Kinda off topic

[BobboFitos]

fwf, i will say this, you are highly ethical and i respect you for that. (among other things i respect you for!) however, to say others are not ethical bc they don't follow the same approach as you here (If you're saying that? I'm not clear on that) is perhaps misguided.

[obvv]

no hes not, its a pathetic moral standard if you will only do the "right thing" if your opponents would do the same for you! The right thing is the right thing or it isn't, it isn't dependant on what they would do

I would stick up for a granny if they were getting attacked even if they wouldn't stick up for me if I was getting attacked. Thats moral determination, not this notion of "yah id do all this if they would reciprocate"... thats just making plus EV situations neutral EV, and theres nothing moral about that.

[FabledHero]

you guys are bringing up situations that are completely different, very idiotic. The bottom line is this is basically the equivalent of a HU tourny. let's say 2 players made it to the final 2 in the WSOP, it was supposed to start at 10 a.m. But one of the players slept in 'til 5 p.m. What should happen? Should they hold up the tourny 'til 5 and not start it or should the player get blinded off? What would happen in this circumstance?

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
fwf, i will say this, you are highly ethical and i respect you for that. (among other things i respect you for!) however, to say others are not ethical bc they don't follow the same approach as you here (If you're saying that? I'm not clear on that) is perhaps misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

whoa, i never said people are unethical if they don't agree with me here: i think they just have a weak spot in their ethics game. i obviously think if there's an ethical thing to do in this situation you're behaving unethically to not do it in this situation, but like i said in my response to jfish's post how one responds to this situation has very little weight on how i judge a person.

p.s. nice t.v. time tonight. must been a pain sitting next to black teddy the whole day, but at least you got to bask in his media spotlight

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fwf, i will say this, you are highly ethical and i respect you for that. (among other things i respect you for!) however, to say others are not ethical bc they don't follow the same approach as you here (If you're saying that? I'm not clear on that) is perhaps misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

whoa, i never said people are unethical if they don't agree with me here: i think they just have a weak spot in their ethics game. i obviously think if there's an ethical thing to do in this situation you're behaving unethically to not do it in this situation, but like i said in my response to jfish's post how one responds to this situation has very little weight on how i judge a person.

p.s. nice t.v. time tonight. must been a pain sitting next to black teddy the whole day, but at least you got to bask in his media spotlight

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa i was on tv!?!? sweet, hah. gotta find that out. i keep missing wsop on tv.

also, yeah, didnt knwo if you were setting this as the standard for decency or not, again, my problem with reading comprehension.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
no hes not, its a pathetic moral standard if you will only do the "right thing" if your opponents would do the same for you! The right thing is the right thing or it isn't, it isn't dependant on what they would do


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless of course one thinks moral obligations are derived from participation in a system of mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other's right's. But hey, I bet you've probably thought about this a lot. You seem like you have a sharp ethics mind
[ QUOTE ]

I would stick up for a granny if they were getting attacked even if they wouldn't stick up for me if I was getting attacked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant example. Ethical obligations are mitigated in respect to people who COULD behave ethically in a given situation but don't. It's not like because a paraplegic person can't save you when you're downing that you shouldn't do the same.
[ QUOTE ]
Thats moral determination, not this notion of "yah id do all this if they would reciprocate"...


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you're really impressing us all: must take a lot of resolve and determination to come to the conclusion that you should save old helpless women from vicious beatings.

[ QUOTE ]
thats just making plus EV situations neutral EV, and theres nothing moral about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

this sentence is confusing on many levels

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fwf, i will say this, you are highly ethical and i respect you for that. (among other things i respect you for!) however, to say others are not ethical bc they don't follow the same approach as you here (If you're saying that? I'm not clear on that) is perhaps misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

whoa, i never said people are unethical if they don't agree with me here: i think they just have a weak spot in their ethics game. i obviously think if there's an ethical thing to do in this situation you're behaving unethically to not do it in this situation, but like i said in my response to jfish's post how one responds to this situation has very little weight on how i judge a person.

p.s. nice t.v. time tonight. must been a pain sitting next to black teddy the whole day, but at least you got to bask in his media spotlight

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa i was on tv!?!? sweet, hah. gotta find that out. i keep missing wsop on tv.

also, yeah, didnt knwo if you were setting this as the standard for decency or not, again, my problem with reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

they showed some hand where in bvb vs Teddy, he said something like "I know everything, I check," you showed 69 and he had 59 and your kicker on your pair of 9s played.

[obvv]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no hes not, its a pathetic moral standard if you will only do the "right thing" if your opponents would do the same for you! The right thing is the right thing or it isn't, it isn't dependant on what they would do


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless of course one thinks moral obligations are derived from participation in a system of mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other's right's. But hey, I bet you've probably thought about this a lot. You seem like you have a sharp ethics mind
[ QUOTE ]

I would stick up for a granny if they were getting attacked even if they wouldn't stick up for me if I was getting attacked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant example. Ethical obligations are mitigated in respect to people who COULD behave ethically in a given situation but don't. It's not like because a paraplegic person can't save you when you're downing that you shouldn't do the same.
[ QUOTE ]
Thats moral determination, not this notion of "yah id do all this if they would reciprocate"...


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you're really impressing us all: must take a lot of resolve and determination to come to the conclusion that you should save old helpless women from vicious beatings.

[ QUOTE ]
thats just making plus EV situations neutral EV, and theres nothing moral about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

this sentence is confusing on many levels

[/ QUOTE ]


my point is, an action is an absolute, i dont think its right to say "yeah id do the right thing if they would do the right thing"... that doesn't seem like a case of morals, irrespective of mutual respect. Either you think its the right thing to do or it isn't.

your awe inspiring comment about the paraplegic only supports my point... and then your line after that is just hand waving and saying nothing.

and finally, if the last sentence is confusing, then think about it some more, as that is the substance of your ethics

[Sevenfold]

[ QUOTE ]
no hes not, its a pathetic moral standard if you will only do the "right thing" if your opponents would do the same for you! The right thing is the right thing or it isn't, it isn't dependant on what they would do

I would stick up for a granny if they were getting attacked even if they wouldn't stick up for me if I was getting attacked. Thats moral determination, not this notion of "yah id do all this if they would reciprocate"... thats just making plus EV situations neutral EV, and theres nothing moral about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the 'ethics' change depending on the person/situation.

Guy breaks into your house, rips you off.

A week later you see the same guy drop a roll in the casino. You pick it up and give it to him because it's the 'right' thing to do?

If you know X and Y players got disconnected against villain and he kept the $$, do you ship him back the 5K if he disconnects against you the next day?

Against an unknown player for the first time, you are as close to a 'vacuum' decision as you can be. What is the right thing to do in this one spot with no information?

Once you change the parameters to anything else, i.e. 'you know me', 'I have X left', 'he's done it to someone else' you have a different situation.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
whoa, i never said people are unethical if they don't agree with me here: i think they just have a weak spot in their ethics game.

[/ QUOTE ]
i'm trying to plug leaks in my ethics game. in your opinion, is this a sound basis for making ethical decisions?: if i do not expect to be given a certain treatment, then i do not feel obligated to give that treatment to others. or is my spin on the golden rule ethically insufficient? (not being snarky or trying to tilt you; i dig these kinds of discussions too.)