Is being pro ethically wrong? Of couse not you communist!

[McBluffin]

Hello,

Let me introduce myself. I've been a professional online poker player for about a year now. I have chosen this way of life because I love it and the money has been ridiculous. However, I've always considered myself a bit of a philosopher and a ladies man. Apparently, I’m also a liar (see previous sentence). So now I'd like to write about an issue that has been troubling me. So, here it goes.

Is it ethically wrong to play poker for a living or even for a profit? My natural reaction is to scream NO! and bitch-slap the nearest person to my right. However, after contemplating the issue I think I have a better way to present my case.

First let’s start out with why it might be wrong. You (For the rest of this paragraph when I say “You”, I’m assuming “You” are a winning player) are sitting down with inferior poker players and taking their money with your superior skill. Taking money from someone is harming them and therefore could be wrong. You are causing everyone at the table to win less or lose more. You are just as evil as the casino. You are occasionally playing against addicts that can not help themselves. You are contributing to the destruction of that addict’s miserable life.

Feeling defensive yet? Now I will attempt to answer this question and also prove that if you disagree with me, then you must be a communist scumbag. Now I could go into how we are all supposed to be competent adults and all have a fair chance because we are all put under the same conditions. However, I think it’s a lot easier to understand if you think about poker players as their own little business.

Going with this business concept, let me pose a little “real world” situation. Let’s assume that you open a flower shop in a small town where there is only one other flower shop that is run by a little old lady. It doesn’t really matter what the business is, it could be hardware, software, or even sex toys. Hmmm… I like that idea! Ok, I’m changing the shop to be sex toys. Now is just so happens that you are damn good at selling sex toys. You are so good that you run the little old lady out of business. It’s not your fault that she’s better at using her toys then selling them. It’s just the nature of CAPITALISM! (I used all caps, get it!) So, if you think that running her out of business is wrong, then you must believe capitalism is wrong. So I will therefore assume you are a communist. This really makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Corporations all around the world are just as ruthless as a poker player can be.

There is still one more aspect of this that I would like to talk about. The addicts. They seriously can not stop themselves. They are often in a state of desperation and you are fleecing them. Doesn’t that sound wrong? Well, even if you’re not a communist it might make you feel a little guilty. Kinda like that time you farted in class and blamed it on the fat kid.
It might make you feel bad to take an addicts money, but quite frankly, it’s just not your fault that they have a problem. It’s also not your responsibility to stop them from hurting themselves. In reality, you couldn’t stop them even if you tried. The only thing that is going to stop them is hitting rock bottom. So you’re arguably doing them a favor by speeding up the process. Going back to the business concept, keep in mind that restaurants/bars will give alcohol to alcoholics and nobody blames them.
In conclusion, if someone tells you that what you’re doing is not fair or even wrong, call them a communist and bitch-slap them, they deserve it!

[Wake up CALL]

I would have chosen this choice:

No, and I'm amazed someone so stupid is literate.

Except you wrote several hundred words in a single paragraph with comingled thoughts,so scratch off the literate portion.

[lefty rosen]

Is being a pro an different than being a bar owner? How many lushes do you have to serve everyday knowing that they are sick addicts? But yeah I see some of the craziest chases and calls that are beyond even stupid play/ weak play. So you know the grey matter of your opponents brain is fried..........

[McBluffin]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have chosen this choice:

No, and I'm amazed someone so stupid is literate.

Except you wrote several hundred words in a single paragraph with comingled thoughts,so scratch off the literate portion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communist. Oh and by the way, if your going to insult my literacy I suggest you spell commingled with to m's.

[fnurt]

The point is more that a professional poker player, unlike someone who manufactures goods or provides a service, adds nothing to society. The only thing you provide is an opponent for people who want to play poker, and the fact is, they would be just as happy (probably happier) to play against unskilled opponents rather than you. The only person providing a needed service in this context is the one operating the card room.

I have nothing against professional poker players by the way, I offer this point only for its intellectual value! I do think it has relevance in the context of whether gambling income should be taxed by the government, as I think it would make little sense to tax productive activities while giving gambling a special status, but that is a separate issue.

[McBluffin]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is more that a professional poker player, unlike someone who manufactures goods or provides a service, adds nothing to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually considered writing about not adding any value to society in my orginal rant, but didn't due to length/laziness. However, I do think that I add value to society. How so? Maybe not as obvious as a doctor, but I generate a lot of money for a lot of people in society. The card rooms/sites make almost $2000 a month in rake off me. I spend alot of my profits on all sorts of goods and services. I'm helping the economy. Many people in society value this. Although I will concede that I do not add as much value as a doctor. But I don't really care about not adding value to society. Not adding value isn't wrong. Would you consider someone who is poor and unemployed to be doing something ethically wrong?

