ever consider your position as a winning gambler?

what do you think about the fact that as a winning poker player you comprise much of your income from people with legitimate gambling problems. ever question the morality of your trade?


Ex: after taking a guy for like 800 heads up.
snowboardr21: this is fuucked
Dealer: snowboardr21, it's your turn. You have 15 seconds to act
seannolan: WHAT IS
snowboardr21: i really needed the money
snowboardr21: im not gonna make rent

who cares? I got no empathy for retards, its like feeling sorry for someone who is a fatass. STOP FUCKING EATING how hard is that.

Their have been numerous threads like this before, I can hardly wait to see the same basic arguements and refutes ensue.

this is such a thinly veiled brag for being a winning gambler and taking 800$ off someone hu

On May 15 2007 17:11 DaEm0niCuS wrote: who cares? I got no empathy for retards, its like feeling sorry for someone who is a fatass. STOP FUCKING EATING how hard is that.

pretty damn hard?

"stop eating so much" would be more reasonable i guess

Put down the fork FACE!

Don't play heads up. Or play someone heads up who has money. That way you wont be specifically targeting one person who will taunt your conscious afterwards. I realized that a lot of bad shit happens to me in life too that is unfair so I kinda of use poker as a way of balancing things back into my favor. I do think about this a lot at it affects my motivation to play sometimes as well. Everyone has problems in life and if you go around thinking about it all the time I think your gonna have a very unhappy life.

For example: If you see a bum on the streets starving and have no home are u going to donate a house and food to him? If not he might die the next day and you could have done something about it. As long as you are winning the money legitimately there should be no moral regrets I think. If you didn't take the money someone else probably would have. It's not like they are unaware that they have a chance of losing all their money. They assume that responsibility when they play not you. When you lose money at the table who the hell is gonna feel bad for you? If you lost 800 bucks that could have been a new laptop for you right there. Whoever u are daemonicus, you probably should seek some help.

I don't care, it's their choice to gamble, if it gets them into trouble it's their own fucking fault. Fuck 'em all. Yea.

If i dont take their money, someone else will. The degens are adults capable of making on decisions/seeking help etc. Maybe this argument isnt morally flawless but it atleast helps me sleep at night.

I dont give a shit at all, except for if I notice some guy who loses a LOT. Then I feel a little bad, and keep taking his munnies!

http://www.liquidpoker.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128743

this thread will be a carbon copy

wow it is as well.. even including op thinly veiling a brag about winning monies hohoho

i never feel bad. there are 2 options. Either villian is bankrolled for the limit he is playing or he isnt. If he is who cares if u win $$ of him, its the whole point of the game, and option 2, if he isn't rolled for the limit it's even better, because he didnt get his teeth kicked in enough to learn so it might as well be u who take his $$ than someother gamer.

^^ thats how i feel about poker.

* would like to add, if its a family game or non poker playing (just friends) then we play low stakes so who cares who wins anyways. In fact in family fames or like super small buyin sit n go with friends who dont play full time, i play my best but im actually happier that one of them wins than me. Dono thats how i feel.

Aside from not cheating or doing something else otherwise illegal/against the rules of the game, I have no moral obligations to random degenerates. Thus I don't care what happens to them thanks to my winning their money.

why feel bad? its their problem. fuck them their fault.

i have no sympathy for crack fiends either their fault for doing it, no sympathy for a lot of people actually. hmm im pretty unsympathetic.

On May 15 2007 17:11 DaEm0niCuS wrote: who cares? I got no empathy for retards, its like feeling sorry for someone who is a fatass. STOP FUCKING EATING how hard is that.

QFT

i always ask if they can afford losing before i call with the nuts

no ive actually never thought about it, guess i dont really see my opponents as real people

Doesn't bother me at all, and even if I played a stake at which I could take someone's rent money it wouldn't bother me.

eh im microlimit cant take much from one person so i sleep well.
If pokersites doesn't care, we as people have no control.

It's really not so different from any other competitive aspect of life, is it?

Would you feel bad that you won vs someone in a qualifier for some tournament (in whatever sport/game)? He might have invested alot into this and might lose a lot of money as a result of you beating him (let's use starcraft as an example: when you beat someone in the semi-pro license tournament, it means he won't be able to get picked up by a pro team and recieve a salary but will have to keep on waiting for another month.. should you feel bad?).

Or if you beat someone in the yearly Go professional exams, you might crush his or her dreams of going pro (especially brutal here as I believe several of these tests have an upper age limit..). Yes, I realize these are not exactly everyday examples but I'm interested in both these 'sports' so I choose them to demonstrate my point =]

Would you feel bad that you got the job you were applying for over everyone else, simply because you were more qualified/got lucky?

I dunno, I don't think you can function as a human being in our society without being able to deal with these things as they are inherent to pretty much every competitive aspect of life - someone has to lose. And in some cases, losing has serious consequences.

In the end, they choose to play poker, just as you did. It's no more your fault that they go broke than it is your fault that you got the job due to higher qualifications IMO. Maybe them not getting the job will lead to them losing their house and family, you can't know that and you can't feel responsible for it or you'll go insane.

I recently played some $1/2 live in Reno last weekend, and this issue sort of peaked its way into my thoughts..

Some guy was at the table, and he looked pretty fucked up (not drunk/high, just "fucked up" ). He was ~35 or so, had a wedding ring on, and some sort of maintenance worker shirt on with his name on it ("Richard", if anyone is curious). Anyhow, he dumped well over $1,100 in about a two hours. The only reason it took that long was because he made periodic stops to the ATM/cashier. He was pulling out checks and what-not. The weird thing was that he was a nice enough guy, and wouldn't get all belligerent and loud when his gutshots kept missing. But it was clear that he couldn't afford losing $1k on a regular basis as a blue collar worker in Reno.

It dawned on me that if there are people like this who go outside, and walk to the casinos to blow their rent, imagine the people who are just sitting at home on their computer? I'm not saying anyone should think twice about finding any +EV spot they possibly can (I would personally punch a baby in the face for a free hamburger), I'm just saying that I'm aware. Yes, there's the whole "someone's gotta take it!" mentality -- which is true -- but don't fool yourself into believing that you're not in some way contributing to some other person's fucked-up ass addiction..

I think we are doctors who are able to cure some of the degenerates, there is no better way to find out you have a gambling problem when you wake up the next day without your rent money, that has got to be a wake up call...

if they dont lose it to you, they'll lose it to someone else.

nuff said

so by this logic, selling crack as equally morally correct.

On May 15 2007 20:33 nolan wrote: so by this logic, selling crack as equally morally correct.

