Looks or Game? - Page 36

On March 09 2008 09:19 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:11 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:07 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:57 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:55 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:51 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:44 kimseongchan wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:12 kimseongchan wrote:   On March 09 2008 08:10 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: There is a solvable right answer. It's wrong to take advantage of somebody's lack of experience to further your own desires. If you disagree with this I think you're a disgusting piece of shit and have nothing more to say to you. I don't think you can say this as a poker player. Bettering somebody at a game of skill is completely different than taking advantage of somebody's lack of emotional maturity. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. And if you honestly think this, what the fuck are you doing on a poker forum? Don't compare me to somebody who takes advantage of young girls who aren't mature enough to know any better just because I play poker. They aren't comparable. I didn't accuse you of taking advantage of anyone's lack of emotional maturity. I'm saying you're being hypocritical when you say it's wrong to take advantage of another's lack of experience for your own benefit while at the same time you're playing a game where the whole point is taking advantage of another's lack of experience to further your own profits No, the point of the game is to make the best decisions I possibly can in any given situation. If I make better decisions than other people, I win. I'm not outright taking advantage of anybody. It's compeltely different. i think this is a fancy innocent way of looking at it. You are taking advantage of people's inexperience. Do you seriously not see that? It may be semi indirect but you are taking advantage of that. The make more mistakes if they are inexperienced (most of the time) and you make more money based on how inexperienced they are. Does this need to be argued? So if I get a job because I'm more experienced than the other people who applied, I am taking advantage of their inexperience. try to find an example where the other party loses something in a way that it can hurt their lifestyle. Maybe something that also has the degeneracy traits poker can bring out. Or it can even be like this: if I buy a property that I know is being sold for a ton less than it's value.... am I taking advantage of their lack of knowledge or their need to sell the property really fast? The answer is yes. I'm not saying it's wrong, certainly in the buying property example it isn't. But it is obviously taking advantage. Find an example? They didn't get a job, they can't pay their rent, they lose their place to live because they're in debt and really needed the job, get depressed, and kill themselves. I can make up extreme examples where my being better at something than somebody and coming out ahead because of it hurts people too. Seriously, you're saiyng that any time you do anything where you come out ahead of other people, you're taking advantage of somebody. at the poker table you are taking advantage often of degeneracy and the emotional immaturity of tilt monkeys. In the real world, your (or the best person) getting that job actually can have a utilitarian effect that helps the other people who didn't get the jobs. IE u want smart people to be doctors and strong people to be firemen.

Please prove to me how the vast majority of the poker world is degenerates and those who are emotionally immature? Every major study says that the vast majority of people who play poker are more than capable of handling it. I think gambling addiction only effects less than 2% of the people who gamble, and most of those with gambling issues don't play poker, they play other pit games. So until you can actually prove that this is how the vast majority are, then you have no point. If I'm just beating regular people who like to play poker and aren't negatively effected by it because I'm good at it, then I'm not taking advantage of somebody's ill fortune. I'm beating regular people at poker.

On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad

What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't.

i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died.
Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong.

On March 09 2008 09:23 Steal City wrote: talks to Lord Capulet about marrying his thirteen-year-old daughter Juliet idk if she had a birthday before she died

You can use google all you want.

You didn't know that depending on version, she ranges from 16 to 13. You were wrong about the ages. Stop trying to further your point on this topic. Do you know why in some versions Juliet was made younger? Because prepubescent boys would play the role and it wouldn't make sense to have her be significantly older. Not because of societal norms.

But I guess none of that actually matters. You're just going to try to be right despite the facts.

On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong.

Again, you're just using google.

And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all.

Is it so hard to admit that you don't know something? Or that you misunderstood? Or that you lack information?

Or is being right so important to you?

On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't.

because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive.

On March 09 2008 09:30 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong. Again, you're just using google. And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all.

