Gambling, morals & rationalizations

[Foolish Pleasure]

I don't get this and this is going to be about the 5th time I have posted the question without getting an answer-

I am still all ears here-

gambling is morally reprhensible for two primary reasons neither of which are biblical-
society has spent resources on the winners which should have seen them amount to more than gamblers-

gambling is nothing more than the educated taking advantage of the ignorance-generally of those least able to afford to lose.

I have immense respect for Bentor walking away from $500mill at the track for moral reasons-but obviously that proof racing surely didn't stop, losers surely didn't stop losing.


That said-

the conservative rationalizations include it is going to take place with or without me,
the least able to afford to lose are going to find a way to lose with or without gambling.


what are the liberal rationalizations exactly?

Tell me how can stand up for gov't intervention on behalf of ignorance in every way shape and form but then while they not looking go ahead and take advantage of the same people?


:bang: :bang: :bang:

[boxcar]

I don't get this and this is going to be about the 5th time I have posted the question without getting an answer-

I am still all ears here-

gambling is morally reprhensible for two primary reasons neither of which are biblical-
society has spent resources on the winners which should have seen them amount to more than gamblers-

gambling is nothing more than the educated taking advantage of the ignorance-generally of those least able to afford to lose.

I have immense respect for Bentor walking away from $500mill at the track for moral reasons-but obviously that proof racing surely didn't stop, losers surely didn't stop losing.


That said-

the conservative rationalizations include it is going to take place with or without me,
the least able to afford to lose are going to find a way to lose with or without gambling.


what are the liberal rationalizations exactly?

Tell me how can stand up for gov't intervention on behalf of ignorance in every way shape and form but then while they not looking go ahead and take advantage of the same people?


:bang: :bang: :bang:

Games of 100% pure chance are promoted vigorously by the governments because they know that biggest appeal will be to uneducated or undereducated. In short, the appeal is to the the ignorant and to the people who can afford it the least. Lotteries, for example, are nothing more than a Stupid Tax designed to appeal to and stir up people's lusts -- their lust for easy money.

Boxcar

[Foolish Pleasure]

Like the lust for easy prizes at the church raffle?
There are no saints in this world.
They opposed to protect their own racket as much as for biblical rationalizations.


It is not here nor there-


I want to know how same people can intrude in every facet of my life on behalf of others can be same people trying to take their money gambling.

[46zilzal]

In ANY filed of endeavor, there are those that can and do. There are many bettors who never worked on the knowledge and practice required to be successful so caveat emptor....NO one twists their arms.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...caveat emptor...

Hmmmmm..... I learned about this phrase from the all-knowing Mike Brady and it seems the message you are sending here would be in contrast with many of your other sentiments towards "victimized" consumers...

[46zilzal]

Hmmmmm..... I learned about this phrase from the all-knowing Mike Brady and it seems the message you are sending here would be in contrast with many of your other sentiments towards "victimized" consumers...
You walk into any situation and if you don't know the game, you will be victimized. Currently I am working on a patron education program to reverse that void.

[Show Me the Wire]

In their mind it is all about responsibility. The people that see no evil in bingo, lotteries, raffles, actually believe the particiapnts are more rsponsible and can contro their impulses. There is no gambler's ruin, however, the nefarious types of gambling is populated by peope that can't control their impulses. They cannot control themselves and they have to be protected.

With all of that said, just living life and making everyday choices is a gamble.

[Overlay]

gambling is nothing more than the educated taking advantage of the ignorance-generally of those least able to afford to lose

That wouldn't be true of games of pure chance, since they're set up so that the outcome is determined purely by luck, and the payoffs are structured so that anyone (no matter their level of education) who plays long enough will end up losing. Everyone knows (or should know) that going in, so if they make the free and legal choice to engage in that activity, they are accepting that risk. The only party "taking advantage" of anyone is the house, who treats everyone equally in that regard, since no skill is involved.

Games of skill, on the other hand, do feature distinctions in the outcome based on individual degrees of knowledge and ability. However, who is compelling those who are less knowledgeable or less adept to stay that way, or even to play the game in the first place? Anyone is free to improve their ability, and any blame for losses incurred by those who fail to do so, but who still make the free choice to play the game, cannot be assigned to those who win through their own ability and effort.

[boxcar]

Like the lust for easy prizes at the church raffle?
There are no saints in this world.
They opposed to protect their own racket as much as for biblical rationalizations.


It is not here nor there-


I want to know how same people can intrude in every facet of my life on behalf of others can be same people trying to take their money gambling.

You must be another liberal. You attempt at drawing a parallel between a mere "church raffle" and government-sanctioned gambling for the sole purpose of creating a constant tax revenue stream is pretty weak. In the former situation, raffles are held only on special occasions usually to fund some need of the church or church project, such as construction work, etc. Plus raffles only offer very modest prizes, generally. Not a whole lot there to lust after. :rolleyes: But state-sanctioned gambling is ongoing, constant, never ending and the jackpots are sizable and in many cases, downright huge. There's a lot more there upon which one can feed his lust.

Having said this, however, I'm not a big fan of any kind of church gambling because the church should not be in the business of putting possible stumbling blocks in the paths of their congregations.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

That wouldn't be true of games of pure chance, since they're set up so that the outcome is determined purely by luck, and the payoffs are structured so that anyone (no matter their level of education) who plays long enough will end up losing. Everyone knows (or should know) that going in, so if they make the free and legal choice to engage in that activity, they are accepting that risk. The only party "taking advantage" of anyone is the house, who treats everyone equally in that regard, since no skill is involved.

Games of skill, on the other hand, do feature distinctions in the outcome based on individual degrees of knowledge and ability. However, who is compelling those who are less knowledgeable or less adept to stay that way, or even to play the game in the first place? Anyone is free to improve their ability, and any blame for losses incurred by those who fail to do so, but who still make the free choice to play the game, cannot be assigned to those who win through their own ability and effort.

Or as the late Ray Taulbot essentially said once about horse players: They are their own worst enemies and excel at beating themselves. It's not the horses or other players who ultimately are to blame for others' losses, as you have correctly pointed out.