Im not the one offering the dope, its there with or without me

thats how life is, sharks eat fishes... not in poker but in a very big variety of bussinesses.

hmmm i should have scammed hansen 1300$, anyways someone else would have done it

i dont like this logic much -.-

but yea these degenrates will gamble no matter what so better be you that takes it.

If they are that retarded, they deserve whatever is coming

its not their fault if they are retarded, they didnt choose to be born retards.

There are laws to protected childrens because we know they arent fully mentally ready to take decisions(its illegal for them to gamble). But once grown up, some of them remain stupid and make retarded decisions in life.

On May 15 2007 20:33 nolan wrote: so by this logic, selling crack as equally morally correct.

good analogy.....

if u actually feel this way go ahead and quit, no one's stopping u

I think TianYuan covered it

A fool and his money are soon parted...... and it doesn't bother me.

Btw, I think I deserve some sort of charity award for my massive "downswing".

Being broke is hardly the worst thing that can happen to you... You and me know that even if we find ourselves on the street with nothing, but the clothes on our back, we will make it. Because we've mastered ourselves to some degree. We are financially independant, because we are abe to win money, not because we have them. Those "poor people" will always be financially dependant, even if they have all the money in the world, because they can't take care of themselves.

We can't really hurt those people more than they hurt themselves even if we wanted to.

Alright, why don't we tackle world hunger while we're at it? After lunch we can do poverty.

It's Chris Moneymaker's fault, not mine.

It bothers me a bit. Its the same deal within any commercial sector though, if you look at any big company trying to sell products they are often trying to sell it to the people who don't really have the money for it. We're selling a good time, that sometimes this isn't worth it for our clients is part of this. There are very few ways of making money where you can really say what you are doing doesn't hurt anyone. For example professional athletes are often the reason of riots between fans, usually sponsored by companies that are involved in shady business (that would be just about any multinational), but does this mean a person with passion for football should put this aside because he is potentially harming other people? These are tough questions.

There are boundaries for everything and everyone has to decide for himself whether poker crosses these lines. Often you hear people saying it is not a respectable job because you take money from others that might have gambling problems. I usually shrug this off because most of them are saying this out of jealousy and incapability to do the same, without them even realizing it. Put them in a situation where they actually are making lots of money and maybe things will change. Guys of whom I know they would be good at poker but still choose not to do it I really admire, other people pursuade careers in sectors purely out of selflessness and the will to help other people. Those people are real heroes, in the meanwhile we continue to work on improving our lifes.

A person often is the product of his environment, and degenerate gamblers and other people losing their rent money always have a story to tell. If some guy had to go into the army and came out of it as a complete psychotic maniac ending up abusing his kids or something worse, who are we to say that it is his fault? Even though to a certain extent everyone is responsible for the route they take with their lifes it depends shitloads on what situations you have encountered in your life, and this is often none of your control. Someones capabilities or IQ is as much in their hands as is the place where they are born.

its not their fault if they are retarded, they didnt choose to be born retards. There are laws to protected childrens because we know they arent fully mentally ready to take decisions(its illegal for them to gamble). But once grown up, some of them remain stupid and make retarded decisions in life.

That's about what I mean. We have social welfare, health insurance and all those things because not everyone is equally capable (not a choice). Not everyone equally capable of resisting to gambling or drugs and even though in the case of drugs this is often a physical thing, also someones mental state is not a choice by any means. This does make me wonder about poker sometimes because it wasn't their choice not to be capable. If you want to be financially succesful or independent like Beast puts it you're going to find yourself in a lot of borderline situations and I hope we're smart enough to do the right thing when needed.

I think that especially in poker there are very few real degenerates, unlike in some other games like roullette or blackjack. Or at least in poker the degenerates are actually also the ones that are good at the game. It seems to me that this might be because poker is a skill based game so this makes it way easier to resist for the degenerates without a clue. Most of the people who go broke on poker are actually those who are good at it (I'd say this accounts for 95% of the people that go broke on this game). Sharks going broke, I honestly don't feel bad about that at all. But at the same time this is also the danger of a skill game being played for money. This means that people who have achieved some remote success will overrate their own skills and think they have an edge whenever they play.

Anyway this became longer than thought.

Live casinos are fucking awsome coz theyre just filled with degenerate gamblers and you can feel the life tilt in the air as they throw more money at the table games and slots.

There has to be some kind of natural selection. In my opinion it's no good to help this kind of people - if they were naturally born stupid we can't really expect their children to be super intelligent. It's a spiral down.

thats retarded

On May 16 2007 13:27 Nazgul wrote: thats retarded

assuming you're not gonna make it... would you rather die trying or be babysat for life?

i like nazy's post, but i don't think 95 percent of people who go busto at poker are sharks by any means. Maybe at your stakes. But in general dont you think it's a lot less?

On May 16 2007 13:45 Fraser wrote: assuming you're not gonna make it... would you rather die trying or be babysat for life?

It almost seems as if you're suggesting all these people don't *try*. That's not how things such as social welfare work. They are there for the people who are trying but simply cannot make it on their own. Also, what if someone is born so mentally weak, i.e. retards, that he will never find the opportunity to get a job. Should we just let them be and see how faith is gonna treat them? What if it is your kid and you aren't rich?

It definitely isn't like I'm some sort of saint and I don't pretend to be, but I do realize that there are lots of people out there less FORTUNATE (yes we are.) than us. And some of them do need help, this is appliccable as much to poker as it is to society.

So let's imagine your mother was a very good person, helping others all her life etc, and she finally found some guy with some genetical disease. But he was so good, loving etc that they finally hooked up, made a great family. They had i child too. And now you sit there in a wheelchair, your left arm is missing and you can't even make it to the toilet before you pee yourself. Aren't you gratefull for your mother's kindness?

It's not everyone should have a chance, really. You want to be responsible if this dude who would have commited suicide if you hadn't helped him now freaks out again and takes not only his life, but say 20 others, of innocent people? Maybe kids even?
What if this bum you so want to help abused his family all his life and now when he has finally got kicked out and got what he deserved, you're going to help him? While maybe his children and wife suffer hunger?

And please stop being hypocritical.

No need to argue over it. I'll agree to disagree with you np.

