Why are most poker players liberal?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd guess what you're talking about is more a function of academia in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. The more you learn, the more likely you are to be liberal. Hmm...wonder why that is?

(You're also more likely to be agnostic or atheist, but that's another matter entirely.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo as the classical definition of liberal, yes, but not necessarily liberal as in the bastardized version the Left uses. If you look at acadamia you will notice one thing that everyone has in common. They all are either funded by the US government or grant money. Basically their entire livelihood is from the US government. Since they get their paychecks from the US government, they do not get paid very much when compared to their talents. Also on college campuses, the gay and lesbian community tends to flourish (not to mention sex in general).

Now, look at the Left, what do they push as an agenda? The main issues are abortion, gay rights, big government, and everyone works for similar pay regardless of your talents.

Coincidence? I think not.

The whole smart people = Left people arguement is a joke.

Why don't you pole the most successful people on the planet in every category and look for trends there.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
If you look at acadamia you will notice one thing that everyone has in common. They all are either funded by the US government or grant money. Basically their entire livelihood is from the US government.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about private schools?

And my logic applies just as much to students as faculty. I was very conservative until I got to college - but 4 years of business school and 3 years of law school opened my eyes, encouraged critical thought and dramatically changed how I view the world. I would imagine (and hope) that others experience similar things while living the academic life. Nothing is as nice as your primary responsibility in life being learning something (or some things).

[ QUOTE ]
Now, look at the Left, what do they push as an agenda?

[/ QUOTE ]

That people have a responsibility to their fellow man, and that if we have the material wealth, then we should ensure that all of us have a basic level of food, health care and other necessities of life.

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you pole the most successful people on the planet in every category and look for trends there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define success. It's only when you define it monetarily that you can possibly reach the opposite conclusion - and then you're looking at a group that, by definition, considers the acquisition of money and wealth to be of the upmost importance. The other group - the one we're talking about - considers the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom to be of the upmost importance.

I consider Albert Einstein to be a lot more successful than Bill Gates. Mother Teresa was infinitely more successful than George W. Bush. The latter two, however, are exponentially more wealthy in a financial sense.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, look at the Left, what do they push as an agenda?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That people have a responsibility to their fellow man, and that if we have the material wealth, then we should ensure that all of us have a basic level of food, health care and other necessities of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. I know that sounds cold hearted, but I spent a considerable amount of time in some really bad parts of cities. I was amazed at how many people there were that would rather spend 3 hours begging random people for a single cigarette than a full day working for my boss doing manual labor and getting a decent pay. Give everyone the opportunity to succeed in life, not the basic necessities. Freebies don't help anyone. If they can't help themselves, then they will only drag you down with them. It's called natural selection. It's cold, and it's harsh, but it's a part of life. That doesn't mean we can't provide safety nets though


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you pole the most successful people on the planet in every category and look for trends there.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Define success.....

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Every category means every category. Look at trends in income/party favor, scientific achievements/party favor, business success/party favor, etc. There are lessons that you learn in the real world that you cannot learn in Academia. Weve had numerous threads on this topic. One of which even Ray Zee posted in.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Bingo. The more you learn, the more likely you are to be liberal. Hmm...wonder why that is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Universities are overwhelmingly biased towards strident liberalism from the top down. Please note I didnt say all but most are. Students are indoctrinated at a time in their life when they are just starting to think about who they are. They are force fed a daily diet of liberal agenda with little exposure to opposing views. Those that take to it most are those that tend to return as professors. Its a vicious cycle that leads to your implied argument, Liberals=Smart, Conservatives=Dumb. Two words for you, ivory tower.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, look at the Left, what do they push as an agenda?[ QUOTE ]

That people have a responsibility to their fellow man, and that if we have the material wealth, then we should ensure that all of us have a basic level of food, health care and other necessities of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The devil is in the implementation, though.

If you believe you have a responsibility to your fellow man, and therefore decide to donate some of your material goods, money or labor to him or her, well, bravo to you. If however you decide that you should also FORCE all others to act as you do, that is where your philosophy has become totalitarian.

To take an couple examples from the past:

Jesus preached that we should give to the poor, but he did not suggest that we should force others to give to the poor.

In a different vein, Gandhi preached non-violent resistance, but he did not preach forcing others to employ non-violent resistance.

Deciding that you will give to charity is an admirable thing.

Deciding to force others to give to do good as you see it is overstepping your moral authority. In this sense it is not much different than the religious Right trying (through politics) to force you to into doing what they deem to be good.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

ivory tower
n.
A place or attitude of retreat, especially preoccupation with lofty, remote, or intellectual considerations rather than practical everyday life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahhahahaa..... Yup, I know alot of people who live in ivory towers.

[IrishHand]

You can use the same logic about every function of government. Every government is tyrannical to some degree - it's the nature of government.

You have a government, ideally their policies and laws comform to the will of the people. Citizens who object to those policies can either leave or voice their objections and seek to change things through established mediums.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You can use the same logic about every function of government. Every government is tyrannical to some degree - it's the nature of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but it appears to me there is a fine yet important distinction: laws which aim to prevent people from doing harm to others are in a different category than laws which aim to force people to do good to others.

Our constitution is based primarily on the principle of preventing harms and abuses, rather on the idea of mandating "good" actions.

On a less macro level, legislating that it is a crime to rob somebody is different than legislating that it is a crime to not give alms to somebody.

Practically speaking, too, laws which seek to prevent the infliction of harm on others are generally less intrusive and less capricious than laws which seek to enforce "good" behavior.

[Cyrus]

"Why are most poker players liberal?"

When I started reading (and participating in) the Other Topics forum, I was struck by the seeming prevalence of stubbornly and arbitrarily held pro-Bush positions, posted by the majority of posters here. I thought, if this is indeed an Advantage Players' forum, there seems to be a clear discrepancy between their thinking when it comes to poker and when it comes to politics.

You could say that poker is far more important than politics. And you would be right! Which would leave the thinking of those pro-Bush advantage players pretty much alright, after being properly weighed between politics and the important stuff...

I must say that the occasional John Feeney post or a long Chris Alger diatribe (usually drawing extreme abuse, which was even more puzzling) did not alter my view on the posters here: good poker thinking, Neanderthal politics.

But then came some polls on political affairs, which drew out of the woodwork the "silent majority" of lurking poker players and the liberals stomped their way to Other Topics supremacy. Alright! No more discrepancy! I started to read this forum for something beyond appearances: The real Advantage Players are mostly lurking here, observing the "table". They are lurking in order to watch erroneous thinking in action, to experience "players" on extreme tilt (and identify key words and phrases inducing it), to learn about verbal back-and-forth, etc. Yes, that must be it. My faith in 2+2 was restored.

...But wait a minute! This makes those people who post here more or less on a regular basis the rubes, the suckers, the marks of this “game”. One of whom is, ouch, ouch, me!

Poobah and carpal tunnel my ass. This sucks.

[ACPlayer]

Considering that liberal is now a pejorative which means I dont agree with this person and therefore he is a liberal, and that conservative now means -- i know i am right and therefore I am conservative, i therefore submit that most poker players would call themselves conservatives and not liberals.

I further sumbit that those poker players who call themselves liberal are the only ones who have figured out what they are and are willing to be labelled with this pejorative sigifying either bravado or true conviction.

After seeing the defense of this administration as being conservative which is indefenisble by traditional conservative values (fiscal and monetary discipline, America first and Civil Liberties) I am forced to conclude that people call themselves conservatives because it is now fashionable to do so.