This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
It is a 50/50 by the time you get to kickoff. But there is a market process that happens with sharp betters hitting the line throughout the week to pound it into shape. So the Vegas books will open a line and take limited sharp action to find the "price". These retail online books mostly just follow the movement of pricing from Pinnacle, Circa, etc. If you think you have an edge, bet it early.
www.hsph.harvard.edu
i think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
This is the biggest issue imo. It detracts from the game for me. Maybe it doesn’t for others.
agree one hondo percent manhan all of our addictions are conveniently available from our coach nowadays take that to the bank brochacho
Probably because it's on your phone. But more immediately, the article in the Atlantic links to studies that specifically show harms associated with sports betting and not lotteries.
i think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
It is so obvious that everyone (by everyone I mean 98% of the people) will lose in the long run because they keep building casinos. They wouldn't do that if they were losing money.
I'm sorry, but if you don't get why these are two different arguments, there's nothing that I can say that will make it make sense. Sometimes human beings just decide to allow some stuff and not allow other stuff, and that's okay.
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
there is obviously a line on all of this and finding it wont be easy but the slipperly slope argument you are trying to make is disingenous and i know you are smart enough to know that take that to the bank brohani think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
there is obviously a line on all of this and finding it wont be easy but the slipperly slope argument you are trying to make is disingenous and i know you are smart enough to know that take that to the bank brohani think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
I imagine it would have to do with instant gratification and the psychology of the two. Having the access in your pocket, being able to bet on anything at any time, and it's already something that people have a passion for or an addition to (sports or a particular sport). There is also a bit of illusion with control of it as well. What I mean by that is scratch off and the weekly lottery are random chance. DFS and gambling you can research and practice.
And really, if you remove the sports gambling, you only remove ONE of the ways for gamblers to gamble.
This is a really good point. I dont know if it is all US States, but in mine you must pay with cash. IIRC casinos are the same way.
Obviously
the idea that we cant address one issue that you dont consider to be the top issue without first addressing every other issue you rank above it is fuzzy thinking at best and shallow thinking at worst i mean i get it you are using every trick argument in the book and im sure you were great on the debate team how about we use a red herring or a logical fallacy next or throw a no true scotsman in there brohan in the end we are a pretty intelligent species and capable of working on more than one issue at once take that to the bank bromigothere is obviously a line on all of this and finding it wont be easy but the slipperly slope argument you are trying to make is disingenous and i know you are smart enough to know that take that to the bank brohani think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
A line would imply that sports gambling is at the top of the list and we need to draw a line where things above it are illegal and below it are legal. But sports gambling is in the middle of the list. There's no line to draw, it's arbitrarily picking one thing out of the middle, which makes no sense.
A lot of the studies reference in the articles are fake "gotchas" intentionally provided without context of how that measures against other things that we find to be harmless. You can go to the same source of those studies and find 100 other studies linking 100 other things to similar or even worse versions of those results. But it gets more clicks to say "gambling can be linked to an increase in domestic violence" than to say "gambling is the 157th most correlated thing to domestic violence, behind things like technology, religion, etc". (yes that's a made up number for illustrative purposes).
Any different than the stock market "insiders"?
Why is sports betting a lot more dangerous than obesity?
How many times are people dropping $100 on the lottery 3-4 times a day? Or even $25? I’ll pay occasionally and I think the most I’ve ever spent was $10.
Respectfully GB, this is such a horrible answer: "if you dont get [it] " and "Sometimes human beings just decide"
And everybody knows stonks go up.
That's the thing. In the UK, betting (punting) on sports has been legal forever. Yet their coverage of the games has nothing to do with O/U or odds or anything like that. Heck, It might actually be illegal to talk about the lines outside of the betting shops / apps.
If you really want a succinct explanation, the explanation is that we already know how to regulate gambling. We've been doing it for decades and we know how this works. I don't personally favor returning the law to what it was in 1994 (say), but that's easy to articulate and it's easy to explain how to get there from where we are right now.
the idea that we cant address one issue that you dont consider to be the top issue without first addressing every other issue you rank above it is fuzzy thinking at best and shallow thinking at worst i mean i get it you are using every trick argument in the book and im sure you were great on the debate team how about we use a red herring or a logical fallacy next or throw a no true scotsman in there brohan in the end we are a pretty intelligent species and capable of working on more than one issue at once take that to the bank bromigothere is obviously a line on all of this and finding it wont be easy but the slipperly slope argument you are trying to make is disingenous and i know you are smart enough to know that take that to the bank brohani think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
A line would imply that sports gambling is at the top of the list and we need to draw a line where things above it are illegal and below it are legal. But sports gambling is in the middle of the list. There's no line to draw, it's arbitrarily picking one thing out of the middle, which makes no sense.