I hope this doesn't come across as me attacking you.

[El Dukie]

I'm picking "no," but primarily because I don't agree with calling anyone who disagrees with you a Godless Commie. And I just feel like being a contrarian.

The truth is that if we don't play poker, we're letting the terrorists win!

[Terry Funk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have chosen this choice:

No, and I'm amazed someone so stupid is literate.

Except you wrote several hundred words in a single paragraph with comingled thoughts,so scratch off the literate portion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communist. Oh and by the way, if your going to insult my literacy I suggest you spell commingled with to m's.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's funny "Wake Up Call" nitpicks grammar and he can't even get his own spelling straight.

And Wake Up Call is a stupid commie. His ignorance and belligerence on these boards are more humorous than anything.

[balkii]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have chosen this choice:

No, and I'm amazed someone so stupid is literate.

Except you wrote several hundred words in a single paragraph with comingled thoughts,so scratch off the literate portion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communist. Oh and by the way, if your going to insult my literacy I suggest you spell commingled with to m's.

[/ QUOTE ]

And uh... by the way, if your going to insult HIS literacy I suggest you spell 'two' with a W between the 'T' and the 'O.'

[McBluffin]

[ QUOTE ]
And uh... by the way, if your going to insult HIS literacy I suggest you spell 'two' with a W between the 'T' and the 'O.'

[/ QUOTE ]

hehe, opps.

[Mike Gallo]

Dude,

You have too much time on your hands.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me introduce myself. I've been a professional online poker player for about a year now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your a professional yet. I believe there has been other post on this subject

[LargeCents]

For me, poker income seems similar to the types of jobs where you earn tips. I mean, you can't make much at waitressing or stripping, unless you perform at exceptional levels. The same could be said of poker: playing the highest limits, providing lots of action, etc. So, poker players that earn a living on their skill are basically performing a service at an exceptional skill level. By the way, if I am at the table, and you toke the dealer, toss a chip my way also. I've earned it! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

--Cents

[tolbiny]

You asked an ethical question and supported it with a economic answer. You haven't explained why comunism is "bad" and why capitalism is "good". Also your sex toy store anecdote was off topic and not well discussed. Would you consider it alright to outcompete the little old lady by hiring thugs to fire bomb her store at night? As far as economics goes that might be the best way to do this, but it doesn't address at all the ethical side of the equation. It is very easy to scream loudly that capitalism is good, its not, its a system that in and of itself is neutral. How you run that system and how it affects people's lives is how you should interpret right and wrong.
and as a side note, communism was a hell of a lot better sounding an idea to 50 million starving peasents in russia because, well considering the prevous 1500 years of rule there it was a better idea.

[bwana devil]

Oh, and by the way

[ QUOTE ]
if your going to insult my literacy I suggest you spell commingled with to m's.


[/ QUOTE ]


"your" should be "you're"

[DVO]

Let me get this straight.

In terms of ethics,

1) a system in which citizens must succumb to the government's wishes in terms of every day life

and

2) A system in which people are mostly free to make their own choices (capitalism)

Are both ethically 'neutral?'

[Scotch78]

First, let's separate communism from the nationalist (USSR, China, etc.) and despotic (Cuba) governments that call themselves communist. Under a true communist political system more decisions (that directly influence the individual) will be made by the government than under a democratic-capitalist society. However, under a true communist government (as under a true democratic one) the people are the government.

Second, the citizens of democratic, communist, nationalist, and despotic governments are all free to make their own decisions, strictly speaking. Some will have more or less options to choose from, thus limiting their freedom, but you mentioned succumbing to the government's decisions. So in respect to obeying another person's decisions, how do these governments compare to each other? Well, they all expect their citizens to obey the laws and punish individuals who don't. What varies are the specific laws and the punishments. First, the punishments: Americans tend to assume that "communist" countries give harsher punishments. Since there's no fun to be had if we're wrong, let's assume we're right--are more stringent punishments ethically wrong? I'll come back to that one after we all agree on what the correct punishment is for every misdeed and design a system to quantify each government's distance from the ideal. For now I'll just skip ahead and assume, like my fellow Americans, that "communist" countries penalize more actions. Again, there's no discussion if we're wrong, so for the sake of argument let's assume we're right. Well, what should and should not be punishable under law? More quicksand . . . hmm . . . get the picture yet?

