Your worst downswing experience? - Page 14

it reminds me of something wobbly said a long time ago. i think they're both really similar... the postfight discussion will be entertaining.

On November 28 2012 11:27 RaiNKhAN wrote: Show nested quote + On November 28 2012 11:23 wobbly_au wrote: i played mostly ring and 6max~ People claim your a slight favourite and who doesnt want the best possible deal? who says marshall is a slight favorite besides the eager degen mipwnya? I am hard-pressed to say NO_ONE besides him would take marshall as a favorite in this bet unless you admitted to being a meth addict DIE

lol in my first betting proposition I stated that marshall was a small dog and was betting my $800 to whoever's $1k. But I'd bet at even odds just cuz I wanna bet on that real bad (u got the degen part right lol)

On November 28 2012 09:08 MARSHALL28 wrote: + Show Spoiler + Show nested quote + On November 28 2012 08:35 Loco wrote: I can prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that you do not have free will, in the sense that most people think about it, i.e. making choices consciously and being responsible for who we are and what we do. But I don't think you'd want to realize this, would you? So you should probably turn me down on that, unless you want to deal with the cognitive dissonance that would ensue. And we can know certain things' relationships to other things... it wouldn't be true to say we can't know anything at all. there u go again assuming i have some sort of fear of the truth? do u even read what i write? im always searching for the truth and im always changing as a person based on what i discover. i don't fear what empowers me. i believe it was descartes' argument from dreams that posed the problem of what we can actually know. 'i think therefore i am' came about because of that i think. there are two schools of thought on this, the rationalist and the empiricist. i am an empiricist because if i cannot even trust my senses, i might as well be going through the world never learning anything. i need something to base everything else off of. it seems u might not have that issue. u might think this is a flaw in my own personal philosophy. i don't know. i'm not sure i can know. what i am damn sure of though is that i have a choice to be proud of who i am or to hate who i am, and the times ive chosen to hate myself are the times i've gone through the most turmoil and worst times of my life. if it's as simple as choosing 1 or the other, which it seems to be ... well ... obviously ill choose the former. i have a 4 year degree in philosophy ... all of the major thinkers have tackled this fundamental question and never before has there been a definitive right answer yet you are claiming to have it? ... im aware that during brain surgery a surgeon can activate movement in certain limbs based on sending an electrical charge to certain parts of the brain. this was a big discovery but i'm not sure it *proves* a lack of free will. me .. i think it's one of those yin and yang type things. both can be true based on how the observer frames the situation .... but go ahead, i challenge u to prove it if u think u can.   It makes sense to you. Just like their own assumptions made sense to them and were logical deductions from your words. It doesn't protect you against bias. The only protection against bias is to be completely detached, completely objective about things, which is done in philosophical and scientific investigation, and rarely in discussions which tend to be more emotional than otherwise. yes i absolutely agree, none of us are really ever free from some form of bias. the difference is, it was never my intent to make any negative comments towards them while they went out of their way to do so about me. im done talking about this ..it is exhausted.   You can know what you've gone through, not what they've gone through. Major difference. If they have different characters from yours then you cannot logically assume to know their intents and the state of their lives (being miserable) by projecting what yours would be like if you held their views and opinions with your own character, which is what you're actually doing and it is pretty easy to observe. actually i can know because regardless what my character was, if i were to assume their views, i would constantly need to suppress myself, i would have to compromise very frequently and i would rarely get what i wanted. if my goal in life was to never cause any problems and to just happily fit in with no regard for my own needs--ya then that character would be congruent with those views. do you honestly think anyone really truly *wants* to be like that deep down? if u were like that, don't u think u would have a subconscious hatred of yourself for not having enough self respect? i know i would ...cuz like i said, i was there for quite a while. it seems pretty self evident to me that if u r actively looking to bash people on the internet who have never said anything negative about or towards you, you are likely a negative person who endeavors to hinder other peoples' enjoyment and who feeds off of creating misery in other people. this is not the way normal people act in society. if anyone wants to disagree with this i'd love to hear an argument for a well-adjusted, content person who would ever do this out of anything other than complete personal amusement. ...i may strongly dislike someone like byrnesam, and he too gets spiteful at times and he too takes things too far at times, but he obviously gets a lot of self amusement out of what he does so it's just different than someone who does it from a place of complete spite and hate.   I've edited that part about wealth accumulation but fine, whatever: just because you don't currently have the desire to play doesn't mean that the urge of gain isn't there ever. It just means you have competing desires and that right now the one to relax and do other things is winning. If you're a poker player then the urge will come back, no two ways about it. I wouldn't think you'd have a problem with this assessment and I removed it because it's pointless to even mention on a poker forum. As for the ending of your post, I have no problems admitting that; I've admitted I'm sure we are all blind, to different degrees. now it's like u r just arguing for the sake of arguing. i didn't have a problem with that, and i didn't have a problem with anything u said and obviously i am responding far different to u despite u being someone who took a shot at me previously.. you approached this situation differently this time, so i will discuss things in a respectful manner.