A lot of the studies reference in the articles are fake "gotchas" intentionally provided without context of how that measures against other things that we find to be harmless. You can go to the same source of those studies and find 100 other studies linking 100 other things to similar or even worse versions of those results. But it gets more clicks to say "gambling can be linked to an increase in domestic violence" than to say "gambling is the 157th most correlated thing to domestic violence, behind things like technology, religion, etc". (yes that's a made up number for illustrative purposes).
there you go again with your look over here argument basically you say that if we have 10 bads we cant do anything about number 5 on that list of bads because clutch my pearls what about bads 1 through 4 oh my lord but thats not a winning argument at all bads are bads no matter what order you rank them and they deserve to be addressed and as a society you address the bads on a catch as catch can basis when an opportunity presents itself and if that time if now and there is a critical mass to do it then go for it but to simply say its in the middle dont bother is not a supportable argument take that to the bank brohanthe idea that we cant address one issue that you dont consider to be the top issue without first addressing every other issue you rank above it is fuzzy thinking at best and shallow thinking at worst i mean i get it you are using every trick argument in the book and im sure you were great on the debate team how about we use a red herring or a logical fallacy next or throw a no true scotsman in there brohan in the end we are a pretty intelligent species and capable of working on more than one issue at once take that to the bank bromigothere is obviously a line on all of this and finding it wont be easy but the slipperly slope argument you are trying to make is disingenous and i know you are smart enough to know that take that to the bank brohani think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
A line would imply that sports gambling is at the top of the list and we need to draw a line where things above it are illegal and below it are legal. But sports gambling is in the middle of the list. There's no line to draw, it's arbitrarily picking one thing out of the middle, which makes no sense.
A lot of the studies reference in the articles are fake "gotchas" intentionally provided without context of how that measures against other things that we find to be harmless. You can go to the same source of those studies and find 100 other studies linking 100 other things to similar or even worse versions of those results. But it gets more clicks to say "gambling can be linked to an increase in domestic violence" than to say "gambling is the 157th most correlated thing to domestic violence, behind things like technology, religion, etc". (yes that's a made up number for illustrative purposes).
It's not just a matter of "why this one and not that one"?
The matter at hand is that we have actively accepted as a society that some level of financial stress, domestic/criminal stress, and even death is a worthwhile trade off for fun and convenience. And the figures presented in the article fall well within that threshold that we have actively deemed tolerable.
The irresponsibility of the article is that it intentionally presents the data without that context, while driving home the actively pushed implication that it is too much burden in exchange for fun. It neglects to place that in the context that we already actively accept that burden for fun in hundreds of other cases. The same article with the same kind of data could be written about iPhones or Religion or automobiles or 100 other things. And the point there is not "why single just this one out" but rather that we've already deemed that that level of stress on some part of society is a worthwhile tradeoff for society as a whole not just being a bunch of people couped up all day reading by candlelight for 12 hours a day to make sure no one gets hurt (wait that won't work either, cue the study about reading and its affect on eyesight).
If the argument is that we've overestimated what level of societal stress is worth it for fun and convenience (an argument which I've not yet seen anyone make, including the author of the article), then it makes no sense to change it by randomly picking something out of the middle.
Fair response, thank you
Respectfully, I don't find this persuasive. The only reason the lottery is considered OK, or at least that people are willing to turn a blind eye toward it, is that the government is the entity profiting from it and presumably is putting the money to a use that is beneficial to society.
my gosh you guys and your rankings and compare this to that do you ever look at anything for what it is or can you only evaluate things on a whatabout basis it doesnt have to be more ripe than other problems it just has to be ripe enough to get something done easy peasy nice and easy take that to the bank bromigos
Yeah, I see that too.
