PDA

View Full Version : Internet gambling

scaeagles
10-03-2006, 05:57 AM
The (in effect) ban on internet gambling will presumably be signed today (or soon, anyway).

I go back and forth on this. Being that I have a libertarian slant, it ticks me off that the republicans want to continue to be the nanny. However, gambling can be (or perhaps is) as addicitve as crack to some, and I'm not for allowing people to manufacture crack in their homes.

I don't know. I suppose I'm against this bill, but I can see the arguments for it.
Moonliner
10-03-2006, 06:58 AM
The (in effect) ban on internet gambling will presumably be signed today (or soon, anyway).

I go back and forth on this. Being that I have a libertarian slant, it ticks me off that the republicans want to continue to be the nanny. However, gambling can be (or perhaps is) as addicitve as crack to some, and I'm not for allowing people to manufacture crack in their homes.

I don't know. I suppose I'm against this bill, but I can see the arguments for it.

Addictive personalities will always find something to be addicted to. This and similar measures treat the symptom not the disease.

It really is just another example of special interest politics. It was not a bill that would ever have the support to pass on it's own so it was tacked onto the "must pass" ports bill.

To hell with a representative government, we'll just keep up business as usual in Washington seems to be the mantra of the day.
Alex
10-03-2006, 08:54 AM
I'm a casual online poker player so I'm a bit bummed out. Though the language says "predominantly games of chance" and this I'm sure this definition will be challenged by somebody. Poker is increasingly a game of chance the worse you are at it (whereas roulette has no skill element that can increase your odds of winning beyond certain probalistic levels).

What really annoys me is that when they couldn't get the ban passed on its own they attached it, at the very last minute, to a port security bill that they knew had to be passed for political reasons going into the election. This practice is almost as malignant, in my view, as earmarking.

The fact that there are carvouts for bingo and lotteries is amusing and cuts into the moral highground of the proponents since bingo and lottery are the greatest scams in all the legitimate gambling world.

As you probably know, the fact that stupid people will do stupid things isn't a valid argument for disallowing non-stupid from doing that activity. The fact that some people find an act immoral without direct harm to others is not valid reason to disallow others from doing that activity. So the addiction and morality problems don't fly with me. And the common argument against brick-and-mortar gambling doesn't apply either since online poker can't be blamed for localized increases in petty crime.

What it really is, is protectionism for American gambling corporations. It'll be interesting to see how the specifics shake out and I don't think it iwill kill it completely though the marketplace will likely consolidate.
Not Afraid
10-03-2006, 08:55 AM
If there's such concern about people getting addicted then alcohol should be illegal as well.
Nephythys
10-03-2006, 09:08 AM
The gov't needs to stay the hell out of our lives-

We have this-
Some law about what kind of TV we will have (WTF is that?)
Some place in the US is trying to make transfat in food ILLEGAL

Down with the Nanny state- AUGH!
Jupiter
10-31-2006, 04:39 PM
I agree let us live our lives and the country would be much happier. hell i heard today that they are trying to encourage abstinence amonst singles 30 & under. dont know if it is true heard it on the radio. they said would be spending 100 million on this campaign. i think they would be fools to do so. birth control i would understand better. but that i think they are just being fools.
Nephythys
10-31-2006, 04:48 PM
You think the gov't should pay to teach people about birth control but are fools to encourage abstinence?

How about it's not the gov't's business either way?

Though I happen to like the idea of abstinence- it's 100% effective and teaches people self control and personal reponsibility- rather than birth control that fails.

But aside from that- the gov't should not be doing it- nor should the schools- what happened to parents? and if you are over 21- it's STILL not the gov't's business.
Strangler Lewis
10-31-2006, 05:20 PM
Though I happen to like the idea of abstinence- it's 100% effective and teaches people self control and personal reponsibility- rather than birth control that fails.

All forms of "insurance," from car insurance to birth control to antibiotics to the ability to move back home with mom and dad, diminish personal responsibility.
Nephythys
10-31-2006, 05:21 PM
Personal responsibility is dying daily- it makes me sad and angry.
Ghoulish Delight
10-31-2006, 05:21 PM
You think the gov't should pay to teach people about birth control but are fools to encourage abstinence?When they've been proven to encourage it in foolish ways (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26623-2004Dec1?language=printer), then yes, they are fools.

