^ Is a website like that even legal? Sounds like slander and could get you sued.

Remove the word evil and answer my questions. I didn't warp anything, I was actually trying to show you that your current belief system is ****ed up.

Your words show you are rationalizing, by your references to the fact your poor and it was 'just' an angle shoot against 'rich' poker players.

PS: Doubt you will be Carpal Tunnel for long.

RoSeeker and Gary_Neville should be forced to eat 450 hotdogs in a day imo

Look Jalex, you're a smart guy, I don't get your post. Are you saying that the gravity of a sin should be determined purely by the amount stolen or things like that regardless of the circumstance?

Are you saying that I don't have a conscience? A psychopath wouldn't really care about an allegation like that, but... okay I'll just shut up.

All that I'd written just now is me trying to say, "hey, I'm human too. I make mistakes, but I will learn from it, please give me a chance" while arguing against those who are saying that I should never be given a second chance again, ever... obviously you can't just take my word that I will be good from now on, but I will need time to show that I've changed and learned.

For it to be slander, wouldn't he have to prove that it wasn't true? It is clearly true, by his own posts. If I were hiring people, I'd want to know that this was his belief system. I'd want to know that he wouldn't consider it all that bad to take stuff from my business because it is far less bad than taking stuff from a homeless person (it is still bad, I'm sure he'd want me to emphasize that).

He also seems to think that people are going to start believing him now. He constantly informs us that he isn't evil and that he will learn from this. Well, how is this any different from all the statements he made in this thread that have turned out to be complete lies and subterfuge. It isn't like he had a moment where he confessed all his sins because he couldn't handle it anymore. He confessed after he was caught. That is why he changed his tone. There is no reason to believe his apology or any further posts from him anymore than his posts prior to that point.

Hmmm, the dictionary I checked said "slander" is verbal defamation. "libel" is written defamation so presumably the website could be libel but not slander (nit picking, I know).

It is not defamation to quote somebody verbatim and in context. OP could claim that the quotes were made up. I seriously doubt he is that stupid though -- would he really want to invite the scrutiny that comes with a court case LOL?

BTW, I think outing the perps to their family and friends is a just punishment. If you do something scummy but keep hiding it then you haven't really taken full responsibility for your actions.

Is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism messed up? I was taught it in TOK. Should I blame IB?

Okay I'll answer your questions:

It's not black and white. The moment you steal, it is wrong. HOW wrong it is depends entirely on circumstnace. If you need money for something (the old story about needing money for surgery for a wife), then it's slightly more understandable. If you steal only the amount you need, it's bad because you should work for it, but if you steal so you can be lazy and never work, that's even worse. If you steal from someone who can't afford it, you're ruining his life and that's worse than someone who will survive. Whether the person earned or inherited it does not matter because we're talking about the person stealing it. Whether it was earned or inherited has to do with the person who had the money stolen and whether he deserved the money in the first place. Taking money from someone who "deserves it" is imo an excuse to ease one's conscience and wrong + irrelevant. Taking money from someone who is less likely to suffer from it, on the other hand, is trying to limit one's damage to society.

I don't, and in fact I have not thought about this clearly. I merely thought nobody would notice or care. I would assume that my "guess" is actually correct, but what matters is whether I intentionally tried to harm somebody. Again, in our society we must punish people based on acts, on whether somebody is actually harmed, but realistically the worse person is the one who tried to harm someone.

Someone who tried to drop a brick on someone is malicious, but say he misses, he will get away with not TOO much trouble. Someone else driving a car accidentally drove over someone because it was raining and slippery or whatever. He'd have killed someone and got into trouble. Who is the more evil person?

As an added note, if the person KNEW that there was a danger of traffic accident and could've been more careful, but couldn't care, he has displayed an apathy for the well being of others, and is therefore worse than the person who simply makes a mistake, especially if he uses "it's an accident" as an excuse.

Are you mocking this? Well because it's relative, it depends entirely. None of it is "okay". The more you steal, and the more luxuary you gain from sealing, and the more people you harm, the worse it is.

Moral relativism means things are not black and white, it doesn't mean that doing bad things is "okay", it means that you cannot group all bad things together as the same.

Again, stealing from a supermarket: barely anyone suffers from it, supermarkets usually accept small thievery as a way of life, and they make so much money nobody really even notices.

Stealing the same amount from an actual person, that person may be poor and might be trying to scrape a living together, that directly harms someone, and is worse.

That does NOT make stealing from the supermarket "okay", it makes the latter example WORSE, thus "relative".

Jalex, I've answered the questions as best as I could. If indeed I am wrong and twisted, I am here to listen and change my ways.

geez just read your post about "moral relativism".

there is nothing to excuse what you did, not to make it more acceptable. you can call upon existentialism, marxism or relativism as much as you want, you are a scumbag, at the very lowest point of humanity, and nothing will change this.

I hope you are not studying humanities, because any teen could make better arguments than you do

and as funkyj said, instead of holding pseudo philosophic café discussions you should just stfu, you remind me of Eichmann's lawyer calling upon Kant. But hey, at least he knew what he was talking about.

Even if your argument has some validity (I'm not saying it does or does not), at this stage of this story the best thing you can do is STFU. The only thing that should be coming out of your mouth here is "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm so so sorry".