there you go again with your look over here argument basically you say that if we have 10 bads we cant do anything about number 5 on that list of bads because clutch my pearls what about bads 1 through 4 oh my lord but thats not a winning argument at all bads are bads no matter what order you rank them and they deserve to be addressed and as a society you address the bads on a catch as catch can basis when an opportunity presents itself and if that time if now and there is a critical mass to do it then go for it but to simply say its in the middle dont bother is not a supportable argument take that to the bank brohanthe idea that we cant address one issue that you dont consider to be the top issue without first addressing every other issue you rank above it is fuzzy thinking at best and shallow thinking at worst i mean i get it you are using every trick argument in the book and im sure you were great on the debate team how about we use a red herring or a logical fallacy next or throw a no true scotsman in there brohan in the end we are a pretty intelligent species and capable of working on more than one issue at once take that to the bank bromigothere is obviously a line on all of this and finding it wont be easy but the slipperly slope argument you are trying to make is disingenous and i know you are smart enough to know that take that to the bank brohani think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
A line would imply that sports gambling is at the top of the list and we need to draw a line where things above it are illegal and below it are legal. But sports gambling is in the middle of the list. There's no line to draw, it's arbitrarily picking one thing out of the middle, which makes no sense.
A lot of the studies reference in the articles are fake "gotchas" intentionally provided without context of how that measures against other things that we find to be harmless. You can go to the same source of those studies and find 100 other studies linking 100 other things to similar or even worse versions of those results. But it gets more clicks to say "gambling can be linked to an increase in domestic violence" than to say "gambling is the 157th most correlated thing to domestic violence, behind things like technology, religion, etc". (yes that's a made up number for illustrative purposes).
It's not just a matter of "why this one and not that one"?
The matter at hand is that we have actively accepted as a society that some level of financial stress, domestic/criminal stress, and even death is a worthwhile trade off for fun and convenience. And the figures presented in the article fall well within that threshold that we have actively deemed tolerable.
The irresponsibility of the article is that it intentionally presents the data without that context, while driving home the actively pushed implication that it is too much burden in exchange for fun. It neglects to place that in the context that we already actively accept that burden for fun in hundreds of other cases. The same article with the same kind of data could be written about iPhones or Religion or automobiles or 100 other things. And the point there is not "why single just this one out" but rather that we've already deemed that that level of stress on some part of society is a worthwhile tradeoff for society as a whole not just being a bunch of people couped up all day reading by candlelight for 12 hours a day to make sure no one gets hurt (wait that won't work either, cue the study about reading and its affect on eyesight).
If the argument is that we've overestimated what level of societal stress is worth it for fun and convenience (an argument which I've not yet seen anyone make, including the author of the article), then it makes no sense to change it by randomly picking something out of the middle.
Did it solve it? Did this solve it for cigarettes? Because I believe that cigarettes are still killing people that are addicted to them and harming others that have to deal with second hand smoke etc. What was solved? It may have diminished the use but it didn't solve the problem. Maybe we need to define what the problem is. To me the problem is personal accountability. Commercials, access, etc does not make anybody do anything. People choose to gamble because they want to. People choose to smoke because they want to. Nobody is forcing them to do so. Raising taxes will not stop people from these activities if they want to do them. People that shouldn't be gambling and can't stop because of addiction won't stop because the taxes are higher. They will just go broke faster. Does that solve the problem?
whatabout cars take that to the bank brohansthere you go again with your look over here argument basically you say that if we have 10 bads we cant do anything about number 5 on that list of bads because clutch my pearls what about bads 1 through 4 oh my lord but thats not a winning argument at all bads are bads no matter what order you rank them and they deserve to be addressed and as a society you address the bads on a catch as catch can basis when an opportunity presents itself and if that time if now and there is a critical mass to do it then go for it but to simply say its in the middle dont bother is not a supportable argument take that to the bank brohanthe idea that we cant address one issue that you dont consider to be the top issue without first addressing every other issue you rank above it is fuzzy thinking at best and shallow thinking at worst i mean i get it you are using every trick argument in the book and im sure you were great on the debate team how about we use a red herring or a logical fallacy next or throw a no true scotsman in there brohan in the end we are a pretty intelligent species and capable of working on more than one issue at once take that to the bank bromigothere is obviously a line on all of this and finding it wont be easy but the slipperly slope argument you are trying to make is disingenous and i know you are smart enough to know that take that to the bank brohani think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
A line would imply that sports gambling is at the top of the list and we need to draw a line where things above it are illegal and below it are legal. But sports gambling is in the middle of the list. There's no line to draw, it's arbitrarily picking one thing out of the middle, which makes no sense.
