Do Unto Others

[zzz 0]

Yes, expecting to win may be a selfish goal but it is what you do with those winnings that separates the good from the bad.I have a very healthly competitive nature and I strive to win at everything I do. When I win however I do not shout from the rooftops "HA HA HA I WON" and when I lose I do not cry about it like a pathetic little baby. (Well maybe sometimes)No I am dignified as much in defeat as I am in victory. What is the point in competing if you are not attempting to win?I have to say that this particular argument of yours does not make any sense. You say that winning is a negative quality and is a selfish goal. So from this I can deduce that losing is a positive quality and must be shared with everyone so as not to be selfish.Screw that then, I like my negative qualities and I will just have to live with the fact that I am a selfish bastard because I LIKE winning.

competition synonyms: competitor, competitors, contender, contention, contentions, contest, Contests, rival, rivaled, rivalries, rivalry, rivals.competition antonyms: cooperationI for one don't think cooperation is a negative quality.

[zzz 0]

Actually they haven't. Just saying that they have doesn't make it so.If you honestly believe that saving money is being selfish, then you in fact are a hypocrite and a selfish person if you yourself live above complete poverty. Paying your taxes is the best you can do? You mean there aren't literally hundreds of charities out there set up to feeding the hungry? Yeah, there are.oh, and answer this:

Answer: they both see the cup of water at the same time, both want the full cup, both run as fast as they can to get to the cup of water. One gets there quicker and drinks the water. That is called a competition no? If you did the opposite of competition and had cooperation, both would drink 1/2 cup. I hope you can grasp THAT. I dont have billions of dollars to spend each year. The government does. I vote for an anti war candidate whose main agenda is to eliminate poverty. If there were enough people in America asking for a candidate whose main goal was to eliminate poverty then poverty would be eliminated. It is not my fault not enough people share this view. I give enough to charity to help out a handful of starving people each year. If everyone who was able to did this there would be no more poverty. Have a nice day!

[ShakeZuma 585]

I am sorry you don't understand. It is a fact that there is plenty of food and water to go around. The problem is with people not sharing (being selfish) and keeping thousands of dollars in the bank while people die of starvation (ie thousands a day in Africa).Like you said you don't need a job to survive. If there is no job that suits your humble criteria of wanting to help others than their is such a thing as asking your kind neighbor to help you with your needs.You, and everyone else in the history of the human race have relied on the kindness and love of other people in order to survive. Your agrument has continued to be discredited completely. I am sorry if you still do not comprehend.

Remember when you said all that?

I dont have billions of dollars to spend each year. The government does. I vote for an anti war candidate whose main agenda is to eliminate poverty. If there were enough people in America asking for a candidate whose main goal was to eliminate poverty then poverty would be eliminated. It is not my fault not enough people share this view. I give enough to charity to help out a handful of starving people each year. If everyone who was able to did this there would be no more poverty. Have a nice day!

You said that by people keeping money in the bank that they are being selfish and causing others to starve. By your definition of selfishness, one should not be allowed to keep ANYTHING above what they need to survive. You seem to want to turn this argument towards government and politics, but that is not the discussion at hand. Stay on track. Pure and simple, by your definition of selfishness, each individual should spread their earnings throughout the world, and do so to the point that they themselves are only surviving. So now I ask you: do you own a computer? Do you own a car? Do you pay for haircuts? Do you chew gum? Do you buy clothes instead of making your own? If you answer yes to any of these, then you are spending money on things that could be spent on feeding starving people, and are therefore a hypocrite.And as for the competition, in your example, the one who loses dies. However, by your own admission, one doesn't need money to survive. So from this, one can conclude that if you beat someone in poker then it has no impact on their life, since they don't need the money to survive. Your arguments cancel each other out.DO YOU SEE WHY?

[zzz 0]

Remember when you said all that?You said that by people keeping money in the bank that they are being selfish and causing others to starve. By your definition of selfishness, one should not be allowed to keep ANYTHING above what they need to survive. You seem to want to turn this argument towards government and politics, but that is not the discussion at hand. Stay on track. Pure and simple, by your definition of selfishness, each individual should spread their earnings throughout the world, and do so to the point that they themselves are only surviving. So now I ask you: do you own a computer? Do you own a car? Do you pay for haircuts? Do you chew gum? Do you buy clothes instead of making your own? If you answer yes to any of these, then you are spending money on things that could be spent on feeding starving people, and are therefore a hypocrite.And as for the competition, in your example, the one who loses dies. However, by your own admission, one doesn't need money to survive. So from this, one can conclude that if you beat someone in poker then it has no impact on their life, since they don't need the money to survive. Your arguments cancel each other out.DO YOU SEE WHY?

My ONLY point which you STILL can't grasp is any form of competition is wrong, and the solution to competition is cooperation (the exact opposite of competition). There is no need for competition. IT DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

[sixhands 0]

Point # 1: Being a condescending prick only works when you're correct, so it isn't working very well for you.Point #2: From this I gather that you have donated every extra cent you have ever made to charity, keeping yourself at the base of poverty so that others can share in your prosperity. Otherwise you'd be selfish, and a hypocrite as well. (Interestingly enough, you're typing on a computer right now. Hmm.)

