|
|
#111
05-14-2006, 08:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Let\'s face it Poker isn\'t good for Society
[ QUOTE ]
I am sorry to say this, but I think poker/gambling is good for society for the reasons I have just mentioned. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see the need to be sorry for having a logical view of the world. Poker is good for society, and I am proud of the fact that I am smart enough to realize that. 
|
|
#112
05-17-2006, 03:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Let\'s face it Poker isn\'t good for Society
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot exactly compare professional poker players with professional athletes. Pro athletes make their money as entertainers: other people pay to watch them perform. [/ QUOTE ] Poker players make their money as entertainers as well. Do you think its not fun for bad players to play poker? They probably have a lot more fun than professionals do because they play a lot more hands. Poker players provide entertainment by being in the game. There is nothing more fun to a bad player than sucking out in a hand. I know this because everyone enjoys this even good players. All the comments of anger towards bad players are normally because they are jealous that they didnt get lucky. The reality is that there are a lot of things that are of no use for society. Professional sports are horrible for society, much worse than poker. Cities have to pay millions for stadiums that are obselete in 20 years. Then the players make millions from the money the people pay to go watch them. Its truly horrible if you think about it. Does this mean I will stop watching sports? Of course not. I enjoy watching sports. I like to be entertained. Life would be very boring if you could only spend money on things that were good for you and could never spend money on things that are purely for entertainment. Whats the point of living if you cant have any fun?
|
|
#113
05-17-2006, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Let\'s face it Poker isn\'t good for Society
You have got to be kidding me. Every business does EXACTLY the same thing as a poker player. This includes the Church, schools, government, etc., etc., etc. When you speak of making a contribution to society from scientists, maybe we should thank Oppenheimer for making the world a better place, or Einstein or any other of the well-known inventors. Let's not even mention the Church, which has throughout its history waged a war against the non-believers of any religion in order to promote their philosophy and control their people. If the Vatican emptied their vaults, I'm reasonably confident that the money gained could do a lot to eradicate world hunger and suffering in general. From my experience, the only honest people are poker players because when you sit down at a game it is fair. Try and find that anyplace else in society.
|
|
#114
05-17-2006, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Let\'s face it Poker isn\'t good for Society
the vatican also could repay all the victims of sexual molestation caused by their priesthood.
|
|
#116
05-25-2006, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Let\'s face it Poker isn\'t good for Society
Your argument is severely flawed at it's most fundamental level: you assume that a certain profession can be beneficial or harmful to society.
Every entity in this world lies at equilibrium. Professions are of course included within this statement. You wrote that for us to win in poker someone else must lose, this we all know is true. However, you must apply this same concept to everything else (most times the application is much more difficult). Lets say one can measure an entity's levels of "production" (for lack of a better word). Say a given entity (or profession) can produce "+10" Happiness, well then it must also create "-10" Happiness. You mention a scientist as a "good" profession. While science has created a lot of conveniences in today's world (I'm simply assuming you find this to be positive), it will also inevitably lead to the decline of said conveniences. As the Earth's recourses are being depleted there will come a time where these products and services we use today will face a shortage and eventual extinction. This is just one of the infinite aspects in which a single entity (scientist being the example), must always reach equilibrium in the short and long-run (although I only outlined the long-run example of course). For the color "black" to exist there must also be a "white". For you to be happy, there must also be someone that is sad (This may not be an idea you're comfortable with or want to acknowledge, but it along with all other things must be at equilibrium somehow). We cannot all be "happy", or else there will be no one that is "sad" for us to compare ourselves to - if everyone were to suddenly increase their happiness to level "3" (to give it a quantifiable value), then the level "3" would now be the new "0", the new equilibrium to be measured against. I realize this idea is philosophical in nature and is not the response the original poster was looking for, but I believe it is the first concept anyone should understand. It is the fuction every single entity in this world follows, as well as the whole of all entities. Basically, I'm trying to say that whether you are a poker player or a doctor you are not going to be "good" or "bad" for society. Incriminating poker players for not "helping" society by becoming doctors or scientists is simply ignorant.
|
|
#118
05-27-2006, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Let\'s face it Poker isn\'t good for Society
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with you playing poker for a living. However, assuming you are as talented an individual as I suspect, I also have no problem saying that IMO society as a whole would be better served by you making another career choice. That doesn't mean I think you should be mandated to do something else. Just that we would all be better off if you did. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree with this. I don't think society would be better off. Probably about the same. The reason for this is based on economic principles. It has been established that a professional poker player can be considered to take money from other people but most of these people at least get some form of entertainment for it. In theory, at least, a rational person would not play poker unless the utility they derive from it (the chance of the win) is greater than the cost (losing the money). Let's also look at how a professionsl poker player contributes to society after taking money from someone else (but at the same time providing some sort of utility to that person). 1. The player may purchase goods or services, which ultimately add to the income of others in our society and creates employment. 2. The player may save, perhaps by investing in shares in corporation, many of which employ the doctors and other professionals that have been spoken so highly of in this post. 3. The player pays some of their winnings in taxes, which contributes to society. 4. The player may purchase government bonds, which provide capital for government social programs. 5. The player may donate money to charity. etc. Thus, in my opinion, an intelligent person can contribute to society in many ways. Yes, they could become a doctor or scientist or whatever. Or, they can make money some other way and in doing so, make purchases that provide income to many others in society, provide the capital to corporations that hire doctors, scientist, and inventors etc., pay their taxes, and possibly donate to charity. In my opinion, neither option makes society better off.
|
|
#120
05-28-2006, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Let\'s face it Poker isn\'t good for Society
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have no problem with you playing poker for a living. However, assuming you are as talented an individual as I suspect, I also have no problem saying that IMO society as a whole would be better served by you making another career choice. That doesn't mean I think you should be mandated to do something else. Just that we would all be better off if you did. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree with this. I don't think society would be better off. Probably about the same. The reason for this is based on economic principles. It has been established that a professional poker player can be considered to take money from other people but most of these people at least get some form of entertainment for it. In theory, at least, a rational person would not play poker unless the utility they derive from it (the chance of the win) is greater than the cost (losing the money). Let's also look at how a professionsl poker player contributes to society after taking money from someone else (but at the same time providing some sort of utility to that person). 1. The player may purchase goods or services, which ultimately add to the income of others in our society and creates employment. 2. The player may save, perhaps by investing in shares in corporation, many of which employ the doctors and other professionals that have been spoken so highly of in this post. 3. The player pays some of their winnings in taxes, which contributes to society. 4. The player may purchase government bonds, which provide capital for government social programs. 5. The player may donate money to charity. etc. Thus, in my opinion, an intelligent person can contribute to society in many ways. Yes, they could become a doctor or scientist or whatever. Or, they can make money some other way and in doing so, make purchases that provide income to many others in society, provide the capital to corporations that hire doctors, scientist, and inventors etc., pay their taxes, and possibly donate to charity. In my opinion, neither option makes society better off. [/ QUOTE ] Another contribution to society is that (assuming he is as capable in some other area as he is at poker) he opens up a job in "legitimate" businesses. The person who qualifies for that job is not likely to have the poker skills, so the poker player has contributed to the extent that his job replacement earns more than he otherwise would have.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