Boxcar

[rastajenk]

That wouldn't be true of games of pure chance, since they're set up so that the outcome is determined purely by luck, and the payoffs are structured so that anyone (no matter their level of education) who plays long enough will end up losing.I think it is especially true of games of chance, in the sense that the more educated folk know it's a losing pursuit and will direct their resources elsewhere, leaving the ignorant, or, if you prefer, the uninitiated to their occasional wins more than offset by their more frequent losses. At least that's what I think the original poster was getting at: not the nature of a particular form of gambling, but the whole idea of investing in random outcomes.

[Foolish Pleasure]

It is both-I originally intended for it to be the individual,
but obviously state sponsored gambling is no different.


It is the same, how can same people who stand up and defend these people at every opportunity either try and beat same people personally gambling or support the state doing the same.

[46zilzal]

It is the same, how can same people who stand up and defend these people at every opportunity either try and beat same people personally gambling or support the state doing the same.
NO one twists their arms.

[Foolish Pleasure]

Boxcar I have to be honest, I used to be religion neutral for the most part,
I attended a few times a year, listened to endless soliciting for money,
the hypocrtical POV on too many topics and fact is I am pro choice-I view the abortion issue as no different than the liberals-using the fed to advance some agenda is not conservative.

But two yrs ago I took a roadtrip to Tunica, stopped in Memphis, Hot Springs and a few others-


you people are embarrassing-I am looking at one village after another of abject poverty with one huge massive modern state of the art building and it is the church. No different than the urban liberals siphoning off ridiculous coin from their people.


the actions, conduct et al it is just like racing, they have driven away just about anyone with any degree of common sense at all and they blame it on everything and everyone but themselves. Times are tough, people find religion in tough times-not this time-just like horse racing.

[boxcar]

It is both-I originally intended for it to be the individual,
but obviously state sponsored gambling is no different.


It is the same, how can same people who stand up and defend these people at every opportunity either try and beat same people personally gambling or support the state doing the same.

FP...please try to understand this: In the parimutuel form of gambling, people FREELY compete against one another. To be sure, horse racing, for example, is a game of chance but also one of skill. No one takes advantage of anyone. You have people pitting their skills against each other, just the way you do in any sports game. Go back and read Overlay's post #8 and my post #10. People who lose habitually in any game of skill and chance have only themselves to blame for losing, since they obviously have never taken the time or made the effort or even invested the money to acquire those skills, hone them and fine tune them, etc.

However, I do not believe the same way about state-run lotteries, which are games of 100% pure chance. The way the jackpots are constructed and designed, etc., it's obvious their singular purpose is to entice or lure as many poor and ignorant people as possible with the hopes of hitting it big easily, i.e. without working for it.

This subject has been bandied about previously on this forum. And on the internet you can find studies that show that the poor among us spend (i.e. waste) far more of their what little money they have on lottery games than do those who live in higher end, better neighborhoods. In short, educated people know better than to waste very much of their hard earned money on games of chance. Therefore, if anyone is taking undue advantage of people, generally, it is the states that run these lotteries. This is why educated people usually think of these games as nothing more than a Stupid Tax. They are designed to attract the "stupid" among us -- to relieve them of as much of their money as possible.

Look at this problem the same way you would with tobacco. What does the government tell us officially? Don't they tell us that smoking IS bad for our health? Yet, have they outlawed what they know is bad for us? Why not? What's not to understand about a Tax Revenue Stream? Greedy Big Gov is always, always, always looking for ways to dip their slimy fingers into our pockets. And they care not what tactics they use; for they very often will try to appeal to our base or dark side.

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Sometimes I think horse racing is worse than pure chance gambling. It gives the illussion of pure skill. While it does have some skill in picking winners, there is lot thing left to chance like how a horse breaks, gets stuck in traffic or steps in a hole and breaks a leg. Plus there a ton information that is not available, like has the horse been sick since it last race, did it get a new not so caring groom, of course the drugs that it did or not get in todays or its past races. Then a lot of information which could be wrong like the placement in the fractional positions. On top of that, we are dealing in fifths of a second. Not much margin for error there. But all in all it is a great game.

[horses4courses]

Sometimes I think horse racing is worse than pure chance gambling. It gives the illussion of pure skill. While it does have some skill in picking winners, there is lot thing left to chance like how a horse breaks, gets stuck in traffic or steps in a hole and breaks a leg. Plus there a ton information that is not available, like has the horse been sick since it last race, did it get a new not so caring groom, of course the drugs that it did or not get in todays or its past races. Then a lot of information which could be wrong like the placement in the fractional positions. On top of that, we are dealing in fifths of a second. Not much margin for error there. But all in all it is a great game.

That says alot about this sport...... :)

[boxcar]

Sometimes I think horse racing is worse than pure chance gambling. It gives the illussion of pure skill. While it does have some skill in picking winners, there is lot thing left to chance like how a horse breaks, gets stuck in traffic or steps in a hole and breaks a leg. Plus there a ton information that is not available, like has the horse been sick since it last race, did it get a new not so caring groom, of course the drugs that it did or not get in todays or its past races. Then a lot of information which could be wrong like the placement in the fractional positions. On top of that, we are dealing in fifths of a second. Not much margin for error there. But all in all it is a great game.

Then...if you think the deck is stacked against you, why do you play? Or is someone forcing you to play? Suggestion: If you are not consistently making money with the available data, I would find another pastime (if you're just a recreational player). If something other, then find another profession.

Boxcar

[Foolish Pleasure]

The distinction has ZERO BEARING.

so 5% or less of horseplayers win?- it has NO BEARING it is EXACTLY the same as lotto to 95% of the people or more.




it either represents individuals and the state taking advantage of lesser sophisticated folks or it involves the state taking advantage of lesser sophisticated people-either way it DOES NOT MATTER.

[Robert Goren]

Then...if you think the deck is stacked against you, why do you play? Or is someone forcing you to play? Suggestion: If you are not consistently making money with the available data, I would find another pastime (if you're just a recreational player). If something other, then find another profession.