On May 15 2007 20:17 KingKory wrote: I recently played some $1/2 live in Reno last weekend, and this issue sort of peaked its way into my thoughts.. Some guy was at the table, and he looked pretty fucked up (not drunk/high, just "fucked up" ). He was ~35 or so, had a wedding ring on, and some sort of maintenance worker shirt on with his name on it ("Richard", if anyone is curious). Anyhow, he dumped well over $1,100 in about a two hours. The only reason it took that long was because he made periodic stops to the ATM/cashier. He was pulling out checks and what-not. The weird thing was that he was a nice enough guy, and wouldn't get all belligerent and loud when his gutshots kept missing. But it was clear that he couldn't afford losing $1k on a regular basis as a blue collar worker in Reno. It dawned on me that if there are people like this who go outside, and walk to the casinos to blow their rent, imagine the people who are just sitting at home on their computer? I'm not saying anyone should think twice about finding any +EV spot they possibly can (I would personally punch a baby in the face for a free hamburger), I'm just saying that I'm aware. Yes, there's the whole "someone's gotta take it!" mentality -- which is true -- but don't fool yourself into believing that you're not in some way contributing to some other person's fucked-up ass addiction..

While there are people addicted to gambling on the internet, those playing poker are the great minority. Most addicts goto the casino for the rush and even then the addicts there in the poker room are no where near to those on the slots, craps, etc. The addicts who are pissing away everything are in it for the action and big score, not the nightly grind. I'm not saying this with lack of experience in live rooms, I've been putting in many hours live for about 3 years now.

Being on the internet there isn't much we can do. If a problem gambler sits at my table, I'm not going to stand up just because he is a problem gambler. I'm not contributing to his addiction either. If I get up, someone is going to take my seat. If my table breaks, he/she will get on another list. If the poker room shuts down? You'll find them at the craps table.

Point is, don't try to stick me with contributing to someone elses problem because I share a hobby they abuse. If I stake them, I'm contributing. Playing at the same table with them isn't contributing, nor is targeting them.

If you really feel that you are contributing, I would suggest next time you're at a casino it'd be your obligation to the let the floor manager know. They'll often act on it. Obviously you feel like you're contributing to their problems so it'd seem its almost your moral obligation. I personally don't think I'm contributing to it at all, so I obviously would not.

Yeah doing something about it on the poker table is useless. If you say something about it before they're broke they will punch you in the face, if you leave others will take their money. It is part of the game we like to play. There are also guys who waste their childhood trying to become a pro football player without proper odds, what are you gonna do about it?

If you want to contribute you should do so outside of poker. You can't send money back to a guy like that because they will ask you next time again and again and eventually you're not only not helping them but you are also not doing yourself any favors with it. You could send an email about this chatlog to the pokerroom, they will usually contact the guy and see if they need to permanently close his account. Try emailing pokerstars telling them you're addicted and never want to play anymore, I guarantee you you will never use that account ever again.

If someone is retarded enough to play poker for money he needs for his rent I won't care the least for him. Maybe if he has a real gambling problem or something, but if he's a non-mentally-retarded person and believes that he should be allowed to handle money I won't give a shit about him.

Also, I'm sure that I'm not the only one here that can see a lot of resemblance between the things some tilt monkeys says about us and what the evil kids from our childhood told us. Only, now I take their money instead of getting my ass kicked. It feels good, and if someone thinks that this makes me a bad person then I believe that he has a basic flaw in his ability to judge etic matters.

edit: I have, however, one or two times told tiltmonkeys to quit when they've lost a buyin or two to me on tilt-stuff, but that's only when I like the person.

Why do people always assume that what they are good at is the most important thing in the world? Someone said earlier about natural selection, and that shouldn't it weed out the thick people. Not only is that a comical basdardisation of Darwinism, but it is effectively eugenics. You are one sick twisted selfish fuck.

Of course you hurt people who can't afford it when you take their money; and it is obviously wrong in an idealistic sense. The question is simply whether you care enough. Do you care enough not to mug old ladies? - you'll probably get away with it; do you care enough not to tell someone they've dropped their wallet? do you care enough not to buy diamonds? or coca cola? whether you care enough not to play poker is somewhere on this continuum, so it only depends which side of that your tolerance for your own selfishness lies.

I didnt read through all posts so i ll just tell u about what i think.
Sometimes it bothers me a bit.

I played some micro stake SNG the last 4 days and i made almost + 80$ out of it in just 6h ....
Lots of players played so bad that i was pretty sure they are total gamblers who have absolutely no clue what they are doing.
And i feel like i am somehow not really fair towards them in some kind of sportsmanship way.

Its like playing public starcraft 1v1 Noob games while i have the experience of 10 games every day for almost a year.

I am not playing for competition ---> i am just playing to rape noobs who are skillwise noway near my level.

Concerning the money thing i am not really bothered ...
Most important rule in Poker !!!!
Nobody should play poker with money he could not afford to lose !

If he does ... its his own fault and he deserves to be punished.

On May 15 2007 21:26 Floofy wrote: its not their fault if they are retarded, they didnt choose to be born retards. There are laws to protected childrens because we know they arent fully mentally ready to take decisions(its illegal for them to gamble). But once grown up, some of them remain stupid and make retarded decisions in life.

so using that logic nothing is anybody's fault...

Hitler isnt responsable for the jew's massacre... he was just born that way...

Bullshit.



People make choices, in bussiness, in life, in poker... if they make poor ones they will get eaten by smarter people, and its their fault nobody elses.

On May 16 2007 15:03 Oly wrote: Why do people always assume that what they are good at is the most important thing in the world? Someone said earlier about natural selection, and that shouldn't it weed out the thick people. Not only is that a comical basdardisation of Darwinism, but it is effectively eugenics. You are one sick twisted selfish fuck. Of course you hurt people who can't afford it when you take their money; and it is obviously wrong in an idealistic sense. The question is simply whether you care enough. Do you care enough not to mug old ladies? - you'll probably get away with it; do you care enough not to tell someone they've dropped their wallet? do you care enough not to buy diamonds? or coca cola? whether you care enough not to play poker is somewhere on this continuum, so it only depends which side of that your tolerance for your own selfishness lies.

It seems I'm yet to understand how natural selection works. You say we are to help the weak and care about survival of inferior skills and attributes?

The second part is simply silly. You seriously see no difference between playing a game of skill on your own will and stealing?

All I said was - If someone wants to do something, which may hurt him etc. just let him do this. It should bring more good to us all than protecting him from his own stupidity.

the problem is your assumption that being less smart makes someone inferior.

the second part says nothing like stealing is ok. i was saying that mugging gran is obviously bad, other things much less obviously, and that poker is in between somewhere. it's up to you to decide how far along the scale you are prepared to go for your own gain. nothing exonerates poker winning and makes it completely fine, or pure evil.