I'm not in the mood to respond to every paragraph and keep this drawn out discussion going on... it's not very important. Just this one thing: "actually i can know because regardless what my character was, if i were to assume their views, i would constantly need to suppress myself, i would have to compromise very frequently and i would rarely get what i wanted." This proves my point. You can't know because you mistake your character and desires for theirs, you say "I would need to suppress myself and compromise and rarely would get what I want." It's like you project your "alphaness" onto the "beta" and figure out you'd hate yourself. But the "beta" isn't you, so it doesn't work, you can't assume that they are miserable because you would be, because they aren't you, they don't have the same character and needs to fulfill to feel good about themselves.


As for the free will debate, it has been closed by science. I don't know how far ago it was that you took philosophical studies, but there is no doubt about it anymore with science. The only thing that isn't closed is whether or not free will is compatible with determinism, which is the position of compatibilism, which is held by some reasonable people, but the free will they defend isn't the free will that we speak/think of normally. In both cases, pride can be seen as being a very silly thing, a delusion. Of course there will always be delusional people who want to say they have complete free will and it was a gift from God and blah blah blah, but that doesn't mean the topic isn't closed about its truth, and the same goes for evolution. And obviously I'm not saying "it's wrong" to be prideful and we shouldn't feel it, I'm just saying it's silly that we can feel that way and we can't help but laugh about it when we know the truth about the matter.

I'm not sure how you would wish to proceed, because I can't turn this thread into a free will debate; so I suppose I will bump my old thread on this later and you can debate it with me there.

If Marshall was down 120k instead of up 120k the last three months, I wonder how his attitude would be different...
One could say a similar thing about Wobbly, but I don't think he's nearly as short-term oriented as Marshall.

Anyways, keep it up faggots. This shit is entertaining as fuck.

nvm

I think hes right in the fact that loco is a negative person tho, dont denie yourself I am too

He didn't say I was a negative person. Though I'll grant you that I'm negative in a sense about certain things, all of which I believe are justified and defensible, e.g. our current practices being unsustainable and destroying the planet and we're fucked and such things. I'm not pessimistic for the sake of being pessimistic but because it is informed by reality. But the thing is, I don't spend my time degrading others to make myself feel better, which I'm pretty sure is what he was talking about when he mentioned those guys as being negative. I'm very critical online in general, it's true, because the net is well suited for that and all, but I tend to be a pretty playful/joyful person irl, and I don't shit over people for no reason or to feel better about myself either online or offline.

Marshall I bumped the thread here.

[QUOTE]On November 28 2012 09:08 MARSHALL28 wrote:

i believe it was descartes' arguments...
i have a 4 year degree in philosophy ...


Finally a use for a philosophy degree! Besides using it for toilet paper. The perception that you're adding some substantial heft to your internet arguments about why the way you are is the right way.

i miss the old loco vs baal threads.

On November 28 2012 14:30 Target-x17 wrote: I think hes right in the fact that loco is a negative person tho, dont denie yourself I am too

I think Loco has been really positive and pretty awesome lately. Remember that sick post he had in that thread about the guy looking for his brother who was taking heroin. Mm, good shit.

Marshall makes it interesting, even though he's clearly a bit of a newb online (Internet savy was the word that came to mind, he just looks at the words, not the meaning). He's missing most things, but I think he's confident and all douchebag like irl (just guessing, maybe he's a saint, cunt or a runt, I dunno lol), and if that floats his boat, who are we to tell him to act and do differently, as long as he ain't hurting anyone xD

Wobbly Pobbly lol

Ps, Vandermeyde, I bet my roll on Wobbly for half your roll on Marshall, gogo xD ?

All this drama and the match hasn't happened yet....wtf