Online Poker Ban in US

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 02/10/2006 20:08

It's almost time for the American Revolution 2.0.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 02:09

It's really sad that *this* is the issue where I get to say, "I told you so." This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about with the "drug war", and every other way our liberty is eroded. These things are all related. Why does that seem so difficult for people to understand? We are now in another ludicrous situation where we are not allowed to voluntarily spend OUR OWN MONEY as we see fit! At what point will people finally become uncomfortable?

A politician (or anyone) thinking that crack is bad and should be outlawed for the protection of everyone is ideallogically *identical* to those who would outlaw smoking, gambling, drinking, self-protection, homosexuality, what you grow in your garden, or eat, or where you pray, with whom you have sex, or any other personal choice. They only differ in the details. All believe that the public is composed of "subjects" who are morally children in need of a daddy-government. Read your history! Totalitarianism is *always* the result, but slowly -- by degrees.

"Liberty is seldom lost all at once." If one lacks an idological framework that places individual liberty first, then its just a matter of where you draw the line. Eventually, the line will be drawn somewhere such that even unconcerned citizens will be uncomfortable. It's too late then, though.

People wake up! Stop wanting to be a subject. Make the moral decision to consider yourself and everyone else a responsible moral agent that reason dictates MUST be allowed to make their own choices -- even bad ones. A "daddy-government" creates a society of spoiled children. Go to any shopping mall to see the result.

Quote:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niemöller

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 02:22

Quote:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

- U.S. Declaration of Independence

It's OK for the government to hold state-run lotteries where the house has the advantage, but free individuals playing poker against each other online with their own money? Noooo! Motherfuckers.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 02:22

No almost about it, Billy.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 02:32

By the way, I intend to continue playing. Playing poker online is not made illegal by this bill. What is illegal is for financial institutions to allow transactions to "illegal online gambling" organizations.

In other words, it is *not* your money. Just like its not really your property.
Minorities are the ones that civil liberties are designed to protect. Mob rule is exactly what our system is supposed to avoid. It is supposed to be impossible for a minority group, whether they are gamblers, dope smokers, or homosexuals to be put down by those with authority (assuming, of course, they mind their own business about it).

In this case, we have a fanatical religious minority, who happens to have a particular representative in power, subjecting a large group of people to the whims of his own values. This is what most politically motivated action intends -- to make everyone behave in accordance with the wishes of the minority. We are, theoretically, supposed to have protections against that.

Anyone still think that America is the land of the free? Wake up.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 02:35

A lot of democrats supported the earlier online gambling ban attempt. Republicans aren't the only ones who are absolutely certain they know what's best for everyone.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 06:28

JeffS, there's something I've been wondering, mostly unrelated to what's being discussed here. I hope you don't mind if I hijack this thread for the purpose of understanding it.

Let me preface this with a quote from an old 70's-era Galactica episode: "I do not question... merely ask enlightenment."

In other words, I'm not trying to ask this question because I disagree, or to cast aspersions. I honestly would like to learn something new. And it strikes me that you're a person who is in a position to answer honestly, because you've been very open about this topic in the past, and I respect your opinion and respect the way you stand by your values.

Okay, here we go: Gambling and Christianity. My understanding is that certain sects consider gambling a sin, and others don't. Being a Christian who gambles, I hope you might be able to answer the obvious questions that arise from this seeming inconsistency.

To wit: What are the parts of the Bible, if any, that say anything on the topic? If there aren't any, on what do the non-gambling sects base their belief? And if the Bible does list specific prohibitions against it, how do the gambling sects (or, for that matter, you personally) justify it?

I don't really want to spur a generalized religious debate here in this thread (although, with this group of people, such threads can be fun), I'm mostly just looking for those specific data points on this very narrow topic. I don't want to debate the correctness or morality of one side or the other, I just want to learn where the dichotomy comes from.

Oh, and if I've somehow got my facts wrong and I started this whole thing with a false premise (that some Christian sects allow gambling and others do not), then please correct me on that, too.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 10:20

Tony, I just typed a REALLY long response to your post and lost the whole thing. I will try to reconstruct it later, because I think you'd be interested.

The short answer is the Bible does not cover gambling; Christians who are opposed to it do so based on principals such as not taking something without giving value in return and the protection of "family values". I researched all of this before really playing with any seriousness and found all of thse arguments to be lacking.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 10:38

Quote:
It's really sad that *this* is the issue where I get to say, "I told you so." This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about with the "drug war", and every other way our liberty is eroded. These things are all related. Why does that seem so difficult for people to understand? We are now in another ludicrous situation where we are not allowed to voluntarily spend OUR OWN MONEY as we see fit! At what point will people finally become uncomfortable?

I think the issue with some of the things you've listed, including gambling, is undestanding what the net effect is on society. Nothing occurs in a vaccume, everythign we do affects others. This is potentially true of gambling, drugs, whatever. I don't really have enough information on any of these subjects to know the answers, but I can see where the government might need to step in. However if it does it should be on the basis of protecting society from individual choices, and not an attempt to save individuals themselves. It is a fine line to cross to do this, I agree, and certainly the burden of proof regarding the effects gambling has on society have not been met. That may be true of all of the items you listed.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 10:45

Quote:
By the way, I intend to continue playing.

This will be hard to do if the sites pull out though. I probably will stop because I really have personal moral issue breaking the law, and poker isn't important enough to me to take a stand on this (as wrong as I think it is). But even if I were willing to continue playing, if the big sites stop accepting players and players are forced to smaller, less reputables sites, I'd be uncomfortable with that. I think it'll be very interesting to see what Poker Stars does, cause that will tell us a lot of how this is going to go with the big sites over the long haul (despite what Full Tilt and UB are now claiming they'll do).

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 11:55

Quote:
I researched all of this before really playing with any seriousness and found all of thse arguments to be lacking.

This argument really tweaks me. Christians often accuse atheists, like myself, of being amoral because of our lack of faith in God, but I find this sort of external basis for morality far more damning than my different moralistic base.

The idea that you need to research your morality (at least in this case) based on what other people have said makes me feel that, without that external impetus, you would be amoral. Now, I doubt that that is actually true, but you need to stand on your own two feet and take a position of your own, not be subservient to what everyone else says. I know that you say you found "their" arguments against gambling to be uncompelling, but why do you feel the need to know "their" opinion at all?

Don't get me wrong. There are often more far-reaching results to our actions than it initially seems, and it's worth it to look and see what those non-obvious results might be and how our moral centers would react to those, but I don't get the impression that you were researching gambling, but, rather, researching Christianity, and that speaks to me the notion that you need to be a good Christian more than you need to follow your own compass. You'd already decided that you were personally okay with gambling; you just wanted to see if other Christians had a valid argument to cast aspersions.

Now, I'm not sure what your basis for that last part might be. It might just be a desire to fit into the group. It might be that if they can cast valid aspersions, so could God, and it would prevent you from getting into heaven. There might be some other basis that I can't see, but none of them seem to be based on what you think is right.

(I know. You claim that God is inside you, and therefore it's not external, which I can understand, but if it's inside you, again, why are you looking outside for confirmation?)

I see a lot of bumper stickers out there that I can't quote verbatim, but say something along the lines of "I don't need to do anything; God will take care of me". I know that that's not a universal Christian ideal, but to me, the attitude I'm describing you as having is just another aspect of that same idea. And that attitude really pisses me off. It's certainly not the only cause of this, but I do think it's one thing that's leading to the ever-increasing lack of mutual respect in our society. If God's in control, there's no need for you to apologize when you bump into someone in an aisle, not park in handicapped spots, etc. There's no reason not to be rude. There are a lot of atheistic bases for that attitude, as well, but this is the only one I've seen with a supposedly positive written philosophy.

I know I've gone off the deep end, but when I see stuff like this -- stuff that makes me see the moralistic base of the group that claims to be the most moral group in the US -- it really sets me off.

What makes it worse is that I know you have a personal moral base. Sure, it's been influenced by Christianity; so has that of virtually every American, personally Christian or not. There's nothing that says that Christianity contains an invalid philosophy. Personally, I think that, it contains a pretty solid, if simplistic, philosophy, even if I feel that a lot of people who publically espouse to be Christians fail to follow it. But no external source, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Existentialism, Objectivism, or anything else, should be the sole guiding force for your morality. They can help you put into words how you feel, but they don't and shouldn't define what you feel.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 12:45

Ok, here is my attempte to re-create the deleted post:

The Bible does not address gambling directly. Some pople point to the casting of lots, but the examples in scripture never say anything about the morality of the practice. Some pro-gambling Christians cite the examples of God making his will known through the casting of lots as supporting gambling, but really it is just the medium of God's message at the time and says nothing about the practice of wagering on chance. There are several arguments anti-gambling Christians make, and others that I have come up with on my own (because I think about this stuff). Here are a few and my responses.

Gambling is an exchange of money for nothing of value
This is a suspect argument to begin with, because it is an economics question more than a morality one. The Bible does tell us that a man should not eat if he doesn't work, which tells us something of the way God views the work ethic. I still think this is a tenuous link at best to gambling, especially if you are not persuing it full time. But even if you are, both parties are still receiveing value when they play poker (or any other gambling activty). The value they received is "fun", or the potential for fun at the least. Most people play poker for fun, and almost all of the losing players feel like the value they are getting for their money is worth it.

True there are some addicts out there who are just trying to hit it big and get lucky. For them gambling is not fun- it's an addiction. However, I do think this is not the rule and most people play poker because it is fun. The addictive, "I'm going to get lucky and hit big" types are going to find a place to feed their addiction- if not poker then somewhere else.

It is true that poker does not benifit society much. It produces nothing of value beyond entertainment value. But then that is true of almost every entertainment we enjoy. I ceratinly do not produce anything playing computer games or going to a movie. We don't want (nor does scripture adovcate) a society of individuals who only work to produce and never take advantage of the wonderful world God has given us to enjoy.

Poker is a preditory game where the strong prey on the weak
This is true, and moreso of poker than any other form of gambling since there is so much skill invovled. This is also probably the strongest Christian argument against poker. In many ways, poker is a game that dupes less talented people into giving their money to stronger players who understand the game better. Christians are supposed to live at peace with the world and certainly not try to deceive them, so engaging in an activity that explicitly seeks to fleece others is not reallly consistent with the Christian life.

Actually, this one does bother me a little, and if I were ever to stop playing poker (other than it being illegal of course), it'd be because of this reason. Still, this is not an aspect unique to poker- it is the very nature of our economic system. A free market is economic darwinism, where the strong survive and the weak fail. Strong business succeed by making better decicions than weaker businesses and getting lucky at the right time. It is no suprise that a game like poker would evovle in a place like the United States. To indite poker in this regard would be to indite our whole system of economics, possibly rightly so.

All that being said, when I enter a poker game with others we all have the same information available. If my opponnents are a losing players, they either know it or haven't lost enough that they care. Their willingness to continue playing (usually) indicates a belief that the money they are spending is worth the enjoyment of the game. I am really not deciving anyone when I step up to the game- I AM trying to take their money, just like they are trying to take mine. If I have a skill advantage I am not hiding this fact, nor would they believe me if I told them.

Gambling is anti family values
Yeah, I know everyone's sick about hearing about "family values", but Christians believe the family is something God put together and as such it is an institution that should be honored and protected. I believe this too, though let me clarify and say that by "protected", I mean from within by the choices family members make, not externally by passing laws and such. I don't believe government passing bans on homosexual marriages, banning poker, or anything else "protects" my family. However, I do feel that it is important for me to make good decisions for my family as a husband (and some day as a father) that helps it to become all that God wants it to be. Many Christians say that gambling impeads in this indevor.

I do not find this to be the case at all. If I am wagering my house or savings on wild gambling sprees, that is certainly anti-family values. However, I am not doing that. I practice good bankroll management and have a seperate account for all of my poker winnings and buy ins. In fact, as silly as this is, learning to respect my poker bankroll has led me to be better with money in general (which just goes to show how amazingly bad I am with money). Poker can certainly be a time suck away from my wife, but so can "World of Warcraft" or any other entertainment I might engage in. Once again it all comes down to the choices I make and how I persue my hobbie.

It is true that there are a lot of things that tend to go along with gambling that are definitly anti-"Christian Family Values". Prostitution, greed, etc. The deeper I've gottn into poker, the more I've seen how many people tend to get sucked into these things. But I've also seen those who don't. Eric Lynch is an online poker player who has continually and public put his family first, and even sites spending mroe time with them as one of the reasons he decided to go pro. Sure there are a lot more cases of some guy runining his family through gambling that guys like Eric Lynch, but it's all in the approach. Guys (and gals) who self destruct at the poker table have larger issues that gambling is merely highlighting. But if they didn't find away to destroy their families at and around the poker table, they'd find elswhere to do it. To blame poker and gambling is to ignore the real issues I think.

There are more arguments, but I think they mostly fall into these categories. I don't see gambling as being inherintly sinful, but there are aspects that can lead to sin, just like anything else we do in a fallen world. I look at it as an area to be careful; there are similar issues surrounding watching movies, playing computer games, etc. The scripture advocates to live "in the world and not of it". I don't believe this means avoiding watching moves, gambling, etc. but rather being aware of the pitfalls and not accepting everything that comes my way. I must be consistently on guard and make decisions that are Godly, whether I are dealing with business entertianment, relationships, and anything else.