On May 16 2007 16:20 GsOne wrote: Show nested quote + On May 16 2007 15:03 Oly wrote: Why do people always assume that what they are good at is the most important thing in the world? Someone said earlier about natural selection, and that shouldn't it weed out the thick people. Not only is that a comical basdardisation of Darwinism, but it is effectively eugenics. You are one sick twisted selfish fuck. Of course you hurt people who can't afford it when you take their money; and it is obviously wrong in an idealistic sense. The question is simply whether you care enough. Do you care enough not to mug old ladies? - you'll probably get away with it; do you care enough not to tell someone they've dropped their wallet? do you care enough not to buy diamonds? or coca cola? whether you care enough not to play poker is somewhere on this continuum, so it only depends which side of that your tolerance for your own selfishness lies. It seems I'm yet to understand how natural selection works. You say we are to help the weak and care about survival of inferior skills and attributes? The second part is simply silly. You seriously see no difference between playing a game of skill on your own will and stealing? All I said was - If someone wants to do something, which may hurt him etc. just let him do this. It should bring more good to us all than protecting him from his own stupidity.

lol lp has its own social darwinist. You reason exactly like the facists and nazis during the beginning of the last century. Just a hint, turns out that your ideas arnt all to popular in this day and age. If you fail to see how retarded your arguments are then you might just fall in the category of ppl that acording to you are too stupid and shouldnt be allowed to reproduce.

bummer, huh?

wtf are u talking about SakiSaki... the current capitalism is voracious and eats the weak

Honestly it seems no one has any choice in life, and I agree.

Your choices are made from genetic makeup and your experiences from the time you are born, choice is just an illusion.

Taking someones money through poker: You are giving them a better chance of making money when you play them at poker than they would have at almost all other forms of money investment in the next few minutes/hours. If someone does not have enough for rent would you rather they take their money invest into stock market, savings account, race track, slot machines or give them a fair chance with poker. Few hands are 100% winners so he always has a better chance then if he ran out and bought lottery tickets.

On May 16 2007 17:01 Baal wrote: wtf are u talking about SakiSaki... the current capitalism is voracious and eats the weak

our society isnt structured in a darwinistic kind of way. Most western countries build their laws around liberal ideals about each individuals right to freedom etc and that these freedoms and a market free of restrains will lead to the most benefit for all. Not ideas that we should refrain from helping struggling/poor/retarded individuals for the greater good of the human race or because they "deserve to die".

Capitalism and the free markets dynamics might in some ways seem similar to darwinistic ideas but I think its a poor analogy. Countries have social wellfare programs to help poor missfortunate people(in some countries to a greater extent than others. USA has a habit of pissing more on poor/unemployed people than say, Sweden.), if a child is born retarded we dont leave it out to the wolves and sterelize the parents. We try to give the child and its parents a as dignified life as possible.


Its also a fact that todays society isnt really empowering evolution. The smartest most talanted people go on to have a carrers, dedicating their life to work and monies while the lower middle class/working class spit out babies like madmen.

lol liberal capitalist meritocratic socialists; whatever next?

I honestly think you should at least look up for terms like nazi, fasci and liberalism, cause you obviously missed big part of your historical education. First - fascism has almost nothing to do with nazism. Secondly - destroying something on purpose without any logical reason like Hitler did doesn't realy seem alike with letting people make their own choices (and mistakes) and taking advantage when they are wrong.

And don't really bring evolution up - it's not an equivalent of selection.

On May 16 2007 18:23 GsOne wrote: I honestly think you should at least look up for terms like nazi, fasci and liberalism, cause you obviously missed big part of your historical education. First - fascism has almost nothing to do with nazism. Secondly - destroying something on purpose without any logical reason like Hitler did doesn't realy seem alike with letting people make their own choices (and mistakes) and taking advantage when they are wrong. And don't really bring evolution up - it's not an equivalent of selection.

I have studied european history of science and political ideas/political science and political philosophy for close to two years full time on univeristy so Im pretty comfortable with all above mentioned terms. I know for a fact both nazi and fascist ideologies where inspired by darwinism and social darwinist thinkers in perticular. Im not saying that by thinking like you one automaticly gets an urge to rid the world of jews, Im just saying that justifying something morally questionable by hiding behind a natural science theory such as darwins is dumb and borderline disgusting.

--- Nuked ---

I'm pretty sure any poker player will say thats why they play. To make money off the degens/fish.
Darwinism ftw

I've never felt bad about taking someones money, never felt bad about giving someone a bad beat.
Because if the roles were reversed I'm pretty fucking sure they wouldn't give a shit about me either.

On May 16 2007 19:04 Svenman87 wrote: I'm pretty sure any poker player will say thats why they play. To make money off the degens/fish. Darwinism ftw I've never felt bad about taking someones money, never felt bad about giving someone a bad beat. Because if the roles were reversed I'm pretty fucking sure they wouldn't give a shit about me either.

QFT

Not really, I try to care and humanize the opponents occasionally just for philosophy's sake, but I simply can't muster it heheh

Any tiny level of guilt I feel for possibly taking some hobo guys money is quickly forgotten, I don't care anywhere close to enough to give up the moneymaking opportunity

subjective morality gg

Hmmmm, Just out of interest I wonder if playing poker as a winning player would be immoral from a Kantian standpoint.

Are we treating the people we play simply as a means? If so it would be considered immoral.

When we buy something we are not treating the person we purchase it from simply as a means becouse we give them something they want in return. IE:
In poker the degenerates we play against get something they want (A rush/gamble/emotional reaction) in return for the edge (Or money effectively) that Money.
they're giving up to us.

Now, The major difference between these two things lies in the fact that in the first case the thing we are giving is both desires and of extrinsic value and in the case of poker is desired, but lacking in any extrinsic or long term value.

Does the fact that what they are receiving for their money holds no extrensic value constitute treating them solely as a means?

I think it would obviously be quite easy to attack from the point of kantian ethics based on the fact that it is not universilizable. IE: It would be impossible for everyone to do so as to be a long term winning player requires long term losing players. Thus it is not possible to universalize the action of making profit by being a winning poker player, but for the sake of discussion it might be more interesting to focus on the first point.

Discuss?.

On May 16 2007 17:46 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Honestly it seems no one has any choice in life, and I agree. Your choices are made from genetic makeup and your experiences from the time you are born, choice is just an illusion.

that is a sad, sad way to see life, then no archievement is truly yours, nothing in life comes from your effort.



You dont win shit, nor acomplish anything in your life, and you are just experiencing what you were suppoused to... and then eventually you die.




