Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Religion, God, and Theology Discussion of God, religion, faith, theology, and spirituality.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-28-2013, 11:26 PM   #1
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Curious how we view this, I feel like I am able to explain a little better, I'm not expecting this to amount to much but its prob a little derail from the OP in this thread PDTitforTAT

Op suggested since Tit for Tat is the best strategy for iterative PD it could be reasoned to be the basis for societies legal/moral issues.

I am suggesting that the correct approach is a Nash Equillibrium but that observing the problem incorrectly prevents this insight.

Quote:
Anyway, I don't know what you mean by the "individual and the group."
The aggregate utility? Aggregate preference satisfaction? Some
weighted mix of aggregate and individual utility? Some new entity
"group" that has emergent goods? Not sure where the advance is here.
Quote:
Wiki on Nash EQ:
Informally, a set of strategies is a Nash equilibrium if no player can
do better by unilaterally changing his or her strategy.
I'm suggesting we cannot extract morals (tit for tat) from a game (prisoner dilemma like op) to apply to the real world, because we make the assumption that everyone is on their own team.

That assumption is not free from bias and prejudice; nor is it objective in nature.

And if everyone saw in terms of serving the group, then to act for ones own selfish desires (deviating) would not be considered 'to do better'.

There is an equilibrium in that, which cannot be seen by the individualistic mind.

If we apply this to poker, we can use nash's work to build tools to bring an equilibrium to the game, where as convention is to use it to deviate.

Furthermore we can notice as the limit from todays game increases towards a total equilibrium of the entire field, the average of the overall optimal strategy trends towards the nash eq.

So there seems to be a tipping point which is marked by some kind of velocity I think.

Once we can see poker can be brought to such an equilibrium we can show that so can the world.

We have lead ourselves to believe, by the same false assumptions, that the best 'technological' and other advances come from cut throat capitalist type cultures and events, which a nash fueled deviation strategy would rule over and explain.

But the real advances come when the general (entire) population works together in harmony and sees itself as the obvious whole that it is.

Doing what's best for the self AND ignoring the whole, is NOT what is best for the self and unbiased math will never suggest that.
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:14 AM   #2
ganstaman
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ganstaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central nj
Posts: 9,601
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234 View Post
I am suggesting that the correct approach is a Nash Equillibrium but that observing the problem incorrectly prevents this insight.
Please not this again.
ganstaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:16 AM   #3
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234 View Post
Curious how we view this, I feel like I am able to explain a little better, I'm not expecting this to amount to much but its prob a little derail from the OP in this thread PDTitforTAT

Op suggested since Tit for Tat is the best strategy for iterative PD it could be reasoned to be the basis for societies legal/moral issues.

I am suggesting that the correct approach is a Nash Equillibrium but that observing the problem incorrectly prevents this insight.




I'm suggesting we cannot extract morals (tit for tat) from a game (prisoner dilemma like op) to apply to the real world, because we make the assumption that everyone is on their own team.

That assumption is not free from bias and prejudice; nor is it objective in nature.

And if everyone saw in terms of serving the group, then to act for ones own selfish desires (deviating) would not be considered 'to do better'.

There is an equilibrium in that, which cannot be seen by the individualistic mind.

If we apply this to poker, we can use nash's work to build tools to bring an equilibrium to the game, where as convention is to use it to deviate.

Furthermore we can notice as the limit from todays game increases towards a total equilibrium of the entire field, the average of the overall optimal strategy trends towards the nash eq.

So there seems to be a tipping point which is marked by some kind of velocity I think.

Once we can see poker can be brought to such an equilibrium we can show that so can the world.

We have lead ourselves to believe, by the same false assumptions, that the best 'technological' and other advances come from cut throat capitalist type cultures and events, which a nash fueled deviation strategy would rule over and explain.

But the real advances come when the general (entire) population works together in harmony and sees itself as the obvious whole that it is.

