3 ms·
Can you please be any more dismissive and condescending? First, I chose "idiots" carefully, if a person has a pre-existing condition or some other weakness, "i
by notepad0x90 1y ago
Can you please be any more dismissive and condescending?
First, I chose "idiots" carefully, if a person has a pre-existing condition or some other weakness, "idiot" excludes them as you've so obviously noted and they should be protected. However, if they chose to enter a life of addiction, fully being informed that even gambling once will addict them, they fall under the "idiot" category, although there are better terms to use and I'm being lazy with my wording there.
Your rant about the government protecting people and you not getting mugged has nothing to do with what I'm saying,that's false equivalency.
I have every right to enter a life of addiction and ruin myself, as do you. i have every right to get addicted and live a miserable and short life. it isn't a great idea, but it is none of your business either.
As I stated very clearly, banning and regulating harmful and deceptive practices by gambling companies is something I support fully. What insane is you thinking you have a right to prevent me from doing something that doesn't affect you in the least because you want to force yourself to being everyone's caretaker. There should be a term for this sickness, perhaps "hostile and performative empathy"?
Help those who can't help themselves and ask for help! You don't get to decide who can't help themselves unless they can't make decisions or communicate on their own. Sane adults can speak up for themselves and tell you if they need help. And your idea of help? what is it? throwing people in prison? that's what you're advocating, you understand why that's insane right? Short of murdering a person, that is the worst thing you can do to them, do you get that? When you say "banning" it must be enforced somehow. Or perhaps you think it will be a small fine, even if that was the case, what happens when gamblers who lost all their money can't pay a fine, other than imprisonment? Loan sharks to pay your fines, and a life of crime to pay the loansharks? Either way, it ends up in people being forced to participate in worse and worse crime and thus causing actual harm to others because of your unending empathy.
I return your invitation to spend a little more than 2 calories and think about what we're discussing here. Your nanny state beating people until they die for their own good.
- otikik 1y ago> "idiot" excludes them as you've so obviously noted and they should be protected Ok. Glad that we have some common ground there, then. If not by regulating gambling companies, how do you propose these people should be protected? I think having some data would help. Here's my first hit from a google the first hit I got: https://worldmetrics.org/online-gambling-addiction-statistics/ https://worldmetrics.org/online-gambling-addiction-statistic... From there, I highlight 2: - 2% of global population suffers from gambling disorder - Approximately 25% of online gamblers are classified as problem gamblers based on clinical screening tools > You not getting mugged has nothing to do with what I'm saying,that's false equivalency. Why, exactly? > I have every right to enter a life of addiction and ruin myself, as do you. Yeah here is the thing. You don't know if I have a mental health disorder. Assuming that I do, gambling companies will use any trick they can to hook me into giving them all my money. > A right to prevent me from doing something that doesn't affect you I agree the government doesn't need to "prevent you from anything". What I'm saying is that I want them to prevent gambling companies from doing things to me - a hypothetical gambling addict. I, as a potential person with compulsive behavior, will have gambling companies showing me ads on the street. Tagging me up and showing me adds in Youtube or any other website that uses ads. Offering customized "free samples" to entice me. I don't want them doing that to me and I can't make them not do that to me - only the government can. So going back to my first question, which you didn't answer - what do you think the government should get involved with?
- notepad0x90 1y agoI think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't have problems restricting and regulating gambling companies and their practices. I do have a problem with the government preventing or banning gambling companies which is effectively preventing individuals from gambling in groups. The government should absolutely do something about malicious and hostile business practices, but not on just gambling but every other business as well. If you have food addiction, how should mcdonalds filter you out? Plenty of diabetics and heart-attack risks out there thanks to that, and I hope you don't think that's less of a problem. Don't pick and choose vices. If we agree on that last point and you agree that gambling companies should exist and sane people who are well informed have the right to gamble at those places, then we agree on all important points.
- otikik 1y agoGlad that we see some common ground. I think we agree on the essentials. > If you have food addiction, how should mcdonalds filter you out? Debatable. Let's go back to this statistic: - Approximately 25% of online gamblers are classified as problem gamblers based on clinical screening tools That is not insignificant. I don't know how it is at McDonalds, but I doubt 25% of their customers are food addicts. What is a tolerable range? We do have rules and restrictions for alcoholic drinks and tobacco.