On the flip side of all of the above, poker is a great game that is a lot of fun to play. The randomness of the cards makes it more exciting than chess, and the skill involved makes it more interesting than blackjack. It is a simple and unique blend of mathmatics and strategy that is hard to find anywhere else. My temperment is well suited to the game and I find it extremely gratifying.

I really love poker tournaments over cash games. The rush of making a final table with big payouts is huge- I can understand why people get addicted to gambling. The cool thing about poker is that with skill you can increase the frequency of these payouts, which is not true for playing slots or other big payout games.

It is sad for me to think that I might not be able to play poker any more because it is something I enjoy very much. I enjoy going over hands, thinking about strategy, and improving my game. Taking my bankroll from $50 to over $1,000 in the past 9 months has been an amazing ride, and I hope to take it even further. Truth be told, all of those hours I could have easily put into someting else (like side work programming) and made much more, but I'd not have had near the fun doing it.

It'll be intersting to see how this all shakes down. I really think (hope?) that poker will probably be legalized and regulated in the next 10 years, and this might just be a bump in the road. It is still very dissapointing to have to possibly give up something that I've invested a lot of time in and done well at simply so Frist can make points with Christians (many who don't even care about this issue) for his presidential bid in 2008.

Posted by: Robotic

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 13:19

Quote:
JeffS, there's something I've been wondering, mostly unrelated to what's being discussed here. I hope you don't mind if I hijack this thread for the purpose of understanding it.
Let me preface this with a quote from an old 70's-era Galactica episode: "I do not question... merely ask enlightenment."
In other words, I'm not trying to ask this question because I disagree, or to cast aspersions. I honestly would like to learn something new. And it strikes me that you're a person who is in a position to answer honestly, because you've been very open about this topic in the past, and I respect your opinion and respect the way you stand by your values.

Wow- I'm going to use that intro for the next time we talk about Unix comands!

/truly appreciative
//didn't remember 'Battle-axe Galaxative' being so deep
///third slashie's the charm

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 13:23

Quote:
The idea that you need to research your morality (at least in this case) based on what other people have said makes me feel that, without that external impetus, you would be amoral. Now, I doubt that that is actually true, but you need to stand on your own two feet and take a position of your own, not be subservient to what everyone else says. I know that you say you found "their" arguments against gambling to be uncompelling, but why do you feel the need to know "their" opinion at all?

I believe that I am a flawed human being, predisposed to make incorrect moral choices based on what I think and feel. I do look to what other people have to say on subjects of morality because I want to hold myself accountable and I trust that they do the same. Since Christines beleive we have all fallen short in the area of morality, we know we must work together and sharpen one another if we are going to get closer to leading the lives God desires of us.

At the same time I cannot just accept "their" opinions without subjecting it to my own reasoning and reading of scripture. At the end of the day the buck stops with me and I am accountable to God for my actions, not them.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong. There are often more far-reaching results to our actions than it initially seems, and it's worth it to look and see what those non-obvious results might be and how our moral centers would react to those, but I don't get the impression that you were researching gambling, but, rather, researching Christianity, and that speaks to me the notion that you need to be a good Christian more than you need to follow your own compass

This is true- it is far more imprtant to me to be a good Christian than to follow my own compass. This stems from my belief that I will get it wrong if left to my own devices on moral issues, but that Christiantiy in its purest form is also the pursed form of morality.

Quote:
Now, I'm not sure what your basis for that last part might be. It might just be a desire to fit into the group. It might be that if they can cast valid aspersions, so could God, and it would prevent you from getting into heaven. There might be some other basis that I can't see, but none of them seem to be based on what you think is right.

(I know. You claim that God is inside you, and therefore it's not external, which I can understand, but if it's inside you, again, why are you looking outside for confirmation?)

Christians do not make moral decisions to achieve heaven- scripture tells us this is impossible. Our goal is to live lives pleasing to God, the author of all morality. Because we are fallen into sin and do not see clearly as God does, we must strive to challenge our own internal sense of morality and attempt to adopt His. God does dwell inside of beleivers and acts as a moral guide, but as long as we are still in this world we will have to struggle witn sin and be subject to its effect- namely that we do not always see clearly what is right and what is not.

When a Christian becomes a believer, he or she is declared rightouse before God. This means that the Christian will no longer suffer the long term consequences of sin and will ultimatly exist in Heaven with God for all eternity. It does NOT mean that the believer is able to cut sin out of his or her life, therefore the short term effects of sin still remain. This declaration process something like a suspected murderer going beforing a judge and being delcared innocent. That the judge made a declaration does not change the person in anyway. If he was peaceful before the declaration, he is peaceful after. If he was a murderer before, he is a murderer stil.

Fortunatly, declarative salvation is not all that God offers. He also changes believers and makes them more Holy and moral through a growth process. Unlike the declartive part of salvation, though, this is a process that takes time, so believers must deal with their fallen nature and the effects of their sin while still in this world.

Quote:
If God's in control, there's no need for you to apologize when you bump into someone in an aisle, not park in handicapped spots, etc. There's no reason not to be rude. There are a lot of atheistic bases for that attitude, as well, but this is the only one I've seen with a supposedly positive written philosophy.

This is not true because the Christian bares responisibility for his or her own actions. Christians may be saved positionaly before god in the delcaritive sense, but still will struggle with sin. This is their responsibility, not God's, and they must deal with it so. They cannot do wrong to others and then shrug it off. By treating another person badly they have comitted a crime against that person AND against God, who expects better from them. Scripture makes this concept quite clear. If anything, becoming a Christian should make life MORE difficult and decisions have to be made with greater consideration, as now you are applying a higher standard of morality- God's.

Quote:
They can help you put into words how you feel, but they don't and shouldn't define what you feel.

No one can define what I feel. What other Christians and scripture does is help me apply what I feel in a way that is consistent with my beliefs. Often what I feel and what I believe conflict- sometimes it is my feeling that is wrong and other times my belief. I can only make decisions in these cases when I try to understand scripture and what others have to say about it.

In this particular instance, I really didn't know how I felt or believed. I'd always heard gambling dealt with as a sin within Christiantiy, so I wanted to see what the real basis for that was. What I found was a lot of people trying to appeal to the things I believe to support their viewpoint, but that their appeals lacked merit. Having looked at this, I realized that enjoying poker was not inconsistent with my beliefs as a Christian.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 13:49

All right. I'm not going to counter you point by point, but just let me say that I think that the problem with society at large is not that people fail to follow a strict set of externally proscribed moral guidelines, but that they fail to follow very simple moral guidelines that are inherent in each of us; that those internal mores are easy to ignore. We don't need an external set of philosophical guidelines to tell us what is right (much less an internally inconsistent set like the one you base your philosophy on). Occasionally, we need further examination of the results of our actions than are immediately obvious, and that's when external reading can be helpful: to point out those less than obvious repercussions. But you don't need someone else to tell you what's right and what's wrong. You already know that. Just pay attention and you'll be fine.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 14:07

However, I am going to respond to one point in particular:

Quote:
I am accountable to God for my actions, not them.

...

When a Christian becomes a believer, he or she is declared rightouse before God. This means that the Christian will no longer suffer the long term consequences of sin and will ultimatly exist in Heaven with God for all eternity. It does NOT mean that the believer is able to cut sin out of his or her life

Doesn't it follow, then, in a non-Catholic point of view (what you say is distinctly opposed to the Catholic point of view, I think) that there is no real reason to avoid sin? I can believe that Jesus died for my sins, so why not go hog-wild? No reason for him to pay for something I'm not using.

I know that that's not what Christian philosophy intends. But it could certainly be read that way. While I doubt many (if any) people are using that to justify killing sprees, I can see where many people might use it to justify an "ends justify the means" argument, or a "means justify the ends" argument. If I'm not to be held accountable for the sins of, let's say, for instance, killing thousands of innocent civilians, what's to prevent me from doing so in order to remove a despot? And don't think I'm talking excusively of Bush here. I could just as easily be talking about the acts of Osama bin Laden, or the Crusaders, or the IRA, or any of a thousand human-built organizations throughout the history of the world.

The way you describe how external religion trumps internal concerns me, even from your point of view. You say that you are likely to be confused about what's right and wrong, even though God exists within you. One would assume that you would assume that that's true for all Christians, if not all people. Yet you assume that that moral compass, when interpreted by the people who wrote it down, then interpreted by your brain, then interpreted by your moral compass has more validity than the one inside you that shares one of those potential failing points and then adds a few more on top. (And, at least from my theoretical point of view, that accusation covers not just modern theological writings, but also the Bible itself.)

Like I said: it's the failure to listen to your own compass that's the problem.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 14:42

Quote:
Doesn't it follow, then, in a non-Catholic point of view (what you say is distinctly opposed to the Catholic point of view, I think) that there is no real reason to avoid sin? I can believe that Jesus died for my sins, so why not go hog-wild? No reason for him to pay for something I'm not using.

Roman's 6 deals specifically with this. It doesn't really give a reason not to go hog wild, other than saying that we've been set free from sin and ought to live by our new nature. However, the growing Christian understands that life is generally better and more fullfilling when you live according to the new nature.

Quote:
Yet you assume that that moral compass, when interpreted by the people who wrote it down, then interpreted by your brain, then interpreted by your moral compass has more validity than the one inside you that shares one of those potential failing points and then adds a few more on top.

While I don't agree on the nature of scripture, your point of stacking errors is still a good question. However, I don't think it's quite accurate.

Imagine if my moral outlook on an issue were written on a piece of paper. Unfortunatly, because of sin it has become corrupted and contains errors. In fact, the errors are subtle and aren't obvious- all I know that it isn't quite right. I also know that several other people have similar pages that I can compare mine against. Theirs also contain errors, but different ones from mine. If I compare my page against a bunch of different pages from different people, odds are I'll be able to ferret out the errors and come very close to what the original page said because most of our pages will contain different errors. We can look to see what is the same and get close to the original. Adding the number of opinions reduces the distortion of the original page rather than increasing it. The reason for this is that while we're all fallen and have a dim view of truth, we are fallen in different areas and God is working on those individually, making us each stronger. Thus we can sharpen one another and point each other toward the ultimate truth. I trust this process a lot more than my own understanding of scripture and feelings alone, though those certainly are a factor as well.

Quote:
Like I said: it's the failure to listen to your own compass that's the problem.

I think that people listen to their own compasses and do very, very bad things.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 14:52

Thanks, Jeff. That's exactly what I was looking for.

Bitt: That's exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

Robotic: Yeah, I always loved that quote, ever since I was a kid. Thinking back on it, I might be remembering it from Buck Rogers, but I'm pretty sure it was Galactica. There were these klingon-like warrior-types onboard one of the shuttles, and one of the underlings said that to his boss.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 15:06

Bitt, that's actually addressed in the Bible in Romans 6:

Quote:
Romans 6 NIV

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Posted by: peter

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 16:17

Quote:
It is true that there are a lot of things that tend to go along with gambling that are definitly anti-"Christian Family Values". Prostitution, greed, etc.

Greed "tends to" go along? Surely all gambling is greed?

Quote:
I really love poker tournaments over cash games. The rush of making a final table with big payouts is huge- I can understand why people get addicted to gambling.

That rush you get is your greed being massaged. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad -- modern civilisation couldn't continue without a certain level of greed in its captains of industry, any more than it could without a certain level of killer instinct in its armed forces -- but it's a bit weird to hear you both disparage and celebrate greed in the same post.

FWIW, it didn't initially occur to me that there was a Religious-Right angle to banning online poker. I just assumed it was due to lobbying from brick-and-mortar casinos and other US-based gambling operators who have seen their clientele leaving for more convenient and less taxed alternatives, and, like all US businesses since the days of the Pony Express that have seen their business models wiped out by technology, have purchased legislation to attempt to hold back progress.

Peter

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 16:28

Unlike the UK, legal gambling in the US is pretty limited. It's only allowed in eleven states, and even in most of them, it's pretty limited. It's also legal in most Indian reservations, but they're as out of the way as the states for most Americans.

In particular, Frist represents Tennessee, where gambling is illegal. Nor are there any Indian reservations in Tennessee that allow gambling. So that wouldn't seem to be his reasoning. Also, he's been noted as voting and acting in a religious-right manner.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 16:33

In regards to Romans 6, I'd just like to point out that it was written by (or at least attributed to) Paul, as was most of the New Testament, and that he never knew Jesus personally and, in my opinion, has no more authority than any other religious writer. I'd be inclined to argue that most of the Christianity that exists today is more Paulinism than anything else. Personally, I never respected anything that the man had to say. Regardless of that, you're still basing your philosophy on someone who has no more moral authority than you yourself do.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 16:34

Quote:
Bitt: That's exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

I know, I'm sorry, and I tried not to respond, but I really, really, really, hate that argument.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 16:43

That's fine if you wish to believe that, but it's totally inconsistent with scripture, including Paul's personal encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (described in a non-Pauline book), his complete acceptance by the other apostles (who DID spend their time with Jesus) and their endorsement of his writings. I know this is one of your beloved pet arguments, but it's completely ridiculous when studied scripturally and historically.

Quote:
Regardless of that, you're still basing your philosophy on someone who has no more moral authority than you yourself do.

Unless one believes that the very words of scripture were inspired and given to the authors of the Bible through the power of God. At that point, his moral authority significantly superscedes our own.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 17:17

Quote:
Greed "tends to" go along? Surely all gambling is greed?

Depends on your definition of greed I guess. When I think of greed and the way it is characterized in scripture as a sin, I think of as an unhealthy desire for wealth. To desire money is not a bad thing, otherwise anyone who gets a job is being "greedy". Rather it is an excessive drive for wealth.

