4 ms·

If I could warn all Californian voters against approving sports betting, I would. Would I do so for moral reasons? No, I don’t care what people do with their mo

If I could warn all Californian voters against approving sports betting, I would. Would I do so for moral reasons? No, I don’t care what people do with their money or their time. But legalized sports betting has ruined advertisements during sporting events. I can only watch so many sports betting ads before wanting to rip out my eyes. That’s all you see now in states where it is legal.

scarface74 4y ago
Then stop watching sports? I’m not in favor of giving the government more power to regulate what consenting adults do that only affects themselves and those directly dependent on them (drugs, alcohol, etc)
- halpmeh 4y ago
  Isn’t the purpose of democratic governance to create a society that the people want to inhabit? I want to watch sports, and I want to do so without being bombarded with sports betting ads. If enough people feel like me, perhaps there is a way to create regulations that bring forth such a reality.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Is the purpose of a democratic government to force your will on others? There are more than enough Christians who were in power to pass laws against “sodomy” (homosexual sex), miscegenation (interracial marriage) and all sorts of other morality laws. The purpose of democracy is not to impose the majority’ will on consenting adults. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”
    - halpmeh 4y ago
      So stop participating in society? Wasn’t that your advice re. watching sports?
      - scarface74 4y ago
        No the answer is limited government that doesn’t make laws because someone’s sensitivities are harmed by watching ads. Just like we overturned laws because someone’s sensitivities were harmed because other people were drinking and even conservative states think it’s no one’s business if another person decides to smoke weed.
        halpmeh 4y ago
        Both the ban on drinking and its repeal were constitutional amendments (18th and 21st). So both cases were enacted via large majority opinion.
        scarface74 4y ago
        So how does that reasoning apply to Jim Crow laws, laws against miscegenation and homosexual sex? Should we always let the rules of majority negatively affect the minority
        vintermann 4y ago
        So let's say there are some issues that are not anyone else's business (and so not government's business). Fine. But who gets to decide which ones? Who gets the final word? I think that the question of which questions are the public's business, is itself necessarily the public's business. Which minority concerns are rights which should not be infringed on by the majority, must still be decided by majority. There's no way around it. Constitutions don't interpret themselves or enforce themselves, much less write themselves, so they don't get you out of this pickle. At "best" they let you abdicate your responsibility for deciding that question. As I recall, many of those abuses of minorities you list, were protected by such abdication, in that people would rather abide by the US's antimajoritarian process rules than use their majority to immediately fix the abuses.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  Wait you think junkies don't have an impact on society?
yieldcrv 4y ago
Interest in spectator sports has been on the decline in the US, there is an audience like me that was never into it, despite my upbringing and the cultures’ best attempts at indoctrination Put money on it though? I’m very engaged I’m totally fine if the audience completely changes
HDThoreaun 4y ago
Because the doritos and beer ads are so much better?

scarface74 4y ago

Then stop watching sports? I’m not in favor of giving the government more power to regulate what consenting adults do that only affects themselves and those directly dependent on them (drugs, alcohol, etc)

halpmeh 4y ago
Isn’t the purpose of democratic governance to create a society that the people want to inhabit? I want to watch sports, and I want to do so without being bombarded with sports betting ads. If enough people feel like me, perhaps there is a way to create regulations that bring forth such a reality.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Is the purpose of a democratic government to force your will on others? There are more than enough Christians who were in power to pass laws against “sodomy” (homosexual sex), miscegenation (interracial marriage) and all sorts of other morality laws. The purpose of democracy is not to impose the majority’ will on consenting adults. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”
  - halpmeh 4y ago
    So stop participating in society? Wasn’t that your advice re. watching sports?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      No the answer is limited government that doesn’t make laws because someone’s sensitivities are harmed by watching ads. Just like we overturned laws because someone’s sensitivities were harmed because other people were drinking and even conservative states think it’s no one’s business if another person decides to smoke weed.
      - halpmeh 4y ago
        Both the ban on drinking and its repeal were constitutional amendments (18th and 21st). So both cases were enacted via large majority opinion.
        scarface74 4y ago
        So how does that reasoning apply to Jim Crow laws, laws against miscegenation and homosexual sex? Should we always let the rules of majority negatively affect the minority
        vintermann 4y ago
        So let's say there are some issues that are not anyone else's business (and so not government's business). Fine. But who gets to decide which ones? Who gets the final word? I think that the question of which questions are the public's business, is itself necessarily the public's business. Which minority concerns are rights which should not be infringed on by the majority, must still be decided by majority. There's no way around it. Constitutions don't interpret themselves or enforce themselves, much less write themselves, so they don't get you out of this pickle. At "best" they let you abdicate your responsibility for deciding that question. As I recall, many of those abuses of minorities you list, were protected by such abdication, in that people would rather abide by the US's antimajoritarian process rules than use their majority to immediately fix the abuses.
WeylandYutani 4y ago
Wait you think junkies don't have an impact on society?

yieldcrv 4y ago

Interest in spectator sports has been on the decline in the US, there is an audience like me that was never into it, despite my upbringing and the cultures’ best attempts at indoctrination Put money on it though? I’m very engaged I’m totally fine if the audience completely changes

HDThoreaun 4y ago

Because the doritos and beer ads are so much better?