Death Penalty Article

Now this is something I could get behind. I think if 2+2 wanted to get more political, it would get more support & credibility if it focused on gambling issues. Keeping online poker legal should be a top priority for anyone who makes good money in that arena, even if the math isn't as "obvious" as Sklansky's believes for the death penalty issue. There won't be much support from the poker community to rally around unrelated causes, even assuming the public would care about anything we had to say. But I suspect there could be /substantial/ participation if we worked to inform everyone of upcoming gambling legislation and could offer a unified voice.

Not all of us will agree on controversial issues, even if the math is good. But I'm sure we can all agree that we love poker and want to keep the laws on our side.

[ QUOTE ]

How about doing something relevant to 2+2's sphere of influence and reason for existing? You could lead a campaing to oust Arizona GOP Senator Jon Kyl (the pathetic asswipe leading the charge to get Internet poker banned in the U.S.). You could write intellectually sound yet accessible dissertations to discredit the anti-gambling extremism of the religious lunatics and the PC thugs who constantly [censored] up your country. In concert with my second suggestion, you could also propose and get passed ballot initiatives and legislation to liberalise gambling laws in the U.S at the local, the state, and the federal level, remembering that anyhing done by Washington, Beijing, or Moscow tends to be followed by other regimes in the world, for good or for ill.


[/ QUOTE ]

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Can people confirm that I'm not seeing things? Have a really just read an article about refinements to the death penalty in a POKER magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where was it claimed that this a "POKER magazine"? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ZenMusician]

I find it amusing that the couple of posters here who state
their disapproval for this type of article are being ignored
while the lemmings continue to fellate and discuss it.

I guess only BVT has the stones to defend his reasons for his
articles instead of replying only to those that blindly
perpetuate discussions that belong in OT.

Can I send in an article about how to create a very believable
fake id for next month's mag?

-ZEN

[TaintedRogue]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that the couple of posters here who state
their disapproval for this type of article are being ignored
while the lemmings continue to fellate and discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the whole situation amusing. I wouldn't go to a bar to get advise on a marital problem, or my barber to get the best facts on real estate prices, or my dentist for my latest stock investment choices.

I go to thoses places for specific purposes. We chat about various subjects, but we don't take each others comments as the golden recommendation.

When I open a poker magazine, I open it for 1 purpose only: to find articles on poker, hidden between all the advertisements.

I think the article was nothing more than a "Look at how well informed, intelligent and articulate I am"

[ QUOTE ]
I guess only BVT has the stones to defend his reasons for his
articles instead of replying only to those that blindly
perpetuate discussions that belong in OT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto

[ QUOTE ]
Can I send in an article about how to create a very believable fake id for next month's mag?

-ZEN

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you may. Mine will be on chosing the right chili receipe for your Super Bowl Party. If that goes over well, I'll consider a detailed accounting of the effects of the destruction of the rainforest.

There would be a lot of math in both.

[RJT]

Btw David, I think your idea of writing about various issues is a good one. Best wishes.

An Open Letter to the Two Plus Two Community:

David Sklansky’s piece regarding the ‘Two Plus Two Death Penalty Initiative’ is a thoughtful treatise using logic and probability to tackle a complex societal issue. Justice is problematic, as David is right to note; I have no desire in debating a scenario that has faced humanity for thousands of years, especially one upon which philosophers from Hammurabi to Aristotle to Hobbes to Barzun – along with literally thousands of other notables, as well as most all common men who have had the privilege to pursue free thought - have commented. I do, however, take issue with David’s notion that the Two Plus Two membership should channel their energy to obtain political goals under the name of Two Plus Two.

David ignores the reality of American politics by proposing that Two Plus Two opine on societal issues. In the United States, where specialization and particular expertise are valued more than in most societies, the public will not take seriously a think-tank composed of winning poker players – a group which, albeit talented, has no sensible connection to the social good that will be understood by the general public. Such endeavors foster resentment in the United States; those who succeed in one arena and try to channel that success into a ‘social steering committee’ are often seen as self-righteous know-it-alls who have little business commenting on things which, according to public perception, they know little about. Resentment fosters division and division fosters conflict; a think-tank based on pure intelligence is a recipe for failure.