Lol, i got it from wiki, and obv I am repeating things I read/ was told by people who should know this stuff. Just like you. Are we only to talk about what we invent? Did you find out that info on their age by being a live a few hundred years ago or talking to Shakespeare himself? Hmm, i guess even asking Shakespeare himself would mean you're regurgitating.... which i guess is a no-no lol

On March 09 2008 09:31 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't. because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive.

So if it serves a utilitarian purpose, taking advantage of people is okay?

I never tried to say playing poker helped society, I said I wasn't taking advantage of people by playing poker.

And for the record:

10. take advantage of,
b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone.


When did you get to decide what definition I meant? This is what I meant.

On March 09 2008 09:34 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:30 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong. Again, you're just using google. And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all. Lol, i got it from wiki, and obv I am repeating things I read/ was told by people who should know this stuff. Just like you. Are we only to talk about what we invent? Did you find out that info on their age by being a live a few hundred years ago or talking to Shakespeare himself? Hmm, i guess even asking Shakespeare himself would mean you're regurgitating.... which i guess is a no-no lol

I know because I read the book. I've read a few versions of it, both literary and play. I've studied this stuff. You clearly haven't.

I don't know why you think wiki is the end all be all of information, it's not.

And had Shakespeare himself told you, that wouldn't be regurgitating. That would be able the best source you could have. You clearly have absolutely no idea what I mean when I say regurgitating information.

to me it just looks like floofy is table-selecting, nothing wrong with that

On March 09 2008 09:36 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:31 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't. because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive. So if it serves a utilitarian purpose, taking advantage of people is okay? I never tried to say playing poker helped society, I said I wasn't taking advantage of people by playing poker. And for the record: 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. When did you get to decide what definition I meant? This is what I meant.

if you say something you should understand the connotations or lack of connotations. Also if you are saying Floofy is wrong to take advantage then it can be assumed that he is taking advantage in an abusive way.

simple as that

And by the way, from your beloved wikipedia:

"In many cultures and time periods, women did and do marry and bear children at such a young age. But in Shakespeare's England, most women were at least 21 before they did so."

Yep, really a product of societal norms.

You really know your stuff when you're talking about things. Clearly a well read individual.

On March 09 2008 09:38 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:30 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong. Again, you're just using google. And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all. Lol, i got it from wiki, and obv I am repeating things I read/ was told by people who should know this stuff. Just like you. Are we only to talk about what we invent? Did you find out that info on their age by being a live a few hundred years ago or talking to Shakespeare himself? Hmm, i guess even asking Shakespeare himself would mean you're regurgitating.... which i guess is a no-no lol I know because I read the book. I've read a few versions of it, both literary and play. I've studied this stuff. You clearly haven't. I don't know why you think wiki is the end all be all of information, it's not. And had Shakespeare himself told you, that wouldn't be regurgitating. That would be able the best source you could have. You clearly have absolutely no idea what I mean when I say regurgitating information.

ur the one focusing on semantics, regurgitating is regurgitating. Certainly with well established things like famous plays, wiki is a good authority for information. If something questionable was posted there, critics would have changed it years ago. MIT college professors are generally good authorities too.

On March 09 2008 09:39 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:36 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:31 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't. because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive. So if it serves a utilitarian purpose, taking advantage of people is okay? I never tried to say playing poker helped society, I said I wasn't taking advantage of people by playing poker. And for the record: 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. When did you get to decide what definition I meant? This is what I meant. if you say something you should understand the connotations or lack of connotations. Also if you are saying Floofy is wrong to take advantage then it can be assumed that he is taking advantage in an abusive way. simple as that

So it's my fault you misunderstood? Lol?

And for the record:

a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4. to commit sexual assault upon.
5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead.
–noun
6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges.
7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men.
8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
10. rape or sexual assault.


These don't relate to my definition. It's your fault you don't udnerstand the words being used and that you are using, not mine. Is it so hard for you to admit fault when you misunderstood and misrepresented ideas?

also talking directly to the author when trying to find the meaning of literature is not always reliable... i'm referring ofc to Hemingway. If you've studied him you'll know what I mean. If not, let's just say he thought it was fun to completely BS with the media.

