Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain R
The world is not a sea of evil with few pockets of good. What you are seeing is the world is a sea of selfishness with few pockets of unselfishness. Which is what I wrote in my first post on this topic.
Feel free to list all of the negative human characteristics you would like and avoid using the word evil. The reality still stands.
Quote:
Because what % of people are evil? Like < 5%. 95% are selfish, but probably < 5% are actually evil. Please re-read the definition of evil again.
Trying to create a binary labeling for humans (selfish/unselfish, good/evil) is a different type of mistake.
I've read the definition of evil, and I still consent to my statement. Human behavior, when viewed as a whole, is profoundly immoral. Selfishness is profoundly immoral. The failure to take others into consideration is profoundly immoral.
This does not claim that any particular person is or is not good/evil or that any particular person is incapable of either type of behavior. It does not deny that there are good things that happen in the world.
Evil is constant, and it's a pleasant surprise and relief when good is found.
Quote:
I highlighted the part that showed that poker players trying to win money are selfish. I don't think we are disagreeing on that point.
I pointed out the other definitions to show that you're using the dictionary incorrectly. You cannot take a sliver of a definition and try to apply it. That's not how language works. If that piece were isolated on its own, then it would represent that it's a usage that carries that very specific meaning. But when combined as part of a larger definition, the whole context of the definition matters.
Edit: To elaborate a bit -- I don't deny that there exist pokers that are selfish. But to argue that playing to win is necessarily selfish seems to deny a significant element of the game. The game is many things to many people. If you're only at the table for profit, and you simply do not care at all about the other people at the table, then I agree that the player is acting selfishly. But if you're playing to win, but you have consideration for others at the table then it's less clear that you're selfish. And the "personal profit" clause doesn't really fit.
One way to think about this is to think about the "chief concern" at the poker table. If poker were not interesting, I think most of the people in this forum would not play poker. So the "chief concern" probably isn't simply to make profit, but to have an enjoyable time playing the game. Yes, profit is part of the motive, but it's probably not the "chief concern."
Last edited by Aaron W.; 10-08-2017 at 09:17 PM.