3 ms·
> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop? That's not how addiction works.
by snarfy 7mo ago
> If it's so bad for gamblers, why don't they stop?
That's not how addiction works.
- chrislh 7mo agoI highly (and regularly) recommend reading Gabor Mate's "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" It's an enlightening read on addiction that will make you more empathetic for addicts of all types: gambling, substances, shopping, whatever. Definitely worth a look if you find yourself asking "Why don't they just stop?" https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addiction/dp/155643880X https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addict...
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoIf someone cannot stop gambling, then what moral responsibility do gambling organizations have when giving them offers?
- cjcenizal 7mo agoI understand moral arguments but also see how others might not. I think it might be more useful to view this from a societal perspective. Is it to society's benefit to ensure gamblers don't ruin their own lives? To answer that question, what's the cost to society when a gambler ruins their life? Lost savings means an impoverished individual and potentially an impoverished family and children. These draw support resources from the state and community, are more likely to turn to crime, and are less likely to develop into contributing members of society.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoHelp me understand the difference between preying on gambling addicts vs preying on gullible old people to get them to buy $500 in apple store gift cards.
- sd9 7mo agoHuh? I don’t think you should do either.
- fc417fc802 7mo agoBoth are scummy but it's not clear how to regulate the latter without huge collateral damage whereas the former is quite straightforward (because there's effectively no societal benefit to begin with).
- gus_massa 7mo agoIf we totaly forbid gift cards, which is the huge colleteral damage? If you want to send $500 to John, just write a check in USA or bank transfer in the rest of the world.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- santoshalper 7mo agoOnly the moral obligation not to prey on the weak. Gambling addicts are sick. Taking advantage of a sick person makes you scummy.
- sd9 7mo agoIf you were friends with an alcoholic it would be pretty shitty to give them a bottle of vodka for their birthday. People are not machines, it’s not as simple as deciding whether to do something or not. You have stronger and weaker days. Temptation makes it harder to do what is in your best interests, even if you’ve decided on another day that you’d rather not partake. Getting concrete about gambling: lots of people decide not to gamble and just don’t. Lots of people decide they don’t care whether they gamble and they do. But there are also many people in the middle, who would rather not gamble, but find that they sometimes act against their own best interests, and their own past resolutions to not gamble. Bombarding these people with offers of free bets increases the likelihood that they will gamble on their weaker days. When I hear takes like yours, I feel very jealous. I would love to always act in my own best interests and according to some policy I predetermined. But that’s just not my experience of how life works.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoIt seems like a gambling addiction is the same as not having the capacity to choose not to. Is that a misunderstanding?
- sd9 7mo agoI think… sort of. I feel like you’re trying to force some sort of binary here, but I’m trying to say that you may choose not to gamble in general, on day X, but find that you do gamble later. In fact I would say that many gambling addicts have _chosen_ _not_ to gamble in some sense, but in another moment they do find that they choose to. There’s a temporal aspect to this. Advertising gambling to those people makes it less likely that they will follow through on their choices. Do you always do literally everything you choose with a clear head? Never procrastinate, get angry, feel sad, whatever? It’s really hard for me to see your perspective on this.
- fn-mote 7mo agoPeople in Gambler’s Anonymous (GA) would definitely disagree with this characterization. The same way sober alcoholics would disagree with a similar statement about alcohol addiction.
- cindyllm 7mo ago[dead]
- AlexandrB 7mo agoGambling is basically a scam (house always wins) and thus should not be a legal transaction you can make. What moral responsibility do we have to allow companies to scam people?
- akramachamarei 7mo agoYou're asking the wrong question. Why should the government intervene in a transaction between knowledgeable consenting parties?
- array_key_first 7mo agoBecause they're not knowledgeable or consenting. You don't know your odds, and the house makes sure of it. And if you're addicted, you don't really consent. Exhibit A: Tobacco. Prior to regulation, it was advertised widely and thought to be not that bad. Once we regulated knowledge and consent, use plummeted. For knowledge, we display pictures on the pack and carton of people in agony dying of lung cancer. We tell them the odds. For consent, we mitigate by saying "WARNING: nicotine is an addictive chemical. Nicotine can be more addictive than Heroine". The fallacy here is that markets are naturally free and government intervention makes markets less free. That's rarely the case. Often, intervention makes the market more free.
- jbxntuehineoh 7mo agonew policy proposal: internment camps for libertarians
- akramachamarei 7mo agoYou won't take me alive! :P