BoxcarBecause it cheaper than Fantasy Sports and a lot more fun than poker( or blackjack). I don't lose much and might actually make a little, very little. But the real reason is that it gives me an excuse to come on this site and argue with you.;)

[boxcar]

The distinction has ZERO BEARING.

so 5% or less of horseplayers win?- it has NO BEARING it is EXACTLY the same as lotto to 95% of the people or more.[/b]

It does have a bearing because those same "5%" win consistently! But this is not and cannot be the case with games that produce totally random outcomes consistently! Learn the difference.

[quote]it either represents individuals and the state taking advantage of lesser sophisticated folks or it involves the state taking advantage of lesser sophisticated people-either way it DOES NOT MATTER.

In a sense, sophisticated, smart horse players do take advantage of their lesser skilled counterparts? But so what!? This happens every single day -- day in, day out all over the world whenever there is competition, whether this be in the business world or the sports world. In a pool of competitors, there will always be those who have an "edge" for one reason or another over their less skilled counterparts.

So...since you, evidently, don't like the competition ideal very much, when did you become a card-carryin' commie? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Overlay]

The distinction has ZERO BEARING.

so 5% or less of horseplayers win?- it has NO BEARING it is EXACTLY the same as lotto to 95% of the people or more.

it either represents individuals and the state taking advantage of lesser sophisticated folks or it involves the state taking advantage of lesser sophisticated people-either way it DOES NOT MATTER.

But with racing and other pari-mutuel games, or games of skill (such as poker), anyone can increase their chances of being in the percentage (whatever that percentage may be) of consistent, long-term winners by improving their skills in comparison to the competition (other bettors). This does not apply to games of pure chance such as lotteries or casino games where no skill component is involved. To me, that is a fundamental distinction, as is the fact that (as I said before) no one is forcing anyone to participate in any of the above games (whether of skill or chance), and those who do choose to play know (or are not prevented from knowing if they want to find out) up front the probabilities involved before they start laying out their money.

[Foolish Pleasure]

But with racing and other pari-mutuel games, or games of skill (such as poker), anyone can increase their chances of being in the percentage (whatever that percentage may be) of consistent, long-term winners by improving their skills in comparison to the competition (other bettors). This does not apply to games of pure chance such as lotteries or casino games where no skill component is involved. To me, that is a fundamental distinction,


A fundamental distinction between what? Racing is not taking advantage of poor lesser sophisticated people because anyone can spend time and be the taker of advantage? SO what? It one group of educated people taking advantage of group of lesser educated people. You know that is not true, it is the same people taking advantage of the same people and has been that way for a long time now.

The nobody forced anyone is the conservative rationalization-I posted that.


I wanted the liberal rationalizations and should note ZERO were forthcoming.









Sisters feud over $500k jackpot
One contends their pact to split all winnings was never broken
Sisters feud over $500k lottery jackpot - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/24/sisters_feud_over_500k_lottery_jackpot/)


Nothing, it’s been said, comes between sisters. Unless it’s half a million dollars.

For years, Theresa Sokaitis and Rose Bakaysa were the closest of siblings, whiling away long hours over card tables and slot machines, and sharing countless lottery tickets. They always played the same numbers. If one won, they both did. All pots were split 50-50.

Now, in a bitter family feud that seems ripped from a Hollywood script, the elderly widows are locked in a protracted legal battle over a $500,000 lottery jackpot, with Sokaitis saying she is rightfully owed a share of the winnings.

Yesterday, the two faced off in New Britain Superior Court, with testimony focusing on whether a notarized, decade-old compact between the sisters to share any gambling proceeds was in effect when their longtime lottery numbers came in.

~~the rest at the link~~

[Robert Goren]

I could be wrong but I don't think you find very many liberals who think that gambling should be illegal. I also do not see very many of them pulling out all stops to legalize all forms of it. JMO

[Robert Goren]

In most forms of gambling there is an edge for those look long and hard enough for it. Even the lottery gives an edge to betters who only play with large carryover jackpots. JMO

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Even the lottery gives an edge to betters who only play with large carryover jackpots. JMO

Really? I admit that I don't know squat about lotteries other than the words 'quick pick' - but I was under the impression that the odds of accurately selecting one of the winning combinations were fixed probabilities under all circumstances.

[NJ Stinks]

I wanted the liberal rationalizations and should note ZERO were forthcoming.



What the hell are we supposed to say? That liberal states allow horseracing, lotteries, etc. because we don't find gambling to be evil? :confused:

[boxcar]

What the hell are we supposed to say? That liberal states allow horseracing, lotteries, etc. because we don't find gambling to be evil? :confused:

Ah...yes...BUT get ready for this NJ, 'cause I'm gonna come down hard on all your Nanny gods. Are you ready? The State is the political body that makes laws. Presumably (and this is operative term), those laws are "good" for the people, lest the state for some unsavory motive or hidden agenda passes bad laws. In man-made governments the state is pretty much the absolute authority on what it will deem as "good" or "bad" for society. In Liberal La La Land, the state is indeed the end all and be all. Liberals think the state is the Alpha and Omega and knows what's best for its citizens in all situations, in all aspects of life. One would think, therefore, that the state would want to do the best by its citizens -- the best job possible in order to set the stellar example of good, decent upright living for the people. But virtually every state in the Union allows gambling in at least one form if, indeed, not several. Yet, at the same time, there isn't a state that also doesn't recognize and acknowledge the dangers and pitfalls of gambling -- that gambling can be a pernicious snare to many people.

My question to you, NJ, and all your liberal buddies is this: Why doesn't the state outlaw all forms of gambling even for the sake of the few -- for the benefit of the minority? The state gives preferential treatment to many minorities for a whole host of reasons, e.g. handicapped people, women, children, black people, etc., etc. all because for one reason or another all of these groups have been systematically victimized by society. Society has somehow failed these kinds of people. Therefore, why doesn't this "paragon of virtue and good" known as the "state" also protect the minority of addicted gamblers from society's erring ways by outlawing all forms of gambling? After all, the state knows that a gambling habit can be extremely destructive to the individual, as well and his entire family and even his friends. Yet, you say the states don't find gambling to be evil!? Even though they acknowledge that it can lead to addiction? Why doesn't the state do the right thing by these people by removing the stumbling block once and for all? It's not enough to just treat those already addicted (probably at huge costs to taxpayers!). The state should take it to the next level -- the preventive level -- by outlawing gambling. Yet, states don't go this route. One could "almost" conclude :rolleyes: from the states' sanctioning and approval of gambling that they are as greedy as corporations in the private sector and are making money, in very large part, on the backs of the poor -- on the backs of those who can least afford it -- the very same people upon whom the "evil" corporations tread, according to you liberals!

