 12:07 Maynard! wrote:   On December 28 2006 12:03 Fraser wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:17 Fraser wrote: In life there are a million and one ways to win and lose, financially, socially etc... Poker is just one of them, although admittedly the wins and losses in poker are more explicitly defined than most. Some wins and losses we cant control (disease, earthquakes, whatever), poker however is a voluntary competition. People have the freedom to make their own decisions, and thats all you can give them. In the end, if a person is self-destructive theres no way you can protect them from themself without taking away their freedom, and at the same time, their humanity. You can help a single person, or maybe a few people, but you cannot protect all people from themself. If there was no poker, no gambling at all, people would still lose, still die, still make bad choices. If we're going to stop competition in poker where do you suggest we draw the line? i hate to quote myself, but i wanna hear where ur answer. I dont think it we can realistically stop the self destructive from doing what they do. But is it morally wrong to enable them? You say poker is voluntary, it is, but I think compuslive gamblers arent really voluntarily gambling. do cigarette companies have a moral obligation to put the welfare of their clients before their own livelihood? Many would say that selling cigs is morally wrong.

the vast majority wouldn't. in the modern world morality is defined by the mass opinion

addiction is hard to define.......
new studies are suggesting that food is addtictive to the obese in much the same was as crack is addictive to crackheads.

On December 28 2006 10:45 Maynard! wrote: We're constantly in the pursuit of money. We are mindless soulless zombies trying to maximize every edge we have against the degenerate gambler who is gambling with his rent money. Everytime we bust someone for a buyin we will put them in a bit of a financial bind. He will curse his life. He will turn around and punch his kid in the face or his wife in the gut. Do not lie to yourself and say that this does not happen. That we only take from those who can afford it. As we only see the money online in terms of buyins, our victums see it in terms of rent. Are we better than them because we can sit down and calmly play 8 tables all day losing or gaining thousands of dollars and not really caring? No we are worse, we are fully cognizant of our actions but persist in the pursuit of money. When a friend or family member asks you how you make money, do not tell them the truth that you are soulless. Lie to them and make up a job. At least then they wont see us for what we truly are, the scum of the earth.

I stacked your mom last night

did she punch you?

This dude is obv a beggar that spends his spare change trying to grind nl5.

EDIT: And doing very poorly at it.

On December 28 2006 12:05 bigbb33 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 12:00 pinbaLL wrote: Tillerman quote:   Poker is about as close to soulless as you can get. I am cursed with being good at it! WHUT CAN I DEW?

LOL

On December 28 2006 12:27 4gotmepass wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 10:45 Maynard! wrote: We're constantly in the pursuit of money. We are mindless soulless zombies trying to maximize every edge we have against the degenerate gambler who is gambling with his rent money. Everytime we bust someone for a buyin we will put them in a bit of a financial bind. He will curse his life. He will turn around and punch his kid in the face or his wife in the gut. Do not lie to yourself and say that this does not happen. That we only take from those who can afford it. As we only see the money online in terms of buyins, our victums see it in terms of rent. Are we better than them because we can sit down and calmly play 8 tables all day losing or gaining thousands of dollars and not really caring? No we are worse, we are fully cognizant of our actions but persist in the pursuit of money. When a friend or family member asks you how you make money, do not tell them the truth that you are soulless. Lie to them and make up a job. At least then they wont see us for what we truly are, the scum of the earth. This dude is obv a beggar that spends his spare change trying to grind nl5. EDIT: And doing very poorly at it.

just like you then

^^^^^ I dont do poorly u azz, I just dont play 4 real unless i got no skool.

I really feel absolutely no guilt.

If they don't lose their money to me, they'll just lose it to some other gambling outlet. It's their problem, not mine.

I do, however, feel like I contribute nothing to society. Which is why I'm planning on doing a lot of volunteer work once I get up to 10/20 (3 levels up).

I also hate poker, but not for the reasons you mention. I hate it because it's incredibly boring to me, but I'm still forced to do it every day.

On December 28 2006 11:30 PoorUser wrote: i was unaware that eri had opened a second account

oh please regardless of how i feel about poker i'd never make a thread on a poker forum about how bad it is for society and for people playing it or whatever
:D

nor would I judge poker players.