Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About tryptout

  • Rank
    Poker Forum Newbie
  1. DM - consider OP's statement, for a little exercise in reading comprehension:"I would argue that a nation's citizens are ultimately responsible, via either endorsement or acceptance, for their leadership." This is the thesis that he's proposed. This is the issue. I addressed it in my reply. Notice how OP didn't ask primarily about the elective invasion of Iraq, but used that as an example to get at the basic issue. You chose to highlight Iraq for your own reasons, which have been transparent from the start. The notion that citizens are ultimately responsible for their leadership lies at the
  2. Keith: I've showed a lot of restraint and patience with your childish antics, including a calm and reasonable request via PM that you stay out of the thread. You're like the bratty kid who makes farting noises at the table when grown-ups are trying to talk about something important. You just need attention that bad. Apparently you're getting it here, which is probably a good thing. I really wanted to explore some reasoning around the most important issue facing online poker ever. I thought fcp was the place to do it, since it seems to have a lot of members who are willing to think abou
  3. What a torturously twisted swerve from the original topic to drop a load of undigested ideology on a sincere question."The answer to your question may not always lead to a sigular "who"....blame can be laid at the feet of Saddam Hussien. More so the blame lies in the nature of humanity itself."Odd how this answer totally disregards the OP's clear question about the responsibility of citizens (collectively and individually) in relation to the actions of their government. "The deaths of children, of innocents is unfortunate in war and one of the reasons we try to avoid going to war."Wow, that's
  4. As I just explained to Keith via pm, I don't intend to lead discussion as if I'm standing at a lectern. That would be awful. Razor took the time to seriously respond to my post, and I appreciate that. He told me to frame my question better, so I did. If that sounds like I'm trying to lead a seminar, it might have something to do with trolls who keep popping up and muddling everything up. I started the thread, I care about the issue, I really want to know what people think, and I really want to make an effort to develop my own thoughts on the matter. It's possible that now we might actual
  5. That makes 5, no, 6!! times you've posted in a thread that you find worthless and to which you've contributed ZERO constructive content. Just get out already. I'm not trading barbs with you as much as you'd get off on that. Just asking you to get out of this thread. Just Get Out Of The Thread. Stop Posting in it. You'll notice that I'm not relpying to anything you've actually said, thought you'd clearly like that. No. I'm just telling you to get out. You don't like the thread. Get out. You got nothing to add. Get out. You don't like what I said somewhere else. Well, then just Get
  6. Keith: If you have nothing to say, then go say it somewhere else like you usually do. kthksbye.
  7. <<It is not a question of legislating morality. It is a question of personal freedom and the role of government. In their wisdom, our founding fathers recognized that the government should be inobtrusive in the lives and pursuits of its citizens.>> Razor - this is what you said earlier, so - you object to the legislation because you oppose government's intervention in the personal affairs of its citizens - - is that fair ?Can you see any cases in which there might be valid reasons for government's involvement in the affairs of its citizens?What if there were a new craze of knife fi
  8. Ha, no, that's odd. I actually poked around a little to see what I could find out about Sally Struthers and her humanitarian efforts. Was there something I didn't know about the charity she's represented? That article was just one of few substantive pieces about her work. She is the butt of a lot, and I mean a LOT, of jokes. I find that really strange. Apparently thinking about things like that makes me seem cuckoo to some. Nonetheless, I really wonder why. Is it something about her? Is she not credible? Not qualified? What credentials does one need to appeal to our conscience? May
  9. That sounds too vague to me. While I definitely agree that the current legislation has been largely motivated by religious, business, and political interests, that doesn't mean that it (or some other restriction) might not actually uphold some important values/principles. What bothers me is that nobody's made a case that it doesn't. I don't want to belabor the drugs analogy, especially since nobody has outright accepted or challenged it. So, quickly, laws against drugs restrict personal freedom in the name of the social good. Drug use has social costs that the people have deemed to mu
  10. DS - I agree whoeheartedly with your first statement. I think that's why protests and other active dissent - ie that leading up to the Iraq invasion - is legitimate expression. The people carrying signs that said "Not In Our Name" agree with you. When I was driving here in Chicago - to the poker room of all things - it was those signs that made me realize what's at stake - which is just the point you make - and pull over to join the march down Lakeshore Drive. The Iraqi's case is obviously more complicated, living in conditions of dictatorship. The sense in which he is responsible for
  11. Razor: perhaps you could catch up the conversation (overlook keith crime's zingers to save yourself time) to its current spot. Recognize that I'm not advocating a position. The reasons offered are just some that people sympathetic to Frist might propose. There are probably plenty more. It would be interesting to hear on just what grounds you object to the legislation.
  12. That's a big part of what's really getting at me about this. What you call engineering I'm calling (with a grimace) legislating morality. What is the place of legislation that does attempt to reflect/lead morality? Is that the real objection to the legislation, philosophically? Do people object to it because it is such a heavyhanded attempt to legislate morality? Or is it on economic grounds - ie defending free markets? Are there other reasons to object? If the objection is on the grounds of 'legislating morality', then are peoples' views explicit and consistent on this matter? In othe
  13. DS - Please don't misunderstand my intent. I'm not trying to start any kind of revolution. I'm barely advocating a position. I just offered some reasons (true it was kind of longwinded - - posting snafu) off the top of my head why people might support restrictions in order to open discussion.What kinds of vicious activities do you have in mind to replace online gambling in the reasons given? Drugs? Anything else? Do you think that drug use is a fititng analogy to gambling? Some people would say that the logic by which drugs are considered vicious also largely applies to gambling. Why i
  14. Ok, so nn response to your edit - which is a kind of libertarian extreme, no? - I would ask you to respond to the thought experiment - if you were desigining a state from scratch and were ultimately responsible for its flourishing or its demise, would you allow all the things that you mentioned there?If so, in what manner? Completely unrestrained? Your absolute limit is when something done by one causes harm to another - then there is restraint?
  • Create New...