I like poker because it is fun to play, not because I think it'll make me rich. I dont' think that my desire to win money at poker is any more excessive than the money I hope to gain by having a job and drawing an income.

Quote:
That rush you get is your greed being massaged.

I don't think getting excited about a big cash inflow is the same thing as greed. And actually, I get a much bigger rush at the final table of a $4 tournament where I can win $200 for first place than I do end of year bonus time at my job (which is worth a lot more). A lot of the rush comes from doing well at something, and in tournament poker payouts is how you keep score.

But more important then that is how the money affects the winner. A person who is driven by greed for more wealth finds his or her significance in the wrong place. This is also one of the problems I have with capitalism- it teaches us to value our self worth on the basis of monetray value. There are plenty of miserable poker players making gobs of money because their value is in the accumulation of wealth, not things that really matter. You see them on TV all the time and it is very sad.

Quote:
but it's a bit weird to hear you both disparage and celebrate greed in the same post.

Winning money is fun, especially for a job well done. Developing an unatural drive to accumulate wealth is dangerous, and a sin. The two are different in my mind.

Quote:
FWIW, it didn't initially occur to me that there was a Religious-Right angle to banning online poker.

Make no mistake, this is THE reason this came about. B&M casionas are going to be hurting because of this legislation because if it has its intended effect, poker will suffer overall. The WSOP Main event had over 8,000 participants this year, each paying $10,000 to enter. And I think more than half of these entries were won online. Without online poker, much of this revenue will be lost for sure.

And if there were B&M supported reasons to do this, it wouldn't be coming from a Republican. I think the Democrat introduced bill in Washington to make gambling a Felony was more of an example of this, attempting to protect the interestes of the Indian reservations. Frist is almost certainly pandering to the religious right with this- no question at all.

Posted by: peter

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 17:31

Quote:
That's fine if you wish to believe that, but it's totally inconsistent with scripture, including Paul's personal encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (described in a non-Pauline book), his complete acceptance by the other apostles (who DID spend their time with Jesus) and their endorsement of his writings. I know this is one of your beloved pet arguments, but it's completely ridiculous when studied scripturally and historically.

Paul's encounter with Jesus was after the Crucifixion, and so presumably ranks with the "personal encounters" today's Christians still claim to experience. The source for his "acceptance by the other apostles" is Galatians 2:7-9, written by Paul. What's the source for their "endorsement of his writings"? Is any of it "historical" as opposed to "scriptural"?

Quote:
Unless one believes that the very words of scripture were inspired and given to the authors of the Bible through the power of God.

And that the conferences that settled the biblical canon, four hundred years later, were equally inspired, and unfalteringly kept in the good stuff and rejected the bad stuff.

Peter

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 03/10/2006 17:42

LOL- Tony, you HAD to know all this was coming

Posted by: webroach

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 03:24

Quote:
Sheesh. JeffS + Post-On-Any-Topic = Intense-relgious-discussion. I guess it's been a while since we've had one of these and we were about due.

I think what it is Jeff is that there are two camps which can never come to a mutually agreeable concept of reality. And that's not neccessarily negative. But the fact remains that those who believe in a thing and those who do not really have no acceptable middle ground: you can't "kinda believe in somthing you don't bellieve in" or vice-versa.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm just chiming in to say that I'll take both science and religion and don't feel that I need to choose between them. I don't have any desire to disprove the Big Bang, and I'll take all the cures for desieses that science can give me. There are places where the Science and faith don't quite meet, it's true, and I'm OK with that. I don't know everything, and somtimes we humans get things wrong. Through research and/or enlightment I'm sure we'll get it right some day- and if we don't in my lifetime I'll understand in heaven. As I've said before, the central idea of Christianty is salvation by grace through faith, not to combat science.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you are not the standard Christian in this country, Jeff. Thankfully.

Quote:
While I"m posting, though, I do have an observation. I understand that a bunch of you look at Christiaty like a common myth- given that you aren't believers this makes complete sense- I don't see why Christiantiy would be treated any differently than any other belief system in your eyes. At least you're level headed not to try and hedge your bets the way most people do. That being said, I do get the sense that some of the language being chosen in recent posts is a deliberate attempt to shock myself or John (while other statements and posts are clearly intended to simply lighten the discussion). Honestly this doesn't bother me (disbelief is the same whether it is attempting to be shocking or not), and I might be misunderstanding the intent, but if some of these words are being choicen for the purpose of tweaking those who are Christians to get a rise out of us, I think other language might serve the discussion better.

I'm gonna guess that you're referring to my using the term "all-powerful sky faerie" to talk about your diety. I mean no offense by it, honestly, and I certainly don't use it to shock you. I use the term for two reasons: (1) I don't believe in your diety at all, and to me it seems no more believable than faeries. And in your belief system, the diety is omnipotent. Hence, to me, the diety represents an all-powerful faerie in the sky. (2) I refuse to use thee term "god" for a specific individual. That usage is nothing more, historically, than an attempt to disempower the dieties of other belief systems (also known as "gods").

Quote:
I honstly do hope and pray that some of you will come around to trust in Jesus for salvation, and if it ever happens I'll know this for certain: it won't be a wishy-washy, "I'm trying Christiantiy because everyone else is doing it" kind of faith. Though if some of you became believers it might shake the faith up quite a bit!

Thank you for the vote of confidence Jeff. Sadly though, you're wrong: if we became believers, we wouldn't shake up anything, because the process of becoming believers would entail giving up that part of ourselves which questions, which requires tangible, testable evidence. You won't find your diety in a petri dish unless you decided you would before even looking.

Quote:
At any rate, I'm fairly convinced that I'm not going to say or do anything on this BBS that will ever make any of you change your minds, but I can still hope that God works in your lives elsewhere to bring you to Him.

You're right Jeff, at least as far as I'm concerned. Nothing you say will change my mind, because I've heard the arguments. I've weighed the evidence and found it wanting. So you see, it isn't something you can do, making me change my mind. The evidence would have to. And there is NO evidence for your diety that can't also be attributed to any all-powerful sky faerie I choose to imagine.

Quote:
I remain happy that this board allows such an honest and open exchange of ideas from such diverse belief systems, usually in the most respectful way possible. There are very few places that I've experienced this.

I couldn't agree more. I think the fact that we can have pretty heated debates about such a loaded topic and still remain friends speaks volumes about the community here.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 03:59

Quote:
Well, if the message clearly came from God, rather than from "those pesky Christians" then I certainly couldn't be upset that the creator of the universe was meddling in my cable bill, now could I?

How would you know whether or not it came from God?

Quote:
Oh, you better believe I would. Because in that universe, all those omens would be testable by science.
We could have everyone wear blue shirts one month, to see if the messages stopped or doubled in frequency. We could see if the hand of God smote every person who defiled their cable bill. Repeatably. Predictably. Every time.
In that universe, God would simply be a fact.

Just like rainbows and burning bushes are provable by science. Yet, because it is explained by science, it supposedly doesn't come from God, right? If you could prove why God exists then he wouldn't be God, would he? I think you would be.

If you wanted to be a true scientist, then you'd acknowledge the question as to why we are here, and at the very least, entertain the only plausible solution put forth thus far by mankind -- that there's a higher being, known as God.

And, you would take into account the billions of first hand accounts from witnesses who claim to have had an experience with God. There have been far fewer reported UFO sightings, yet most people, and probably most scientists, would entertain the possibility of them actually existing. To not do so would be unscientific.

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 11:49

Peter, an attempt to answer some of your questions with my limited knowlege:

Quote:
The source for his "acceptance by the other apostles" is Galatians 2:7-9, written by Paul. What's the source for their "endorsement of his writings"?

2 Peter 3:14-16

"So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless,
blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our
dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his
letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which
ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Peter not only endorses Paul, but also forsees that people will have trouble accepting his letters. Ironic.

Also, Luke describes Paul's ministry (and indirectly endoreses it by not condemning it) in the book of Acts.

Quote:
Is any of it "historical" as opposed to "scriptural"?

Several of the early church fathers, some of them contemporaries of the apostles, acknowlege Paul:

Clement of Alexandria, The Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 5 (AD 94,95)
"Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. ...By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and West, we won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Romans, Chapter 4 (August 23, 97 AD)
"I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour."

Polycarp, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 3
"For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truly carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin."

Irenaeus (140-202 AD) cites Paul in his work "Against Heresies."

I acknowlege that there are disputes about these ancient writings. You may well find an argument that Polycarp's letter is a forgery, or that the reference to St. Paul is a forgery. However, one must examine both sides of these arguments. Entire books have been written on the matter, which I will not reproduce here. Although initially some of the Jewish Christians did reject Paul (which is understandable since he had been hunting them down and killing or imprisoning them), by the time of the Council of Jerusalem, at which both Peter and James the brother of Christ were present, all of these issues seemed to be resolved.

I agree with Jeff though, in that regardless of the amount of evidence that is produced, the choice to reject Christ will likely remain the same for readers of this discussion. Because of the nature of all historical writings of that age, enough doubt could be cast to reject just about any of them if one wished. There simply isn't a volume of corroborating evidence available. In the end, to be a Christ-follower requires a certain amount of faith. That said, I'll probably not post any further on the issue.

Also, to Bitt: I do apologize for being abrasive in my earlier post with the whole "pet argument" thing.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 13:00

Quote:
If you wanted to be a true scientist, then you'd acknowledge the question as to why we are here, and at the very least, entertain the only plausible solution put forth thus far by mankind -- that there's a higher being, known as God.

First, science never claimed to be able to or want to answer the question of "why". That is the realm of theologians, and, maybe, philosophers. In addition, to atheists, the question of "why" isn't even a question. There's no guiding force, no intelligence for there to even be a why. It just is. It's like asking "why does water freeze at a certain temperature and pressure". Humanity can explain the methods that cause it to freeze, but expecting us to explain the rationale behind choosing those data is absurd.

Second, why is the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God the only plausible explanation? Certainly there were and are many other religions each with their own creation myths. Just because you were born into a Christian society, all of those other explanations are null and void?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 13:01

Quote:
Also, to Bitt: I do apologize for being abrasive in my earlier post with the whole "pet argument" thing.

Not a problem. Not exactly an incorrect assessment, either.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 14:05

Just a few general comments on some recent points/arguments made.

We keep doing this:

"Why do you believe xxx"
"Because I read yyy in scripture"
"I don't buy scripture, especially Paul's stuff"

It should be obvious from the outset that if we don't agree on the authority of scripture then we're not going agree on the conclusions I draw from it. I never appeal to scripture here to convince anybody of anything; rather my purpose is to explain why I believe what I do. Since we are starting from different places, obviously beliefs will diverge. But I'd hope an honest inquiry trying to understand my beliefs would also understand that I am always going to be coming from a frame of reference that starts with scripture as the inspiried Word of God. You don't need to adpot this belief to understand mine better, but if every time I appeal to scripture we end up having the "Paul didn't meet Jesus/ had his own agenda/ was gay" discussion we are not going to get very far in seeking to understand one another.

My suggestion is that if we want to have a discussion about the authority of scripture and why John and I believe it to be the inspired Word of God, that might be an interesting thread. But if there are other questions we are intrested in discussing regarding things such as gambling, greed, or how Christians derive their moral outlook, it would more profitable to accept that we have different starting places and move on to where that leaves us and how we apply our different views rather than constantly re-treading the same issue of the inspiration of scripture.

Just an observation and a thought to try and get a little farther in these disuccions

I also wanted to respond to the whole "why dosen't God talk to us anymore" stuff. I'd like to make clear that Christians believe God still does talk to us, just not in the authoritative way of scripture. Scripture remains the objective Word of God that we can use to measure individual subjective encounters with Him. In scripture He has given us all we need to live the Christian life the way He intends; no more objective truth is needed.

The Bible never seeks to prove the existense of God. It always just assumes His existense and centers around themes of our relationship to Him. So saying, "God spoke 2000 years ago and then became silent" is an innacurate characterization of the Bible. Rather, God spoke through the Bible to tell us how to relate to Him, and has been communicating to us in His still small voice ever since.

It is easy to think that we'd relate to God differently if He suddenly appeard and start doing God-like things, but scripture teels a different story. When He actually DID come in human form doing God-like things, here are some of the responses people had:

-Some believed and became followers
-Some called Him evil and not worthy of being followed
-Some felt threatened by the implications of the things He said and claimed
-Some thought it was a hoax.
-Some treated Him like a curiosity but no real significance
-Some really couldn't be bothered because they had their own issues to deal with

These are the same responses people have today, and it appears that even putting the miraculous right in our faces didn't make much of a difference from the beleif standpoint. I think very few attitudes would change if God were to show up and start working miracles. There would still be doubters, those unconcerned, and people who believe and trust. At the end of the day, the real issue isn't belief in His existense (though that is the first step of course)- it is answer the question of our need for a savior and putting our trust in His sacrifice. His showing up might help with the first part, but the second part is always going to be a matter of faith.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 15:24

Well, that's the question I'm (I guess implicitly) asking. What leads you to believe that the Bible has any credence? I'm personally happier with people who believe that God exists and see the Bible as a written record of other people who believe the same thing, not as some doctrinal credo. It is, in some respects, an historical record of the life of Jesus and the history of the Jewish people, so it's hardly irrelevant to the Judeo-Christian experience, and there's a decent amount of good philosophy in it (as well as a decent amount of bad, too) but to put it at a higher priority than your own personal relationship with God I don't understand. It's more like you're more interested in being an upright member of a club than being okay with your God.