You chew on all this for a while and get back to me on it, will ya?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

In Liberal La La Land, the state is indeed the end all and be all. Liberals think the state is the Alpha and Omega and knows what's best for its citizens in all situations, in all aspects of life.

You chew on all this for a while and get back to me on it, will ya?

Boxcar

Boxcar, when you post nonsense like the top two sentences above, I don't feel like chewing.

[Robert Goren]

Really? I admit that I don't know squat about lotteries other than the words 'quick pick' - but I was under the impression that the odds of accurately selecting one of the winning combinations were fixed probabilities under all circumstances. That is true, but the reward changes.

[Robert Goren]

Boxcar, don't the let the facts get in the way of your theory. There are people who want to outlaw all forms of gambling. Some of them like Sen Jon Kyl(R-AZ)even hold public office. I don't think any of them voted for Obama. JMO

[boxcar]

Boxcar, when you post nonsense like the top two sentences above, I don't feel like chewing.

It's not nonsense. Tell us what areas in your personal life that you don't want the state to control -- that you don't want the state to mandate its options to you. Aren't you in favor of the state regulating your personal eating habits? Your driving habits? What kind of vehicle you can drive (which sometime down the road could be limited to a bicycle!). Don't you want the state to control everyone's energy consumption? So, tell us what areas in your personal life don't you want the state to control? Can you list 10 of them? No, far too many? 5 of them? No? 3 of them?

Meanwhile, tackle the issue I raised in the post. Tell me how the state is not as evil and greedy as corporations!? Not only that, but in the states' case, they really do get rich off the gambling dollars of those who can least afford to gamble; for most of its tax revenue comes from the poor. So, I want you to justify that for me. How is the state any different than those "evil, greedy" corporations?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Boxcar, don't the let the facts get in the way of your theory. There are people who want to outlaw all forms of gambling. Some of them like Sen Jon Kyl(R-AZ)even hold public office. I don't think any of them voted for Obama. JMO

Grow up and mature already, will ya? Quit deflecting, and learn to engage your brain in these discussions. I talk about existing laws, situations and negative impacts on socieity relative to gambling, and you respond with with what a very tiny percentage of politicians wish they could do, and which both of us know stand exactly two chances of happening: Slim and None -- and we know where Slim is buried, right? Unbelievable! :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

It's not nonsense. Tell us what areas in your personal life that you don't want the state to control -- that you don't want the state to mandate its options to you. Aren't you in favor of the state regulating your personal eating habits? Your driving habits? What kind of vehicle you can drive (which sometime down the road could be limited to a bicycle!). Don't you want the state to control everyone's energy consumption? So, tell us what areas in your personal life don't you want the state to control? Can you list 10 of them? No, far too many? 5 of them? No? 3 of them?

Meanwhile, tackle the issue I raised in the post. Tell me how the state is not as evil and greedy as corporations!? Not only that, but in the states' case, they really do get rich off the gambling dollars of those who can least afford to gamble; for most of its tax revenue comes from the poor. So, I want you to justify that for me. How is the state any different than those "evil, greedy" corporations?

Boxcar

OK, just because you asked nicer! :)

1. gambling
2. drugs - especially marijuana
3. abortions
4. speed cameras
5. owning racetracks
6. seatbelts
7. helmets on bikes or motorcycles
8. smoking
9. regulating racetracks
10. the alcohol limit for a DUI is ridiculously low

As for the state getting rich off lotteries, if our politicians had the balls, our state income tax would be much higher and we wouldn't need to rely on indirect tax revenue from lotteries and luxury taxes on stuff like tobacco and alcohol. In short, because people don't want to pay their fair share in state income taxes, states do whatever they can in other areas to raise revenue. It sucks but that's the way it is IMO.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Something tells me that Boxcar is going to have a field day with that list... :D

[boxcar]

Something tells me that Boxcar is going to have a field day with that list... :D

You think? :lol: :lol: Stay tuned.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Something tells me that Boxcar is going to have a field day with that list... :D

I know one thing for sure, John, "fair share" gets him every time! :lol:

[boxcar]

I know one thing for sure, John, "fair share" gets him every time! :lol:

"Fair share" will be the least of your problems by the time I'm done with your little list. Trust me on that. ;)

Boxcar

[Foolish Pleasure]

I could be wrong but I don't think you find very many liberals who think that gambling should be illegal. I also do not see very many of them pulling out all stops to legalize all forms of it. JMO



Look in any major city. Just because they don't exist on the federal level they certainly do on the state and local level. Largest anti gaming entity in any major city are the baptist ministers.


What the hell are we supposed to say? That liberal states allow horseracing, lotteries, etc. because we don't find gambling to be evil?


I don't know-you tell me how you can be all for stealing money from others via the tax code to support some people, yet have no qualms abt going down to the racetrack and taking same money from same needy people?

How can you do that? You tell me that is the whole point of the original post,

I explained in detail how the typical right winger I know rationalizes the immorality of gambling-


I guess the liberals just don't see anything immoral in it? Nothing immoral in trying to take money from same people you stand up for at every opportunity.

I posted this elsewhere, that has been the liberal response-that the earth is flat and nobody is taking advantage of anyone anywhere involving gambling.

[NJ Stinks]

I guess the liberals just don't see anything immoral in it? Nothing immoral in trying to take money from same people you stand up for at every opportunity.

I posted this elsewhere, that has been the liberal response-that the earth is flat and nobody is taking advantage of anyone anywhere involving gambling.