However, if my fellow Americans are searching for a way to demonize foreign governments, here's a simpler argument:

1) Every individual has a right to govern himself.

2) Imposing a decision on an individual without his agreement violates his rights.

3) It is ethically wrong to violate an individual's rights.

4) "Communist" governments violate the rights of individual citizens more often and more severely than democratic-capitalist governments.

Therefore:

5) "Communist" governments are morally wrong.

Scott

PS For the non-philosophers out there, that slice of swiss cheese at the end is a sarcastic piece of bullshit.

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this straight.

In terms of ethics,

1) a system in which citizens must succumb to the government's wishes in terms of every day life

and

2) A system in which people are mostly free to make their own choices (capitalism)

Are both ethically 'neutral?'

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how capitalism is freedom where communism isn't. i would put capitalism in category 1, in your description.

i'm certainly not free, under capitalism (which is more of a descriptor than a 'system') to do many things. and just about every other thing that i am 'free' to do legally, i cannot just choose to do, because those things cost money (and are, therefore, not free). i an choose many different ways to spend my money once i have it, but my poverty will have a severely limiting effect on the choices i have in front of me, just like communism.

also, a good portion of the money i 'earn' in capitalism is taken from me by the government and used to pay for things i would never approve of if i was asked directly, nor would i have much choice in the matter of who gets to choose. if everybody thought (and voted) that i should give up even more of my paycheck to the government so that senators could eat caviar from the crotches of virgins, i would have no say in the matter.

i think 'capitalism' and 'communism' are closer than any of us would like to admit. capitalism as we practice it, and communism as it has been practiced, are both imperfect imitations of the ideal systems those terms represent.

anyway, to the original poster: why are you rambling? what made you think this post was significant or relevant or needed? you did a horrible job of applying the concepts of your argument to the original question, which you posed. you set yourself up and still failed to deliver.

btw, i don't think there's anything wrong with taking money from people in a poker game. i play to win. those people are out to take my money, so what is wrong with me trying to win theirs? if you are responsible enough to lay down a bet at my table, then my moral culpability for your financial success goes out the window.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Taking money from someone is harming them and therefore could be wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget for a moment what it felt like when your mother poured hydrogen peroxide on an infected cut, because I'd like to assume that it's wrong to hurt someone. Stealing, aka "taking someone's money", is hurting him in the same way that a) kicking him in the balls, b) divorcing him, or c) telling 5-yr old him he can't have the new X-Box because mommy and daddy don't have the money, is hurting him. If you picked a), stop reading. I learned long ago never to argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. If you picked b), Congratulations! you're the poster boy for materialism. If you picked c), volunteer for Toys for Tots. And if you picked d) Thou shalt not steal, please reread your bible and find me the part where it says "because it's wrong".

And if you made it this far, here's the next question: playing poker is "taking someone's money" in the same sense that a) picking his pocket, or b) selling him a massage, is taking his money.

[ QUOTE ]
You are occasionally playing against addicts that can not help themselves. You are contributing to the destruction of that addict’s miserable life.


[/ QUOTE ]

This little gem is like one squirt of Lysol in a port-o-pottie, then it's right back to the bullshit. Accepting responsibility for those unable to do so for themselves is a great example of morality, but the converse is a lot harder to prove, namely that it's immoral not to accept responsibility for those unable to do so for themsleves. So while I'd agree with you that an ethical poker player should be very careful taking (too much) money from a gambling addict, I can't agree that a poker player is unethical for treating the addict like every other fish.

Scott

[Scotch78]

The economy grows every time money voluntarily changes hands. As to whether society grows from a specific monetary transaction . . . since when was economics about the non-fiscal advancement of society?

Scott

[nothumb]

I don't think everyone who is against playing poker for money is a Communist. Ask John Aschroft. Or Osama.

NT

[gcoutu]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is more that a professional poker player, unlike someone who manufactures goods or provides a service, adds nothing to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does a professional athlete or actor provide to society? They make lots o money and for what, entertainment. Poker is really entertaining. Seems fine by me. Hey, alcohol and cigs are legal and bad for us, but as grown adults we can choose to endulge or pass. I choose to indulge in poker. I think my only moral duty at the table is to play within the rules.