I also have some personal theories about the notion of feeling an internal God, but I think that, beyond some extreme examples, there's nothing wrong with that notion, as long as you don't force your views upon others. While I don't think that you do that directly, I do think you support and encourage a culture that does, and that's where my problem lies.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 19:20

Quote:
I'd like to make clear that Christians believe God still does talk to us, just not in the authoritative way of scripture. Scripture remains the objective Word of God that we can use to measure individual subjective encounters with Him. In scripture He has given us all we need to live the Christian life the way He intends; no more objective truth is needed.

The Bible never seeks to prove the existense of God. It always just assumes His existense and centers around themes of our relationship to Him. So saying, "God spoke 2000 years ago and then became silent" is an innacurate characterization of the Bible. Rather, God spoke through the Bible to tell us how to relate to Him, and has been communicating to us in His still small voice ever since.

The former paragraph is a fair characterization of many Christian theologies, but it's certainly not true of all Christian theologies. You use Bible and scripture synonymously (which is an important thing to note), making the claim that it's "all we need," and that "no more objective truth is needed." If that were truly all we needed, why would He bother continuing to communicate with us, as you suggest he does? If one believes that God continues to communicate with us, then I'm of the opinion that one can't believe that the Bible (a word I'm using specifically) is all we need.

For example, in the church I was raised in, the Bible is the principle scripture (it does, after all, contain the basic tenets of Christianity), but is certainly not "all we need." It also has a Doctrine and Covenants, which is a record of what the church perceives as God's continued communication. In that end, it's a scriptural record, not there to supplant the Bible, but to supplement the Bible with current revelations of (and from) God. (Thus the Bible is a subset of "scripture", as opposed to being synonymous.)

One great benefit that having such a document affords is that it allows the church to recognize that the Bible is a historical document, written for a particular society, during a particular time period, and, as such, parts of it may be irrelevant to modern society. Can you imagine how well the people of that era would have accepted Christ teaching not to have slaves, or that women aren't property to be bought and sold, but equally important members of society, due the same rights as men?

In the same way a parent evolves their instructions from "Don't touch the stove," to "Only use the stove when I'm around to supervise," to "Feel free to bake cookies whenever you want," I think God evolves his instructions to us based on our capacity to greater understand the nuances. To believe that the Bible is "all you need," and the complete "objective truth," does a disservice to God, because it artificially puts a limit on His ability to teach humanity new concepts or "objective truths" that would have been too radical a change for a previous society to accept.

Scripture must be a living, adaptive, document, or it ceases to be any more relevant than any other beneficial philosophy.

(If you read the beliefs of the church mentioned above, I think the one single most important line that sets that church apart from many, if not all others, I've encountered is this: "Recognizing that the perception of truth is always qualified by human nature and experience, there is no official church creed that must be accepted by all members." That's a powerful thing for a religion to recognize.)

Posted by: music

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 19:53

Quote:
(If you read the beliefs of the church mentioned above, I think the one single most important line that sets that church apart from many, if not all others, I've encountered is this: "Recognizing that the perception of truth is always qualified by human nature and experience, there is no official church creed that must be accepted by all members." That's a powerful thing for a religion to recognize.)

What about Unitarians?
Don't they also allow/encourage some belief flexibility among their members?

Edit: Apparently they do.

Also, BBC link and Wikipedia link.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 23:09

Sadly, religious people simply avoid the questions with pithy aphorisms like "God works in mysterious ways."

Or worse, tell you "See? The fact that you can't explain this proves that God exists."

tanstaafl.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 23:09

Quote:
The former paragraph is a fair characterization of many Christian theologies, but it's certainly not true of all Christian theologies.

True enough- obviously there are many differing versions of Christianity out there and I promise I do not presume to speak for all of them; only that with which I am a part of/ most familiar. When I say "Christianity" I generally mean "the conservative evangelical Christiantiy that I am a part of", but I just used the single term for brevity's sake.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 23:15

Quote:
making the claim that it's "all we need," and that "no more objective truth is needed." If that were truly all we needed, why would He bother continuing to communicate with us, as you suggest he does?

It is all we truly need as a guidline for objective truth about God. However, I believe that God is not only interested in teaching objective truth about Himself, but also helping us to experience Him in an objective mannger.

Quote:
One great benefit that having such a document affords is that it allows the church to recognize that the Bible is a historical document, written for a particular society, during a particular time period, and, as such, parts of it may be irrelevant to modern society. Can you imagine how well the people of that era would have accepted Christ teaching not to have slaves, or that women aren't property to be bought and sold, but equally important members of society, due the same rights as men?

Historical context is important to intepretation of scripture whether you believe that it is a living document or not. No Christian I know believes the practices listed above should be followed in modern society (or even that they were necessarily correct at the time). The people in the Bible existed in a time and place different from ours, but the fundamentals of faith were still the same.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 23:34

Quote:
Well, that's the question I'm (I guess implicitly) asking. What leads you to believe that the Bible has any credence?

Long answer that I don't have the energy right now to fully answer to anything close to satisfactorily. There are plenty of arguments about consistency of doctrine, internal and external claims of devinie insipration, and my own experience of the truth of it as lived out in my life. Each of these are topics that would have to be expounded upon in great detail, and honestly I'm just not up for it at the moment

Quote:
as long as you don't force your views upon others. While I don't think that you do that directly, I do think you support and encourage a culture that does, and that's where my problem lies.

I'm not quite certain what you mean by this. While I am a part of the evangelical church and do seek to share the gospel with people, I don't try to force people to follow my moral code- I DO try to convince people that I'm right, but then don't we all?

I don't really get wht you meant by "supporting and encouraging a culture that does". Are you talking about politics and the religious right, or something else? If it is the former, I don't do anything I know of to encourage that. I try to vote the way I think will be best for the country overall, but I always feel like I'm picking between to bad choices; I don't remember ever having voted and feeling like my choice was a good representation of myself or my goals. I want less government, not more, and I don't want the government telling people what to believe or how to behave unless it's going to infringe on the rights of others. I honestly don't beleive either party in the US is offering that though.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 04/10/2006 23:40

Quote:
Quote:
You might want to check out The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.

Thanks, Bitt. I have read that in the past and liked it.

I have also read Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer -- which didn't really deliver on the promise of the title, but was still somewhat interesting.

I would add to the list Richard Dawkins' new The God Delusion, drawn in part from previous work done for a BBC special (that will likely never air on TV in these United Snakes!).

As the title might suggest, this was a somewhat less polite, less tentative/apologetic treatment. Nothing I needed to be convinced of, particularly, but I wanted to see what kind of a job he'd do. Not always cohesive -- seemed to digress in the middle parts particularly -- but I thought Dawkins covered the territory well. And, yes, frankly.

By way of heinous Dawkins-thumping proselytization, and given Jeff's thoughtful nature, I'd pony up to get Jeff a copy if he was interested to read start-to-finish (no obligation for refutation or book report!) Of course, as an alternative, you may find that TGD has not yet been removed from library shelves in Texas.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 05/10/2006 00:01

Quote:
Are you talking about politics and the religious right

Partially. I can understand voting Republican and not liking some of their aspects (well, in times past when the Republican party was not the asylum I believe it to be today), but you base at least some of your choice on your religion, thinking that somehow Bush (to pick today's candidate) represents your faith more than whatever other party might be involved. Honestly, I believe that he represents the opposite of what you believe. You may say that you don't want the government dictating morality, but you vote for the people who want it to do so anyway. (I also have issues with you believing that somehow the Republicans still stand for smaller government -- see the beginning of this thread for evidence that it doesn't -- but that's neither here nor there for this argument.)

I also believe that you're part of a culture that looks to overwhelm every other culture you don't agree with. I could go on a rant here, but I won't. I just encourage you to look with whom you're aligning yourself. You may not share the same views on things. They may be strange bedfellows, but they're bedfellows nonetheless.

I guess what I'm getting at is that you have strong views about things. I think that's great. What I'm confused by is that, to me, your ultimate choices always seem to undermine those views. When put on the spot, you always seem to have a copout like "well, they all do that". What has to happen to get your political actions to line up with your professed beliefs?

I'm all too understanding of not having anyone to represent you politically. I have the benefit of having my personal politics lie well to the far side of one of the major parties in the vast majority of ways, making my choice easy, if lousy. But at some point you have to realize that someone that used to represent you no longer does, even if they still claim to do so.

I don't know. I've always had very leftist political views, but, until recently, I've not been all that politically minded. It just seems that all of the organizations that you support are, in my opinion, undermining the very foundation of the United States and are changing this country that I love into one I can't even respect. I know I come off as arrogant and argumentative, but it's a topic that is as close to me as I imagine your religion is to you.

That wasn't a very coherent post, I imagine. What I'm getting at is that I think you're a decent guy with whom I have some differences of opinion. But I see you backing virtually everything that I think is wrong with the country these days, and it makes me angry. It makes me even angrier and sadder to know that decent people like yourself are backing this insidiousness.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 05/10/2006 00:26

Quote:
in these United Snakes!

If that's how you feel about the USA, then why don't you leave? Oh right, because it's the best country in the world. So if you're gonna stay why don't you not try to tear it down.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 05/10/2006 01:10

Quote:

If that's how you feel about the USA, then why don't you leave? Oh right, because it's the best country in the world. So if you're gonna stay why don't you not try to tear it down.

Yeah, my country right or wrong. Let's all march in goose-step with our elected leaders because.... well, because they're our elected leaders.

I'm here to tell you, they're not my elected leaders. I have never voted for a single one of the corrupt incopmpetents now holding elective office. Any elective office. From local school board to dicta... err, President.

I always liked the sign I saw in the gas station across the street:

"I love my country. It's my government I'm afraid of."

tanstaafl.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 05/10/2006 01:15

I'm with you there. I don't trust the government a bit, even the ones I did vote for. But I still think the USA is a great country and I believe in the principles it was founded on. You can dump on the politicians all day, but if you're going to trash the country itself then get the F out.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 05/10/2006 02:01

Quote:
I also have issues with you believing that somehow the Republicans still stand for smaller government -- see the beginning of this thread for evidence that it doesn't

No, I'm convinced. No need to argue this point. I do want smaller government, and I dont' believe either the Democrats or the Republicans want a smaller government. I never really did believe either party had that goal, so when I voted last I felt this particluar issue was a wash. I never voted for a Republican thinking it would make for smaller government. I just didn't think voting Democrat would be any better for that particular issue.

But there are many things the Replucicans have done that have angered and frustrated me. In fact, I hate to say it but I've become so disenchanted with our political system that I might not vote next time. Not because of the smaller government stuff (though I do want a smaller government), but because you are correct about Bush and the other Repulicans not representing me.

And this didn't just come about because of gambling. At the end of the day it's a small thing that I can live without. There are plenty of other things going on that I don't like, INCLUDING how we're handling the war in Iraq.

Quote:
When put on the spot, you always seem to have a copout like "well, they all do that".

Not a copout- I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I DO think they all do that, and I despise it in all of them. What you may have missed in my earlier post is that I agree it was a mistake supporting any political entity that pulls this garbage and I'm really upset about it. Again, not because of what the indivdiual issue was, but because I got to see close up just how sleezy these politicians are- politicans that I helped put into office.

Do I sound bitter? I am.

Quote:
What has to happen to get your political actions to line up with your professed beliefs?

Honestly, at this point I jsut feel helpless. I do not have a voice, and those I thought would carry my voice for me betrayed me. Those on the other side of the isle also stand for things I do not support, so I am at a loss. I think I would rather not vote at all (in which case "they" win) than to support someone from either party.

Just to make a note on the gambling issue specifically, it was the Democrats who made online gambling a felony in Washington State, not Republicans. Both sides are just as capeable of pulling this same garbage.

Quote:
But at some point you have to realize that someone that used to represent you no longer does, even if they still claim to do so.

I case I didn't make this clear, I am at this point, and have been for a while now- before the gamlbing stuff started even.

Quote:
I also believe that you're part of a culture that looks to overwhelm every other culture you don't agree with. I could go on a rant here, but I won't. I just encourage you to look with whom you're aligning yourself. You may not share the same views on things. They may be strange bedfellows, but they're bedfellows nonetheless.

There are plenty of similary minded evangelicals out there who share my beliefs but act on them in was I don't like. I do not support those activities, but I will not hesitate to worship with them in unity. Because at the end of the day the most important thing is faith and worship. But I can worship with somone and not agree with all that they do. That is part of the grace inherint in Christiantiy.

I DO try to do whatever I can to bring the world to Christ, so in that way I am trying to "overwhelm" others with my faith. But I don't try to do force other cultures into mine; rather I hope to show them what I view as the truth so that they might come to know it as I do.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 05/10/2006 17:25

Quote:
In fact, I hate to say it but I've become so disenchanted with our political system that I might not vote next time.

Please don't "not vote". If you can't stomach voting for a member of either ruling party (and I can't say I blame you), then vote for either an independant or third-party candidate who you can stomach. If third-party candidates obtain enough votes during an election, then they can qualify for public funding in the next election, raising their visibility. In time (and a loooong time it might be), this is the sort of thing that might help break the two party debacle we have now, and restore some sanity to politics in the US.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 05/10/2006 17:29

Quote:
You can dump on the politicians all day, but if you're going to trash the country itself then get the F out.