If you truly believe that you would have shot yourself long time ago... but actually you dont

On May 17 2007 00:23 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On May 16 2007 17:46 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Honestly it seems no one has any choice in life, and I agree. Your choices are made from genetic makeup and your experiences from the time you are born, choice is just an illusion. that is a sad, sad way to see life, then no archievement is truly yours, nothing in life comes from your effort. You dont win shit, nor acomplish anything in your life, and you are just experiencing what you were suppoused to... and then eventually you die. If you truly believe that you would have shot yourself long time ago... but actually you dont

No matter if you believe in determinism or not blow job feel as good, winning also feel good becouse of chemistry that your body produce, you can be happy just becouse you are capable of something (being lucky).

As for:
"so using that logic nothing is anybody's fault...

Hitler isnt responsable for the jew's massacre... he was just born that way..."

In court criminal says that the crime wasn't his fault becouse he was raised in environment that make him that way, so he could not act differently and is innocent. Judge said that he was raised in conservative family so he have no choice but to give him death penalty.

Hitler was bad becouse he's action were bad, just like if somebody is intelligent it is by random chance. Being bad or not is judge by your action determinism don't change that.

Only thing that it change practice is that law system (as justice system doesn't make sense) is to try prohibit crimes (re socialization), not punish criminals (sometimes that is the only way and always will be part of law system), but that is changed despite most people don't believe in determinism.

i feel like going to poland and rape ur family then set you on fire and blame it on destiny

On May 17 2007 01:20 ToTo_pol wrote: Show nested quote + On May 17 2007 00:23 Baal wrote:   On May 16 2007 17:46 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Honestly it seems no one has any choice in life, and I agree. Your choices are made from genetic makeup and your experiences from the time you are born, choice is just an illusion. that is a sad, sad way to see life, then no archievement is truly yours, nothing in life comes from your effort. You dont win shit, nor acomplish anything in your life, and you are just experiencing what you were suppoused to... and then eventually you die. If you truly believe that you would have shot yourself long time ago... but actually you dont No matter if you believe in determinism or not blow job feel as good, winning also feel good becouse of chemistry that your body produce, you can be happy just becouse you are capable of something (being lucky). As for: "so using that logic nothing is anybody's fault... Hitler isnt responsable for the jew's massacre... he was just born that way..." In court criminal says that the crime wasn't his fault becouse he was raised in environment that make him that way, so he could not act differently and is innocent. Judge said that he was raised in conservative family so he have no choice but to give him death penalty. Hitler was bad becouse he's action were bad, just like if somebody is intelligent it is by random chance. Being bad or not is judge by your action determinism don't change that. Only thing that it change practice is that law system (as justice system doesn't make sense) is to try prohibit crimes (re socialization), not punish criminals (sometimes that is the only way and always will be part of law system), but that is changed despite most people don't believe in determinism.

I'm fairly certain you can't have it programmed into your brain to hate jews when your a fetus. I could be wrong though.

i used to care

not anymore

lol

On March 27 2010 14:54 Rekrul wrote: i used to kinda care not anymore lol

On May 15 2007 17:30 SakiSaki wrote: If i dont take their money, someone else will. The degens are adults capable of making on decisions/seeking help etc. Maybe this argument isnt morally flawless but it atleast helps me sleep at night.

i played HU somes month ago on nl1k...guy had to deposit using his saving bank account...he had none at the end
and i could not care less

wtf is the sick bump from stroggos

i wonder if people who run liquor stores share this moral debate.

If you don't take his money, then you can't pay rent.

A toll is a toll and a roll is a roll. And if we don't get no tolls, then we don't eat no rolls.

On March 27 2010 15:21 Bigbobm wrote: i wonder if people who run liquor stores share this moral debate.

well pretty much any convenience store who sells alcohol or cigarettes.

darwin is my hero

On May 17 2007 02:26 Baal wrote: i feel like going to poland and rape ur family then set you on fire and blame it on destiny

uhh this is the biggest bs i've ever quoted -______-

Poker is innocent fun, the people losing money in poker dont look at it like you good players are taking it from them - they are viewing it like "I Spent X $ on poker tonight". "I could have spent that on ____ ""But i chose to spend it on Poker". "And I had fun sucking out on Exhilirate so he could post it on this forum "

I wouldnt feel sorry about winning money from doctors or lawyers who earn far more than you. They probably feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for people with addiction problems. I don't feel sorry about taking their money.

winning in poker is a defensive act.
all these mofos are out there to get your bankroll

Answer: no

There is no anwser to this question. It depends on how you view life and what values/morals you live by.

Personally, i dont think about it because there is no anwser, but when i did think about it.... i felt justified

The problem with poker players is they provide a crummy product. Even if people are going to blow their money on booze, that's not a much worse product than playing a game for a few hours and getting beat out of your money. But I agree with everyone that if they are a degen they are going to lose their money anyway, if not to you then to the house.

its called natural selection, if some retard puts up his rent money in a poker game and loses... oops, gg dumbass

next

thats like Kobe Byrant feeling bad for Dwight Howard after winning the NBA championship because hes on a better team

I have always had a problem with winning, I feel bad that someone has to lose. I hate to inflict pain or cause people to feel sorrow, but I am at the same time very competitive. It makes for a very odd combination.. For instance, I don't mind at all to constantly lose at a video game or sport so long as I feel like we had a good fight.. but then.. eventually.. at the end of the day I hate myself for not doing my best, or for not winning as high of a % of the time as I could (even if my 'true skill' would still result in less than 50% chance of victory).

Playing HU it comes up the most. I have definitely felt very, very bad after I took 6 buyins from someone.. But IMO, this is illogical and so I have done my best to overcome this feeling.

I dunno, just random thoughts this topic brought up...

Its not only in poker that your win means someone had to lose thou

On March 27 2010 19:29 TalentedTom wrote: thats like Kobe Byrant feeling bad for Dwight Howard after winning the NBA championship because hes on a better team

what you're saying is like Durrrr feeling bad for Ivey for beating him in a pot. It's nothing like feeling bad for beating someone out of their rent money.

Everyone you sit down with at a poker table is choosing to do so and must accept full responsibility for the consequences, even if they are addicts.

Well thinking in broader terms since there will always be unemployment, you are always competing for a job against other people, and being hired for a job means that you just beat other people to it. Its not a perfect analogy but whatever, the bottom line is worry about yourself first, because others wont.

Actually while playing live poker, I find that there are way fewer people at the poker tables who cannot afford their losses than at slots or table games where they are forced to play against the casino. I'd say the vast majority of poker players I see can afford their losses.