[tolbiny]

anyway, to the original poster: why are you rambling? what made you think this post was significant or relevant or needed? you did a horrible job of applying the concepts of your argument to the original question, which you posed. you set yourself up and still failed to deliver

I can't decide if this is to me, or the original poster- So i will assume (after rereading my post) that i very well could be to me, and answer.
I had difficulty collecting my thoughts as i had a fantastic date that ended not long before i posted, Ain't it wierd how being happy can make it impossible to concerntrate while being mildly depressed is very condusive to creativity and constructive thought.
Here's to being distracted for as long as possible

[tolbiny]

You are misinterpreting what capitalism and communism are. They are simply economic ideas, which can be applied in many different ways. Two examples:
When unions were first forming in this country corporations would hire "strike breakers" who would literally go into the pickitting crowd and BEAT them untill they broke the strike. Moral?
A dozen or so people are straned after a shipwreck on an island with limited resouces, they agree that for all of them to survive they should all pool their resouces and share the food and water they collect. Immoral?

A communist country could (thoeretically) have a democratically elected government in which people's rights were preserved as much as possible, and a capitalist society could have no laws and whoever had the most money/was willing to do anything to gain and maintain that status would end up the most powerfull.
Neither economic system cares about morals, that is why we set up governments to place limitations to protect individuals rights.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is more that a professional poker player, unlike someone who manufactures goods or provides a service, adds nothing to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly does a professional athlete or actor provide to society? They make lots o money and for what, entertainment. Poker is really entertaining. Seems fine by me. Hey, alcohol and cigs are legal and bad for us, but as grown adults we can choose to endulge or pass. I choose to indulge in poker. I think my only moral duty at the table is to play within the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you failed to quote the part of my original post which addressed this. Sure, you are providing an opponent for people who want to play poker. But they'd be just as happy to play against a bad opponent. I'd pay more to watch a good athlete, or a good actor, but by being a good poker player you are not bringing anything extra to the table.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]


hehe, opps.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'll give you clever points and say this was intentional

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
anyway, to the original poster: why are you rambling? what made you think this post was significant or relevant or needed? you did a horrible job of applying the concepts of your argument to the original question, which you posed. you set yourself up and still failed to deliver

I can't decide if this is to me, or the original poster- So i will assume (after rereading my post) that i very well could be to me, and answer.
I had difficulty collecting my thoughts as i had a fantastic date that ended not long before i posted, Ain't it wierd how being happy can make it impossible to concerntrate while being mildly depressed is very condusive to creativity and constructive thought.
Here's to being distracted for as long as possible

[/ QUOTE ]

good for you man. seriously. glad to hear it.

but what on earth about my post could make you think i could possibly have been referring to you?

[tolbiny]

"but what on earth about my post could make you think i could possibly have been referring to you?"

I am very happy, and therefore slightly paranoid right now. When i am miserable i ain't paranoind at all. Also i just wanted to tell everyone i got me a woman, its been like 3 years since the last time i was really excited to say that.

'course its only been three dates... but F it, im gonna be happy.

[Blarg]

I responded after reading only down to the place I quoted below, then saw you that as you expanded your argument, you actually incorporated my objections(which are the common objections to the bit of quoted logic below) as to your faulty premise detailed below. There was a bit of schizophrenia here!

[ QUOTE ]
Taking money from someone is harming them

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect building block in your argument there, so you can't come to a correct conclusion.

First, plenty of people just play recreationally and don't care if they lose. And play at levels where it doesn't matter if they lose. People are not necessarily always harmed whether they win or not.

Second, if they are losing, nobody has greater control over their money than they do. Especially since poker is a game wherein study can make a huge difference in your ability to turn a profit, playing anything less than a good game is either to be expected while building your skills or something you accept and take full responsibility for, or both. Either way, assigning blame to someone other than the losing player is a way of diverting it from where it belongs. You can't dodge the bullet or the blame on losing poker.

Third, if people are both losing and being harmed because of it, there are two valid arguments that both lessen the moral impact of that on anyone else involved. A) someone definitely will take the money if I don't, and B) people on a downward path to personal harm or self-destruction are not helped by postponing and prolonging the shock to their system it takes to get them to wise up and change their life, but often helped by getting to that rock bottom shock point as quickly as possibly so they can make a friend of reality instead of denial as soon as possible and get on with rebuilding their lives. It's better for someone to be, say, a maniac for four months instead of four years. At the end of four months, he might still have a family, a job, and plenty of hope and future left. Enabling someone's doom to go easy on them so their decline just drags out forever could mean they've got nothing left inside to come back with or nothing left or have had time to completely ruin their lives and have nothing to come back to.