And here I thought that one of the principle ideas of the country was respecting the freedom of speech. Way to embody that principle, there, Billy.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 00:18

I realize I was being argumentative in my last post. I apologize. And I tried to find a better word for "copout" but failed. Anyway.

I have to agree with our Canuck on this, though. Don't not vote. Vote Libertarian. It sounds like the politics for you. If you can just convince more people like you that the people they're voting for don't represent them, maybe you can help pull the Republican party back from the loonybin. I'd far rather have an opponent I can respect.

Also, while I think that outlawing gambling is stupid, I'm more outraged by the piggybacking.

And, for the record, while I'm not opposed to a large government in general, there is one aspect of the smaller government ideal I'm very fond of: fewer laws. My problem mostly lies in having fifteen laws that say the same thing in different ways and that try to tell judges how to judge, as opposed to the general idea of "less governance", but that's one area where I strongly disagree with the people I tend to vote for. Most of what they believe in in general matches what I think, so I just have to grin and bear it. I just thought I'd throw that out there, though, to commiserate on the "not representative" score.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 01:41

Quote:
wfaulk said:

Vote Libertarian.

Hey, we actually agree on something.

Quote:
canuckinLA said:

And here I thought that one of the principle ideas of the country was respecting the freedom of speech. Way to embody that principle, there, Billy.

It is one of the founding principles, and I like to exercise it by saying if you don't like the country then you should find another one. If it's just the current politics that you don't like then vote.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 02:00

Actually, I hate the Libertarians.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 02:07

Quote:
Please don't "not vote". If you can't stomach voting for a member of either ruling party (and I can't say I blame you), then vote for either an independant or third-party candidate who you can stomach.

Depending on certain litmus tests, if you are a litmus test kinda person, this could be a tough go. Say, for example, you had previously held your nose and voted for the Vicious Thug Party for the single reason that they professed to be pro-life. So now, they are not all you hoped. The Libertarian or Green parties would not seem like a very comfy refuge for Ohio's disaffected pro-life or anti-gay-marriage voters. I have not seen any sign of the "Pro-Life and Anti-Gay-Marriage But Not The Republicans!" Party. Yet.

Hmmm, on the 7th, I'll be damned if I will bother to vote for my calculating Democratic incumbent who voted to let our rabid administration off the leash. Libertarian? Dreamy-eyed nut jobs. So this begs the question of whether I will get off my ass on the 7th to go bullet vote a couple of Greens just to feel good.

So, who made popcorn and watched Bill Moyers' show on Jack Abramoff? Uplifting, wusnit? Abramoff, Delay, Ralph Reed and their devout, prayerful supporters. I was nearly physically ill. Yet folks who want us to "live right" gave these scumbags money and probably felt all good inside when they voted for Delay.

I may be with Jeff. I may stay home. I think I am getting too old to be an unwarranted idealist or to harbor false hopes about our continuing political disaster. The American Devolution.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 02:22

Quote:
Also, while I think that outlawing gambling is stupid, I'm more outraged by the piggybacking.

No, this is exactly right. I'm bummed about the gambling, but I can accept it. In fact, if this bill had come through and been voted on on it's own merrits, I wouldn't have been overjoyed, but I would have felt like the system was working and I just ended up on the wrong side of the will of the people. But this way just made me feel as if I were completely at the mercy of a few people in a position of power. THAT is what I don't like. And like I said, I've been feeling this way more recently about a lot of the goings on, this was just the big slap in the face I couldn't ignore.

Quote:
If you can just convince more people like you that the people they're voting for don't represent them, maybe you can help pull the Republican party back from the loonybin.

Yeah, I've actually read an article by a conserative Repulican who just ranted about this and what's become of the party and how awful it is. There are people who want to turn it around, but I don't know if it's possible.

Most likely I'll find some completely unelectable person who represents me and vote for him/her. Doesn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things, but it'll make me feel better.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 02:30

Quote:
Actually, I hate the Libertarians.

Care to explain why?

Libertarianism isn't yet well definied, but the main principle is don't tread on me. It's classical liberalism.

Liberals can have their gay marriages and legalized pot, and conservatives can stop funding welfare and instead donate the money to their favorite charity.

What's there not to like? You won't bother me, and I won't bother you.

Granted, the government won't babysit us and we'll have to provide for ourselves, but the government also won't tell us what to do.

The only divisive issue I would see is abortion. An unborn baby's rights versus a grown woman's rights.

I think we can agree that the government shouldn't tell us what to do, as long as we aren't directly hurting anyone else. You can smoke all the pot you want, and have all the buttsex you want, but you can also keep your guns (as long as you don't commit crime) and more of your paycheck.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 03:12

Well, there's a notable difference between libertarianism (the ideology) and Libertarianism (the political party). The most significant of my problems lies with the party. Mostly that they're totally crazy. I know it sounds like I'm painting with a wide brush, but I've met a lot of them and they are. I'd be happy to find some that aren't.

On the other hand, though, while I may agree with the notion behind their stances, I disagree with most of the ways they want to do it. In particular, I completely disagree with the notion that a laissez-faire economy does anything more than make the rich richer. I also think that while democracy can have a "tyranny of the majority" element to it, the lessening of government just makes it happen more. You need a government to protect minorities. Not having a government is just going to make it worse. Of course, you also need an administration that is willing to actually do that.

So, while I agree that people in society should be free to do what they please, I disagree that companies should be considered people and I disagree that a lessening of governmental restrictions is a means to that end.

Posted by: julf

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 07:13

Quote:
Most likely I'll find some completely unelectable person who represents me and vote for him/her. Doesn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things, but it'll make me feel better.

Well, in Ukraine they have an "against all" option. But lacking that option, I tend to "vote against" - usually I can't find anyone to vote *for*, but a bunch of people I don't want to vote for, so voting for a random other person does the trick...

Posted by: pca

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 08:04

Quote:
Well, in Ukraine they have an "against all" option.

Interesting. I wonder if any other countries have such a thing, I'm not heard of it before. Some friends and I have agreed for years that in the UK we need a "None of the above" party, especially if we could get it listed on the end of the ballot

pca

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 10:29

Quote:
I completely disagree with the notion that a laissez-faire economy does anything more than make the rich richer. I also think that while democracy can have a "tyranny of the majority" element to it, the lessening of government just makes it happen more. You need a government to protect minorities. Not having a government is just going to make it worse. Of course, you also need an administration that is willing to actually do that.

Wow, agree with almost everything you said here- never thought I'd see the day!

The one part I'm don't quite agree is that "lessening the government just makes it happen more". I'd say "lessening the government TOO MUCH just makes it happen more". I think governmnet could be smaller than it is and accomplish what we both agree it needs to do- and likely more.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 13:25

Quote:
In particular, I completely disagree with the notion that a laissez-faire economy does anything more than make the rich richer.

Sooooo, I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you're a huge fan of Ayn Rand?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 15:16

Quote:
Sooooo, I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you're a huge fan of Ayn Rand?

LOL- too funny because I almost posted the same thing!

Posted by: pgrzelak

Online Poker Ban -> Ayn Rand in five easy steps - 06/10/2006 15:36

Okay... I should know better...

I have avoided this thread because I have no interest in online poker, although the idea of it being banned is annoying. But I finally peeked in and saw that the last two postings were references to Ayn Rand...

I have got to stop trusting the subject lines on these threads...

Posted by: julf

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 15:38

Quote:
Interesting. I wonder if any other countries have such a thing, I'm not heard of it before. Some friends and I have agreed for years that in the UK we need a "None of the above" party, especially if we could get it listed on the end of the ballot

"Entities that include "None of the Above" on ballots as standard procedure include the United States Libertarian Party, the Green Party, Nevada ("None of these candidates"), Ukraine ("Against all"), and Spain (votos en blanco). Russia had such an option on its ballots ("Against all") until it was abolished in 2006."

(from the wikipedia entry [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_Above]
None of the Above[/url]

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 15:58

I doubt anyone would argue that the US Government is particularly efficiently run, especially from a bureaucratic point of view.

Howver, I think that most of the services that the government provides now are necessary, and I think there should be more. It was that element that I was referring to as government size, not the bureaucratic aspects.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban -> Ayn Rand in five easy steps - 06/10/2006 16:02

Quote:
I have avoided this thread because I have no interest in online poker, although the idea of it being banned is annoying. But I finally peeked in and saw that the last two postings were references to Ayn Rand...

If you think Ayn Rand and poker is a big stretch, man you have missed the thread completely!

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Online Poker Ban -> Ayn Rand in five easy steps - 06/10/2006 16:10

As I am discovering!!!

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 06/10/2006 16:10

Well, I'm in agreement with her personal dislike of children. Other than that, we're pretty much diametrically opposed. I don't call 'em Randroids for nothing.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 07/10/2006 06:19

This is a really well thought out point of view, and one I totally agree with. I don't consider myself a "capital L" Libertarian, but I do tend toward Jeffersonian Democrat or classical liberal.

However, I agree with you that the markets can not be allowed to run unconstrained. "Market fundamentalism" is a bad thing -- market participants will not care for the market mechanism itself. This has been demonstrated repeatedly. The goverment needs to protect the market mechanism from unfair behaviors of market participants through regulation. George Soros convinced me of this in his fantastic book "Open Society".

The goverment also needs to protect the minorities. That includes minorities like gamblers, homos, cigarette smokers, and dope fiends.

What we currently have in the US is about as far away from classical liberalism as you can get. The US is one of the most heavily regulated and policed societies in the world. This is not an opinion. My opinion is that people should be more upset about it than they are.

Even the original poster of this thread has said about the internet gambling ban (the whole reason for the thread), "I can accept it."

Sigh. If you don't have an ideological foundation, it is impossible to draw the line. When people say that the US is the "best there is", I think what they mean is that classical liberal philosophy, on which the US society was based, is the best philosophical foundation to build society. Why do we keep getting farther and farther away from it? Its the money, of course. Special interests rule the country, not voters.

Posted by: julf

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 07/10/2006 12:10

Quote:
The US is one of the most heavily regulated and policed societies in the world.

And despite that, I am constantly shocked by the rampant corruption at large in the US...

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 07/10/2006 12:56

Quote:
Quote:
The US is one of the most heavily regulated and policed societies in the world.

And despite that, I am constantly shocked by the rampant corruption at large in the US...

...such as?

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 07/10/2006 21:39

Enron and Worldcomm jump immediately to mind. The special interest lobbies and their huge "campaign contributions" are another example.

Posted by: gbeer

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 08/10/2006 00:54

Congress would have been my pick. I recall my Political Science prof saying,
"90% or the laws passed are intended to allow 10% of the population screw the other 90%."

On topic. The whole issue is about taxes. If the online poker could be reliably taxed, congress would be all for it.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 08/10/2006 03:08

Ok, for those who are interested in the original topic, here is what Bill Frist had to say.

His claims that internet gambling is illegal, from what I know, are largly overstated except for Washington state where gambling online was recently made a felony.

Posted by: julf

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 08/10/2006 06:49

Quote:
Quote:
the rampant corruption at large in the US...

...such as?

Could list a loooong list of examples, but more illustrative for me was hearing a friend (with normally extremely high moral standards and intergrity) comment on some red tape I was facing here in Amsterdam "Isn't there someone you can pay?". It's just the assumption that that is how you get things done with officials.

Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 08/10/2006 11:26

Quote:
...gambling online was recently made a felony...

!?!?!? Um, isn't that a touch extreme?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 08/10/2006 11:37

Quote:
!?!?!? Um, isn't that a touch extreme?

Yes, it is.

Democrat legislation too, just to show that this craziness is coming from both parties.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 08/10/2006 18:21

Just out of curiosity, couldn't you just get a foreign bank account? Surely there's a legitimate online UK or Swiss bank who would give one to you. I haven't done any research into it, never having needed anything like that, but it might be possible. Of course, that might make you more likely to have an IRS audit.

Posted by: g_attrill

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 08/10/2006 19:42

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, couldn't you just get a foreign bank account? Surely there's a legitimate online UK or Swiss bank who would give one to you. I haven't done any research into it, never having needed anything like that, but it might be possible. Of course, that might make you more likely to have an IRS audit.

I was going to suggest that is a way around it, but the risk of committing various other offences is higher. Also if the gambling sites specifically prohibit US residents you might need to do dodgy things to carry on using them.

Gareth

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 08/10/2006 20:58

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, couldn't you just get a foreign bank account?

Right now the best ways to fund online accounts are Neteller and Firepay. They act like middle-men between the banks and poker sites (kind of like pay pal). While most sites accept credit crards, most credit cards don't allow you to deposit funds into gambling sites. Whether Firepay and Neteller are going to shut down because of this legislation, I don't know. Both are taking a "wait and see" kind of attitude.

Actually, putting money in isn't any kind of issue for me. I have very strict guidelines about how I manage my bankroll so that I'm never at risk of going "broke" (in the sense of losing my gambling bankroll). If I loose too much money, I just move down to cheaper tournaments or stakes. More of an issue is cashing out- I want to make sure I'll be able to take money out if I so desire.

The REAL issue is if sites stop accepting US players though. The largest site, PartyPoker, has already announced they'll stop taking US players when Bush signs the legislation (which is supposed to happen on Friday). Personally, I don't like PartyPoker so it isn't an issue for me. PokerStars, my favorite site, still hasn't announced what they are going to do. The other two sites I play on, Full Tilt and Ultimate Bet, have said they will stick with it no matter what, of coruse if people start getting extradited and such then they might have to change their tune.

