U.S. permanently bans BetOnSports

TalkBack 14 of 40:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

wow, geeze, talk about hypocrisy: "You can be sent to Iraq to be blown up when you're 18, but God forbid you be allowed to drink a beer..."

Nobody sends you to Iraq, you sign your name and volunteer to join the armed forces. I get tired of people trying to claim otherwise. You know very well when you join that you can, at any time, be called upon to risk your life fighting our enemies.

Alcoholism, on the other hand, is not the same. You're not fighting for our country, or anything like that. Indeed, the only thing they have in common is that you can get killed - and if that's the only similarity, I wonder if the comparison is in any way reasonable. The purpose of the army is to defend our country. The purpose of our drinking and gambling laws are to protect our families - not to mention our lives. With two very different purposes, your comparison is moot.

OK, you have a complaint - you don't like our drinking laws. Do you have a better solution?

"Should the government tell adults what set of morals they should live by?"

Perhaps we should legalize murder? After all, the idea of murder being wrong is a moral issue.

The answer is yes, there are some cases where it is useful - and dare I say vital - for government to enforce some set of morals for the sake of law and order. There's no way I'd ever wish to live in a country that legalized murder.

"The government should have NO position on alchohol, tobacco, recreational substances, gambling, or any other adult activity that does not harm anyone other than themselves."

If you really think these activities do not affect others, you ought to get out more into the real world. They do. Gambling affects everybody, including both the family and society. AFAIK, gambling is a multibillion dollar industry, so it definitely affects our general economy.

"As for the guy's kids... well, if they are being neglected or otherwise injured as a result of the gambling, the neglect or injury should be resolved directly, not indirectly by trying to ban gambling."

Well, geeze, who's the hypocrite here? You just said it doesn't affect anybody else. BUT right away you start talking about the children and the family. Either it affects others or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways and remain logically consistent.

Now let's go on. You wish that everybody would be handled individually. The question is: Is that a good solution? Would less people be gambling addicts or have financial troubles if we implemented your solution? Hmm?

"So if a guy has a gambling problem yet his wife decides to stay with him anyway, yeah she is being harmed, but by her own choice."

Yeah, leaving the father in despair and leaving the children fatherless is the right thing to do. Now you're making a bad situation worse. Do you ever stop and think about the stuff you type, or do you simply say the first stuff that comes to mind?

If anything, the wife and children should try to help him get rid of his habit. You DO want him to get individual attention, rather than being hauled off to jail, right? If he can't get help from those closest to him, do you really think he's going to have a better chance with a stranger? Breaking up a family (especially if they have children) is IMHO the absolute last resort, and should be done very, very rarely.

If a man has a gambling problem, the wife has a very bad choice to make. Either way, something is going to be lost - either the money, or the family (often including children). If the man is a gambling addict, he hurts other people no matter which choice the wife makes made!

Usually giving up the family is a lot worse than the money. That's why wives will stay in the relationship, even though they are being hurt financially.

OK, now what about this: Do you have a better solution? No, really, if you have problems with this stuff, then maybe you should come up with solutions (thoughtful solutions, please) and write your congressmen.

"As for the guy's kids... well, if they are being neglected or otherwise injured as a result of the gambling, the neglect or injury should be resolved directly, not indirectly by trying to ban gambling."

Would legalizing it be feasible on a wide scale? If you think underage drinking and gambling are bad now, wait until they learn they can do it legally! The numbers will skyrocket. Good luck finding help for all of them - and good luck explaining to me how this is supposed to help anybody.

The problem is, you fail to see that getting help means the person already has a problem. The purpose of the law is to help prevent the person from getting the problem in the first place (at least until the person is at a reasonable age to make the choice). Seriously, older people are much less likely to experiment and pick up bad habits than young people. Younger people are more impulsive and love to experiment - often finding themselves in more trouble than they bargained for, and often getting themselves into something they didn't want to get into in the first place. Been there, done that. I, along with many people my age, have made some mistakes that are very difficult to undo. Indeed, pretend a drunk gets killed or kills somebody in a car accident (actually, you need not pretend - it's a big problem here), it is impossible to undo. I think you get the point.

Yes, perhaps the exact age of the person can be disputed somewhat, but IMHO the law itself is perfectly acceptable. Both gambling and drunkenness can leave a family in ruin, or, even worse, with somebody dead.

So, what's your solution to the problem?

"It's about hipocracy and the government trying to be our Big Brother."

IMHO, our government is not being hypocritical. To be honest, there's going to be at least a little bit of what you call "Big Brother" in any nation that isn't an anarchy. If somebody is suspected of, say, planning to murder somebody else, I'd surely want the government to do everything possible to investigate the matter thoughroughly, and that's gonna mean a bit of what you call "Big Brother" stuff. The question is, as always, where to draw the line between reasonable law enforcement and oppression.

This law is about where to draw that line, then. In this case, it's very easy to set up a fake casino and simply rip people off. It's practically trivial to make a website a scam. I dare say that Internet gambling, if legalized, would mean even more involvement of the government to ensure the gambling is legit and not a scam.

"As I'm sure you're aware, there are MILLIONS of laws telling American adults (and children too) what they cannot do, OR ELSE."

I sincerely hope so. I would not like living in a lawless nation.; Posted by: CobraA1 Posted on: 11/12/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use