Evidence of further misunderstanding can be found in David’s incorrect assumption that the populace would regard Two Plus Two social opinions as “irrefutable logic that would force almost everyone to say, “Well, of course that’s right! Why didn’t I think of that before?” Sklansky must realize that many in the United States and other nations – including those non-Western – value faith over logic and reason, with that faith guiding political and moral decisions. The beauty (and for some, the bane) of faith is that it requires no logic or proof; belief suffices. No matter how logical and rational David’s argument may be, those guided by faith will not be convinced. The guidance provided by faith on social issues – the death penalty, abortion, etc. – often trumps the most sound logic. Whereas the post-Enlightenment West has prided itself on reason, it has also provided freedom to those who would rather be directed by belief and conviction.

David has succeeded in determining that winning poker players are, as a whole, a group of very intelligent individuals; I need not list the names of respected professionals who have also made an indelible mark on business, scholarship and the arts as well as poker, nor need I list the names of the hundreds of talented players with whom I have played and fraternized over the last few years. However, intelligence and logical superiority are simply not valued in politics to the degree which David seems to believe; if that were the case, our leaders both political and religious would be chosen with a premium on intelligence, which is only a small component of desirable leadership, and one that, given the proper circumstances, can be unnecessary altogether. This extends to demonstrations of logic and numerical evidence; if the American people – largely an innumerate populace, compared to the Two Plus Two membership - valued graphs, charts and statistics, the public would demand successfully that men like Ross Perot and Bill Gates lead our nation.

One defies the reality of modern American behavior when one thinks that a country filled with people who mismanage credit card debt, rent when they should buy, buy when they should rent, and finance and refinance under unfavorable terms will grasp without reservation a terribly complex (when one includes factors such as upbringing, prior opinions/experiences and a whole host of other forces) social argument based on logic and probability. For those of us who understand and utilize daily the science of gambling, we may be sympathetic to an argument proposed in this style; unfortunately for David, we don’t represent the general populace of any country, especially the United States.

If the editors of Two Plus Two want to pursue political action, I recommend that they form a partnership with an existing group and encourage dual membership, although such a relationship would likely dilute the overall effectiveness of both communities . If Two Plus Two forms a think-tank that is made solely of Two Plus Two members, it must be promoted without any association to the Two Plus Two community. Two Plus Two is a successful community that must remain focused on its original mission to advance gambling/poker and related strategy; any offshoots of Two Plus Two must at least be bridged with actions smaller in scope that lead eventually to an independent body with its own legitimacy and identity. Any other course will hinder the work to which so many of us have dedicated ourselves over the years.

MK Tabor
mktabor@gmail.com

[felson]

This is not my personal view. But opponents of the death penalty might rationally choose to oppose David's proposal if they feel that its rejection significantly increases the chances for a complete ban of the death penalty. They would be choosing ultimatum over compromise.

I have as much interest in hearing David Sklansky talk about the death penalty, as I do in hearing Sean Penn talk about the War in Iraq. Seriously, this sort of garbage falls from the same tree as Hollywood 's incredible narcissism, and Bono's decision to behave like a world leader worthy of a seat at Davos to blather on about all issues relating to poor people in the third world.

PS David--since you have evidently figured out the precise definition of "shadow of a doubt", please tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I've been thinking it's 4.8, but since you are the authority on quantitative analysis, I know I can count on you to correct me by 1 or 2 significant digits.

[David Sklansky]

"PS David--since you have evidently figured out the precise definition of "shadow of a doubt","

I'm not going to debate this subject until I find out more about whether it is alrady in the criminal justice system. But the above comment was so stupid that I had to chime in. Because juries are already expected to make decisions beyond a "reasonable doubt", an imprecise term that they are given some help with. Similarly for a new term like shadow of a doubt.

[miami32]

While I was in college my law teacher actually gave beyond a reasonable doubt a percentage as along with all other forms of guilt for other cases and forms of law. Is this not the norm?