Anyway, it's a wait and see kind of thing. TigerJimmy is correct about one thing- the new legislation doesn't actually make online gambling illegal. All it does is make the funding of illegal online gambling illegal, but since the legality of online gambling is still ambigious in most states, this might not have the teeth some are claiming it does.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 09/10/2006 02:31

Actually, the law doesn't target individuals at all. It prohibits financial institutions from allowing transactions *to* sites for the purposes of "illegal internet gambling". Since the Wire Act has not been ammended as part of this legislation, its not really even clear what "illegal internet gambling" is, particularly as applied to poker.

Financial transactions *from* sites to your bank account are not covered at all by this legislation, so there is absolutely no issue with removing winnings. Since the vast majority of players are long-term losers, however, restricting the ability to fund their accounts amounts to shutting them down when the lose their current stake.

Using an offshore account is a way around the issue, since the US legislation targets the activities of financial institutions located in the US. The only issue then is whether the site will allow US residents to play on them. As Jeff mentioned, some have said they will no longer allow US residents to play. This is considered by many in the industry to be an overreaction, since the law absolutely does NOT prohibit US players from playing poker online. The law doesn't prohibit *individuals* from doing anything -- it targets financial institutions.

PS: TigerJimmy is correct about more than one thing

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 09/10/2006 11:43

Quote:
PS: TigerJimmy is correct about more than one thing

LOL- I didn't say ONLY one thing- didn't even mean to imply it, actually.

Just trying to emphasize that particular point.

BTW, you do realize that you are the reason I am a winning player (or at least, winning as much as I am). I have become quite invovled in the 2+2 MTT community, and that improved my games by leaps and bounds.

I really did give limit HE a try because you like it so much, but I still just can't stand playing it. SSHE is one of the best poker books ever written, but the variance just drives me nuts. Love HORSE, though. People are so bad at Razz and O8.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 09/10/2006 23:51

Quote:
BTW, you do realize that you are the reason I am a winning player (or at least, winning as much as I am). I have become quite invovled in the 2+2 MTT community, and that improved my games by leaps and bounds.

Glad I was able to help a little! That's very satisfying. 2+2 has a really low signal to noise ratio, but if you want to be an expert poker player, its really your only option.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 11/10/2006 21:08

Well, for those interested at all in this issue, Poker Stars has decided to stay. It will be very interesting to see how this "poker is a game of skill" thing works out, since I don't believe the skill/luck is what the issue is over. Still, it'll be interesting to see how and if the US responds.

Posted by: Mach

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 11/10/2006 21:22

I've been following this thread off and on. I too am fairly dis-illusioned with the prospects of voting this year and more importantly, next. It seems it is always a choice between the lesser of two evils.

An interesting article linked from CNN today from Lou Dobbs (I'm vaguely aware of who Lou Dobbs is but pretty sure if he's writing for CNN, he's not middle class. Anyway...)

Dobbs: Middle class needs to fight back now

Quote:
I don't know about you, but I can't take seriously anyone who takes either the Republican Party or Democratic Party seriously -- in part because neither party takes you and me seriously; in part because both are bought and paid for by corporate America and special interests.

So what if a majority of us decided once and for all to walk into our town and city halls all over the country and change our party affiliation from Republican or Democrat to independent? What if that sizable number of us who don't vote at all decided to register as independents? For the first time in decades, working middle-class Americans might just get the attention of our elected officials in Washington.

So would something like this have any significant effect? If so, what percentage of voters would you need to result in change? 5% 10% 25% 50%?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 11/10/2006 22:23

Wow. Fewer people voting in primaries. Sounds like a great idea.

Posted by: Mach

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 11/10/2006 23:14

I'll see your

and raise you a

which is how I feel about the issue

I can't see how primaries do anything other than validate a flawed system that will ultimately result in my vote not counting. Which brings me back to don't vote or vote for corrupt / more corrupt.

I would be interested it see the statistics on voter turn out by state, against candidate campaign funds. I'm curious if there is a correlation lobby $ and results assuming most funding is corporate or special interest. Any links?

Edit (still looking for campaign funds):
In Texas where I am registered:
2004, 1.5 million voters out of 12.3, registered voted in 2004 primaries. 7.4/13 voted in the general election (20%)
2000 1.9 million voters out of 11.6 registered voted in 2000 primaries. 6.4/12.3 voted in the general election (30%)
1996 1.9 million voters out of 9.7 registered voted in 1996 primaries. 5.6/10.5 voted in the general election
(34%)

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 12/10/2006 19:47

The whole skill/luck this is silly. Most games have an element of randomness in them and are unarguably skill games (consider Scrabble, or bridge). The obvious game with no randomness is chess, although even that game has a somewhat random element of what mistakes your opponent makes.

This whole skill/chance thing is a red herring. The real issue is that casino table games (craps, roulette, blackjack) are rigged so that it is impossible to beat the operator in the long run. Even though the players *know* this when they play these games, it is still considered immoral for some reason. However, the casino offers a service in exchange for this -- a venue, dealers, and the promise to take your action and pay you if you score a big win.

The other argument is that gambling causes "addiction", which I think just means that people do it a lot because they like it, to the detriment of other priorities that authorities think should be more important to them. This is a confused misapplication of a medical *metaphor* onto behavior (see Thomas Szasz). Sure, some people *enjoy* gambling, but what's the matter with that?

The real issue is whether people should be allowed to do what they want with their money.

Since this whole thread diverted to a religeous discussion (appropriately, IMHO, since the religious debate is closely related to a debate about values), I offer this quote from C. S. Lewis (why can't we have more Christians like him?):

Quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 12/10/2006 19:50

Also Full Tilt. Actually, most sites are continuing as before. This new law does not address playing poker online, as has been discussed above. There is a fairly comprehensive list of sites continuing to offer services to US players here:

Official Statements from Various Poker Sites

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 09:40

Quote:
This is a confused misapplication of a medical *metaphor* onto behavior (see Thomas Szasz). Sure, some people *enjoy* gambling, but what's the matter with that?

I haven't read the Szasz thing to which you refer. But I think you underestimate the power of psychological addiction. Because the risk/reward cycle of gambling can produce a specific chemical reaction in the brain, it can, for some, be just as addicting as a drug.

I don't believe it makes casinos any more immoral than other purveyors of vices, but I do think it's right for them to be watched and regulated by the government. The state of Nevada does, I think, a pretty decent job of at least keeping the casinos honest. Whether they're doing the best they can to help the addicted, I don't know.

As was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the online gambling law isn't about morality or addiction. It's about the government's inability to collect tax revenue from the online casinos. Lawmakers will sit on their lazy asses and do nothing most of the time, but start taking away their money, and you see them spring into action.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 09:56

Quote:
the online gambling law isn't about morality or addiction. It's about the government's inability to collect tax revenue from the online casinos.

Again, you're wrong. The bill had been introduced independently and failed. Only when it was attached to legislation that "had" to pass did it get through. It was introduced by Frist, whose state currently has no gambling of any nature, so it wasn't losing any money. And he's closely associated with the religious right. (He was one of the main Congressmen trying to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case, for example.)

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 11:43

I find this so surprising, it's probably why I forgot about it last time you pointed that out.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 12:15

Quote:
Also Full Tilt. Actually, most sites are continuing as before

Yeah- but Stars I felt was most important just because they are such a huge player. Also, while both Full Till and UB seemed to take the "We're blasting ahead no matter what" approach, Stars seemed to take a more cautious, evaluating approach. I feel their decision to stay bodes well for the long term of things.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 21:58

Quote:
I haven't read the Szasz thing to which you refer. But I think you underestimate the power of psychological addiction. Because the risk/reward cycle of gambling can produce a specific chemical reaction in the brain, it can, for some, be just as addicting as a drug.

Tony, everything produces a "specific chemical reaction in the brain, [that] can, for some, be just as addicting as a drug." Sex, breathing, concerts, dancing, sunshine, skydiving, reading, surfing the internet, porn, exercise, eating chocolate, etc, etc, etc.

This is not the point, and is another red herring. Everything in a human body is some form of chemical reaction. But notice carefully what is happening here: the word "addiction" is reserved for socially unacceptable forms of compulsive behavior. Nobody is trying to outlaw jogging or skydiving, even though those things produce the exact chemical reactions you are referring to. So does participation in some evangelical ceremonies. Once you use the social pejorative "addiction", then you can use this made-up concept to justify intruding in people's lives.

This is a very important point. It is the way that modern society pronounces certain behaviors to be heretical. The medicalization of unattractive behaviors is nearly identical to calling certain behaviors heresy and outlawing them for that reason. The "medical" psychological profession has taken the role of the priesthood in our society. If you look closely and objectively at what is happening here, you will come to this inescapable conclusion. The truth is that humans have changed very little in the last 500 years, but our social context has changed tremendously. We modern westerners don't think we have such a thing as "heresy". Well, of course we do. We just don't call it that, and we rely on pseudo-scientific jargon to lie to ourselves.

Please read Thomas Szasz, I promise you it will change the way you (as a thoughtful, intelligent and rational thinker) view the world.

Jim

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 22:13

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it that way.

I do, however, have a different personal definition for the word addiction, which doesn't match what you're describing, and doesn't match the dictionary definition either. I guess, using my definition, it could be a social pejorative, but for good reason: For me, something goes from enjoyment to addiction as soon as it starts harming you and your loved ones, yet you keep doing it because you can't will yourself to stop. This is something you can say for gambling abuse and drug abuse, and can't always say for a lot of other things that carry the moniker. So, to sum up: for my definition of the word, I think it's possible for gambling to be truly an addiction for some people.

I agree that some people might use pejorative words like "addiction" or "disorder" to describe behaviors that they simply believe are immoral, even when those behaviors don't hurt anyone. I have always considered that kind of attitude to be wrong, no matter what word they use.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 22:14

Quote:
Actually, putting money in isn't any kind of issue for me. I have very strict guidelines about how I manage my bankroll so that I'm never at risk of going "broke" (in the sense of losing my gambling bankroll). If I loose too much money, I just move down to cheaper tournaments or stakes. More of an issue is cashing out- I want to make sure I'll be able to take money out if I so desire.

The problem is that the money you win comes from recreational players who are net losers at the game. They need to be able to buy in again, or you're going to be left playing against other net winners and you'll be in a very nasty survival-of-the-fittest proposition. No fish, no profits, unless you are a really good player that can beat other somewhat good players. Unless you play full time, that is a very difficult thing to do.

So, the REAL issue is that the legislation drives fish away. Pros will continue to play even if they need to go to some lengths to establish off-shore accounts (or even residences). The fish won't, and the games will get much tougher. My prediction is that the shark:fish ratio will move from 2-3% up to 20-30% because of this, but we'll see. All of the Party sharks are moving to Stars and Full Tilt. Not all of the Party fish are doing so. That means a higher concentration of sharks at the sites.

The good news is that most modestly-winning players are pretty bad themselves, but win because most of the fish are truely horrible. So for the best players, the games will stay beatable. I actually prefer to play against these players, because their game is rational and they have some understanding of it it means that they become "readable". Most "good" players don't mix their game, so once you learn how they play, you've got them. The really horrible fish are actually tougher (especially if they are aggressive), since they play completely irrationally you can't logically deduce how they are playing and what they hold -- the game becomes a pretty boring hand-holding contest. My winrate is higher in mid-stakes NL games than in the smaller stakes NL games for this reason. I gain a bigger edge because hand-reading skills come into play, since my opponents are playing logically but badly instead of just badly. In the smaller stakes, I just make sure I hold better hands and "let the math do it's thing."

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 22:17

Now that's a fascinating take on it. Very interesting.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 22:23

OK, cool. But let's ask ourselves a really important question: can these people really not "will" themselves to stop, or is the fact of the matter that they simply don't want to stop? For most people engaging in the behavior you describe, I submit that their values differ from those of society. For many, they would rather get high than keep a steady job, or would rather gamble than pay their bills. If you ask some of them this question (I have), they will come right out and admit it -- if they are comfortable that you aren't trying to change them.

While I disagree with these choices, because I believe that "Self-Ownership" is philosophically axiomatic, I necessarily believe that it is a person's right to make those choices in their life. Note, however, I do not believe these choices should be acceptable excuses for other behaviors that harm others, such as theft, child abuse, or whatever. It's fine with me if someone wants to spend their life stoned, but it's not OK if they endanger their children as a result. Since endangering children is already a crime, we do not need to legislate further.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 13/10/2006 23:18

Quote:
But let's ask ourselves a really important question: can these people really not "will" themselves to stop, or is the fact of the matter that they simply don't want to stop?

Answer: It doesn't matter. The bottom line is it's their choice, not ours, and so no one has the right to force them to stop without infringing on all of our individual liberties. But you already knew that.

There's no such thing as oppression for your own protection, yet that is the reasoning behind laws such as these.

The only person who should decide what is harmful to my well-being is me. I'd rather die a free man, than to live under the will of others.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 01:13

It matters because its possible that a person is not competent to make these decisions for themselves. I don't think anyone would argue, for example, that a 4 year old orphan should have the same rights to self governance that an adult has. Severely mentally handicapped adults may also fit into this category. Society has a responsibility toward these people who genuinely can not take care of themselves, and, as their caretakers, reserves the right to impose limits on their behavior. Society does not have the right to foist its "care" on people just so it can regulate their behavior. One should be able to opt out.

As Szasz would say, it is necessary to distinguish between the "unable" and the "unwilling". Failure to make this distinction is the cause of all of these problems. When we say someone "can't" stop gambling, or drinking, or whatever, we are putting them into the category of "unable", along with 4 year old orphans and the severely mentally handicapped.

