The morality police go after gambling

[Opus1]

60 Minutes featured a story last night about the on-line gambling phenomenon. About 5 years after it started. Oh well, better late than never.

My esteemed Senator, John Kyl, is trying to introduce legislation to essentially ban on-line gambling by preventing any U.S. bank or credit card company from doing business with such sites. I'm not sure how this really accomplishes anything--most on-line gambling sites don't take credit cards anyway. I deposit from my bank account to Neteller, and then from Neteller to the site. But anyway.

Kyl is your typical hypocritical "conservative" douchebag, who wants smaller and less intrusive government, except in areas of personal morality, where bigger is better. He doesn't like gambling, so no one else can gamble either. Well John, I don't like you being the world's biggest asswipe, but I'm not pressing for any laws banning senatorial asswipery.

Fortunately, Kyl has had no luck with this bill in the past, and will probably have none in the future. But on-line gambling is still technically sort of in a grey area--millions of Americans do it, sites advertise on TV, and yet they have to be careful to be based completely off shore lest they break some federal law that arguably applies to them.

I actually thought that the 60 Minutes story was very good, by which I mean heavily biased in favor of allowing on-line gambling, and essentially a 15 minute commercial for Party Poker, Paradise Poker, and Sporting Bet. I'm sure they appreciated that. So I wake up Monday morning thinking that the outlook for on-line gambling is good, and that the morality police may be getting less brazen in their bullshit attempts to selectively enforce nonsensical 100 year old laws.

Then I see this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051121/ap_on_re_us/poker_clubs_losing_hand;_ylt=ArYfi.5R_LvDOWQVmy31TksDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl).

Sigh. New York police apparently have nothing better to do than shut down dozens of poker clubs that have been operating fairly openly for years. Another excellent use of taxpayer money to prosecute victimless crime and shove Puritanical morals down everyone else's throat.

Go fuck yourselves morality police, unless there's some 200 year old law against masturbation that you want to enforce as well.

[Bricker]

Kyl is your typical hypocritical "conservative" douchebag, who wants smaller and less intrusive government, except in areas of personal morality, where bigger is better. He doesn't like gambling, so no one else can gamble either. Well John, I don't like you being the world's biggest asswipe, but I'm not pressing for any laws banning senatorial asswipery.


In North Carolina, it's the Democrats opposing gambling. Cite. (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784294896) Are these guys also douchebags and asswipes?

In Texas, proposals to legalize video slot machines at racetracks and create other casino-style gambling opportunities in Texas are being blocked by.... Democrats. Cite. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/05/legislature/3110424.html) Please let me know how much you despise them.

Gambling in Maryland, favored by Republican Governor Robert Erlich, has been scuttled by opposition from Maryland Democrats. Cite. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.slots29apr29,1,7115010.story?coll=bal-local-utility) I know you will join me in condemning the Democrats for their asswipery and douchebagginess, and cheering the efforts of Republicans in this arena.

Right?

[treis]

Man that hypocrisy schtick is growing tiresome.

[ElvisL1ves]

The OP refers to "conservatives", with the context making it clear that "social conservatives" are implied, not Republicans. They're not synonymous.

Why are your first replies to a thread based on reflexive partisanship lately?

[Homebrew]

Well, Bricker, it would depend on whether the folks you point out have espoussed smaller government and less instrusion before we can determine if their petty meddling is comparable to Kyl's. Regardless, we all appreciate your automatic tu quoque every time someone criticizes a Republican, Christian or other conservative of your liking. The distracting bit is getting tiresome, though.

[Weirddave]

I saw that story, and the best, the absolute best thing about it, was that about 3 minutes into the story, the local channel went to a split screen-so they could show the local lottery numbers being drawn.

KOMEDY GOLD!