Doing what's best for the self AND ignoring the whole, is NOT what is best for the self and unbiased math will never suggest that.
You have several times demonstrated your lack of understanding of the concepts from game theory you refer to here. Try to make your point without using any jargon.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:39 AM   #4
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
You have several times demonstrated your lack of understanding of the concepts from game theory you refer to here. Try to make your point without using any jargon.
I guess it would take me a few tries, and I don't think it's because I don't understand the concept of what a nash eq. is.

It's because when changing the context some of the definitions change their meanings.

There are a few basic things that I am saying.

First that we view nash's work as the foundation to how we would win war whether nations vs nation, in economy, bargaining, poker etc. But really that foundation and the knowledge that comes from it can and should be used to bring peace. Is that jargon?

2nd And this is possibly jargon or incorrectly used words, if we are maybe to change the idea of the utility that should motivate the players. The new idea i suppose is that a higher utility (or payout) is achieved when equilibrium is achieved.

If this is true then the nash equilibrium becomes optimal.

It's also simple to say that poker should be a game in which all the players gather together to bring it to equilibrium. Not to exploit each other but to bring the game to an unbeatable point as possible.

That might be to 'solve' it but I think its better said 'to move towards solving it at an ever increasing pace'

If those things are put in their place, then you might have a chance at logically extracting morality or irl strategy from a game.
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:41 AM   #5
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganstaman View Post
Please not this again.
We've already pointed out and admitted one of your favorite things is to break into this subject to roll your eyes.
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 01:58 AM   #6
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234 View Post
I guess it would take me a few tries, and I don't think it's because I don't understand the concept of what a nash eq. is.

It's because when changing the context some of the definitions change their meanings.

There are a few basic things that I am saying.

First that we view nash's work as the foundation to how we would win war whether nations vs nation, in economy, bargaining, poker etc. But really that foundation and the knowledge that comes from it can and should be used to bring peace. Is that jargon?

2nd And this is possibly jargon or incorrectly used words, if we are maybe to change the idea of the utility that should motivate the players. The new idea i suppose is that a higher utility (or payout) is achieved when equilibrium is achieved.

If this is true then the nash equilibrium becomes optimal.

It's also simple to say that poker should be a game in which all the players gather together to bring it to equilibrium. Not to exploit each other but to bring the game to an unbeatable point as possible.

That might be to 'solve' it but I think its better said 'to move towards solving it at an ever increasing pace'

If those things are put in their place, then you might have a chance at logically extracting morality or irl strategy from a game.
You are still using jargon. Try making your point without saying "equilibrium" or "nash" or "prisoner's dilemma."
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 03:27 AM   #7
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
You are still using jargon. Try making your point without saying "equilibrium" or "nash" or "prisoner's dilemma."
No one can gain by deviating from the strategy that we all see ourselves on the same team.
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 08:42 AM   #8
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234 View Post
No one can gain by deviating from the strategy that we all see ourselves on the same team.
Sure they can. If you see me as on your team and so share with me, but I cheat and don't share with you, I benefit.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 09:48 AM   #9
nek777
adept
 
nek777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
Sure they can. If you see me as on your team and so share with me, but I cheat and don't share with you, I benefit.
I was thinking about these thought experiments or games, and it seems they always setup a situation of perfect information that can not relate to "irl".

I am not saying these thought experiments are not useful, they certainly seem to be a tool for some examination. However, as a method to provide some conclusive, I guess, normative moral statement, these games/thought experiments necessarily have to come up short.
nek777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 09:54 AM   #10
zumby
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Wow, such opinions
Posts: 4,277
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

If anyone is confused by newguys interpretation of Nash equilibrium I'll save you some time by pointing out he bases it entirely on the following Russell Crowe scene:



If you are wondering what that scene has to do with Nash equilibrium, join the club.
zumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 10:01 AM   #11
fretelöo
Mean? Me?
 
fretelöo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 3bet std huhu
Posts: 10,219
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Nash's friends are too drunk to experience anything but emotional equilibrium/stupor?
fretelöo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 10:57 AM   #12
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,771
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nek777 View Post
I was thinking about these thought experiments or games, and it seems they always setup a situation of perfect information that can not relate to "irl".
I wonder if you make the same criticism of Galileo. It's true that game theory is an abstraction of real life decisions, but that doesn't mean it doesn't relate to real life decisions. Also, in what sense do we have perfect information in the Prisoner's Dilemma? There we are faced with a problem precisely because we don't know what the other prisoner will do.