Maybe you missed this:



As for the state getting rich off lotteries, if our politicians had the balls, our state income tax would be much higher and we wouldn't need to rely on indirect tax revenue from lotteries and luxury taxes on stuff like tobacco and alcohol. In short, because people don't want to pay their fair share in state income taxes, states do whatever they can in other areas to raise revenue. It sucks but that's the way it is IMO.

In short, states wouldn't need lottery revenue from poor people if they had state income rates high enough to make everyone pay their fair share of the state's expenditures. Both parties are at fault but only one party thinks cutting taxes is the only solution to anything.

Not much else to say about this Foolish Pleasure. Other than to say I feel bad for people who overplay lotteries.

[boxcar]

OK, just because you asked nicer! :)

I must warn you this post is going to be very painful for you. So, I hope you have a high tolerance for same.

Some years ago on another forum wherein I frequently debated theological issues with apostates and heretics (before I knew better), an Evangelical emailed me privately to express his astonishment at how I generally handled these people when refuting their premises. He basically said that "you twist them up like pretzels and flummox and exasperate them by boxing them in a corner with their own contradictions and self-defeating statements. I wrote back to correct him. I told him that I do no such thing. I do not twist them up; for their minds and souls are already contorted and twisted; all I try to do is straighten them out, but the process is so painful for them they can't help but squeal like stuck pigs. So, having said this, Mr. NJ, let's get started on your list. :)

1. gambling
2. drugs - especially marijuana
3. abortions
4. speed cameras
5. owning racetracks
6. seatbelts
7. helmets on bikes or motorcycles
8. smoking
9. regulating racetracks
10. the alcohol limit for a DUI is ridiculously low

Okay...so items 1, 2, 8 and 10 all deal with human behavior that can be very self-destructing. Since the warp 'n' woof of liberalism is that The People (the "masses") are essentially asses that are incapable of self-rule, incapable of thinking for themselves, incapable of making sound life decisions, then these items you list contradict your beliefs! The essence of liberalism is to restrict the people's choices as much as possible so as to modify the masses behavior in a uniform manner.

Also, in regard to these four items, are you really saying that you don't want the state involved at all in regulating and controlling these kinds of behavior?
You're okay with kids drinking and smoking? You're okay with no health warnings on tobacco packaging? (In fact, states believe people are so stupid, so ignorant, there are laws that require plastic film and bags manufacturers to put this kind of warning on their packaging: "CAUTION: Keep away from small children. The thin film may cling to nose and mouth and prevent breathing."). And this is but one example. There are tons of warnings on commonly bought retail packaging these days!

On the other hand, if you personally believe people are a lot smarter than this, then why don't you also think that these kinds of people are also smart enough to recognize government tax scams, social engineering schemes, pyramid schemes, etc? If you believe what you say, then logically you can't have a mortal lock on smarts, can you? People could see and understand things that you either don't want to see or are incapable of seeing because they're smarter than you! As I said recently, Man is a walking, talking, breathing Dichotomy. Thank you for quickly giving affirmation to what I have known for a long time. ;)

Moving on to items 4, 6 and 7, you really had to scratch to come up with these trivial inconveniences, comparatively speaking of course. I'm sure these three must have had profound impacts on your personal life, your personal liberties. I'm utterly stunned that people who share your views on these haven't pleaded their case before the SC en masse insisting that these restrictions have to be unconstitutional!

But, alas, your list of these three appear to conflict again with your core liberal beliefs. Liberals constantly tell us how much they care for the people. How much compassion they have for the masses, etc. One would think that you would welcome these kinds of laws for the good of all society, especially since the masses, evidently, don't know what is really good! Lowering the alcohol level, for example, would probably result in more unnecessary deaths because everyone's alcohol tolerance is different, which is why it's set at the "high" levels to begin with! How compassionate is it to make it easier for people to suffer death or serious injury at the hands of drunk drivers? And since you believe that the government should control what we put into our bodies in terms of food and other kinds of beverages, I'm at a total loss to understand why you want the state to loosen its restrictions on a substance that can easily be abused -- just as easily as sugar or salt!

And your objection the helmet laws -- would that apply to kids, as well? Or are you suddenly in favor of allowing parents to be parents? Of allowing parents to control, regulate and discipline their kids?

Nor can I understand why you wouldn't want more traffic law enforcement tools utilized in order to save lives! These tools are designed to deter scofflaws, thereby saving lives and limbs! So, again, where is your love and compassion for your fellow man, especially since your fellow man is so stupid! We need as much protection from one anther's stupidity as much as possible! But yet you want to reduce the protection! :bang: :bang:

Item 3: You say you don't want state involvement in abortions. But you're only several decades too late on the wish! The state is involved and gave its tacit approval to the murder of the unborn on demand when it made it lawful to abort. The state is not in some neutral position on this issue. In fact, there is no such thing as a neutral position on matters involving morals!
The SC decision said a woman has a right to abort because she has a right over her own body (well under ObamaCare that right will now only extend to that part of her body that houses her reproductive organs :rolleyes: ). So, since abortion is now "law of the land", you're never going to see the government get out of the Murder Sanctioning biz.

Now we come to the really juicy part of your little list: items 5 and 9. (I nearly spilled my coffee when read those two!) Are you actually saying that you don't want any government controls when it comes to race tracks!? You trust Big Biz all of sudden to run and manage all aspects of horse racing? Why do you suddenly find Big Biz to be more trustworthy than Big Gov? I thought everyone in the private sector who is in business to make a profit is evil and greedy!? I thought that Big Gov was needed to reign in the wickedness and greed and lusts of Big Biz? To keep all this under tight control? But evidently, when it comes to YOUR pet sport (which is also a business), you no longer feel this way? Well, if race track owners can own and regulate their business without any interference or meddling from Big Gov, why can't other industries do so also? What makes race track owners/management more virtuous and saintly than their counterparts in other industries?

You are one very conflicted individual, sir! Everything on your list conflicts with your core political beliefs and with your stand on major social issues, as a result of those beliefs. You're in pretty pathetic shape, actually. Hate to tell you this, but you leave me no choice. As I said once some time back: Man is a Deceiver and is Self-Deceived. Your post has proven this.