So to sum up, if there is blame to be assigned at all, which is not necessarily the case, first of all it should go squarely on the shoulders of the person who chooses to potentially harm himself; and secondly, the harm that comes to that person is inevitable, and it is probably preferable that it comes harshly and as soon as possible to shock the person perpetrating his own doom upon himself back to reality quickly, before greater harm is done.

[ohiou]

[ QUOTE ]
First, let's separate communism from the nationalist (USSR, China, etc.) and despotic (Cuba) governments that call themselves communist.


Agreed, especially in a conversation that centers on "ethics". One must separate theory and practice for this type of discussion.

BTW: I can't believe I even responded to this in the first place as if the initial post was somehow groundbreaking or thought provoking

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing you provide is an opponent for people who want to play poker, and the fact is, they would be just as happy (probably happier) to play against unskilled opponents rather than you

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily true. Pros at games always have people who either want to play them for the pleasure of being in the same game as them or to indulge the fantasy that they might have a few good memorable moments in the game or even beat them and have something to crow about for the rest of their lives.

Besides, part of the attraction of the game, especially playing against unknown opponents, is precisely that they are unknown and anything can happen. That's what gambling is all about! Not a negative. I'd say that in a live casino, at least, only 5% or so of the people there are really there to maximize their money, so most people wanting to play against less skilled opponents just doesn't ring true. Not to mention all the people saying, I have to move up limits -- I can't beat these bad players!

As far as services providing nothing -- obviously people are willing to pay both you and the hosting casino for playing poker, so perhaps they're the best judge of whether the service provided is worth something. They're paying for it after all -- and that's proof enough that a valuable service is being provided.

What good does going on a ferris wheel ride provide? Mere entertainment, soon over. Same as poker. Poker can easily be at least as entertaining for many people.

I think it's too easy to assume what value is for other people. Lots of us love what others can't stand, and vice-versa. I don't care how good the signing is at Chuck E. Cheese myself -- I don't even want to walk in the door.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
'course its only been three dates... but F it, im gonna be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent!

[ZeeJustin]

Long story short, I think the world would be a better place if more people did what made them happy rather than worrying about pleasing other entities (people, family, society, god, the government, etc.)

[Zele]

Good point.

My real motive for replying is that I just figured out what your avatar is. Man, was that sad.

[BrettK]

[ QUOTE ]
Long story short, I think the world would be a better place if more people did what made them happy rather than worrying about pleasing other entities (people, family, society, god, the government, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yours is by far the best post in this thread, ZeeJustin.

Communism and Socialism attempt to stamp out Individualism in favor of the notion that it's far more important to be concerned with every other person on the planet than it is to be concerned with yourself. They reward incompetency with ultimate equality. They bring economies to grinding halts once populations lose the desire to advance. They completely destroy the will to live.

Let's not talk about systems that are theoretically sound unless we also talk about people that are theoretically fitting to such systems. Joe Communist wakes up every morning, steps lightly over his twenty roommates, goes to work after accepting and consuming his goverment-rationed and government-selected meal, works his government-appointed hours, receives his government-issued check, and returns 'home', where he spends a few hours each night thinking about how better to serve his 'brothers and sisters' before going to sleep. Rinse, repeat, and die.

Do such people actually exist? Everything that is advocated for by these systems goes against human nature. Self-loathing, loneliness and shame are prevalent as every person in the country accosts himself for daring to want or to enjoy or to live. If this is happiness, I'm the most miserable bastard on the face of the earth.

Brett

[fnurt]

I know plenty of people from socialist countries. They have a will to live.

You are fooling yourself if you think your post is any less idealistic than the systems you criticize.

[Anadrol 50]

fnurt,

What countries do the people you know live in ?

[ZeeJustin]

Never Ending Story =)

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the world would be a better place if more people did what made them happy rather than worrying about pleasing other entities (people, family, society, god, the government, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a term for people who behave this way. It's called sociopath.

[Blarg]

BrettK, it sounds like you get your ideas of other people and other countries from a John Birch Society comic book.

[BrettK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the world would be a better place if more people did what made them happy rather than worrying about pleasing other entities (people, family, society, god, the government, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a term for people who behave this way. It's called sociopath.

[/ QUOTE ]

A sociopath is an anti-social person. What Zee describes is not anti-social behavior, but the behavior of a person whose individualism is his fulfillment. There's a marked difference between indifference and disdain.

Brett