[Weirddave]

Well, Bricker, it would depend on whether the folks you point out have espoussed smaller government and less instrusion before we can determine if their petty meddling is comparable to Kyl's.
In Bob Erlich's case he very much does, I don't know about the others though. Interesting that I haven't yet heard any condemnation of the people Bricker mentioned, who are doing the exact same thing that the OP is railing against, yet I'm already seeing claims that his post is all just some partisan hatchet job. Hmmm. :dubious:

[sleestak]

I worked for an online gambling outfit in Costa Rica for a little while. I did IT stuff.

The reason the place was in Costa Rica was that the US imposed some laws (sorry, don't remember what they were) that caused the owner to move it down south. When I was down there, about three years ago, the US was putting alot of pressure on Costa Rica to enact similar laws banning credit card companies from doing business with gambling sites. The owner, who happened to be a really nice man and a well respected bookmaker, just said that he would just move to another country if that happened.

A large percentage of his customers paid using Western Union. The owner also had plans in case he had to dump credit cards because of laws like these and that was three years ago.

This isn't going to stop online gambling. It'll make it somewhat harder for the companies and their customers but in the long run it ain't gonna do jack to stop it.

It will also have the effect of running the honest bookmakers/gambling sites out of business.

Slee

[Sweet Mercury]

In North Carolina, it's the Democrats opposing gambling. Cite. (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784294896) Are these guys also douchebags and asswipes?

In Texas, proposals to legalize video slot machines at racetracks and create other casino-style gambling opportunities in Texas are being blocked by.... Democrats. Cite. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/05/legislature/3110424.html) Please let me know how much you despise them.

Gambling in Maryland, favored by Republican Governor Robert Erlich, has been scuttled by opposition from Maryland Democrats. Cite. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.slots29apr29,1,7115010.story?coll=bal-local-utility) I know you will join me in condemning the Democrats for their asswipery and douchebagginess, and cheering the efforts of Republicans in this arena.

Right?Ironically, your feeble attempt at exposing the OPs 'partisan' ship has done nothing except expose your own. I simple control+f search for either of the parties you mentioned quickly shows that you are the only one who brought partisanship into this, not him.

My guess is this foolishness is the knee-jerk reaction to this statement:Kyl is your typical hypocritical "conservative" douchebag, who wants smaller and less intrusive government, except in areas of personal morality, where bigger is better. He doesn't like gambling, so no one else can gamble either. Well John, I don't like you being the world's biggest asswipe, but I'm not pressing for any laws banning senatorial asswipery.However, his assesment of the situation is 100% correct. Anyone who espouses bigger, more intrusive government is by no means a "conservative." Party lines are meaningless.

[Opus1]

In Bob Erlich's case he very much does, I don't know about the others though. Interesting that I haven't yet heard any condemnation of the people Bricker mentioned, who are doing the exact same thing that the OP is railing against, yet I'm already seeing claims that his post is all just some partisan hatchet job. Hmmm. :dubious:

Okay, fine, I condemn all those other people Bricker mentioned. But I'll also pit Bricker for misrepresenting the situation. Look at his cite for Maryland, and look how he omitted the following:

The [Pennsylvania] legislation, which is backed by Democratic Gov. Edward G. Rendell, is expected to be voted on in June.

...

Mostly, progressive Democrats and African-Americans have led Maryland's anti-gambling efforts. They are battling a pro-slots Republican governor who has the support of most legislators from his party.

In Pennsylvania, anti-gambling efforts have been led by Rep. Paul Clymer, a Republican from suburban Philadelphia who is drawing most of his support from conservative, white Republicans.

How about that NC story?

But in a chamber where Democrats hold the advantage with just a handful of votes, and Republicans appear uniformly opposed, at least five Senate Democrats say they still oppose a lottery, effectively blocking passage for now and setting the stage for some serious horse-trading.

Or Texas:

The Texas Republican Party is on record as strongly against gambling. State GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser is scheduled to speak at an anti-gambling rally at the Capitol today.

So yes, I join in pitting Democrats who oppose legalized gambling on moral grounds. But Bricker--shame on you essentially lying about the content of 3 different news stories just to get in a partisan jab.

[Evil Captor]

We've got a morality problem with gambling? We someone to supervise the morality cops! How about ... William Bennett?