Now, I must take my leave. But, I will fully address the very "best" part of your post, which was your last paragraph, when I return.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

You are one very conflicted individual, sir! Everything on your list conflicts with your core political beliefs and with your stand on major social issues, as a result of those beliefs. You're in pretty pathetic shape, actually. Hate to tell you this, but you leave me no choice. As I said once some time back: Man is a Deceiver and is Self-Deceived. Your post has proven this.

Boxcar

Thanks, Boxcar! I feel a lot better about myself now. :cool:

[boxcar]

As for the state getting rich off lotteries, if our politicians had the balls, our state income tax would be much higher and we wouldn't need to rely on indirect tax revenue from lotteries and luxury taxes on stuff like tobacco and alcohol. In short, because people don't want to pay their fair share in state income taxes, states do whatever they can in other areas to raise revenue. It sucks but that's the way it is IMO. (emphasis mine)

Okay, NJ, the halftime show is over and it's time for the second half. ;)

First, your entire sentiment endorses and supports the Moral Relativist notion that the ends justify the means. The State essentially says, since we can't collect taxes in a more straightforward way, we'll just appeal to people's dark or base side to get a large percentage of the populace lusting for that fast, easy money, unearned money (at least in games of pure chance). The State cares not a whit how many lives they may ruin along the way. The state cares not whether it promotes, encourages or supports evil or what the consequences may be. Therefore, the state is no different than those evil, greedy corporations who make their fortunes at the expense of the people who can least afford it!

Secondly, the states do demographic studies and know fully well that a disproportionate percentage of their gambling tax revenue comes from poor and poor-middle income households -- from uneducated or undereducated and/or even unemployed or underemployed people or even from people on public assistance programs -- in short, folks who can afford it the least. Therefore, how does this fact square very well with the kind, compassionate brand of liberalism that incessantly promotes and encourages class envy by taxing, taxing, taxing the RICH? Liberals claim they only want to tax the evil, greedy, undeserving "rich" -- that they want to increase tax revenue on the backs of these horrible people -- these "haves" -- who allegedly have made everything they have and own on the backs of the "have nots"! Yet, you find no hypocrisy, no disgust, no utter contempt for the State when it practices the very evil for which it constantly condemns the "rich"!? :bang: :bang: The apple surely does not fall far from the tree, does it, NJ? No matter what, you'll remain loyal to your [task]master -- like a good lap dog!

Finally, your true blue statism shines through in the first sentence! Why do you call for your politicians to have more courage, more backbone by increasing taxes to a "much higher" level when you also concede at the same time that THE PEOPLE (evidently, the majority of them!) don't want to suffer tax increases? Your sentiment here confirms what I wrote in my last post to you, which was: Liberalism says the people don't know what's good for themselves. They are ignorant. They are stupid. And they're pretty greedy, too! All this requires that politicians do the thinking for the people! So, this is why the NJs of this country think and believe in their heart of hearts that politicians, who are infinitely more knowledgeable and wiser, should feel free to act against the will of the people! For your info, this practice flies quite well in countries like Cuba, China, Russia, Argentina, etc., etc. In these kinds of regimes, the people are ruled by the consent of the state. But in this "free" country, the state is supposed to be ruled by the consent of the governed -- by the will of the people -- an ideal that you hold in low regard, evidently.

Just be sure to let us know when you when you come out of your closet to cross over to become a full-fledged, card-carryin' Party Member, will ya? Oh wait...you already are a member of the Democrat Party, so that would be redundant, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Some years ago on another forum wherein I frequently debated theological issues with apostates and heretics (before I knew better), an Evangelical emailed me privately to express his astonishment at how I generally handled these people when refuting their premises. He basically said that "you twist them up like pretzels and flummox and exasperate them by boxing them in a corner with their own contradictions and self-defeating statements. I wrote back to correct him. I told him that I do no such thing. I do not twist them up; for their minds and souls are already contorted and twisted; all I try to do is straighten them out, but the process is so painful for them they can't help but squeal like stuck pigs. So, having said this, Mr. NJ, let's get started on your list.
Conveniently you forgot that you neglected to explain how the universe can both be billions of years old and only 6000 years. That was your premise in explaining radioactive 1/2 lifes. God somehow tricked us by planting uranium, and radium and thorium-234 ( 1/2 life of 4.5 billion years ) in the ground for us to find. :D

I will say you did flummox most of us when asked, answered it's "a paradox"
Thank you for straightening us out.

Squeal, squeal

BTW box, if I were you and THANK GOD I am not, I would work a bit on humility. I remember Raging Bull,
a Scorsese film with De Niro. You probably should have had a major role. You know typecast? You post bull and have a Raging Ego.

Spare us the Boxcarian proclamations particularly about your flummoxing skills.

[boxcar]

Conveniently you forgot that you neglected to explain how the universe can both be billions of years old and only 6000 years. That was your premise in explaining radioactive 1/2 lifes. God somehow tricked us by planting uranium, and radium and thorium-234 ( 1/2 life of 4.5 billion years ) in the ground for us to find. :D

You don't read too swell, do you? I said "before I knew better". And furthermore, Einstein, miracles by definition are unexplainable. :rolleyes:

I will say you did flummox most of us when asked, answered it's "a paradox"
Thank you for straightening us out.

But sadly, your heart is so hardened against God, you didn't learn a thing; for you still think that he is deceiving man if he created everything in the universe with the appearance of age. Too bad for you, however, that the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't support your inept complaint. But I do humbly thank God for Paradoxes, also -- evidently, something which you don't believe in.

Squeal, squeal

BTW box, if I were you and THANK GOD I am not, I would work a bit on humility. I remember Raging Bull,
a Scorsese film with De Niro. You probably should have had a major role. You know typecast? You post bull and have a Raging Ego.

Spare us the Boxcarian proclamations particularly about your flummoxing skills.

