Posts from

Oh dear. I've read everything and even agree with the logic. But there's one BUT that will negate everything said above: In Heroes, people play for money not to earn/profit/get rich. Therefore, it cannot be considered in the context of capitalism - because money is not the goal.

Oh-oh. I've read everything and even agree with the logic.
But there is one BUT that negates everything said above:
In Heroes, people don't play for money in order to earn/profit/get rich.
Therefore, it cannot be considered in the context of capitalism - because money is not the goal.

But it wasn't said that playing Heroes for money allows you to illegally get rich))) The principle itself is important here - I'll quote:
"Why does the risk of losing or winning a certain amount make the game more "interesting"? The answer is only one: because the "interest" of this game arises not from the game itself, but from the possibility of winning something belonging to your neighbor. Thus, gambling is nothing more than pure greed."
http://skopych.kiev.ua/2012/08/16/azartnye-igry-opredeleniya-i-osobennosti-chast-1-fil-dzhonson/ Here it is clearly stated that one type of "wrong" activity leads to another, and so on, in an increasing order. As a result, today's society is quite tolerant of many types of activities that were strongly condemned just 100 years ago and it was generally unthinkable that people would engage in activities leading to degradation on a massive scale. In modern society, the line between what is allowed and what is not, what is good and what is bad, is generally blurred. At the beginning of the century, public nudity was considered indecent, and you can see in photos that women on the beach wore skirts below the knee - and now taking a selfie completely naked is considered normal, and even receives approval if a famous person poses for a fashion magazine.
And capitalism covers and justifies all this, as Merlin said. In fact, this is a powerful tool in the hands of capitalism, which allows to blur and devalue traditional ethical norms tested by time, to level out the institutions of the family, etc., and to involve more and more people in making a profit, to accept the market, and thus create a consumer society with extremely low critical thinking. Gambling is just one link in a long chain that pulls society towards degradation.
Well, I got carried away...;)

Well, here I go... ;)

No, actually, it's fine. We just think in different categories, measure things with different "measures," and want to delve into different things. And if we're going to delve into it, I have a question: what does it mean to say that "playing for money is good"? Is it like saying "exercising is good," or what? Does regularly playing for money make things "good"? It's nonsense, like saying "alcohol is good or bad." I think that thoughts/actions can be good or bad (as a result of something), but not playing for money, alcohol, a gun, etc.

I think everyone decides for themselves who they want to play with, when, and under what conditions. Personally, I don't play Heroes for money because I don't like spending money on it. Very few people play for money on the portal, and usually, they play among themselves. It's not difficult to find a player of any level to play with without betting money. And if you want to play against Stinger, Bishop, or Hellight, you can play against them for free in a tournament, if you have the skill or a favorable bracket. But simply playing against them for money just to play and sweat against Stinger, for example, is a rather expensive pleasure because to beat such players, you need to play very well yourself. And just paying money, losing (especially if you lose on turn 115), and then getting angry at yourself and feeling bad, I don't think it's worth it. After all, to win this game, you need your opponent to have a really bad game. And the chance of that isn't that high, but again, this is just my opinion; everyone is their own master. Peace to all!

In modern society, the line between what is permissible and what is not, between good and bad, is becoming increasingly blurred.
And capitalism covers and justifies all of this, as Merlin said. In reality, it is a powerful tool in the hands of capitalism, which allows it to erode and devalue traditional, time-tested ethical norms, undermine the institutions of the family, and so on, and to involve more and more people in the pursuit of profit, to embrace the market, and thus create a consumer society with extremely low critical thinking skills. Gambling is just one link in a long chain that is dragging society towards degradation.
Well, I got carried away...;)

I 100% agree.
But, as has been proven by more than one generation: prohibition is a direct path to violation. I am sure that those of us who have already become fathers (or mothers) understand that simply forbidding something is not enough; it's about remaining silent. You need to explain, show, provide examples, and... allow them to try. And if all the steps are correct, then at the "try" stage, the person will REFUSE on their own and accept it as a fact. And once and for all, because it is THEIR decision.

Honestly, I don't care whether someone plays or not. It's their business. No one is forcing them.
If you want to take risks, take them.
If you want to play for fun, play for fun.