On March 09 2008 09:42 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:38 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:34 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:30 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:28 Steal City wrote: i'm finding results that Romeo's age was 18 but they're not reputable. It seems that Juliet was 13 though and didn't have a birthday before she died. Where did u get that info? I thought Romeo was 12 bc a professor told me so. I guess he may have been wrong. Again, you're just using google. And out it comes, you don't actually know. You're just repeating what somebody told you. If you aren't going to argue facts, don't argue at all. Lol, i got it from wiki, and obv I am repeating things I read/ was told by people who should know this stuff. Just like you. Are we only to talk about what we invent? Did you find out that info on their age by being a live a few hundred years ago or talking to Shakespeare himself? Hmm, i guess even asking Shakespeare himself would mean you're regurgitating.... which i guess is a no-no lol I know because I read the book. I've read a few versions of it, both literary and play. I've studied this stuff. You clearly haven't. I don't know why you think wiki is the end all be all of information, it's not. And had Shakespeare himself told you, that wouldn't be regurgitating. That would be able the best source you could have. You clearly have absolutely no idea what I mean when I say regurgitating information. ur the one focusing on semantics, regurgitating is regurgitating. Certainly with well established things like famous plays, wiki is a good authority for information. If something questionable was posted there, critics would have changed it years ago. MIT college professors are generally good authorities too.

re·gur·gi·tate /rɪˈgɜrdʒɪˌteɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-gur-ji-teyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -tat·ed, -tat·ing.
–verb (used without object)

3. to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated:

I'm arguing by definition of the word. You just don't understand what they mean.

On March 09 2008 09:41 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: And by the way, from your beloved wikipedia: "In many cultures and time periods, women did and do marry and bear children at such a young age. But in Shakespeare's England, most women were at least 21 before they did so." Yep, really a product of societal norms. You really know your stuff when you're talking about things. Clearly a well read individual.

when/where was the play set? lol

Seriously, you aren't very good at this. Everything that you misunderstood is my fault despite me using the exact definition of the word.

On March 09 2008 09:43 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On March 09 2008 09:39 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:36 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:31 Steal City wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:25 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:   On March 09 2008 09:21 Steal City wrote: in the job example society gains, in the poker example, society's effect is not easily known but the effect of the loser can be very bad What does this have any baring on whether or not it's taking advantage of somebody? It doesn't. because when you take advantage of people at the poker table, it doesn't serve a utilitarian purpose. Some ppl say poker helps people think rationally and thus help society. Some say that it actually takes bright minds out of the job market and makes degens suffer more. Idk which is true or which is more potent than the other but to take advantage simply means to use a condition something to your benefit. Abusing someone/something is a different matter but often is done through taking advantage of somebody. This doesn't mean taking advantage is wrong though as most times it's not abusive. So if it serves a utilitarian purpose, taking advantage of people is okay? I never tried to say playing poker helped society, I said I wasn't taking advantage of people by playing poker. And for the record: 10. take advantage of, b. to impose upon, esp. unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone. When did you get to decide what definition I meant? This is what I meant. if you say something you should understand the connotations or lack of connotations. Also if you are saying Floofy is wrong to take advantage then it can be assumed that he is taking advantage in an abusive way. simple as that So it's my fault you misunderstood? Lol? And for the record: a·buse /v. əˈbyuz; n. əˈbyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-byooz; n. uh-byoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, a·bused, a·bus·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight. 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead. –noun 6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges. 7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men. 8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse. 9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime. 10. rape or sexual assault. These don't relate to my definition. It's your fault you don't udnerstand the words being used and that you are using, not mine. Is it so hard for you to admit fault when you misunderstood and misrepresented ideas?

? what did i misunderstand? you said he was taking advantage in a way that is wrong? No?