Again, you don't read too swell. The fellow who wrote to me applauded me for those skills -- skills I actually denied having. I don't have to fool, trick or flummox anyone. You liberals make me it very easy for me to look like a genius! ;)

Boxcar
P.S. If you don't believe this, why don't you come to NJ's aid by defending his inane list. I have to believe he ain't feelin' too swell right about now. ;)

[johnhannibalsmith]

... why don't you come to NJ's aid by defending his inane list. I have to believe he ain't feelin' too swell right about now. ;)

Based upon a few points on his list... I'm thinking he may be feeling just about right at the moment... :cool:

[Robert Goren]

Grow up and mature already, will ya? Quit deflecting, and learn to engage your brain in these discussions. I talk about existing laws, situations and negative impacts on socieity relative to gambling, and you respond with with what a very tiny percentage of politicians wish they could do, and which both of us know stand exactly two chances of happening: Slim and None -- and we know where Slim is buried, right? Unbelievable! :rolleyes:

Boxcar Well , I got news for you. Slim has dug his way out of his shallow grave. Somehow this so called " very tiny percentage of politicians" manage get passed the UIGEA of 2006. According to you this shouldn't have happened. I can also say that no liberal had any hand in getting it passed. While I do not agree with Kyl and his cohorts, I never for one minute under estimate their cleverness in getting this stuff passed. :bang:

[hcap]

Too bad for you, however, that the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't support your inept complaint.
You know little of the law you cite. Yet you bandy it around as though you are hot sh**. If on trhe other hand you would have stuck to something like "God works in mysterious ways", you wouldn't have had to put on your pseudo philosophers air of pomposity

Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) or (b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. I think the notion of time is more inherent in the Law as we normally understand it , but that the notion of context is equally important.

Example: A table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood.

You are so full of yourself your eyes are the deepest shade of brown imaginable. And you have the gall to lecture us all.

Boxcarian logic continues to soar high in your own pompous, sanctimonious, puffery laden mind

[Valuist]

Hmmmmm..... I learned about this phrase from the all-knowing Mike Brady and it seems the message you are sending here would be in contrast with many of your other sentiments towards "victimized" consumers...

I hope that's the only thing you learned from Mike Brady. :D

[boxcar]

You know little of the law you cite. Yet you bandy it around as though you are hot sh**. If on trhe other hand you would have stuck to something like "God works in mysterious ways", you wouldn't have had to put on your pseudo philosophers air of pomposity


You are so full of yourself your eyes are the deepest shade of brown imaginable. And you have the gall to lecture us all.

Boxcarian logic continues to soar high in your own pompous, sanctimonious, puffery laden mind

Well, sir, since you have become so pompous, sanctimonious and full of yourself, explain to us how the creation theory of Apparent Age actually violates the law that you think you understand so much better than I do. The very law, in very simple terms states: A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense. I have previously demonstrated how it doesn't. Now at this late date, you come to this thread to hijack it by claiming you have superior knowledge of the Law. Tell us then, how does the theory violate it? Demonstrate to us how it does violence to it. Should be a piece of cake for you.

Also, while having merely said that "God works in mysterious ways" (which is true enough!) this explanation alone would not have shown how the theory could also withstand the rigors of the falsity test. While the Law does not prove that the theory is correct per se (i.e. actually true), it does pass the falsity (logic) test. In this sense, then, it passes the Truth Test; for the theory, as stated, is logically sound and cannot be falsified. God could have at once created the entire universe, with the appearance of considerable age, only several thousand years ago. The Universe, therefore, could be young and old simultaneously. (I also explained from a biblical perspective why I personally hold to this theory.)

The ball's is your court, Mr. 'Cap! Just falsify the theory for us with the Law and quit you childish, immature grandstanding. Show us that there's more to you than just psycho-babble bluster!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Well , I got news for you. Slim has dug his way out of his shallow grave. Somehow this so called " very tiny percentage of politicians" manage get passed the UIGEA of 2006. According to you this shouldn't have happened. I can also say that no liberal had any hand in getting it passed. While I do not agree with Kyl and his cohorts, I never for one minute under estimate their cleverness in getting this stuff passed. :bang:

Oh...you mean the way the Dems did with "health care" reform by going against the will of the majority of Americans? This travesty shouldn't have happened either. :rolleyes:

But allow me to update you: This is 2010 (for your info) and there's still gambling in the Great State of AZ. Get back to us when Slim is actually breathing, walking and talking and his corpse isn't merely propped up with a few 2/4s.

Thanks,
Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Oh...you mean the way the Dems did with "health care" reform by going against the will of the majority of Americans? This travesty shouldn't have happened either. :rolleyes:

But allow me to update you: This is 2010 (for your info) and there's still gambling in the Great State of AZ. Get back to us when Slim is actually breathing, walking and talking and his corpse isn't merely propped up with a few 2/4s.

Thanks,
Boxcar

To be fair, Arizona deems account wagering a felonious offense.

[boxcar]

To be fair, Arizona deems account wagering a felonious offense.

Thanks for the update. I didn't know that.

But even so, ADW is illegal in more states than Arizona, no? Also, you say "deems"? Do they actually enforce it? Politicians are in the habit of making up laws that are difficult to enforce.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Thanks for the update. I didn't know that.

But even so, ADW is illegal in more states than Arizona, no? Also, you say "deems"? Do they actually enforce it? Politicians are in the habit of making up laws that are difficult to enforce.

Boxcar

You cannot wager through an account if you give an Arizona address. That's about how it flies. ADW operators will not offer an account to an AZ resident, but I suppose that I would be lying if I didn't know that people use alternate residences to wager illegally within the State.

It is actually only a recently adopted law, pushed through primarily by Jeremy E Simms, President (or CEO or whatever he's calling himself now to try and backdoor a gaming license for the LLC) of Turf Paradise, LLC, who also owns the OTB network. The philosophy was that they could control the behavior of AZ bettors by forcing them to the OTBs. Instead, they forced them into the casinos and away from racing.

It has not to my knowledge been enforced, other than in the sense that TVG was forced to make a settlement to Turf Paradise LLC for what were retroactively deemed to be "illegal" wagers made on AZ races. However, I do believe that given the chance, if the right target came along, there would certainly be a likelihood of selective enforcement.