Quote:
I am not saying these thought experiments are not useful, they certainly seem to be a tool for some examination. However, as a method to provide some conclusive, I guess, normative moral statement, these games/thought experiments necessarily have to come up short.
That depends on what you think morality is. For instance, look at David Gauthier's Morals by Agreement for a counterexample.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:03 AM   #13
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
Sure they can. If you see me as on your team and so share with me, but I cheat and don't share with you, I benefit.
No you don't benefit by cheating.

You wreck the world that you live in.

As if we are in a boat held together by nails. Neither of us have nails but if you take all the nails you didn't gain, you sunk the ship.

Quote:
I was thinking about these thought experiments or games, and it seems they always setup a situation of perfect information that can not relate to "irl".

I am not saying these thought experiments are not useful, they certainly seem to be a tool for some examination. However, as a method to provide some conclusive, I guess, normative moral statement, these games/thought experiments necessarily have to come up short.
Yes thought is limited, and I think you point out the same thing I do in a different form.
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:07 AM   #14
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby View Post
If anyone is confused by newguys interpretation of Nash equilibrium I'll save you some time by pointing out he bases it entirely on the following Russell Crowe scene:

If you are wondering what that scene has to do with Nash equilibrium, join the club.
No that's not true but I get painted with that before you understand what I am suggesting.

More importantly I'm pretty sure, at this point at least that Adam Smith does not need revision. However, from what I understand, he tried to have his books burned on his death bed.
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:14 AM   #15
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,771
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234 View Post
No you don't benefit by cheating.

You wreck the world that you live in.

As if we are in a boat held together by nails. Neither of us have nails but if you take all the nails you didn't gain, you sunk the ship.
This is not an argument, it is a poor analogy. If you don't punish me for cheating, then it does benefit me as it will give me a better chance of achieving my desires.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:25 AM   #16
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
This is not an argument, it is a poor analogy. If you don't punish me for cheating, then it does benefit me as it will give me a better chance of achieving my desires.
no it will sink the boat and you will drown.

When people work together to achieve results they accomplish more than what each individual would achieve alone. Seeing games in terms of individuals skews the resulting optimal strategy.

In this world we are able to work together to produce results, and deviating from that is suboptimal for everyone.
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:43 AM   #17
nek777
adept
 
nek777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
I wonder if you make the same criticism of Galileo. It's true that game theory is an abstraction of real life decisions, but that doesn't mean it doesn't relate to real life decisions. Also, in what sense do we have perfect information in the Prisoner's Dilemma? There we are faced with a problem precisely because we don't know what the other prisoner will do.
I think the critique stands with the natural sciences, and most would agree. I would argue that peer review serves this purpose - in the long run what is accepted as some objective statement is only provisionally accepted, the old can't prove a theory true, but can prove a theory false gag.

In the Prisoner's Dilemma, while we do not have perfect information about the actions of the other we do have a set of perfect information regarding the possible outcomes and our desire.

Perhaps "relate" to real life isn't the best, maeby we should say something like a direct 1:1 relationship or something - that is there is some space for error in transferring the results of a moral experiment in a perfect setting to the imperfect setting of "irl".

Quote:
That depends on what you think morality is. For instance, look at David Gauthier's Morals by Agreement for a counterexample.
Thanks, I will certainly take a look.
nek777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:49 AM   #18
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,771
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234 View Post
no it will sink the boat and you will drown.
You're wrong because not cheating is like eating rat poison--it kills you.

Quote:
When people work together to achieve results they accomplish more than what each individual would achieve alone. Seeing games in terms of individuals skews the resulting optimal strategy.

