I think it’s fair for it to be legal, but only in specific locations and contexts. I think small scale gambling between friends and coworkers is fine. I think well regulated casinos are bad but serve as a deterrent to underground criminal gambling. I think having legal gambling through the internet and on your phone, advertised everywhere is a serious problem.
Yeah I never assume I can convince someone I’m arguing with on the internet. My goal is to convince the readers. Or entertain myself while bored at work
It’s not just that, even us old and opinionated people can be swayed when we aren’t in the fight, given we have the wisdom to let ourselves listen to arguments. Especially if we keep seeing similar ideas from those we see as peers. It’s just that when we feel confronted most people (myself included) dig in rather than reevaluate.
“provide for their needs”…? What do you mean? Sure, many gamblers don’t have a very stable economic situation, but you’re implying that something like UBI would suddenly stop people from gambling or what?
They should adopt the same approach they use in Sweden to fight alcoholism: tax the hell out of it. You won a million by doing “insider trading” on the most recent dumb government decision? Congratulations, you owe the IRS half a mil.
Well what is the difference? A vice is a vice. Both are used to distracte us from the daily life of contant reminder that we are just a flesh bag being controlled by a mass of fat that will decay and die at some point. While we circle around a massive black hole. So why is this one vice so different that you think that prohibition would work?
itt: 100 billion lemmings see the phrase “i’m not going to debate you” and immediately take up arms and move to debate positions, so as to maximize the insufferability of the platform writ large
i don’t know how i could have possibly been clearer that i don’t want the disjointed ramblings of debatecreatures in my inbox, but i know things like “consent” might be a foreign concept to such folk
Thinking you can say something and avoid it being challenged by adding shit like “anything you can argue against it doesn’t matter” is the insufferable thing on display here. Almost as insufferable as another person chiming in about how insufferable those who won’t just take that at face value are.
“avoid it being challenged” dear lord. if only internet forum threads had some kind of button that would allow you to insert whatever half-baked disguised-as-a-policy-suggestion reaction one has directly into the thread. maybe then those that suffer the worst from Jubileebrain could utilize that to spew forth all their intellectual capabilities’ worth without doing themselves the disgrace of demanding dissidents put up their dukes
I think it’s fair for it to be legal, but only in specific locations and contexts. I think small scale gambling between friends and coworkers is fine. I think well regulated casinos are bad but serve as a deterrent to underground criminal gambling. I think having legal gambling through the internet and on your phone, advertised everywhere is a serious problem.
Nah this needs to be illegal period. Not taking questions
Find something else to do
Prohibition of vices doesn’t work, it just pushes it into organized crime. I want harm reduction more than purity
You’re interested in solutions. The person you’re replying to is only interested in hearing his own voice.
Yeah I never assume I can convince someone I’m arguing with on the internet. My goal is to convince the readers. Or entertain myself while bored at work
I agree completely. I always assume there are younger folks in the room who haven’t formed an opinion on everything yet.
It’s not just that, even us old and opinionated people can be swayed when we aren’t in the fight, given we have the wisdom to let ourselves listen to arguments. Especially if we keep seeing similar ideas from those we see as peers. It’s just that when we feel confronted most people (myself included) dig in rather than reevaluate.
Im cool with the state owning things. Its the oversize marketing budgets and no concern for harm that comes with private ownership that bugs me.
I’ve heard plenty of stories of destitute people burning all their money on state-run scratchers. It’s not a panacea.
Me too, but at least it pays for a school or something vs some rich assholes pocket. I have never seen a better acceptable solution.
It pushes them into organized crime because the state fails to provide for people’s needs not because the vice is prohibited
Next
“provide for their needs”…? What do you mean? Sure, many gamblers don’t have a very stable economic situation, but you’re implying that something like UBI would suddenly stop people from gambling or what?
I bet you one hundred dollars that you cannot enforce this.
Yes prohibition of alcohol worked so well in America, the 18th amendment, in the 1919 that 14 years later they repealed it, the 21st amendment.
Arguably prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption during that time period.
That does not mean that it “worked” in any practical sense, considering all else that was associated with it.
They should adopt the same approach they use in Sweden to fight alcoholism: tax the hell out of it. You won a million by doing “insider trading” on the most recent dumb government decision? Congratulations, you owe the IRS half a mil.
Not talking about alcohol try again
Well what is the difference? A vice is a vice. Both are used to distracte us from the daily life of contant reminder that we are just a flesh bag being controlled by a mass of fat that will decay and die at some point. While we circle around a massive black hole. So why is this one vice so different that you think that prohibition would work?
different things being vices doesn’t make them magically interchangeable
Sorry
So what makes it so different that you think that prohibition would work in this one instance?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
itt: 100 billion lemmings see the phrase “i’m not going to debate you” and immediately take up arms and move to debate positions, so as to maximize the insufferability of the platform writ large
Itt: the person saying “I’m not going to debate you” continues to respond.
Also: “I’m not going to debate you” is not some magic phrase that prevents your statement from being challenged.
In closing: I’m not going to debate you. So if you respond to this you’re a hypocrite.
i don’t know how i could have possibly been clearer that i don’t want the disjointed ramblings of debatecreatures in my inbox, but i know things like “consent” might be a foreign concept to such folk
“When I make statements on public forums that does not mean I consent to people responding to me!”
I don’t think you understand how any of this works.
for you in particular, let’s permanently rectify that situation
Thinking you can say something and avoid it being challenged by adding shit like “anything you can argue against it doesn’t matter” is the insufferable thing on display here. Almost as insufferable as another person chiming in about how insufferable those who won’t just take that at face value are.
“avoid it being challenged” dear lord. if only internet forum threads had some kind of button that would allow you to insert whatever half-baked disguised-as-a-policy-suggestion reaction one has directly into the thread. maybe then those that suffer the worst from Jubileebrain could utilize that to spew forth all their intellectual capabilities’ worth without doing themselves the disgrace of demanding dissidents put up their dukes
but then it wouldn’t be lemmy now would it