Yegor, aka Alone. The rambling you're writing here might impress an easily swayed crowd (in line with propaganda traditions). But I expect specifics and arguments from you, supported not by unsubstantiated claims, but by facts. I asked you to formulate the principle of truthfulness. Instead, you provided a lengthy text with only one reference related to this so-called principle, a reference without a formulation of the principle itself, a reference to an unknown person who became interested in something and scribbled something down. Have you become some kind of sect member? When you write: "I'll quote: 'It is estimated that there are about ten million people addicted to gambling in the United States alone,'" you are taking it out of context (by the way, who estimates this?). Before that, in this populist article, it says: "Studies show that one in ten players suffers from gambling addiction." And even if we accept these unsubstantiated claims (since there are no references to the studies themselves) as a given, it turns out that only 10% of the audience experiences harm from gambling. Well, that's a normal statistic for mental deviations in modern society. (There are far more alcoholics in proportion to the total number of alcohol consumers.) So, what does that mean? That there are 100 million players in the US? The population of the US as of May 16, 2014, was 317.8 million people. In 2008, it was around 305 million. As of February 2008, 153,374,000 people were economically active (including the unemployed). Someone, it seems, is lying... In the conditions of modern capitalism, gambling establishments are a unique financial regulator. On the one hand, it is a huge industry, it creates jobs, it provides salaries, and it generates revenue for the budget. On the other hand, if someone loses everything (and addiction begins when a person loses money that they shouldn't be gambling with and stops controlling themselves), then this is just an element of natural selection in this system. Let's quote the article mentioned by Elon: "Note: the issue is not the size of the win or the bet. The sin lies in the fact that the principle of greed is present in this pleasure. A Christian who believes that a certain desire for profit is permissible, as long as he does not make large bets, completely misunderstands what the apostle Paul is talking about in 1 Timothy 6:9-11: 'For those who desire to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.'" http://skopych.kiev.ua/2012/08/16/azartnye-igry-opredeleniya-i-osobennosti-chast-1-fil-dzhonson/ The author of the article, a certain Phil Johnson, forgets to take the next logical step: if one follows Christian positions, or rather, the positions of Christian dogmas, then the monetary system itself should be completely and utterly destroyed, and not just its individual aspects (such as gambling). But Phil Johnson will never say that. Because the activities of his pseudo-religious organization are funded by the money of so-called parishioners. Now, let's return to Russia. In the Russian language, the word "azart" has a specific meaning. Unlike the definition in legislation, which states that gambling is an agreement based on risk about winning, "azart" according to Dal is enthusiasm, a spark, fervor, impetuosity. Dal lived a long time ago. Since then, the definitions of various concepts have been clarified and expanded. And today, there are several definitions, but they all essentially boil down to the fact that: "azart" is an emotion associated with the anticipation of success. And it turns out that any game in which you want to win and experience emotions is a gambling game. Children play hide-and-seek – without any money – but what emotions and experiences, what "azart" does this game evoke! And when epic fails or epic victories happen in Heroes (without any stakes)? Isn't that "azart"? What about football? What about everything else? And it turns out that any game that gives us emotions is, by definition, a gambling game.

Honestly, I don't care if anyone plays or not. It's their business. No one is forcing them.
If you want to take risks, take them.
If you want to play for fun, play for fun.

Your cynical indifference always amuses me.

This is a question in the same vein as "drugs: good or bad?".
The fact that there are clinics that treat gaming addiction suggests there's a reason for it.
However, both a drug addict and a staunch opponent of drugs believe that the other is living a detrimental life, denying themselves true values. And both are 100% certain of their own righteousness.

This is a question in the same vein as "drugs: good or bad?".
The fact that there are clinics that treat gaming addiction suggests that there's a reason for it.
However, both a drug addict and a staunch opponent of drugs believe that the other is living a detrimental life, denying themselves true values. And both are 100% certain of their own rightness.

It seems to me that this is going too far. Drugs are definitely evil (except for medical necessity). If "they" are good for someone, then that person needs to see a psychiatrist at the very least.

I asked you to formulate the principle of truthfulness.

Let's use the principle of justice formulated by Patanjali in the 2nd century BC. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сатья - It means inner truthfulness, honesty in everything: (in thoughts, words, deeds), the unconditional fulfillment of one's promises and obligations. One should not confuse truthfulness with the "ultimate truth" that one blurts out to another person out of a desire to offend. For example, a girl might ask: "Am I fat?" and smile stupidly. Maybe she is actually fat, but if you have to say it in accordance with the principle of truthfulness, then: firstly, you will worsen her mood and self-esteem (and thus violate another principle of Patanjali - ahimsa), secondly, you will make a lifelong enemy, and thirdly, you will get hit on the head with a purse. This ancient and very perfect system of ethical relations has several important principles, and you still need to learn how to apply them. In some countries, this is done from childhood, but currently, full adherence to these principles is difficult, since social standards have declined.

Instead, you gave a long text, which contains only one reference related to this so-called principle, a reference without a formulation of the principle itself.