A lot of the studies reference in the articles are fake "gotchas" intentionally provided without context of how that measures against other things that we find to be harmless. You can go to the same source of those studies and find 100 other studies linking 100 other things to similar or even worse versions of those results. But it gets more clicks to say "gambling can be linked to an increase in domestic violence" than to say "gambling is the 157th most correlated thing to domestic violence, behind things like technology, religion, etc". (yes that's a made up number for illustrative purposes).
It's not just a matter of "why this one and not that one"?
The matter at hand is that we have actively accepted as a society that some level of financial stress, domestic/criminal stress, and even death is a worthwhile trade off for fun and convenience. And the figures presented in the article fall well within that threshold that we have actively deemed tolerable.
The irresponsibility of the article is that it intentionally presents the data without that context, while driving home the actively pushed implication that it is too much burden in exchange for fun. It neglects to place that in the context that we already actively accept that burden for fun in hundreds of other cases. The same article with the same kind of data could be written about iPhones or Religion or automobiles or 100 other things. And the point there is not "why single just this one out" but rather that we've already deemed that that level of stress on some part of society is a worthwhile tradeoff for society as a whole not just being a bunch of people couped up all day reading by candlelight for 12 hours a day to make sure no one gets hurt (wait that won't work either, cue the study about reading and its affect on eyesight).
If the argument is that we've overestimated what level of societal stress is worth it for fun and convenience (an argument which I've not yet seen anyone make, including the author of the article), then it makes no sense to change it by randomly picking something out of the middle.
The point isn't one bad vs another. None of them are necessarily bad when weighed against we as a society needing to have fun and convenience.
How many deaths per year are the convenience of cars worth? How many deaths per year are the fun of roller coasters worth? How many bankruptcies per year is the fun of gambling worth? How many deaths per year is the good taste of sugar worth? How many domestic abuse incidents over text messages is SMS technology worth? How many brain injuries is the fun of football worth?
It's not that they're bad and we know we need to make them illegal but just haven't gotten to those other ones yet, it's that we've actively accepted that the fun/convenience these things provide is worth some number of people dying or having major problems every year. The figures presented in the article are well within the tolerances that we've accepted as worth it for fun and/or convenience, but they are presented intentionally without that context. The only difference with gambling is advertising. And by advertising I mean advertising to you, via articles like these, that some people having financial stress is not a worthy tradeoff for everyone else to have fun, even though you have already fundamentally accepted that it is.
Interesting take, leadership through butwhatabout.
I dont think im going out on a limb in saying we have successfully implemented a policy to bring poor tobacco related outcomes to very reasonable levels. Do you disagree?
not really its just a convenient argument to not tackle issues you rank number 5 out of 10 on the bad scale because you can always say whatabout cars i guess its not good leadership its lazy leadership or its protecting sacred cows under the guise of whatabout cars take that to the bank brohans
People still die from car crashes but I do not think anyone would make a case implementing a seatbelt tax was the wrong solution.whatabout cars take that to the bank brohansthere you go again with your look over here argument basically you say that if we have 10 bads we cant do anything about number 5 on that list of bads because clutch my pearls what about bads 1 through 4 oh my lord but thats not a winning argument at all bads are bads no matter what order you rank them and they deserve to be addressed and as a society you address the bads on a catch as catch can basis when an opportunity presents itself and if that time if now and there is a critical mass to do it then go for it but to simply say its in the middle dont bother is not a supportable argument take that to the bank brohanthe idea that we cant address one issue that you dont consider to be the top issue without first addressing every other issue you rank above it is fuzzy thinking at best and shallow thinking at worst i mean i get it you are using every trick argument in the book and im sure you were great on the debate team how about we use a red herring or a logical fallacy next or throw a no true scotsman in there brohan in the end we are a pretty intelligent species and capable of working on more than one issue at once take that to the bank bromigothere is obviously a line on all of this and finding it wont be easy but the slipperly slope argument you are trying to make is disingenous and i know you are smart enough to know that take that to the bank brohani think everyone knows that booze and cigarettes should probably be illegal too but they are too engrained gambling however is only sort of a johnny come lately to the legal world and as such there is still time to stop it if we want to as a society take that to the bank brohans
Explain to me the argument where things like alcohol and sugar, causes of the things below amongst many other negative impacts, are legal, but gambling should be illegal because it's "too dangerous".