But to answer the OP's question--I don't really care about that. Just as I would not care if I was a fund manager and collected a fee from people who invested in my fund without providing them with an iota of benefit over a simple index fund.

one time i beat someone for half his roll and i felt bad
+ Show Spoiler +

On March 27 2010 23:53 player999 wrote: one time i beat someone for half his roll and i felt bad + Show Spoiler + for letting him walk away with the other half

thank god finally

Personally I dont think theres really anyone so hard up on cash that they are literally gambling with the last dollar to their name. I dont care if they throw the keys to their car on the table and the deed to their house. They'll find a way to survive, they'll sell something of value, go beg for food, whatever. So who am I to feel guilty for what someone else considers valuable or not? If someone wants to give me their car on a single hand of poker, then clearly their car wasnt that big of a deal to them. Everyone has their breaking point, and even the most degenerate of addicts will eventually break down and stop. Gambling addiction is nothing like other addictions. If someone was somehow being injected with heroine every time they lost to me, and once the heroine runs out they'll have to suck dick for more, yea maybe then I'll feel sorry and get them to stop. But gambling? Ez addiction, get over it.

noone felt bad for me when i busted my roll, and through life's hardships one golden rule has emerged for me; you have a personal responsibility for almost everything that happens in your life. there's no such thing as an addiction that you can't possibly overcome, at least not a gambling, smoking, drinking addiction.. etc. got a gambling problem? work hard. work harder than you think. nothing in life comes easy, but by getting the money back you wont learn a god damn thing. you learn at the bottom.

cute thread from 2-3 years back this, imo, when we were more naive than today when everything is standard and we dont give a shit anymore

if it really bothers you, find a legit non-profit and donate. that money will do far greater things for somebody a lot less fortunate than the oh-so-poor guy with a credit card and pc w/ internet.

on the other hand, there's probably nothing that can overcome the pain of taking someone's entire rent money in a session.

god. fucking. dammit.

i dont really care.

don't bumhunt redneck, broke-ass donks. play only overrolled solid regz. problem solved. haha

if people wouldnt exploit stupidity the world wouldnt have progressed so much

This is the same argument everywhere. Just like crime. Do you outlaw guns because bad people use them? You take weapons away and we'll bash each others heads in with stones. You get rid of poker and we'll flip coins. You take away an addicts internet/casino priveleges or w/e then I'm sure he'll get his fix at any gas station that sells scratch-offs. What the fuck can you really do? Look at the bigger picture, There's 7 billion people in the world. . .some of them are pretty much destined to be fucking losers. If not for anything else than the sheer odds.

On March 28 2010 04:29 Spitfiree wrote: if people wouldnt exploit stupidity the world wouldnt have progressed so much

the world does not progress from the exploitation of the stupid, only personal progress is made that way.

Mass explotation of the stupid only creates parasitic behavior, the most obvious example, religions.

Whats also of the very nature of people is to protect themselves when they are being attacked ( doesnt matter if physically or verbally doesnt matter if its direct or not ).This thread is a good example of that.So therefore we r gonna be running around in a closed circle here and the thread doesnt have any meaning.


P.S. let the hardcore leveling mindgames begin

On March 28 2010 04:57 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 28 2010 04:29 Spitfiree wrote: if people wouldnt exploit stupidity the world wouldnt have progressed so much the world does not progress from the exploitation of the stupid, only personal progress is made that way. Mass explotation of the stupid only creates parasitic behavior, the most obvious example, religions.

Ahh yes, Religion. The most Dog-eat-Dog Industry in the World. Not only are you shunned and ridiculed for not buying also you go to hell .

On March 28 2010 03:56 transparentb wrote: if it really bothers you, find a legit non-profit and donate. that money will do far greater things for somebody a lot less fortunate than the oh-so-poor guy with a credit card and pc w/ internet. on the other hand, there's probably nothing that can overcome the joy of taking someone's entire rent money in a session. god. fucking. dammit.

I would move to HU just to do that =)

On March 27 2010 15:21 Bigbobm wrote: i wonder if people who run liquor stores share this moral debate.

Funny you say that. Someone who owns a liquor store is actually creating opportunity and increased supply of the thing the addict wants. A poker player however does not do that but piggybacks on an opportunity already there, making the shop owner much worse.

On March 28 2010 04:31 XoXthajmanXoX wrote: This is the same argument everywhere. Just like crime. Do you outlaw guns because bad people use them? You take weapons away and we'll bash each others heads in with stones.

In the spirit of thread derailments everywhere, I must say that this is some seriously flawed logic. One weapon requires significant energy, effort, and skill to pull off, with the victim being given a highly reliable method of defense. The other you just point and boom, instant death. People wont run around stabbing each other with butter knives as easily as they can shoot each other with a gun. The power and flexibility of a firearm makes it far more enticing to use than any other weapon.

On March 28 2010 05:09 Spitfiree wrote: Whats also of the very nature of people is to protect themselves when they are being attacked ( doesnt matter if physically or verbally doesnt matter if its direct or not ).This thread is a good example of that.So therefore we r gonna be running around in a closed circle here and the thread doesnt have any meaning. P.S. let the hardcore leveling mindgames begin

lol, i think this is the post i agree with the most in this thread.

I do feel bad about playing people with -15k$ at nl50HU but not enough for me to stop playing. The free $$$ outweighs my care for other peoples lives.

I really don't give a fuck about degens, hiroshima, and the holocaust...and i shouldn't because they are all virtual to me. Getting a starcraft 2 beta key on the other hand is important because getting a starcraft 2 beta key was a bigger event in history than ww2. WW2 only happened because someone told me about it.

its funny i wrote this.

i think taking noobs money is quite honorable i barely remember op'ing this.

Taking money from people that you know are people with a gambling addiction is morally wrong. There is no excuse for this.

Most of the people you are taking money from, however, are not degenerate gamblers. Some people think they play winning poker and blame their losses on variance. Some people actually play winning poker, but their poker doesn't win as much as your poker.

It is okay to take money from these people.

On March 28 2010 17:40 Fudyann wrote: Taking money from people that you know are people with a gambling addiction is morally wrong. There is no excuse for this. Most of the people you are taking money from, however, are not degenerate gamblers. Some people think they play winning poker and blame their losses on variance. Some people actually play winning poker, but their poker doesn't win as much as your poker. It is okay to take money from these people.

call the Pope, we have found someone with a superior morality!

btw winning money from degenerate gamblers is only something which is frowned upon, just like masturbating in an airplane.

