|
|
#31
06-12-2005, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I voted no. I think I'd be thinking about that guy the rest of my life and it just ain't worth it to me. I'm a winning player and I'll just look elsewhere for my game. [/ QUOTE ] I'm quite sure that you are either lying or kidding yourself. If it's the latter, I am certain that, while licking your chops, you would find a way to rationalize sitting down. That is, if the thought at all, even crossed your mind not to. You play poker to win other peoples' money. Period. 
|
|
#32
06-12-2005, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way human society (Life as far as you are concerned) is a zero sum game. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, how wrong you are!
|
|
#33
06-12-2005, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
[ QUOTE ]
A zero sum game is where the amount won by the winner is equal to the amount lost by the loser. "Most economic situations are non-zero-sum" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum (along with every damn economics course I have ever taken) Robert Wright - "society becomes increasingly non-zero-sum as it becomes more complex," [same article] I stated in my post "There is no way human society (Life as far as you are concerned) is a zero sum game." [/ QUOTE ] You are reducing the situation down to the individual. The fact that two people can both seemingly benefit(economically speaking) from the same transaction, without it costing someone, is an illusion. This is because there are systems in place designed to create this illusion. I can promise you that for every two people who are percieved to be both profiting from a given transaction, there are others somewhere else in the world that are paying the price for this to be possible. Now, it may or may not be exactly two, and it may or may not be exactly the same amount of money. But by Zero-Sum, I am not referring to the fact that an INDIVIDUAL must gain exactly what another individual loses, but that as a whole (human civilization in it's entirety), there is only one constant energy (capital). There is no extra money on the table, so to speak. It can niether be created nor destroyed. It can only be transfered from one to the other, with the process benefiting some, and costing others. If not on the scale of the individual, then as competing societies. Economists and writers that claim otherwise, are either ignoring or discrediting the big picture. There is ALWAYS cost. So the next time you mistakingly think win-win, just think of all the people around the world that have died or been enslaved (either knowingly or unknowingly) to afford such a seemingly perfect opportunity.
|
|
#34
06-13-2005, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
So the whole system of economics is a giant con, designed to fool us all into thinking co-operation is actually a good idea? Umm.
Capital can be created and destroyed. Are you saying there's the same amount of "money on the table" as there was 1605? I'd love to see the mental gymnastics you have to use to try to prove that. Anyway, Capital doesn't mean S***. It's all about Utility.
|
|
#35
06-13-2005, 04:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
[ QUOTE ]
So the whole system of economics is a giant con, designed to fool us all into thinking co-operation is actually a good idea? Umm. Capital can be created and destroyed. Are you saying there's the same amount of "money on the table" as there was 1605? I'd love to see the mental gymnastics you have to use to try to prove that. [/ QUOTE ] I'll play Devil's Advocate. Sure, you look around you and see a better world than existed in 1600. But, what about all the injustice that occurred throghout those 400 years? We wouldn't be where we are without the suffering and misery of slavery. You wouldn't be able to buy cheap clothing if some 10 year old in Bangladesh wasn't working for 50 cents an hour. If millions of people hadn't died in all the wars over the years, we wouldn't have the political structures available to ensure our current prosperity. Not to mention the fact that sure, perhaps human society has actually advanced, but what about non-human society? What about all the aspects of nature that have been destroyed or forever altered so that we can enjoy SUVs and plastic? I think it's something to think about, anyways.
|
|
#36
06-13-2005, 04:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Important edit to post
Its not parsitic, it is predatory. There is a difference.
|
|
#37
06-13-2005, 04:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
Think about the question: would you ruin someone's life for profit? Thats beyond disgusting. Its the same question. In Telling lies and getting paid, there's a story about a high-stakes backgammon player who played the tournament director of a backgammon tournament for a lot of money. He busted the guy, only to learn that the money was actually the prize pool of the tournament. The TD tried to committ suicide, almost throwing himself out of a window. The high stakes backgammon player talked him out of it, even offering to forget the whole thing. This made the TD feel even more terrible, so the backgammon pro said "ok, so you'll owe me and you can send me occassional payments" Would you sit in that game with the TD if you knew that when he lost, he would pay you, but also might kill himself?
|
|
#38
06-13-2005, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
Its more like saying "If a troubled child challenged you to fight to the death, and you knew you could kill him, would you accept the challenge?"
There's no kill/be killed dichotomy here, because you can always decline. So saying "he'd do the same to me" just doesn't cut it as an answer. However, lets someone who looks like a wealthy businessman challenges you to a match, and you think you are a good favorite. He wants to play for 100k, and you can afford it, so you say yes. You play your best, and are able to beat him, even though he wasn't as poor a player as you thought. Afterwards, you find out the 100k is everything he has. Now, taking it becomes more justifiable, because you didn't know he wasn't actually a wealthy businessman, and also, if he had won, he certainly wouldn't give you a rebate.
|
|
#39
06-13-2005, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
[ QUOTE ]
Would you sit in that game with the TD if you knew that when he lost, he would pay you, but also might kill himself? [/ QUOTE ] This isn't as easy as the first scenario for me. If a guy is willing to sit down and lose all his money to me, I'll take it every time. However, knowing someone will likely commit suicide if they lose would make it extremely difficult for me to play against them. Is it bad that I am really on the fence on this one?
|
|
#40
06-13-2005, 04:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
[ QUOTE ]
Think about the question: would you ruin someone's life for profit? [/ QUOTE ] What limits do you play? If you think you have never taken the last of a person's money at one point or another you are probabaly wrong. Even if you didn't take it all HU, you are still apart of the system that may or may have not ruined someones life.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