Come out to your family and friends about your cheating before you try to attempt to debate anyone here on ethics and morality.

A truly repentant criminal can not be blackmailed because a truly repentant person does not try to hide their crime from anyone.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm so so sorry. I hope Jalex is happy with my explanation of my views, and I am ready to listen. I will shut up now.

He won't do this. It is exactly the same as before the 'apology.' He is hoping if he's really careful and says the right things, this will all just go away. Sure, he'll lose his Stars account and coaching opportunities...but those were gone anyway. Now it is about avoiding anything further. Now it is about no one else ever finding out about what he did. He is far more concerned with avoiding responsibility than he would have you believe. Making an apology and then trying to rationalize your actions as 'not as bad as they could have been,' is not someone taking responsibility. It is someone that is trying to get away with as little punishment as possible.

The fact that there is even an argument against not outing this guy (a way for friends and future employers to know he committed this act), is surprising to me. I'm in no way suggesting he should be harassed, or have people calling his house. I'm saying that people around him should be able to find out what he did...as well as people who intend to do future business with this guy (these guys).

lol @ RoSeeker somehow trying to justify what he did in his own brain by illogical and downright stupid thoughts.

How you aren't perma-banned and have had your full name etc outed is beyond me. You're lucky that the mods of this site seem to be less upset about this than I am (who haven't even been involved at all).

If the equivalent of this was to happen in real life you would be in PRISON. You say that you've learned from this mistake and you're sorry that you did it. Well, would you willingly go to prison for it? No. Didn't think so. Scumbag.

Based on your answers, you seem to be asserting that stealing is wrong, always, correct? You are purely arguing that there is degrees of the crime, which certainly I think most rational people would agree with.

There is certainly a difference between stealing a 5 cent piece of bubble gum from stealing $10,000 from rich poker players.

However, the fact that you seem to agree that there is a black and white rule that stealing is ALWAYS wrong means you do NOT believe in moral relativism.

So, I'd assert that you didn't pay enough attention in your IB classes. :P


One more thing, you referred to punishing people based on harm to others. Certainly that's a criteria, but the law judges on INTENT. Regardless of the fact you failed, you would certainly be facing certain conviction for multiple felonies right now in a court of law.

Ship the info + pics and it's done, won't cost anybody a dime.

My bad, I have phrased and articulated it poorly, but what I mean is that it's always on a scale (I suppose in some situations stealing would be correct, but there are no situations I can identify with), as in things can be both "good" and "bad" at the same time, such as hurting someone to protect another. I do think that intent is an important factor (I added a part about intent in my answer, I think), and yes, just because it turns out nobody's money is stolen, doesn't mean we should not be punished, I agree.

I was merely trying to argue against the assertion that I am a psychopath and is irredeemable on PokerTrikz when I was told by people I am entirely worthless as a human being and should not be given a chance to prove myself, and someone linked to it, and I felt like I had to explain it. I believe I still have ways to make up for my wrongs, and is therefore not irredeemably bad. That is the cause of my explanation. I am not trying to say I don't deserve punishment.

can you do a photoshop as well?! plssssssss

Huh, I don't know what angle Ro is even trying to work at this point but the only thing that seems super obvious at this point is that he's trying really really hard to work some angle for his own benefit.

Roseeker, do you think that it would benefit you in some way to have everyone believe that you're a sociopath? Do you think that attempting to take some strange intellectual higher ground is going to make your punishment less?

I'm curious as to what your angle is at this point Ro. Is it that you're afraid of what repercussions may come from this so you're honestly trying to make yourself look like some sort of Robin Hood character? Or are all of this inane rationalizations just for your own amusement and you're just laughing at everyone as you type these amazingly arrogant statements that obviously show zero remorse?

This IS real life.

All you morons who say offering these scumbags a choice is blackmail....You do realise that many criminals are given the option of paying compensation to the person/organisation they've stolen from/assaulted/etc, as opposed to doing time in jail. It's standard procedure in court cases for god sake.

I thought the next stage in this whole saga was putting these scumbags names/pics up on a webpage as punishment for attempting to steal about 10K from 2+2 community. And as that is a rather big step, I thought offering them a chance to compensate the bettors would be an alternative punishment that would let them off a bit lighter and would also obviously be beneficial to the bettors. It would actually be doing the thieves a pretty big favor.

But if people here have such a problem with something that is standard procedure in justice systems, just forget about it, stick their names/pics up on webpage and be done with it. These wankers tried to STEAL about 10K from the 2+2 community, it was premeditated, and they spent 10 days lying about it afterwards, in the hope that an inconclusive Pokerstars investigation would get them off the hook. There should definitely be a webpage alerting people to antics of these scumbags.

No, its the internet.

Not sure that defence would go down too well in court. The environment may have been virtual but the money was real.

This won't be going to court, because it is the internet, not real life. Do you get it now?

...and we all know that there has never been a court case about fraud that was committed over the internet. Well argued.

you should listen more to doyle - your word is your bond.

good luck ever getting anything from this community again...

Show me one case where a player cheated other people out of several K at internet poker and ended up in court. Everyday there are people getting their poker accounts cleaned out by hackers who don't get prosecuted.