A complete sex ed curriculum covers dangers, protections, AND absitnence in truthful, fact-filled ways. It's also been proven to be significantly more effective in prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy than any "abstinence only" or stupid "virginity pledges". Color me not surprised that being honest and straightforwad does more good than hiding from reality.
Nephythys
10-31-2006, 05:22 PM
well fvck- how about the damn gov't stays out of our sex lives altogether?
Ghoulish Delight
10-31-2006, 05:26 PM
well fvck- how about the damn gov't stays out of our sex lives altogether?
Because a populace filled with uneducated twits who spread disease and unwanted children becomes your problem and my problem.
Nephythys
10-31-2006, 05:43 PM
There is that personal responsiblity issue again-
Ghoulish Delight
10-31-2006, 05:49 PM
There is that personal responsiblity issue again-Nope, not about personal responsibility. It's about real-life effects. An overpopulated, diseased populace results in a dying society. And if a small amount of honest education can preven that, then that's exactly what a government is for. We're not talking about forcing action. No one is forcing children to have sex or not have sex (well, I'm sure Bush would love to do the second). We're talking nothing more than information, but of course information is enemy number one these days, isn't it?
Nephythys
10-31-2006, 05:58 PM
No- that's a fairly ridiculous statement in this day and age actually.

Of course it is about personal responsibility- if people would be responsible for themselves those would be dwindling issues.
tracilicious
11-01-2006, 12:39 AM
Uh...The government is already educating kids. Why should sex be excluded from that? Heaven forbid that kids pick up information that might actually benefit them in their real lives at school.

Using the personal responsibility argument, one could easily say that kids shouldn't be educated about money management in school. It isn't the governments business how people spend their money. Where are their parents?!
Nephythys
11-01-2006, 08:48 AM
Because I do not think the gov't should be teaching kids about sex, abstinence, birth control- or anything that smacks of morality about those issues.

Because it's my opinion.
Ghoulish Delight
11-01-2006, 09:17 AM
No- that's a fairly ridiculous statement in this day and age actually.

Of course it is about personal responsibility- if people would be responsible for themselves those would be dwindling issues.Then I guess we can go ahead and remove all civics lessons from schools as well.

Reliance on personal responsibility has to end where failure of personal responsibility has real, negative effects on other people.
Jupiter
11-01-2006, 07:40 PM
you know there is a level of personal responsibility here. you cant just blame it on something else. you make choices everyday you cant tell me some of those arent your responsibilities. it is the same thing here.
Not Afraid
11-01-2006, 08:34 PM
you know there is a level of personal responsibility here. you cant just blame it on something else. you make choices everyday you cant tell me some of those arent your responsibilities. it is the same thing here.

Right. So, why are drugs illegal? It's a choice to use them. Alcohol is legal. Why do we outlaw anything?
Alex
11-01-2006, 08:58 PM
Because it causes direct personal harm to another or another's property.

Therefore drugs should be legal. As should alcohol. And prostitution. And many, many things that are illegal.

As far as "sex education," beyond the biological facts of sex, I don't really care what schools teach though I think too much time is spent on it regardless of the specific pedagogy. The negative results of sex are generally not the result of stupidity but rather immaturity and you can't really educate children out of that. School should not be about creating "good people." Telling the various facts about sex is not "intruding in our sex lives." Criminalizing certain types of sex or mandating others would be intruding on our sex lives.
lizziebith
11-01-2006, 09:02 PM
If this stops the casino spam from invading my inbox, I'm all for it!:D

Seriously...I'm for education, since we've got the system in place.

Otherwise let's let the kids loose on the streets with no nanny state whatsoever! Complete freedom from State authority! All parents should not work and stay home to teach their kids (hey - that should be your #1 job, you slacker) -- who cares if dad or mom ran off and you can't pay the electric bill. You'd better freaking be there to be the moral authority. Especially if it's in the dark. You don't expect ME to help you out, do you? Lazy layabouts having kids without thinking about any-and-every possible turn of your personal futures...you make me sick.

I'm going to teach my kid about the FSM. ;)