[Robert Goren]

Thanks for the update. I didn't know that.

But even so, ADW is illegal in more states than Arizona, no? Also, you say "deems"? Do they actually enforce it? Politicians are in the habit of making up laws that are difficult to enforce.

BoxcarIt is illegal in Utah and Hawaii for sure. There are several more states where it's legality is questionable and as a result no ADWs will take them and few more where only a couple ADWs will take their residents. It doesn't matter if the states will enforce the laws if the ADWs(or more correctly their hubs) are scared to take bets from those states.

[boxcar]

It is illegal in Utah and Hawaii for sure. There are several more states where it's legality is questionable and as a result no ADWs will take them and few more where only a couple ADWs will take their residents. It doesn't matter if the states will enforce the laws if the ADWs(or more correctly their hubs) are scared to take bets from those states.

Make no mistake about it, RG: I think such laws are idiotic and are passed purely for political reasons; and what's even more absurd about them they are relatively easy to circumvent. In a supposedly free society, it should not be the business of politicians if you gamble or not. But they make it their business because they're no better than those "evil, greedy" corporations. ;)

Boxcar

[hcap]

Well, sir, since you have become so pompous, sanctimonious and full of yourself, explain to us how the creation theory of Apparent Age actually violates the law that you think you understand so much better than I do. The very law, in very simple terms states: A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time, in the same place and in the same sense. I have previously demonstrated how it doesn't. Now at this late date, you come to this thread to hijack it by claiming you have superior knowledge of the Law. Tell us then, how does the theory violate it? Demonstrate to us how it does violence to it. Should be a piece of cake for you.

Also, while having merely said that "God works in mysterious ways" (which is true enough!) this explanation alone would not have shown how the theory could also withstand the rigors of the falsity test. While the Law does not prove that the theory is correct per se (i.e. actually true), it does pass the falsity (logic) test. In this sense, then, it passes the Truth Test; for the theory, as stated, is logically sound and cannot be falsified. God could have at once created the entire universe, with the appearance of considerable age, only several thousand years ago. The Universe, therefore, could be young and old simultaneously. (I also explained from a biblical perspective why I personally hold to this theory.)

The ball's is your court, Mr. 'Cap! Just falsify the theory for us with the Law and quit you childish, immature grandstanding. Show us that there's more to you than just psycho-babble bluster!

BoxcarThis is pure christian apologetics and creationism dressed up as serious philosophy. In order to get around the Law of Non Contradiction you must postulate a means of nullifying all rational and logical rules. An all powerful entity, that not only sets up everything around us as it sees fit, but also an all powerful entity that is willing to defy the same laws around us by downright trickery.

God as a 2 bit side show magician barking "now you see it, now you don't" as he pulls a brontosaurus out of his hat.
This so-called " creation theory of Apparent Age " cannot stand under the Law of Non Contradiction without the use of a philosophical prop.

The universe cannot be 14 billion years old and a few thousand at the same time without a all powerful trickster.

Or according to the Law of Non Contradiction: how can a table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood.

According too this ALL laws, processes, and observable facts are a divine parlor trick. And a convoluted false justification for creationism

[boxcar]

This is pure christian apologetics and creationism dressed up as serious philosophy. In order to get around the Law of Non Contradiction you must postulate a means of nullifying all rational and logical rules. An all powerful entity, that not only sets up everything around us as it sees fit, but also an all powerful entity that is willing to defy the same laws around us by downright trickery.

God as a 2 bit side show magician barking "now you see it, now you don't" as he pulls a brontosaurus out of his hat.
This so-called " creation theory of Apparent Age " cannot stand under the Law of Non Contradiction without the use of a philosophical prop.

The universe cannot be 14 billion years old and a few thousand at the same time without a all powerful trickster.

Or according to the Law of Non Contradiction: how can a table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood.

According too this ALL laws, processes, and observable facts are a divine parlor trick. And a convoluted false justification for creationism

You're pathetic, cap. Just like over on the other thread you accused, judged and condemned some "teabagger" for spitting on a guy and using the "N" word, but then didn't bother to prove it. And when some poster insisted that you do, you dismissed his request, using the excuse that it would be "redundant". :rolleyes: Likewise, here you say that the Apparent Age theory violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, but you don't tell us how. However, in the thread in which we discussed this issue previously, I clearly demonstrated how it does not do any violence whatsoever.

You're jut livid that there's a viable, logically sound theoretical explanation that passes muster for the falsity test for how the Universe could be at once be Young and Old. If you weren't so pathetic, I'd be :lol: at your rage because you libs are infamous for wanting things both ways; yet, when someone else can legitimately turn the tables on you in this respect, you're ready to implode.

Don't bother me anyone with this subject. Go wallow in your self-imposed ignorance, instead. I'm sure you'll feel much safer in the darkness where you'll never be exposed to the light of the truth.

Boxcar

[Tom]

You're pathetic, cap. Just like over on the other thread you accused, judged and condemned some "teabagger" for spitting on a guy and using the "N" word, but then didn't bother to prove it.

That was proven to be a lie, so he couldn't prove it. He neglects to go back and retract his spreading of the lie. The redundancy that would occur would be linked to his perch. :lol:

[hcap]

Likewise, here you say that the Apparent Age theory violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, but you don't tell us how. However, in the thread in which we discussed this issue previously, I clearly demonstrated how it does not do any violence whatsoever.In your dreams you did.
Can something weigh 100 pounds and 1 pound at the same time? Can you have an IQ over 100 and below 10 at the same time?

Your so-called theory can be used in all it's silly pseudo philosophical convolutions, to invalidate ANY observable fact measurable by science. What's the point of discussing anything with you, if you can simply wave your magic wand and make rationality disappear in a poof of pompous smoke?

[boxcar]

In your dreams you did.
Can something weigh 100 pounds and 1 pound at the same time? Can you have an IQ over 100 and below 10 at the same time?

See: You don't have a fundamental understanding of the law. Time is only one of its components.

Study up on it further and get back to me when you think you've wrapped your arms around it. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. You libs are such insufferable bores. :D