Thought that ppl may be interested in what the radical proposals are:

I think it's funny that after millions of years of evolution, which has shaped our ability to conscientiously experience the universe, it can all turn to nothingness with just a single punch.

----

I am the universe experiencing itself.

----

"One; one is the beginning; we are one; are you one cricket?"

----

Oh good morning.

Honestly I want more poker hands in this thread discussing evil villain and good hero

If you try to win at poker, you're probably the evil one.

Too bad the chips all go up the selfish dealer's sleeve.

Happy to copy or move whatever to wherever. If the folks involved (or everyone else) want me to click a few buttons, no problem.

I'd point out that people saying things are only getting worse or stuff about the world clearly bad might need to watch the aptly titled "How not to be ignorant about the world". You live in a golden age, appreciate it.

I agree. I don't think Aaron and Rob are correctly defining "good deeds." There are things people can do to go out of their way to help others. If that's what it takes to define a good deed, then yeah there's more evil than good in the world. However, rush hour in Massachusetts can be a real *****. You know all those people patiently waiting for the light to change? Or maybe all those people that are patiently waiting for a ski lift in those long lines crunched together like cattle? If those people were evil, then surely there would be many more evil things occurring nearly every day in such situations. Aaron doesn't seem to account for all the people that are just trying to go about their lives in a peaceful manner as part of (good in the world). Chillrob doesn't seem to include these people in his calculations of how "good" his life has been.

Count your blessings people. Every day. Every time someone holds a door for you. Every time you see someone hand a homeless person a buck or two. Every day there are good things happening. Unfortunately the American obsession with tragedy gives the media more rope with which to feed us bad news. In a country of ~300? million people, we're destined to witness evil deeds due to all of this information at our fingertips. This obsession with tragedy goes way back. I'm thinking that it's not even exclusive to USA, but rather it goes back to and beyond "Romeo and Juliet."

"We all feed, on tragedy; it's like blood to a vampire"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKs_-Burkgo

I much prefer the conversation to be here. Philosophical conversations tend to become dominated by those with extreme views. I like to think we have a good mix of people in this forum with many differing points of view. Most of you guys fall withing the "normal and quite reasonable" range of opinions. If we go full philosophy on the topic, we're going to get into determinism, free will, and all that bs.

If instead we can come to an agreement with compromise and coordination, I think we'll be in a much better position to actually learn stuff about ourselves and others.

I much prefer conversations about how to help people be held here, but I'm happy to take Bob or Rob or Howard (or anyone from SSLHE really) out to dinner to talk offline if they prefer.

I don't care what happens to the general philosophical discussion of good vs evil.

I've never defined "good deeds" nor do I use them in my argumentation.

I don't define people as being either good or evil. I do not view this as being a functional way to observe the world.

Also, the switch from "good deeds" to "evil people" is a weakness of the counter-argument being presented. "If people were evil then..." doesn't actually address the position being taken since I deny the labeling of people as being either "good" or "evil." My claim is grounded in the evidence of the accumulation of behaviors, not characterizations of individuals.

Edit: Furthermore, this is still using bad behavior to justify bad behavior. "If people were really evil, then there would be EVEN MORE EVIL!" This acknowledges the level of evil in the world already and assume that this current level of evil somehow isn't already evil because there are deeper levels of evil we could sink to.


I consider most of those activities to be morally neutral. Two people managing to pass by each other on a street and not kill each other is not what I would consider to be "morally good" behavior. It's just neutral behavior.

There is a concept of "peace" which is merely "the absence of conflict." This is the idea that you seem to be putting forth here. I disagree with that concept. I think of "peace" as something that's actually positive and active.

For example, let's say you have a cul-de-sac of families. One can say that these families are "at peace" if they simply are not fighting with each other about who is parking where, and whose kids are too noisy, or whatever. But this concept of peace would also mean that you could have all these families with literally ZERO interaction with each other, and say that the cul-de-sac is at peace.

Whereas the concept "peace" in an active and positive sense would mean actual good relationships among the families. The families know each other, actively support each other, take care of each other, etc.

There's nothing that's not appreciated about the level of technology and the ways that human lives have been made better. I think it's quite amazing.

I think both observations can be true (and are true) simultaneously. We can have amazing technology and longer life spans and fewer deaths during natural disasters, but that doesn't mean that we are fundamentally any better-behaved as humans in the way we interact with each other.

Edit: And I don't claim that it's getting worse.

But there is conflict. Right now as I type this, there are people resolving an automobile accident somewhere. Many of them are resolving the conflict peacefully by exchanging insurance information and going about their days. If you don't consider that good, or at the least a non evil reaction by the involved parties, then we will have to disagree.

Over the past 16 years, mostly thanks to having a very outgoing alcoholic best friend, I've spent many hours conversing and interacting with strangers at bars. Not once did I get into a fight. In fact I don't consider any of the behavior that I've witnessed in that time to be evil. Even the time that a mean college guy got pissed and shoved the local mentally handicapped townie for bumping into him was resolved peacefully without a single punch being thrown. The guy that bumped into him actually crashed into me as I sat at the bar. So I looked at the guy that shoved him, to which he responded "sorry dude." Then we all went back to having a good time.

