Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#71

Post by junkscience2017 »

opportune wrote: post #67
junkscience2017 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give your family some credit. They could have sought out a casino somehow and lost their life savings many times over if they were as dim-witted and susceptible as you think they are.

Hard to do that yourself when you're 94, don't know how to use a smartphone, and have Alzheimer's I never called them dim-witted in a mean sense, I mean that when you are old you aren't able to think with the same mental acuity as you once could. People with Alzheimer's or that are beginning to grow senile really are like children, and they are susceptible

If they have a legit diagnosis for dementia, there are ways to get power-of-attorney as there are many ways people in their condition can act in ways everyone will regret.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#72

Post by mmirate »

dogruck wrote: post #61
mmirate wrote: post #13

Gambling/lotteries basically only harm people with innumeracy; ergo why should it ever be prohibited?

I support the legalization of gambling, but you’re wrong. By analogy, that’s like saying only people who don’t understand the risk of unprotected sex have unprotected sex.

And that analogy is wrong because unprotected sex means not only STDs, but also pregnancies, and the latter are why such ignorant peoples' families continue to exist over generations.

Gambling, on the other hand, does not impart any benefits whatsoever upon its sufferers, and that is why I argued it ought to be allowed for anyone stupid enough to want it.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#73

Post by mmirate »

bpicolo wrote: post #40
obstacle1 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can fully understand the -EV of gambling yet still act against your own self-interest by engaging in it. (Most) humans aren't emotionless machines, even highly intelligent people engage in self-destructive behaviour despite recognizing it as such.

And human brains are totally wired for gambling addiction.

Then what better way is there, other than legalizing gambling, to select-out-of-the-population those people who are weak-minded enough to become gambling addicts?

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#74

Post by mmirate »

dominotw wrote: post #45
jccalhoun wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand, I can see this. Having worked in a casino, my gut reaction is, "If you are that dumb then you deserve to lose everything." But on the other hand, there is the societal good of not having people throw away their money and spend it on things like paying their rent/mortgage and healthcare and education and not be a burden to society.

I would say there is more social good in banning junk food. Imagine the healthcare cost savings. Gambling would be pretty low on social good list.

> I would say there is more social good in banning junk food. Imagine the healthcare cost savings.

The same cost savings could be realized by simply not providing healthcare for the complications of chronic overeating.

(The only downside of such a plan is that the complications of chronic overeating can sometimes fail to onset until after the patient has reproduced.)

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#75

Post by junkscience2017 »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #27
hug wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion is that Australia should ban gambling advertising. I also believe that Australia should also remove the electronic poker machine licenses from the Returned Services Leagues, and I also think that Australia should toughen up the mandatory anti-problem-gambling information at venues licensed for gambling, and in applications designed for gambling. I also think that the laws around ATM withdrawals at gambling…

As another Australia, I strongly agree. Gambling/bettings have put a lot of work into getting their slimy tentacles into sports clubs and RSL's and perpetuating this idea that gambling/betting is inherently part of sport, which it's not, but they're happy to lure people and profit off them all the same. If we reigned them in, I really don't think anything of value would be lost.

Americans have a better solution. Instead of banning pleasure nationally, we just ban it in one region we call "Utah" that you can choose to live in or not.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#76

Post by mmirate »

hollerith wrote: post #16
mmirate wrote: post #13

Gambling/lotteries basically only harm people with innumeracy; ergo why should it ever be prohibited?

because maybe your brother or my brother is innumerate.

> your brother

I lack siblings.

> or my brother is innumerate

You led with "maybe"; to keep my next sentence's structure from becoming a complete mess, I'll assume that your hypothetical is true.

If some random person tells me "my brother is innumerate" ... then why should that information be of any consequence to me, in the absence of further context?

EDIT: and by further context I mean further information about you or your brother.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#77

Post by mmirate »

jccalhoun wrote: post #43
mmirate wrote: post #13

Gambling/lotteries basically only harm people with innumeracy; ergo why should it ever be prohibited?

On one hand, I can see this. Having worked in a casino, my gut reaction is, "If you are that dumb then you deserve to lose everything." But on the other hand, there is the societal good of not having people throw away their money and spend it on things like paying their rent/mortgage and healthcare and education and not be a burden to society.

> "If you are that dumb then you deserve to lose everything."

Exactly. Full stop.

> burden to society

They are only burdens because our society takes people upon itself as burdens. This socialism ought be solved directly rather than worked-around by things like gambling bans and other such legislative nannying.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#78

Post by mmirate »

obstacle1 wrote: post #33
mmirate wrote: post #13

Gambling/lotteries basically only harm people with innumeracy; ergo why should it ever be prohibited?

You can fully understand the -EV of gambling yet still act against your own self-interest by engaging in it. (Most) humans aren't emotionless machines, even highly intelligent people engage in self-destructive behaviour despite recognizing it as such.

> (Most) humans aren't emotionless machines

Indeed, and much to our detriment. Which is why...

> even highly intelligent people engage in self-destructive behaviour despite recognizing it as such

... this justifies permitting those with self-destructive abilities to exercise their abilities; such that the intelligent people who remain, are both intelligent and resilient.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#79

Post by Intermernet »

mmirate wrote: post #76
hollerith wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because maybe your brother or my brother is innumerate.

> your brother I lack siblings. > or my brother is innumerate You led with "maybe"; to keep my next sentence's structure from becoming a complete mess, I'll assume that your hypothetical is true. If some random person tells me "my brother is innumerate" ... then why should that information be of any consequence to me, in the absence of further context? EDIT: and by further context I mean further information about you…

The further context is that your brother could be harmed by gambling or lotteries. The information should be of consequence due to human empathy usually associated with family members and hopefully, also other humans in general.

Re: Will Supreme Court open a ‘dam burst’ of legalized sports betting?

#80

Post by mmirate »

whyenot wrote: post #19
mmirate wrote: post #13

Gambling/lotteries basically only harm people with innumeracy; ergo why should it ever be prohibited?

In other words, gambling should be allowed because it only harms the under-educated? I'm not sure that's a very compelling argument considering the current state of K-12 education in the US.

Just because K-12 education has become complete shit, does not mean we ought to decrease our standard expectations of the capabilities of an adult mind. It merely means that more will fail those expectations. And not merely more, but very many more; but how is that any concern? Is the U.S. truly so deficient in population that it must extend a coddling (and a circus) to every single warm body that requires it?
Post reply on HN