In this world we are able to work together to produce results, and deviating from that is suboptimal for everyone.
The problem with your view is exactly the same as before. Yes, you are correct that the aggregate sum of utility can sometimes be maximized if everyone cooperates (though not always). However, just because the aggregate sum of utility is maximized doesn't mean that individual utility is maximized. Thus, if we assume that individuals are motivated to maximize their own utility, individuals will still have an incentive to take actions which decrease aggregate utility.

Essentially, you are failing to distinguish between a prescriptive and descriptive usage of game theory. If you want to try to convince everyone that they shouldn't think of themselves as individuals and so try to increase their individual utility, fine. But that doesn't change the fact that if they do try to increase their individual utility, then unless they are punished they can benefit by cheating.

Here's a general comment on some more confusion. A game (in game theory) has, by definition, more than one player. Game theory is the study of interdependent rational choice--that is, rational choice with more than one rational chooser involved. Thus, if you really think that we shouldn't think of these situations as having more than one individual, then you are telling us to not think of them as games (making all discussion of Nash equilibria moot). In that case, what you are looking for isn't game theory but decision theory.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:58 AM   #19
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,771
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nek777 View Post
I think the critique stands with the natural sciences, and most would agree. I would argue that peer review serves this purpose - in the long run what is accepted as some objective statement is only provisionally accepted, the old can't prove a theory true, but can prove a theory false gag.
What I meant was that things like the physics of motion work by idealizing away extraneous aspects of the situation (e.g. frictionless surfaces) to focus on just the part we are interested in. Game theory does the same thing. Insofar as we might be wrong about e.g. the payout structure of a situation we are just bringing in a separate thing to be considered in making our decision.

Quote:
In the Prisoner's Dilemma, while we do not have perfect information about the actions of the other we do have a set of perfect information regarding the possible outcomes and our desire.
Yeah, but nothing about the Prisoner's Dilemma is changed by saying that our information is imperfect or that we might be wrong about our desires except that the math is more complicated.

Quote:
Perhaps "relate" to real life isn't the best, maeby we should say something like a direct 1:1 relationship or something - that is there is some space for error in transferring the results of a moral experiment in a perfect setting to the imperfect setting of "irl".
Fair enough. I agree that we should be careful in classifying the decisions we make as being exactly like some example in game theory.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:15 PM   #20
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
You're wrong because not cheating is like eating rat poison--it kills you.
explain this in context of stealing the nails that hold together the ship were are all in please.

Quote:
If the aggregate sum of utility is maximized the individual utility is maximized.
I fixed it to be a statement. Not sure it encapsulates what I am saying fully yet. But I am saying it doesn't matter how rich you are, if the world is at war you not living anywhere near optimal.


Quote:
Essentially, you are failing to distinguish between a prescriptive and descriptive usage of game theory. If you want to try to convince everyone that they shouldn't think of themselves as individuals and so try to increase their individual utility, fine. But that doesn't change the fact that if they do try to increase their individual utility, then unless they are punished they can benefit by cheating.
Yes you are saying you can't use an 'act for the world' strategy because its not optimal since not everyone is playing in this same way. This I am fine with, but no where in that does the math suggest that acting for self is the best strategy for the world.

Quote:
Here's a general comment on some more confusion. A game (in game theory) has, by definition, more than one player. Game theory is the study of interdependent rational choice--that is, rational choice with more than one rational chooser involved. Thus, if you really think that we shouldn't think of these situations as having more than one individual, then you are telling us to not think of them as games (making all discussion of Nash equilibria moot). In that case, what you are looking for isn't game theory but decision theory.
I will look at it all for sure, but if for example we are to take poker and bring it to a state in which no one can gain by deviating from the general strategy everyone uses, we will surely need the foundation laid out in game theory.
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 12:53 PM   #21
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,771
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234 View Post
explain this in context of stealing the nails that hold together the ship were are all in please.
Unless you steal the nails you have to drink rat poison. Also your ship is right next to land so you won't drown. One arbitrary story deserves another.

