161–170 of 525 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You left out the entire first half of the section on Catholicism, which is an extremely misleading move on your part: The Catholic Church holds the position that there is no moral impediment to gambling, so long as it is fair, all bettors have a reasonable chance of winning, there is no fraud involved, and the parties involved do not have actual knowledge of the outcome of the bet (unless they have disclosed this kno…
> which is an extremely misleading move on your part No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy with the Catholic view. You are adding to what I pointing out about the wiki and Christianity generally not having a problem with gambling itself : "The Catholic Church holds the position that there is no moral impediment to gambling" -- again no moral issue with gambling itself. Your source to back up your argument is simply no…
I don’t think that is hypocritical, more just nuanced. Church bingos aren’t putting people into poverty.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06375b.htm
Your critique of my initial comment seems to be hinging on the single phrase of gambling itself. I just meant the commonly used sense of the word, today, which IMO implies the aspects that the Catholics label as negative. (I.e. most people don’t call bingo a gambling activity.)
But sure, Catholicism has a nuanced view and it’s inaccurate to say they are against gambling in itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say gambling in itself isnt immoral. The problem is that a small % of people get addicted and end up spending all their money and more on betting. And that the industry makes almost all their profits on those that are addicted.
Gambling (without very strict rules) has a net negative outcome. You're not doing anything valuable, nor neutral, by gambling. So it could well be viewed as immoral.
I personally don’t see the argument for categorising it as immoral on the basis that’s it’s not useful. The same could be said about plenty of other enjoyable things.
However exploitation is clearly immoral. That’s where I have issue with gambling. Gambling operators don’t get rich thanks to the average users but because addicts give them much more than they should. That’s clearly immoral be it from a casino, a gambling website, or micro transactions in mobile game. Every companies which profit from that should be held accountable including Apple and Google which are clearly complicit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast, vast majority of people that have gambling problems aren't making rational financial decisions like this. They're doing a habitual activity that is reinforced by bad actors trying to extract as much money from them as possible. This is especially noticeable with "traditional" offline gambling and lotteries - lower income people play them habitually from a kind of learned helplessness, not as a rational fina…
Sure, seems likely in a lot of cases. But if the starting point is talking about someone who makes chronically irrational decisions then life is going to seem a bit hopeless. The issue isn't as much they're giving up as it is that they aren't making rational decisions. Thread ancestor was saying "Gambling thrives in contexts where a ladder to success doesn’t exist or is perceived as not existing". And I think that th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a good question, I’m sorry you’re being downvoted. I think the difference is that buying/betting on a house or stocks are not a zero-sum game. It is feasible for everyone to buy a house, all the houses to increase in real-world value, and everyone benefit. Likewise with stocks. And on top of that effect, the bets being made are useful for society at large to make better plans, because they are a measu…
Options markets are zero sum.
Options are a Bayesian game. Jane Street is much more likely to win than I am, but there are still rare cases where I could come out ahead with very high certainty (I know something they don't).
Card counting and being escorted out of the casino aside, there aren't any ways to acquire private information in a gambling context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which is an extremely misleading move on your part No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy with the Catholic view. You are adding to what I pointing out about the wiki and Christianity generally not having a problem with gambling itself : "The Catholic Church holds the position that there is no moral impediment to gambling" -- again no moral issue with gambling itself. Your source to back up your argument is simply no…
I think it’s fair to say that the Catholic opinion is very much against the type of widespread gambling that is prevalent today, especially in the sense of it having negative social effects. I don’t think that is hypocritical, more just nuanced. Church bingos aren’t putting people into poverty. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06375b.htm Your critique of my initial comment seems to be hinging on the single phrase of…
> Sure, we could get into a discussion on the morality of gambling itself, but if we look at pretty much every global ethical tradition (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.) it is frowned upon strongly.
Yes, that was how it reads to me, that gambling itself is frowned on; based on the post that reply was for where they stated "I would say gambling in itself isnt immoral." and that the problem is addiction and money. And I also agree with that. But gambling is gambling and while no part of it is immoral to me (I hold higher standards for that word), there are major issues with it due to greed.
Which is what your souce is saying Christians have a problem with, not it being widespread or happening at all -- simply the trying to get rich, the addiction to money -- thats the sin. Not gambling, gambling is fine; it's when it turn into a money issue, then there is a problem. And that can happen at your local bingo parlour or Macau, or Vegas or the back-room of a gas station or your buddy's poker game. The Christian bible/church have an issue when greed happens, not gambling (widespread or not).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s fair to say that the Catholic opinion is very much against the type of widespread gambling that is prevalent today, especially in the sense of it having negative social effects. I don’t think that is hypocritical, more just nuanced. Church bingos aren’t putting people into poverty. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06375b.htm Your critique of my initial comment seems to be hinging on the single phrase of…
The post of your I replied to with the source says > Sure, we could get into a discussion on the morality of gambling itself, but if we look at pretty much every global ethical tradition (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.) it is frowned upon strongly. Yes, that was how it reads to me, that gambling itself is frowned on; based on the post that reply was for where they stated "I would say gambling in itself isnt immo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole "sports betting is a skill game" angle is technically true in theory, but in practice it's like showing up to a Formula 1 race on a tricycle
And any active investment platforms are not different at all. A lot of matketing budget is spent to make people believe they can earn money by trading.
They also assign "consigliere" to you if you loose a lot. He is supposed to create a personal relationship with you. If you try to stop playing, that person will try to get you back into gaming.
You are not betting against investment platform itself, you are betring against other people on it. That is major difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
So if your degenerate father gambles away your college fund, that's your personal responsibility?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The post of your I replied to with the source says > Sure, we could get into a discussion on the morality of gambling itself, but if we look at pretty much every global ethical tradition (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.) it is frowned upon strongly. Yes, that was how it reads to me, that gambling itself is frowned on; based on the post that reply was for where they stated "I would say gambling in itself isnt immo…
I think this distinction is not actually useful in real life, where 99% of the money problems are from certain types of gambling and not from others. When people discuss gambling, they aren’t talking about bingo games and school raffles, they’re talking about the thing most people mean by the word gambling.
What does the type of gambling matter? If we focus on the core issues: greed and money problems -- over trying to "protect" [my emphasis] others from the bad gambling -- we end up helping them with adjacent greed/money problems. Labeling outside things as the problem is the problem. Help the people learn to master the inner compulsion towards these things (and other skills to help pull themselves out of dire situations); the rest is just trying to find an enemy to blame because helping others in a real way is hard.