[Duke of Rat]

The websites that advertise on TV are .net PokerStars.net (http://www.pokerstars.net/), PartyPoker.net, etc. The .net sites are free. They almost always have a .com counterpart, PokerStars.com (https://www.pokerstars.com/), PartyPoker.com, etc. These are the for money gaming sites.

Just a little distinction for people wondering how the evil gaming sites can advertise on TV.

[asterion]

Thing is, the US probably shouldn't even be able to ban online gambling due to the WTO. Yes, I know, the US is massively hypocritical when it comes to the WTO and a decision against the US would probably have no effect, but there you are.

[Bricker]

Well, Bricker, it would depend on whether the folks you point out have espoussed smaller government and less instrusion before we can determine if their petty meddling is comparable to Kyl's. Regardless, we all appreciate your automatic tu quoque every time someone criticizes a Republican, Christian or other conservative of your liking. The distracting bit is getting tiresome, though.

1. Bite me.

2. The OP inveighs against a legislator who "...doesn't like gambling, so no one else can gamble either." It is absolutely relevant to point out that other legislators are guilty of the same sin complained of by the OP, and wonder if the OP will be equally vituperative in chastising them. If someone steps up and says, "Yes, by all means, the Democrats you mention are also douchbags," then all is good - or at least consistent. But if someone is willing to lambast a Republican for seeking to ban gambling, but NOT criticize a Democrat, then it seems fair to suggest that it's not solely the merits of the issue that are driving the critique.

Right?

This, then, is NOT a "tu quoque." You shouldn't try to use fancy Latin phrases you don't understand.

3. As I have made plain many times on these boards, I myself am a gambler. I certainly oppose any attempt to criminalize gambling. But I am willing to criticize members of both major political parties equally for their asshattery in this regard.

[Sweet Mercury]

The OP inveighs against a legislator who "...doesn't like gambling, so no one else can gamble either." It is absolutely relevant to point out that other legislators are guilty of the same sin complained of by the OP, and wonder if the OP will be equally vituperative in chastising them. If someone steps up and says, "Yes, by all means, the Democrats you mention are also douchbags," then all is good - or at least consistent. But if someone is willing to lambast a Republican for seeking to ban gambling, but NOT criticize a Democrat, then it seems fair to suggest that it's not solely the merits of the issue that are driving the critique.

And again you skirt the issue. Let me explain more clearly: You are the only one who has introduced partisanship to this issue. Your accusations hold no water.

This, then, is NOT a "tu quoque." You shouldn't try to use fancy Latin phrases you don't understand.

He used the phrase perfectly.

[Bricker]

Okay, fine, I condemn all those other people Bricker mentioned. But I'll also pit Bricker for misrepresenting the situation. Look at his cite for Maryland, and look how he omitted the following:

The [Pennsylvania] legislation, which is backed by Democratic Gov. Edward G. Rendell, is expected to be voted on in June.

...

Mostly, progressive Democrats and African-Americans have led Maryland's anti-gambling efforts. They are battling a pro-slots Republican governor who has the support of most legislators from his party.

In Pennsylvania, anti-gambling efforts have been led by Rep. Paul Clymer, a Republican from suburban Philadelphia who is drawing most of his support from conservative, white Republicans.

How about that NC story?

But in a chamber where Democrats hold the advantage with just a handful of votes, and Republicans appear uniformly opposed, at least five Senate Democrats say they still oppose a lottery, effectively blocking passage for now and setting the stage for some serious horse-trading.

Or Texas:

The Texas Republican Party is on record as strongly against gambling. State GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser is scheduled to speak at an anti-gambling rally at the Capitol today.

So yes, I join in pitting Democrats who oppose legalized gambling on moral grounds. But Bricker--shame on you essentially lying about the content of 3 different news stories just to get in a partisan jab.

First, thanks for joining me in the harsh criticism of politicians of any stripe who wish to ban gambling. I am pleased to hear that criticism.