We need to be extremely careful when making that judgement (that the other person can't take care of themself), not just because it opens the door to tyranny, but also because it takes from that person their Self Ownership -- their humanity. This is what prohibition and other regulations advanced by those "moral busybodies" really does, it denies people the opportunity to be responsible moral agents -- it denies them the opportunity to be a virtuous human being. Virtue is not a property of behavior, it is a property of intention, which means it is a property of choice. You do not make a society virtuous by regulating the people (removing choices), they become virtuous in so far as they regulate themselves (make wise choices).

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 02:23

The one thing that you only implicitly touch upon is the fact that many of these people, regardless of whether they are unwilling or unable, follow their "addictions" (for lack of a better term) to crime. And, yes, you point out that that crime is already illegal, but I think society at large has a responsibility not only to punish and rehabilitate those that commit crimes, but prevent people from commiting them in the first place. Since these sorts of "addictions" are a strong precursor for future criminal behavior, it makes sense to regulate it, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that this particular law didn't go too far, nor that it wasn't created for moral rather than societal reasons.

And, just to be clear, I'm totally on board with the concept that there are redundant laws that make already illegal actions illegal again, and there are laws that make otherwise licit actions illegal solely because of their possibility to lead to illegal actions, and that those laws are, 99% of the time, infringements on civil rights. However, there are occasions when the benefit to society at large has to trump the rights of the individual. I haven't really put a lot of thought into it in regards to gambling "addictions", and, again, I think that this law, at the very least, went way overboard, but I can believe that there are legitimate arguments for restrictions.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 02:37

Quote:
Please read Thomas Szasz, I promise you it will change the way you (as a thoughtful, intelligent and rational thinker) view the world.

The fact that he helps lend legitimacy to Scientology completely obliterates any legitimacy he may have had otherwise, IMO.

Personally, I find his arguments uncompelling and internally inconsistent.

Posted by: matthew_k

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 03:11

Oooooh, the post monster ate my post.

In summary:
Addiction: Continueing to persue a behavior despite the adverse consequences.

Physical Dependence: The physical need for a drug to function.

They're different, though often intertwined. Having an addictive personality is probably genetic.

Matthew

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 04:58

Quote:
The fact that he helps lend legitimacy to Scientology completely obliterates any legitimacy he may have had otherwise, IMO.

Is he a scientologist? Just curious, because from what I understand, they've got some pretty crazy ideas about psychology. On the other hand, so did Freud and Jung...

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 08:30

Quote:
The fact that he helps lend legitimacy to Scientology completely obliterates any legitimacy he may have had otherwise, IMO.

How does he do this, exactly? This is like saying that because Christian Scientists say that quantum theory "proves" the existance of a supernatural deity, then scientists working on quantum theory help lend credibility to Christian Science. This is ad hominem nonsense.

Quote:
Personally, I find his arguments uncompelling and internally inconsistent.

This is a valid arguement. Can you give a specific example or two?

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 08:37

Quote:
Is he a scientologist?

No.

Politics makes strage bedfellows, that's all.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 08:44

Quote:
I think society at large has a responsibility not only to punish and rehabilitate those that commit crimes, but prevent people from commiting them in the first place.

Aside from the philosophical arguments against this, it should be obvious from history and observation that this just plain doesn't work. Those who will break laws to support their "addiciton" will break laws to engage in it. The War on Drugs shows the absolute futility of this line of thinking. Other examples abound.

Even if it *did* work, one would need to show causality to make a sound argument for such tactics. Part of the reason that drug addicts engage in crimial activity is that using those drugs is itself a criminal activity. Abolish the war on drugs, and watch the crime you are referring to drop to nothing, just like it did after the repeal of alcohol prohibition.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 09:52

But people who won't stop gambling, which is not illegal, often turn to crime to support their habit. I agree that some addiction-related crime exists because the addiction is illegal, but that's not the sole cause. But, for example, heroin addicts don't (just) steal needles, they steal other stuff to pawn in order to pay for their next fix. You might be able to argue that legalizing it would lower the price and help alleviate that problem, but there's some sort of evidence in the fact that that sort of crime happens at all. (This is not intended to speak towards the crime associated with the distribution side.)

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 10:15

Statiscally, African-Americans commit more crimes per capita than white Americans. If we were to outlaw being African-American, by putting them all in gas chambers for instance, then we would see much lower crime rates.

But we can't do that because that would infringe on the liberty of human beings, just like outlawing gambling, drugs, or guns does. It's a slippery slope...

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 10:20

Quote:
The problem is that the money you win comes from recreational players who are net losers at the game. They need to be able to buy in again, or you're going to be left playing against other net winners and you'll be in a very nasty survival-of-the-fittest proposition.

Oh, believe me- I get this point completely. But if things really get that serious to where the pools really are drying up, then I'm probably done anyway.

Quote:
The good news is that most modestly-winning players are pretty bad themselves

Dum, de dum, de dum- oh are you talking about me? LOL- yup, you sure are.

Quote:
The really horrible fish are actually tougher (especially if they are aggressive), since they play completely irrationally you can't logically deduce how they are playing and what they hold -- the game becomes a pretty boring hand-holding contest.

Yeah, I know this all too well- remember I play the 4/180s! I've figured out how to beat the really weak players in this one (overbet with the nuts, give em rop, etc.) but I can't wait to move up deal with a little tougher competition because it will be more mentally stimulating. Unfortunatly the jump to 20/180s is pretty steep, but I just found out that Stars is going to be doing 10/180s so that is the clear next move for me. At any rate, I'm looking foward to improving my game at the higher levels.

But anyway, it doesn't look like the games are drying up any time soon. I don't mind taking on a few sharks and improving my game- just more of a mental challenge for me, and really that's why I play anyway. I'd probably have to stop if I became a long time loser, but if I can maintain some kind of reasonable BR, the games getting tougher will just make it a little more fun for me.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 10:25

Quote:
Quote:
The fact that he helps lend legitimacy to Scientology completely obliterates any legitimacy he may have had otherwise, IMO.

How does he do this, exactly? This is like saying that because Christian Scientists say that quantum theory "proves" the existance of a supernatural deity, then scientists working on quantum theory help lend credibility to Christian Science. This is ad hominem nonsense.

He co-founded the Scientology anti-psychiatry and recruit organization "Citizens Commission on Human Rights", and still works with them. While his stated viewpoint is that psychiatry is misused or overused, Scientology and the CCHR both favor the obliteration of the entire science of psychiatry, in favor of Scientology dogma, which is patent nonsense.

Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I find his arguments uncompelling and internally inconsistent.

This is a valid arguement. Can you give a specific example or two?

The biggest one for me is his opposition to psychiatric medicine while being a proponent of illegal drugs legalization. It's almost as if he wants to legalize heroin in favor of outlawing Prozac.

His reasoning behind that is the notion that the psychiatric community at large is engaged in drug pushing against the benefit and desire of its patients, which I believe to be absurd. While I'll admit that drug prescriptions for ADD probably outweigh the need for them, that's as much the fault of the parents as it is the doctors (though the doctors are certainly not without fault). In almost every other case, the patients agree to the drugs they are taking, and can stop any time they wish. They are not compelled by any legal force to continue taking them. One might make the argument that the psychiatrists are using their influence as authority figures to press their patients, but I don't believe that to be true in the vast majority of cases.

Then there's the implied notion that severely mentally ill people would be better off living their lives with rampant schizophrenia, for example. Even ignoring the fact that many (though not most) of those people constitute a potential danger to the public with unchecked schizophrenia, the notion that these people would want to live that way is completely absurd. I've known a decent number of schizophrenics in my life, and, by and large, they are scared all of the time and desperately want to be helped. As such, the implication that psychiatrists are harming those patients I find patently absurd.

Also, his implication that severely mentally ill people shouldn't be considered legally incompetent is complete nonsense to me.

I'm sure I could go on and on. I'm sure I could name a number of stances of his that I agree with, the legalization of drugs being a good example. My problem mostly lies in the fact that I find his reasoning consistently faulty on many levels, and, as such, trusting him as an authority is something that I won't do, and will encourage others not to do. If you want to read his arguments and then really think about what he's saying and draw your own conclusions, that's fine, but please don't take his word for it, as I think his word is worthless.

While I understand why you believed that my prior argument about him in relation to Scientology was ad hominem, and was probably stated in rather emotive language, it was not intended as such. It was simply evidence to support my claim that his credibility is suspect.

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 16:54

Aside from the fact that I am a sucky typist (who has to do waaay too much typing in the course of his work day) one reason I have not posted here much recently is that I feel like I have become a bit of a "seagull", BBS-wise.

All that being said, I just want to say, Bitt-wise:

What he said.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 19:33

Quote:
Dum, de dum, de dum- oh are you talking about me? LOL- yup, you sure are.

No! Sorry if it came across that way. I have no idea how strong your game is, after all. If you're a 2+2 regular, you're well along the path to having a really strong game.

My point was just that the weak-tight players, who are usually modest winners, are the second most profitable opponent to play against.

Sorry if that came out all wrong.

Jim

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 20:13

Quote:
The biggest one for me is his opposition to psychiatric medicine while being a proponent of illegal drugs legalization. It's almost as if he wants to legalize heroin in favor of outlawing Prozac.

I can understand how it may come across that way. I can't speak for Szasz, of course, but I don't see this as a contradiction the way you do. In my mind, both Prozac and heroin should be readily available for those that want them, while forcing someone to take either against their will is obviously wrong. I don't think Szasz is trying to outlaw Prozac, he is trying to outlaw forcing others to take Prozac against their will.

Quote:
In almost every other case, the patients agree to the drugs they are taking, and can stop any time they wish.

Szasz is referring to involuntary "therapy". He states repeatedly in his work that he has no issue with people seeking the advice of experts and then voluntarily following their prescribed treatment. Szasz is talking about court-ordered "therapy", and court-ordered hospitalization of mental patients, where they are drugged or otherwise "treated" against their will.

Quote:
I've known a decent number of schizophrenics in my life, and, by and large, they are scared all of the time and desperately want to be helped. As such, the implication that psychiatrists are harming those patients I find patently absurd.

Of course I agree with this, but I think it is a misinterpretation of what he's saying. Nobody, including Szasz, would argue that it is wrong to help somone who wants help and voluntarily submits to something they believe will help them.

To understand what Szasz is talking about in these contexts, you need to think about "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest", not one's relationship with their voluntarily chosen therapist. Szasz is talking about how we treat people like those played by Jack Nicholson. It's hard to imagine how one could convince themselves that these people really want the "help" that is being "offered" them.

Quote:
Also, his implication that severely mentally ill people shouldn't be considered legally incompetent is complete nonsense to me.

Again, I don't think this is what he's saying. Szasz explicitly deals with the issue of legal incompetence in many of his books, and he clearly recognizes that some people are not capable of making choices for themselves. This is where his whole discussion of "unwilling vs. unable" fits; he definitely recognizes that some are unable.

Rather, I believe he is saying that our society labels irritating people as "mentally ill", then uses this stigma to persecute them. Again, "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" comes to mind. Szasz would argue (and has), that people depicted by the character Randle Patrick McMurphy are not "mentally ill", but deviant. To the extent they break the law, they should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. To the extent they are simply annoying, they should be left alone. Szasz argues that drugging these people stupid with thorazine or lobotomizing them is what our society does instead of burning people at the stake. Again, he is NOT talking about you and me, who go see a therapist for help with what he calls "problems with living." Szasz is talking about coerced "treatment", dealt out as punishment by the courts. Before you say this is a thing of the past, consider how many drug offenses are dealt with by the courts these days, where sentencing someone to treatment is very fasionable.

On the subject of voluntary relationship with one's therapist, Szasz often says only that this is what happens when people need to appeal to an authority to "get the drugs they want." In other words, most of the people on Prozac or Ritalin want to be, but they need to get a permission slip in order to do so. This also harms the medical doctor/patient relationship in cases where the patient must lie or overstate their symptoms to "get the drugs they want", if those drugs happen to be Vicodin.

Szasz argues that sentencing someone to "treatment" harms BOTH the legitimacy of the law (since we are not really enforcing the law in the criminal justice system and the offenders have broken the law) and a person's relationship with a therapist (because it is not voluntary). It hurts both; justice and therapy both lose. Either the law should be enforced or it shouldn't. We should be honest with ourselves and do what we say we're going to do. Either put drug offenders in prison (enforce the law), or legalize (admit it shouldn't be a criminal matter). That's what he's saying, IMHO.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 14/10/2006 20:59

Quote:
I can't wait to move up deal with a little tougher competition because it will be more mentally stimulating.

You might want to consider cash games. What (theoretically) makes no-limit difficult is the prospect of being faced with very large bets on later streets. This doesn't happen in tournaments (except in the early rounds of very large live tournaments) because the blinds are so large in proportion to the stacks. Play a 200x BB cash game if you want a mental challenge, and stay in after you've doubled a couple of times. When you and your opponent each have 800+ BB in front of you, "mentally stimulating" doesn't begin to describe it!

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 15/10/2006 01:05

Given his relationship to Scientology, I believe you are underselling what he ends up promoting, even if what he says is something different. People often dress up their stated opinions to make them more palatable before going on to the next level, and I personally believe that's what he's doing. I have no proof positive of that, but that's what I think is happening.