On March 28 2010 17:40 Fudyann wrote: Taking money from people that you know are people with a gambling addiction is morally wrong. There is no excuse for this. Most of the people you are taking money from, however, are not degenerate gamblers. Some people think they play winning poker and blame their losses on variance. Some people actually play winning poker, but their poker doesn't win as much as your poker. It is okay to take money from these people.

so if someone was donking off his entire roll to you and you knew he was a gambling addict you'd sit out?

and theres no amount that you'd continue to sit in for?

im not gonna hold myself responsible for the choices that people make.

you dont blame mcdonalds if ppl are overweight.

On March 28 2010 18:37 Edjon wrote: btw winning money from degenerate gamblers is only something which is frowned upon, just like masturbating in an airplane.

Thanks a lot Bin Laden.

On March 28 2010 18:59 joLin wrote: im not gonna hold myself responsible for the choices that people make. you dont blame mcdonalds if ppl are overweight.

This is true, (macdonalds is evil for other reasons than offering fattening food) i also believe in absolute personal freedom so basically a person who is OK with gambling pretty much has to be ok with all drugs be legalized, because we believe personal freedom is more important than protection by the government based by their or the majority's morality.

One thing is true and i think a lot of people are in denial, when we play a busto degen we are a barman who continues to serve a wasted alcoholic until he collapses, most of us just made pace with selling that bit of morality because its relatively small and its our modus vivendi, however dont fool yourselves that is for other reason than that, or even worse adopt a dog eats dog mentality only because of that which is a terrible rule to live by and will quickly turn you into a monster.

On March 28 2010 19:03 RICHI8 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 28 2010 18:37 Edjon wrote: btw winning money from degenerate gamblers is only something which is frowned upon, just like masturbating in an airplane. Thanks a lot Bin Laden.

You can still get away with masturbating on an airplane, it's just a lot harder now..

. . .you're welcome.

He is trying to take your money by involving himself in this game.

On March 28 2010 17:40 Fudyann wrote: Taking money from people that you know are people with a gambling addiction is morally wrong. There is no excuse for this. Most of the people you are taking money from, however, are not degenerate gamblers. Some people think they play winning poker and blame their losses on variance. Some people actually play winning poker, but their poker doesn't win as much as your poker. It is okay to take money from these people.

so your pretty much saying poker is morally wrong. it's pretty much impossible to be a regular and not be taking money off people with a gambling addiction.

On March 28 2010 12:59 Oly wrote: Show nested quote + On March 27 2010 15:21 Bigbobm wrote: i wonder if people who run liquor stores share this moral debate. Funny you say that. Someone who owns a liquor store is actually creating opportunity and increased supply of the thing the addict wants. A poker player however does not do that but piggybacks on an opportunity already there, making the shop owner much worse.

This is biased. With all the markets / bars that sell alcohol, the supply of alcohol is unlimited. If people want liquor, they are going to get it and there is a demand for it, so opening up a liquor store will be the piggybacking onto the opportunity. Being a poker player however can increase the availability of a game, especially home games. Also, more often than not, poker players seek out the fish to take their money, liquor store owners don't go looking for drunks to sell booze to.

On March 28 2010 17:40 Fudyann wrote: Taking money from people that you know are people with a gambling addiction is morally wrong. There is no excuse for this. Most of the people you are taking money from, however, are not degenerate gamblers. Some people think they play winning poker and blame their losses on variance. Some people actually play winning poker, but their poker doesn't win as much as your poker. It is okay to take money from these people.

So it's not okay to take money from degenerate gamblers, but it is okay to take money from losing players that blame their losses on variance.

Do you realize that's basically the definition of a degenerate gambler?

if you guys think about everything if its morally right or wrong you ll find yourselves in one really fucked up world where the moral is pretty much gone almost everywhere where cash is involved
good luck living normally with that

On March 29 2010 07:12 jowid wrote:

haha

hahah

lol@pic

and baal is very right there.

we prey on the fish, like tabacoo companies on the addicted, etc million of ethically wrong situations can be compared here.

stacking noobs makes me sleep better at night.

On May 17 2007 00:23 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On May 16 2007 17:46 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Honestly it seems no one has any choice in life, and I agree. Your choices are made from genetic makeup and your experiences from the time you are born, choice is just an illusion. that is a sad, sad way to see life, then no archievement is truly yours, nothing in life comes from your effort. You dont win shit, nor acomplish anything in your life, and you are just experiencing what you were suppoused to... and then eventually you die. If you truly believe that you would have shot yourself long time ago... but actually you dont

This is the kind of thing which is completly true, but its better not to think about it....

On March 29 2010 10:24 dogmeat wrote: Show nested quote + On March 29 2010 07:12 jowid wrote: haha

this is win

On March 29 2010 10:04 Spitfiree wrote: if you guys think about everything if its morally right or wrong you ll find yourselves in one really fucked up world where the moral is pretty much gone almost everywhere where cash is involved good luck living normally with that

wow so you are suggesting we turn ourselves blinds to what is immoral and live under that rules because it is easier.

Holy shit, some threads have been really eye opening to me, its sad to see people so young, this smart and so fucking rotten.

On March 29 2010 10:04 Spitfiree wrote: if you guys think about everything if its morally right or wrong you ll find yourselves in one really fucked up world where the moral is pretty much gone almost everywhere where cash is involved good luck living normally with that

its like a woman gets raped everyday by his husband she says ok i gonna live with that because he will always find me.

cmon, dont give up this early...
sick

On March 28 2010 19:17 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 28 2010 18:59 joLin wrote: im not gonna hold myself responsible for the choices that people make. you dont blame mcdonalds if ppl are overweight. This is true, (macdonalds is evil for other reasons than offering fattening food) i also believe in absolute personal freedom so basically a person who is OK with gambling pretty much has to be ok with all drugs be legalized, because we believe personal freedom is more important than protection by the government based by their or the majority's morality. One thing is true and i think a lot of people are in denial, when we play a busto degen we are a barman who continues to serve a wasted alcoholic until he collapses, most of us just made pace with selling that bit of morality because its relatively small and its our modus vivendi, however dont fool yourselves that is for other reason than that, or even worse adopt a dog eats dog mentality only because of that which is a terrible rule to live by and will quickly turn you into a monster.

Couldn't agree more.