That was literally the worst thing I've witnessed at a bar and the conflict was resolved peacefully. I think that if evil is so prevalent as you suggest, that I would have been subjected to it in that time. Maybe I ran good? I don't think so. I think evil is not as prevalent as you suggest.

Take for example a friend of mine whose house burned down. he lost nearly everything. Guess what happened? The community helped him get back on his feet with furniture, cash, checks, and physical labor all with no questions asked nor expectation of payback.

I can go on and on about good things that I've witnessed in my life. If I was to go on and on about evil things? I would have to bring up external information sources that are not contained within (my experience).

Maybe you're not so lucky in that you've experienced much evil in your time. I can't disagree if that's your experience. However, if you're using anything but (Aaron W's experience) and are including all the crap the media feeds you, then I can definitely see why you feel that way.

This isn't what "conflict" means.

I'm sure many of them do. But also many of them are hit and runs, many engage in lawsuits, and many do other things. This really isn't a meaningful counter-argument to my claim.

This is like saying "Someone went to the store and didn't steal." It's certainly better than them going to the store and stealing, but it doesn't point to any sort of moral goodness. It's merely the absence of morally bad behaviors.

I agree with this being non-evil, and there's nothing in my argumentation that would suggest I would disagree with that. This is especially true since I've explicitly defined such behaviors as being "morally neutral." I don't consider it to be "morally good" when people merely engage in conflict-free behaviors.

Personal anecdotes don't mean anything in this argument.

That you've managed to not get into fights at bars is fine. Again, I don't think merely avoiding conflict is the same as peace. That the situation in the bar de-escalated from a near fight only serves to make my point for me. The expectation is that it would go down poorly. That it didn't is a pleasant surprise.

And that the community came out to support your friend whose house burned down? I do not deny that this is a good thing or that good things happen. But here's the thing: Suppose that *nobody* stepped up to help. According to you, this is still a "good" outcome because it's not as if your friend went on a murderous rampage.

It's not so much about "feeling." It's simply an observation of reality. I'll point out that nobody has actually challenged the very specific claims I made about human behaviors at the start:

I believe that the failure to challenge these things is more evidence of the success of the argument.

Again, I do not deny that there is good in the world, or that people are capable of doing good things, or that people actually do good things. Any argumentation that tries to make its point by arguing in this manner will be unsuccessful because it doesn't address the actual argument I'm presenting.

If you were wondering if Abu Dhabi is dry heat or not. It's not. It's really ****ing humid out here.

There's internet too!

Went to Iceland --> Sweden --> Norway --> Denmark.

And now home in Abu Dhabi. Still looking for the LHE, but I don't think I'll be able to find it.

I don't think your observations warrant such a cold view of the world, thus there is no need to challenge these assertions.

How do you do this? Serious question. Do you read the paper? Do you watch the news? Do you go out and interact with the public on a regular basis? When was the last time you called a friend just for the hell of it? I mean not a birthday nor holiday, nothing special happening, you just called a friend because you like them and you wanted to see how they were doing?

I have no gotcha moment here. I'm genuinely curious to know where you're coming from.

No. Your expectation is that it would go down poorly.

And your argumentation is that you didn't get into a bar fight, and so the world isn't that bad of a place?

Given that my perspective is grounded in history, a lot comes from looking at and studying history. To focus on just my little world around me is an incredible fallacy of attempting to generalize from my little corner to the rest of the world. As stated, I'm trying to take a very broad view of the question.

1) Yes, both local and national.
2) No. I cut out TV about a year ago.
3) I have a public-facing position.
4) Last week.

I'm coming from a position of someone that has spent time and effort investigating the question.

Fair enough. You should test your expectation by going around bars and pushing people and see what happens.

Meh, you can probably hop over to Sharm El Shiekh or India for teh gambol. Post more as you explore but not anything that will cause the morality police to come after you ldo.

It's not about that one incident. It's about many hours spent interacting with strangers, most of whom were at least partially intoxicated. Surely on a long enough timeline, in such an evil world, I would eventually witness something that could be considered evil. Hasn't happened so my confidence in the non evilness of humans grows.

I'm not talking about a position. I'm talking about voluntarily going into public and interacting without agenda nor pecking order.

Lol. You sure can spin it. Of course I'd probably get my ass kicked quickly if I did that. However, I've been bumped by many and have bumped many in my travels. Guess what? The news doesn't cover the story of the time I bumped into a guy, apologized, and he said, "hey no problem."

2-100 spread Omaha Hi only

AAJT, limp limp limp limp limp hero raises to 40, one caller

Flop AK9

Bet 100, raise to 200, raise to 300, raise to 400, call

turn 2

Bet 100, raise 200, raise to 300, raise to 400, call

river K

Bet 100, call

Post a hand where good triumphs over evil!

EP raises, 2.4 billion callers, BB 3-bets, all call. Flop AhJs8s, checked around.

"Two of hearts!" BB calls out as the dealer burns.

Turn: 2h. We all have a good laugh.

BB checks. Checked around.

"Four of diamonds!" BB calls out as the dealer burns.

River: 4d. BB bets, EP raises, BB 3-bets and shows 53o.

looooooooooool

Can Aaron and Bob just create their own LC/NC thread? I've never skipped over so many posts without reading them in my life.