LMAO, nicely pointed out Shake

My ONLY point which you STILL can't grasp is any form of competition is wrong, and the solution to competition is cooperation (the exact opposite of competition). There is no need for competition. IT DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

Co-operation is just a multiple form of competition.For example, I could compete against you by myself or shake and I could beat you co-operatively.Either way it is still competition dude.Even if we look at your glass of water conundrum.If they both co-operate and drink half a glass each then they both survive. The person that gave them the glass of water who essentially wanted one of them to fail has now lost.So there you have it, back to competition again.I think I am going to go have a FULL glass of water now, I might even puposely spill some.Thanks for the interesting discussion zzz

[zzz 0]

LMAO, nicely pointed out Shake :icon_clap:Co-operation is just a multiple form of competition.For example, I could compete against you by myself or shake and I could beat you co-operatively.Either way it is still competition dude.Even if we look at your glass of water conundrum.If they both co-operate and drink half a glass each then they both survive. The person that gave them the glass of water who essentially wanted one of them to fail has now lost.So there you have it, back to competition again.I think I am going to go have a FULL glass of water now, I might even puposely spill some.Thanks for the interesting discussion zzz

cooperation is the antonym for competition. That means that it is the oppositeof competition. Sorry, try again.

[timwakefield 68]

I vote for an anti war candidate whose main agenda is to eliminate poverty.

It is a personal choice which never has to be made public, but may I ask who you voted for in the previous presidential election? I'll start: I voted for Kerry. I understand if you don't want to say, but I am wondering which candidate was staunchly anti-war and had a main agenda of eliminating poverty? Seriously, I'm curious because I'll vote for him next time around. Who is this person? And regarding competition being a generally negative aspect of the world - please see the evolution vs not-evolution thread. I don't want to hijack this thread, but evolution teaches that competition is the basis for speciation, and without speciation we would not exist. Thoughts?

[Mattnxtc 0]

It is a personal choice which never has to be made public, but may I ask who you voted for in the previous presidential election? I'll start: I voted for Kerry. I understand if you don't want to say, but I am wondering which candidate was staunchly anti-war and had a main agenda of eliminating poverty? Seriously, I'm curious because I'll vote for him next time around. Who is this person? And regarding competition being a generally negative aspect of the world - please see the evolution vs not-evolution thread. I don't want to hijack this thread, but evolution teaches that competition is the basis for speciation, and without speciation we would not exist. Thoughts?

And based off of human nature you could say that people are moreso tempted by sin then by doing what is right. Which is why people find it easy to not follow the simple laws...and that comes directly from the bible...thoughts?I want to say something else about zzz's comments on the thread...His goal of the thread was to try and say "do unto others as you would have them do to you" and while he is wrong on this aspect the idea of selfishness as a sin is in fact in the bible. Like i said he just was tryin to force something that wasnt in context

[timwakefield 68]

And based off of human nature you could say that people are moreso tempted by sin then by doing what is right. Which is why people find it easy to not follow the simple laws...and that comes directly from the bible...thoughts?I want to say something else about zzz's comments on the thread...His goal of the thread was to try and say "do unto others as you would have them do to you" and while he is wrong on this aspect the idea of selfishness as a sin is in fact in the bible. Like i said he just was tryin to force something that wasnt in context

Why did you quote me for this response?

[Mattnxtc 0]

Why did you quote me for this response?

b/c i clicked the wrong reply button haha

[timwakefield 68]

hahaha

[zzz 0]

It is a personal choice which never has to be made public, but may I ask who you voted for in the previous presidential election? I'll start: I voted for Kerry. I understand if you don't want to say, but I am wondering which candidate was staunchly anti-war and had a main agenda of eliminating poverty? Seriously, I'm curious because I'll vote for him next time around. Who is this person? And regarding competition being a generally negative aspect of the world - please see the evolution vs not-evolution thread. I don't want to hijack this thread, but evolution teaches that competition is the basis for speciation, and without speciation we would not exist. Thoughts?

Animals and other living things with lower IQs compete with each other to survive because that is all they know. Humans don't have to compete with others to survive and competing with others (wars for instance) has led to millions of lives being taken away. We are (will be hopefully someday) too smart to be competitive.

[timwakefield 68]

Animals and other living things with lower IQs compete with each other to survive because that is all they know. Humans don't have to compete with others to survive and competing with others (wars for instance) has led to millions of lives being taken away. We are (will be hopefully someday) too smart to be competitive.

I guess I was talking about the idea of competition, not necessarily human competition........and that it's not inherently evil.

My ONLY point which you STILL can't grasp is any form of competition is wrong, and the solution to competition is cooperation (the exact opposite of competition). There is no need for competition. IT DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

I don't think "any form of competition is wrong" is a true statement.

[zzz 0]

I guess I was talking about the idea of competition, not necessarily human competition........and that it's not inherently evil.I don't think "any form of competition is wrong" is a true statement.