- The Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application estimates that each year there are more than 178,000 deaths (approximately 120,000 male deaths and 59,000 female deaths) attributable to excessive alcohol use
- In 2022, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 13,524 deaths (or 32% of overall driving fatalities)
- According to the most recent estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21.0% of suicide decedents have blood alcohol concentrations of 0.1% or more.
- New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated with the consumption of sugary drinks.
Roughly 180,000 deaths worldwide linked to sugary drink consumption | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
New Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) research suggests that roughly 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide—including 25,000 Americans—are associated
And of course alcohol has even greater impacts on all the things mentioned in the betting article (domestic violence, financial stress, stress on our healthcare system, etc).
What about sugar?
And it's hardly just sugar/alcohol here. Those are just a couple that blow gambling out of the water in terms of negative impacts. It's a zillion things that we trade negative impacts for fun/convenience.
The article linked to the study that shows gambling increases domestic violence. That same source also wrote studies about how technology increases domestic violence, and how religious affiliation increases domestic violence. Time to ban smartphones and religion?
A line would imply that sports gambling is at the top of the list and we need to draw a line where things above it are illegal and below it are legal. But sports gambling is in the middle of the list. There's no line to draw, it's arbitrarily picking one thing out of the middle, which makes no sense.
A lot of the studies reference in the articles are fake "gotchas" intentionally provided without context of how that measures against other things that we find to be harmless. You can go to the same source of those studies and find 100 other studies linking 100 other things to similar or even worse versions of those results. But it gets more clicks to say "gambling can be linked to an increase in domestic violence" than to say "gambling is the 157th most correlated thing to domestic violence, behind things like technology, religion, etc". (yes that's a made up number for illustrative purposes).
It's not just a matter of "why this one and not that one"?
The matter at hand is that we have actively accepted as a society that some level of financial stress, domestic/criminal stress, and even death is a worthwhile trade off for fun and convenience. And the figures presented in the article fall well within that threshold that we have actively deemed tolerable.
The irresponsibility of the article is that it intentionally presents the data without that context, while driving home the actively pushed implication that it is too much burden in exchange for fun. It neglects to place that in the context that we already actively accept that burden for fun in hundreds of other cases. The same article with the same kind of data could be written about iPhones or Religion or automobiles or 100 other things. And the point there is not "why single just this one out" but rather that we've already deemed that that level of stress on some part of society is a worthwhile tradeoff for society as a whole not just being a bunch of people couped up all day reading by candlelight for 12 hours a day to make sure no one gets hurt (wait that won't work either, cue the study about reading and its affect on eyesight).
If the argument is that we've overestimated what level of societal stress is worth it for fun and convenience (an argument which I've not yet seen anyone make, including the author of the article), then it makes no sense to change it by randomly picking something out of the middle.
The point isn't one bad vs another. None of them are necessarily bad when weighed against we as a society needing to have fun and convenience.
How many deaths per year are the convenience of cars worth? How many deaths per year are the fun of roller coasters worth? How many bankruptcies per year is the fun of gambling worth? How many deaths per year is the good taste of sugar worth? How many domestic abuse incidents over text messages is SMS technology worth? How many brain injuries is the fun of football worth?
It's not that they're bad and we know we need to make them illegal but just haven't gotten to those other ones yet, it's that we've actively accepted that the fun/convenience these things provide is worth some number of people dying or having major problems every year. The figures presented in the article are well within the tolerances that we've accepted as worth it for fun and/or convenience, but they are presented intentionally without that context. The only difference with gambling is advertising. And by advertising I mean advertising to you, via articles like these, that some people having financial stress is not a worthy tradeoff for everyone else to have fun, even though you have already fundamentally accepted that it is.
See ... now you have attempted to flip the script on me.
you prove my point why spend any energy on a seatbelt tax when there are at least 7 bads ahead of it on the list i mean guns cancer booze you name it how dare we care about a seatbelt tax when whatabout guns long story short you just showed the err of your prior position so i accept your apology and declare victory and we can move along take that to the bank bromigo