On May 17 2007 00:23 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On May 16 2007 17:46 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Honestly it seems no one has any choice in life, and I agree. Your choices are made from genetic makeup and your experiences from the time you are born, choice is just an illusion. If you truly believe that you would have shot yourself long time ago... but actually you dont

Not necessarily. It just means he finds his predetermined life to be worth living, out of enjoyment, curiosity or whatever motives. You can prefer watching a movie even if you aren't the director and would rather change some of the scenes, dialogues and actors.

the ideal system is that the individual be sovereign.
i don't believe that if a person goes to the top of a building with cardboard wings planning to jump off thinking he will fly anyone can morally justify stopping him.
ive been hearing in this thread that tobacco companies, alcohol companies are immoral. Lots of people want to smoke, Lots of people want to drink, last time government tried to ban alcohol, lots of people were murdered. Even to this day people and politicians won't even think about banning alcohol, like its super unpatriotic. But I say if you want to make choices for other people banning alcohol is a must it causes disease and cancer and heart attacks and car crashes. I don't believe in making choices for other people, I find it to be extremely immoral. And if you fucking say you won't ban alcohol but you'll ban some other vice because you can't get alcohol banned but you can get this vice banned, you make me angry. HUOLK SMASH

Poker is a form of expensive entertainment, this is a justifiable approach to being productive. Granted none of us think we are in the entertainment business.
its not immoral to take money from a degenerate gambler, the gambler is willing to risk everything for some good time entertainment.

On March 30 2010 09:55 woodbrave1 wrote: the ideal system is that the individual be sovereign. i don't believe that if a person goes to the top of a building with cardboard wings planning to jump off thinking he will fly anyone can morally justify stopping him.

But it would be a problem for the pedestrians on which he will crash... And people who will have to clean the streets...
This dumb (I admit :-)) response to show that the argument "I'm free to do what I choose to do" is wrong. While it does'nt interact with the others, I'm ok with it. But if you are getting drunk and then driving your car...

Other point, about the self decision. I don't agree on the assertion that someone is up to choose alone what he wants to do. There are some decisions you are not ready to make, not mature enough... or too crazy to do. Thanks to the law, or parents education, lots of people have been prevented from making some stupid mistakes when they were younger.

Freedom is for me overrated.

On May 15 2007 20:17 KingKory wrote: I'm not saying anyone should think twice about finding any +EV spot they possibly can (I would personally punch a baby in the face for a free hamburger)

Free hamburger = shortterm +EV
Karma kicking your ass for 10 years = epic -EV

the fuck ... you are taking my words in such a wrong way I'm in no way implying that no one should care about anything wtf
What im suggesting is that if you think about it its morally wrong to be driving a car coz of the gas its dumping out in the air and so on.Or Alcohol and Tobacco should be banned since they are harming our society - however wouldnt u say it would be a lost war if someone goes against the biggest booze & tobacco companies and also how many of you are drinking like at least once a month ? We cant take absolutely every aspect of absolutely everything all the time in to consideration.My opinion is only based on OP's post and wtf you started giving out examples of rapists and think im some sociopat or something

Probably didnt explain myself in the best possible way but whatever.Dont worry i havent given up and in no way intend to do that while im living.To be honest i've harmed myself in any way possible except physically coz i always prefer the most moral decisions.Prefer to have a clear consciousness since that can only lead to good things right?


P.S. I cant believe it .. Baal did you actually just call someone SMART and that person happens to be me ? :D well that was unexpected

fuck that, fish don't feel bad for taking your money, so who cares

On March 30 2010 09:34 Repusz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 17 2007 00:23 Baal wrote:   On May 16 2007 17:46 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Honestly it seems no one has any choice in life, and I agree. Your choices are made from genetic makeup and your experiences from the time you are born, choice is just an illusion. If you truly believe that you would have shot yourself long time ago... but actually you dont Not necessarily. It just means he finds his predetermined life to be worth living, out of enjoyment, curiosity or whatever motives. You can prefer watching a movie even if you aren't the director and would rather change some of the scenes, dialogues and actors.

could life get any sadder than that? that you are a mere spectator of what happens, totally non responsible for any of your failures successes or anything in your life, you pretty much summed it up perfectly, its just a movie you quietly watch, wow thats a sad view on life.

On March 30 2010 19:31 Exhilarate wrote: fuck that, fish don't feel bad for taking your money, so who cares

I have met a fish that felt bad about taking my money once. He felt so bad that he shipped back 25 big blinds, because he felt I was so unlucky.



I was chatting with him for like 2 hours before that happened thou.

On March 30 2010 19:38 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 30 2010 09:34 Repusz wrote:   On May 17 2007 00:23 Baal wrote:   On May 16 2007 17:46 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Honestly it seems no one has any choice in life, and I agree. Your choices are made from genetic makeup and your experiences from the time you are born, choice is just an illusion. If you truly believe that you would have shot yourself long time ago... but actually you dont Not necessarily. It just means he finds his predetermined life to be worth living, out of enjoyment, curiosity or whatever motives. You can prefer watching a movie even if you aren't the director and would rather change some of the scenes, dialogues and actors. could life get any sadder than that? that you are a mere spectator of what happens, totally non responsible for any of your failures successes or anything in your life, you pretty much summed it up perfectly, its just a movie you quietly watch, wow thats a sad view on life.

It's just a really good movie, like when you cry during a very sad movie, or get pissed off at some character, or fall in love with some character, what have you.

But I think its true though, scientifically speaking of course, every thought in your brain, every emotion you ever felt, is created by chemical and electrical impulses. There's nothing in the brain that would be considered the conscious. We feel alive, because the electrical signals that our brain decodes as feeling alive.

On March 30 2010 19:38 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On March 30 2010 09:34 Repusz wrote:   On May 17 2007 00:23 Baal wrote:   On May 16 2007 17:46 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Honestly it seems no one has any choice in life, and I agree. Your choices are made from genetic makeup and your experiences from the time you are born, choice is just an illusion. If you truly believe that you would have shot yourself long time ago... but actually you dont Not necessarily. It just means he finds his predetermined life to be worth living, out of enjoyment, curiosity or whatever motives. You can prefer watching a movie even if you aren't the director and would rather change some of the scenes, dialogues and actors. could life get any sadder than that? that you are a mere spectator of what happens, totally non responsible for any of your failures successes or anything in your life, you pretty much summed it up perfectly, its just a movie you quietly watch, wow thats a sad view on life.

I don"t agree with Clay's view at all. but I feel that this is a topic that has unlimited depth for discussion, and one that I would really like to see being discussed by people around here. I, for one tend to approach the situation from a different angle, although the conclusion can be considered hauntingly similar to that of MesmerizePLZ's ( if he did draw what I believe he did as conclusion) : our lives are so utterly insignificant, that we have completely free choices in whatever we decide, we can and should take full responsibility for whatever we do, but we are simply so overwhelmed by circumstances and causality that we are merely drifting on the waves of events beyond our existence. I can see the comfort in accepting this as fate as opposed to feel sad about it.