Quote:
Szasz is talking about coerced "treatment", dealt out as punishment by the courts. Before you say this is a thing of the past, consider how many drug offenses are dealt with by the courts these days, where sentencing someone to treatment is very fasionable.

Let's examine the premise of this coerced treatment.

The first version of that I can think of is "treatment" as punishment for a drug-related offense. That ranges from drunk driving education to methadone. While I have no documentation, I seriously doubt that such a sentencee wouldn't be able to refuse such treatment in favor of a prison sentence. That's hardly coerced in my opinion.

The second version is institutionalization. I can understand the argument against, but I think the days of putting people like McMurphy in asylums is long gone. In fact, I'm sure it was long gone with when Cuckoo's Nest was written in 1962, and certainly by the time the film was made in 1975. In addition, unanesthetized ECT (with the physical grand mal seizures as depicted in Cuckoo's Nest and many other fictional media) is extraordinarily uncommon. The times I have visited mental health institutions, the people there either wanted to be there or obviously needed to be there, if not both. (You and I may potentially differ about the level at which need arises.)

The third version is forceful encouragement by a doctor. I think that this, as much of the rest of Szasz's arguments, much less common than he would have you believe. Where it does exist, I agree that it is a problem. There is definitely pushing by the pharmaceutical companies, but they have zero direct influence over either doctors or patients. If people are swayed by them, it's no different than effective advertisement.

In short, I believe that the types of cases that you describe are despicable, but also much more rare and less legal than you imply.

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 15/10/2006 02:13

Hey Jeff (and anyone else on these boards who wants to play), contact me if you want a Full Tilt account that will pay you a bonus for playing. I don't offer this personally, and I don't benefit in any way, but I can get you hooked up with my guy...

Jim

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 15/10/2006 02:30

Since you're enjoying HORSE, I thought I'd recommend a couple of books. You've probably already heard of these from 2+2, but on the off chance that others here are interested...

HORSE is a game that stands for

Holdem
Omaha/8 (a high/low split with an 8-low qualifier)
Razz (7-Stud played for low)
7-Stud (high only)
Eight-or-Better (high/low split 7-stud with an 8-low qualifier)

The game is played in rotation, with one "round" of each game. In a 10-handed game, there are 10 hands dealt of each game, then the next game is played, etc. HORSE rewards the all-round player, rather than the single-game specialist. In fact, a single-game expert might be a net loser in these "mixed games" if he isn't close to break-even in his non-specialty games. The fish like HORSE because its more like playing in a home game with all the variety. The really big games (like the big $4000/$8000 game at the Bellagio) are usually played as some kind of mixed game, from what I understand.

You may want to pick up "High/Low Split Poker for Advanced Players" by Ray Zee. It covers both High/Low 7-Stud and Omaha/8.

You're definitely right about people not understanding even the basics of Razz. The best thing in print on Razz, by the way, is the second half of "Sklansky on Poker", which is devoted to Razz.

The one game that some HORSE players seem to play fairly well (besides Holdem) is 7-Stud. I think this is because it's an old game and was pretty popular before the NL Holdem craze. Sklansky, Malmouth & Zee's "7-Card Stud for Advanced Players" is a great book for this game. I enjoy stud, but I find it nearly impossible to track the dead cards and multi-table. Mason Malmouth has said that while he finds Holdem to be the most complex poker form, Stud is more fatiguing for him to play because of the need to memorize all those dead cards and adjust drawing odds appropriately.

Ed Miller is working on a Small Stakes NL Holdem book. I can't wait until that comes out!

Jim

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 15/10/2006 03:40

Quote:
Given his relationship to Scientology, I believe you are underselling what he ends up promoting, even if what he says is something different. People often dress up their stated opinions to make them more palatable before going on to the next level, and I personally believe that's what he's doing. I have no proof positive of that, but that's what I think is happening.

Well, I have no idea what anyone actually intends, including Szasz. Isn't it a foundation of the scientific method and rationality that a person's claim should be evaluated based what they actually say rather than who they are or what their motivation is? I can't comment on what Szasz or anyone else's hidden agenda might be, but I can certainly read "what he says" and see if it stands up to rational and moral scrutiny.

Quote:
In short, I believe that the types of cases that you describe are despicable, but also much more rare and less legal than you imply.

I'm happy that we agree they are despicable. Unfortunately, I think they still happen, and are happening more often, not less. The fact that they occur at all is a problem, and I think many of the more extreme statements Szasz makes refer to this extreme situation and need to be understood in that context.

According to the New York Office of Mental Health (OMH),

Quote:
Of the 134 individuals in OMH psychiatric centers receiving ECT in 2000, 35 (26%) were court ordered. The number of court ordered ECT procedures has increased by 52% since 1998, when 23 individuals received court ordered ECT.

Whether they are anesthetized or not is surely a minor point compared to giving someone a series of "brain seizures" against their will!

I disagree that putting people in asylums against their will is a long gone practice. We've changed their name to "treatment centers", but we still do it. By saying that someone has the option of prison time or being a "patient" in an asylum called a "treatment center", surely you are not saying that this "treatment" is voluntary? It may be expedient, but if it were truly voluntary, couldn't one just go home instead of spending the tax payer's money?

ECT is a particularly extreme example. Courts forcing people to take drugs, through a process called Involuntary Outpatient Commitment is much more common. From that report:

Quote:
We argue that outpatient commitment is needed because many individuals with severe psychiatric illnesses lack awareness of their illness.

HUH?!?!?!??? WTF was that????

And,

Quote:
In the United States, individuals with medical illnesses such as active tuberculosis who refuse to take medication are regularly hospitalized involuntarily and treated. In New York City alone, an average of 100 such involuntarily hospitalizations take place each year, and many more such patients agree to take medication only after being threatened with involuntary treatment (46). We do not suggest that severe mental illness is analogous to a communicable disease; however, the rationale is similar: medically needed treatment should be provided in the best interest of both the individual and society.

The "rationale" is NOT similar. Treating someone for tuberculosis prevents infection in OTHERS. Tuberculosis is also demonstrably caused by a pathogen that the administered medicine targets. No pathogen has ever been discovered for the so-called "mental illnesses". Being depressed is not like having tuberculosis. Thinking they are the same is a result of literalization of a metaphor.

Quote:
We argue that the real liberty question regarding individuals with severe psychiatric disorders is whether they are in fact free when ill.

If someone doesn't even know they are "ill", this statement is just ridiculous.

All of this stuff is a slippery slope, and its all related. These kind of abuses will occur any time that individual liberty is not the highest possible priority. We used to "treat" homosexual people against their will. It is finally (becoming) common sense that this is inhumane. I would submit that many of the persecuted homosexual peole "lack[ed] awareness of their illness."

It is just not OK to say that individual liberty is great, except for in these few cases. Too often, those few cases are just reflections of current fashion and what I've called heresies. Civil liberties exist to protect these small persecuted groups. The majority has no need of protection from itself. Again, its the homos, druggies, crazies, and gambling degenerates that need the protection from the moral busybodies and the bullying majority.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 15/10/2006 10:55

Quote:
No! Sorry if it came across that way.

No, it didn't. Just a little honest self assesemnt

I win at the 4/180s because I've figured out how to exploit a lot of the weakness really bad players have. One example is shoving the river with the nuts (or near nuts)- it is unbelievable how light I'll get called there. Guy calls off 10K chips on the river with ACE HIGH and then proceeds to verbally abuse me for raising 1..5K with 92o on the button. (I didn't try to educate him).

That's all I was saying. It'll be more difficult when I have to actually have to consider 2nd and 3rd level thinking because the players I play against have no clue

That being said, I just won a $15 on UB yesterday that was against much better players, so looks like I'm doing OK against a slightly better set of skills.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 15/10/2006 11:05

Quote:
You might want to consider cash games.

Cash games just bore me, I'm afraid. I think tournaments are exciting simply because the dynamics are constantly shifting with the stack sizes and such. There is a goal that you're driving toward, and playing one feels like a "story" almost. Cash games have their moments, but I just find them tiresome.

Except for HORSE- the changing games keeps me interested because whatever game I'm playing, I'm always looking foward to the next one. Actually, I'm always looking foward to O8, which has become the most fun variant of poker for me. Not my best, but I really enjoy it a lot. I don't play it outside of HORSE though.

Quote:
What (theoretically) makes no-limit difficult is the prospect of being faced with very large bets on later streets. This doesn't happen in tournaments (except in the early rounds of very large live tournaments) because the blinds are so large in proportion to the stacks.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that mose MMTers don't get deep stack play AT ALL. I sure didn't when I started playing, and the Harrington books really don't give a great grasp of how to play deep. I got the new NL book by Sklansky and Miller and that helped immensly. I playd some NL Cash games and destroyed them, but like I said before, found it kind of boring.

My solution has been to play the Stars Deepstack tourny whenver I can. With 30 min blinds and starting 250BB deep, you get to play deep for quite a while.

Quote:
Play a 200x BB cash game if you want a mental challenge, and stay in after you've doubled a couple of times. When you and your opponent each have 800+ BB in front of you, "mentally stimulating" doesn't begin to describe it!

Now THIS I have not experienced. That DOES sound fun. I've played on a few of UBs NO MAX tables where I could buy in for 500BB, but this was all at super low limits where the competition was horrible. Not very mentally stimulation

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 15/10/2006 11:07

Quote:
contact me if you want a Full Tilt account that will pay you a bonus for playing.

I already have a FT account, so probably I wouldn't be able to qualify. Plus I hardly ever play there. I only signed up so I'd have more options for $10 tournies, but with Stars introducing 10/180s that probably isn't going to be much of a need in the future.

Thanks for the offer though.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 15/10/2006 11:25

Quote:
You may want to pick up "High/Low Split Poker for Advanced Players" by Ray Zee. It covers both High/Low 7-Stud and Omaha/8.

This is actually the next book on my list. I was all set to buy it when news of the ban broke and party pulled out. When Party pulled and I wasn't certain if Stars was going to stick around (no Stars = no HORSE, since Full Tilt only has HORSE tournies, and very few of them), I put the purchase on hold. Now I think I'll go ahead and buy it. I understand H/L split games well enough to beat the .50/1, but I'm playing overbankrolled and I'd really like to understand the games better so I can move up.

Quote:
The one game that some HORSE players seem to play fairly well (besides Holdem) is 7-Stud.

This is true. In fact, they play this better than HE, amazingly enough. HE always feels like the table goes on super tilt for a moment, like "ZOMG- I can play THIS GAME! Let's build a MONSTER POT!!!!" LOL.

Quote:
Sklansky, Malmouth & Zee's "7-Card Stud for Advanced Players" is a great book for this game.

This is a good book information wise, but IMHO, the is the least well written (that I've read). the writing style feels like a brain dump. I'll bet it could benifit from a re-write with Ed Miller invovled. That being said, reading it shows just how wrong most of the Stud advice out there is. There are a few simple ideas people give you on how to play this game, and that just doesn't work for something so complex. The match up section in the back really helped me understand conceptully how to look at starting hands and play hands like a pair with an ace against a probable pair of Kings. I'd have NEVER played that hand the way I do now before reading that book. I just needed to read it a couple times to understand it

Quote:
I enjoy stud, but I find it nearly impossible to track the dead cards and multi-table.

I like stud a LOT more than HE. I also don't multitable cash games though. I DO multitable tournaments.

Quote:
Ed Miller is working on a Small Stakes NL Holdem book. I can't wait until that comes out!

Talk about a guy who found his calling. This guy can write poker books like nobody's business. 2+2 sure made a +EV move when they brought him on board. SSHE is just awesome, and was so clear about counting outs and oods that it helped my NL game.

Posted by: jbauer

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 25/02/2007 00:17

So TigerJimmy, are you still playing on line? Has the ban completely changed the profile of people that now play? I'd think that a lot of the "fish" are just gone...

I've been watching "Poker After Dark" and have a serious itch to play. I tried several sites, but couldn't get any cash deposited. I don't want to go through hell and back to get some money into a site. Any recommendations?

- Thanx
- Jon

Posted by: TigerJimmy

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 25/02/2007 04:49

I'm playing on Full Tilt. The games are tougher, but still quite beatable. You can always find a game with at least one horrific player, and until $5/$10NL ($1000 buy-in) most of the tight players have absolutely no clue how to play after the flop. Much of my profit has been coming from tight opponents who try to play well but pay off too much or fold too much after the flop. I've calculated that my preflop semi-bluff resteals ("squeezes") are making me about $60/hour (tight players trying to play well tend to be particularly vulnerable to squeezes). Another good tactic in these games is to "float" the weak-tighties on the flop (calling in position), and then take the pot from them on the turn. This is another great way to exploit tight but poor-playing opponents. The only defense is a balanced turn strategy, and most of them don't have one.

Full Tilt accepts deposits from credit cards, but most credit card companies will not authorize a deposit for "gambling". However, almost all check cards do not have this restriction.

I made a deposit a week ago to take advantage of a bonus (I generally don't make deposits, just withdrawals) on my Wells Fargo check card and it went through without a hitch.

Withdrawals are currently by check, until some other payment processing company steps forward. Getting a paper check works just fine for me, though.

Best,

Jim

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Online Poker Ban in US - 25/02/2007 18:10

There are plenty of fish still around. I've been playing on both poker stars and full tilt. I don't put anything in or take any out, but the games are stil good enough to be fun. If I had to pick just one site, it'd be stars, but that's only because of their 180 person sit n goes. For anything else, even regular tournaments, full tilt is better IMHO.

Online Poker Ban in US