You know what the antonym for competition is -- cooperation. I personallybelieve competition is the wrong path and cooperation is the right path.But, I guess we are gonna have to agree to disagree.

[timwakefield 68]

You know what the antonym for competition is -- cooperation. I personallybelieve competition is the wrong path and cooperation is the right path.But, I guess we are gonna have to agree to disagree.

But I still think you're wrong. If you limit your statement to "regarding social, political, ecoomic issues, etc within human society" then that is a different story.Cooperation is worse than competition at the poker table, and in terms of speciation. Many evolutionary biologists believe that the reasons homo sapiens have such a large brain is because small groups or families were in competition with each other. The smarter ones tended to acquire more of the limited resources needed for survival in a given area than the less smart ones did, and because traits are inherited.....etc.

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

Where would that bias stem from?

well they would be bias toward the "traditional" christian side that poker is totally evil so it would be almost impossible to get a completley fair and unbias argument from them

[CobaltBlue 662]

zzz, are you hoping to win this argument?Zing.

[zzz 0]

zzz, are you hoping to win this argument?Zing.

There is no possible way that you can argue that competition right now (evolution is irrelevant to my basic argument wakefield) and zero sum games like poker do more good than harm. Again, how is competition necessary at this point in time? You think humans aren't capable of ever living in harmony without competition? You have got to be kidding.

[suitedinc 0]

Hey zzz,I assume you have a job. If so, you better be thankful that you won the competition to get your job, otherwise you would be cooperating with the other 5 people who also applied for your position, and cooperting the same pay check split amongst all five of you. You have to compete, it is in your nature. That is what we do, we strive to be better. The only way to measure "better" is to compare ourselves with others and thereby compete.Tim, I think we think we found another common ground. What do you know.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Hey zzz,I assume you have a job. If so, you better be thankful that you won the competition to get your job, otherwise you would be cooperating with the other 5 people who also applied for your position, and cooperting the same pay check split amongst all five of you. You have to compete, it is in your nature. That is what we do, we strive to be better. The only way to measure "better" is to compare ourselves with others and thereby compete.Tim, I think we think we found another common ground. What do you know.

I'm gonna start arguing like zzz...No, you're wrong. I've just disproved all your points. I don't need reasoning!Have a nice day!

[zzz 0]

I'm gonna start arguing like zzz...No, you're wrong. I've just disproved all your points. I don't need reasoning!Have a nice day!

Oh there you are shake. How come you didn't respond to my last 3 posts. I guess you finally agree with me.

Hey zzz,I assume you have a job. If so, you better be thankful that you won the competition to get your job, otherwise you would be cooperating with the other 5 people who also applied for your position, and cooperting the same pay check split amongst all five of you. You have to compete, it is in your nature. That is what we do, we strive to be better. The only way to measure "better" is to compare ourselves with others and thereby compete.Tim, I think we think we found another common ground. What do you know.

Actually I am self employed and my customers come to me (I don't compete for them). Nice try.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Oh there you are shake. How come you didn't respond to my last 3 posts. I guess you finally agree with me.

Actually I was at work and then I went home. Now I'm back.How come you didn't respond to any of my questions? Thats what I'm wondering.

[zzz 0]

Actually I was at work and then I went home. Now I'm back.How come you didn't respond to any of my questions? Thats what I'm wondering.

I answered all the questions that were relevant. Let me know what I didn't answer. I think you are getting confused.

[ShakeZuma 585]

You said that by people keeping money in the bank that they are being selfish and causing others to starve. By your definition of selfishness, one should not be allowed to keep ANYTHING above what they need to survive. You seem to want to turn this argument towards government and politics, but that is not the discussion at hand. Stay on track. Pure and simple, by your definition of selfishness, each individual should spread their earnings throughout the world, and do so to the point that they themselves are only surviving. So now I ask you: do you own a computer? Do you own a car? Do you pay for haircuts? Do you chew gum? Do you buy clothes instead of making your own? If you answer yes to any of these, then you are spending money on things that could be spent on feeding starving people, and are therefore a hypocrite.And as for the competition, in your example, the one who loses dies. However, by your own admission, one doesn't need money to survive. So from this, one can conclude that if you beat someone in poker then it has no impact on their life, since they don't need the money to survive. Your arguments cancel each other out.DO YOU SEE WHY?

Those questions. Guess you accidentally skipped over them.But don't worry about it. I'm not responding to this thread anymore. It is impossible to argue with someone who copletely disregards all logic and reasoning. You try to make assertions without proof or logic. This is not an argument. But have a nice day nonetheless.

[zzz 0]

Those questions. Guess you accidentally skipped over them.But don't worry about it. I'm not responding to this thread anymore. It is impossible to argue with someone who copletely disregards all logic and reasoning. You try to make assertions without proof or logic. This is not an argument. But have a nice day nonetheless.

Your point is competition is not bad. I believe that competition is bad and cooperation is good. I know it is a very complex concept for people to understand. Bye Shake. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. Have a nice day!