Quote:
Quote:
If the aggregate sum of utility is maximized the individual utility is maximized.
I fixed it to be a statement. Not sure it encapsulates what I am saying fully yet. But I am saying it doesn't matter how rich you are, if the world is at war you not living anywhere near optimal.
Yes. A false statement.

Quote:
Yes you are saying you can't use an 'act for the world' strategy because its not optimal since not everyone is playing in this same way. This I am fine with, but no where in that does the math suggest that acting for self is the best strategy for the world.
As far as I'm concerned, these are all nonsense words when you say them. I don't know (and am doubtful you know either) what you mean by "optimal," "strategy," "act for the world" or "acting for self" or "strategy for the world."

Quote:
I will look at it all for sure, but if for example we are to take poker and bring it to a state in which no one can gain by deviating from the general strategy everyone uses, we will surely need the foundation laid out in game theory.
Yes, according to you, when I play poker my best strategy is to try to maximize aggregate poker winnings rather than my own poker winnings.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 02:14 PM   #22
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
Unless you steal the nails you have to drink rat poison. Also your ship is right next to land so you won't drown. One arbitrary story deserves another.
Yes I am suggesting just like you if you change the motivations the strategy changes


Quote:
Yes. A false statement.
depending on the motivations and teams.


Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, these are all nonsense words when you say them. I don't know (and am doubtful you know either) what you mean by "optimal," "strategy," "act for the world" or "acting for self" or "strategy for the world."
You will feel this way unless you understand my context.

Quote:
Yes, according to you, when I play poker my best strategy is to try to maximize aggregate poker winnings rather than my own poker winnings.
Living in a peaceful world is far greater than maximizing ones one poker winnings. I'm not telling you what to do, but im suggesting that its obvious fact.
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 03:54 PM   #23
RollWave
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RollWave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: PL Daily Action Thread
Posts: 12,290
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234 View Post
Living in a peaceful world is far greater than maximizing ones one poker winnings. I'm not telling you what to do, but im suggesting that its obvious fact.
This is highly dependent on your definition of peaceful and is far from obvious due to degrees of peacefulness.
RollWave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 05:09 PM   #24
nek777
adept
 
nek777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
What I meant was that things like the physics of motion work by idealizing away extraneous aspects of the situation (e.g. frictionless surfaces) to focus on just the part we are interested in. Game theory does the same thing. Insofar as we might be wrong about e.g. the payout structure of a situation we are just bringing in a separate thing to be considered in making our decision.
Well, more than likely, I am already over extended in my knowledge and abilities, but I am going soldier on....

In physics, would it be necessary to at least have the "part we are interested" have some predictive ability with out idealizing away the extraneous?

I do see some utility in these "games", but it seems there has to be some aspect that can function effectively "irl".

Quote:
Yeah, but nothing about the Prisoner's Dilemma is changed by saying that our information is imperfect or that we might be wrong about our desires except that the math is more complicated.
I would say that more than just making the math more complicated, imperfect information really makes the math somewhat irrelevant.

That is, we would seem to need perfect information, some perfect theory to derive all the information needed for the perfect mathematics.

Without some way of deriving the information we need, it would seem that we are just making a calculated intuitive guess.

Quote:
Fair enough. I agree that we should be careful in classifying the decisions we make as being exactly like some example in game theory.
Perhaps I am reading too much into people's statements, but I get a feeling that some may have some absolutist stance that these boil down to some math problem that is solvable - not that I completely disavow the approach. I think its weighted too heavily at times.
nek777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 05:16 PM   #25
newguy1234
self-banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,101
Re: Extracting irl morality solutions from solving games...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RollWave View Post
This is highly dependent on your definition of peaceful and is far from obvious due to degrees of peacefulness.
The definition of peace is written into the statement. Peace is when each of us acts for the whole, with no defectors.

The argument you give about peace having multiple definitions comes from the corruption brought about by the foundation laid by assuming there are opponents irl.

Having opponents is what lays the ground for war.

What you have to show to disprove this is that there can be violence, torture, suppression, war etc. when all parties act for the group (therefore no defectors).
newguy1234 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online