Well, the principle is formulated above, and now the question is - why do we need it? Let them twist their bodies like mindless children in India or somewhere else, and we live in a real, harsh world - what is the point of this principle of truthfulness and Patanjali in general? Nevertheless, the application of these principles (including asanas or the physical part) allows you to achieve significant results with minimal costs, i.e., the efficiency is high. These principles are observed (not everyone and not fully, of course) to maintain physical fitness, rejuvenation, stress relief, increased concentration of the mind and performance, etc. http://www.ecology.md/section.php?section=health&id=9553#.U_dc-pNASz8 D.A. Medvedev knows and practices the principles of Patanjali quite well. Funny, isn't it? Of course, he lies in every other sentence on TV. But if you tell people the whole truth, there would be anarchy and chaos in our country, because most people are not ready for the truth and are not ready to take responsibility for their situation.
This is still far from our game of heroes for money, but we are discussing the principle itself.

Have you become a cultist?

I have the right, I'm already 18, cultism is a profitable business))) I want to create a cell on the forum. By the way, I didn't know that Lazarev was a cultist - his books are in every bookstore.

When you write:
"I quote - "It is estimated that in the United States alone, there are about ten million people addicted to gambling,"

In the USA, according to R. Volberg (1996), the number of "problem gamblers" - addictive gamblers, so addicted to slot machines that their lives are completely subordinate to this passion - reaches 5% of the population. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CB%F3%E4%EE%EC%E0%ED%E8%FF

So, does that mean there are 100 million gamblers in the USA? The population of the USA as of May 16, 2014 was 317.8 million people. In 2008, it was about 305 million. As of February 2008, 153,374,000 people were economically active (including the unemployed). Someone, apparently, is lying...

If we calculate based on Volberg's study and take 5% as the norm, then it is slightly more than 15 million people. I think we need to add those who specifically go to gambling zones like Vegas from other countries. And this is only slot machines, and the study is a bit outdated - now it may be more than 5%.

In the conditions of modern capitalism, gambling establishments are a unique financial regulator. On the one hand, this is a huge industry, these are jobs, these are salaries, these are revenues to the budget.

Well, there are no questions here. Jobs are needed. At the same time, we need to legalize prostitution, drug sales (a powerful regulator with a built-in system of natural selection) and allow the sale of weapons - by the way, I am in favor of legalizing weapons, but taking into account all the other legalizations, this will turn the country into the "Wild West".

The author of the article, a certain Phil Johnson, forgets to take the next logical step: if we follow Christian positions, or rather the positions of Christian dogmas, then the monetary system itself should be completely and completely destroyed, and not its individual aspects (such as gambling).

This is a distortion, because not all activities, as it is said in the "dogmas", lead to greed. If a person earns money, supports his family, and cares for loved ones and society as a whole, this is a good thing and is encouraged in any ethical tradition. But if money becomes the main thing in activity, then sin appears, and this is condemned.

And when epic fails or epic victories happen in Heroes (without any bets)? Isn't that gambling? What about football? And everything else? And it turns out that any game that gives us emotions is gambling by definition.

In my opinion, gambling and playing for money are different things. Playing for money implies a mechanism of exploitation with the aim of taking money from another party. Emotions arise in any game, but when money is added, this game turns into a gambling game.
In general, this is a deep topic for reflection. The most important thing is to rely on time-tested principles and change the paradigm of views in accordance with these principles

Money is also a kind of indicator of the seriousness of intentions.
It's one thing to message Stinger on ICQ and suggest playing a casual game, and another to put up a $50 bet...
In the first case, he might only agree if he has nothing else to do, but in the second, the priority will probably increase. And in general, playing for money is always more serious, less risky, and more exciting.

PS
I remember when I was a kid, I used to pester my dad and uncle to play chess with me. But what's chess with a child? You don't even have to look at his move – just play your own game. When we played for something (not a bet, but a prize, of course, in case of victory), I didn't run around or act silly; I learned. It's a pity about the time, but raising children always requires it.)
Time is money. Moreover, if time is equal for everyone, then "money" is different for everyone: for some, it's a rating, for some, it's a trophy, for some, it's money in their pocket, and for some, it's experience or education.

+1. Good thing I read the thread before writing something similar. I'll add that in the case of a game with money between two opponents with different skill levels, where, as a rule, the more experienced and stronger player wins, the loser is more likely to pay a modest "fee" for learning than to "gamble" and hope to miraculously win and get the amount of the bet. No one is surprised by the fact that learning (in any field) costs money. Learning from a master means taking their time. Time is an irreplaceable resource.