But I completely disagree that I misrepresented anything. The whole point of my cites was to identify groups of Democrats that opposed gambling. There was no need to identify Republicans; the OP made it clear that they existed. I suppose I could have identified the Democrats that were in favor of gambling, for completeness' sake, but they weren't really relevant to my point. I trust no reader felt that I was claiming every Democrat opposed gambling.

[Sweet Mercury]

Kyl is your typical hypocritical "conservative" douchebag, who wants smaller and less intrusive government, except in areas of personal morality, where bigger is better. He doesn't like gambling, so no one else can gamble either. Well John, I don't like you being the world's biggest asswipe, but I'm not pressing for any laws banning senatorial asswipery.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Conservativism has traditionally been a type of libertarianism, which believed in minimal government intrusion. This reaks of hypocrisy, but that has become typical of modern conservatism. Smaller government in all areas except morality.

[Raja Raja Chola]

There was no need to identify Republicans; the OP made it clear that they existed.

The OP also pitted NYC. Did NYC become some hotbed of conservative Republican activity when I wasn't looking? It's not as if the OP didn't take a jab at a traditionally liberal locale either.

As to the issue, I don't really care one way or another if gambling is legalized or not. I do think that anyone who supports any form of gambling (such as state lotteries or horse-tracks) and is against online gambling is a hypocrite.

[Bricker]

And again you skirt the issue. Let me explain more clearly: You are the only one who has introduced partisanship to this issue. Your accusations hold no water.



No, I'm not. The OP could have simply railed against the actions of Senator Kyl. But he did not. He included a description of Kyl as a conservative, and suggested that it was Kyl's conservative political outlook that drove his opposition to gambling. In case you're unable to read the OP for some bizarre reason, let me remind you of the pertinent phrase:

Kyl is your typical hypocritical "conservative" douchebag, who wants smaller and less intrusive government, except in areas of personal morality, where bigger is better. He doesn't like gambling, so no one else can gamble either.

Now, that clearly introduces partisanship to the discussion. My post responded to that charge by pointing out that Democrats, who we presume are NOT "...hypocritical 'conservative' douchebag[s]" also oppose gambling.


He used the phrase perfectly.

No. He did not.

The fallacy of tu quoque is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, and it occurs when the listener is told that the rhetor does not practice what he preaches. Cite. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm)

My post did not suggest the OP doesn't practice what he preaches. It questioned whether the OP was willing to extend the ire he preached against conservatives who seek to ban gambling and level it against liberals who seek to ban gambling. In other words, it sought to determine if the criticism arose solely from the politician's attack on gambling, or whether there was an undeveloped secondary leg of the attack that depended on the target being conservative.

For example, the OP could have responded, "My gripe is not with banning gambling at all. I object to the hypocrisy of a conservative banning gambling. I expect a liberal, who wants to see government control, to be in favor of banning gambling."

If you believe my post represented a tu quoque argument, then identify precisely what behavior I accuse the OP of preaching but not practicing.

[Bricker]

The world would be a better place if high school debate were a required course.

[Homebrew]

1. Bite me.

2. The OP inveighs against a legislator who ...
Who also happens to be the legislator for his district so it's particularly relevant for him to bitch about that particular elected official. Your apparent rush to find Democrats just because a Republican was criticized is indeed a tu quoque. Rather than deal with the specific instance of the specific person pitted, you sought to distract and derail the OP's topic. It is a textbook example and just one of many times you've done it.

[Bricker]

Who also happens to be the legislator for his district so it's particularly relevant for him to bitch about that particular elected official. Your apparent rush to find Democrats just because a Republican was criticized is indeed a tu quoque. Rather than deal with the specific instance of the specific person pitted, you sought to distract and derail the OP's topic. It is a textbook example and just one of many times you've done it.

Again, his OP didn't merely identify the legislator as being from his state. The legislator was identified as a "typical hypocritical 'conservative' douchebag." THAT was what started the partisan attack. It was irrelevant to his gripe - why include it?

And your misunderstanding of what tu quoque entails is beginning to border on humorous. Here (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm) is the "textbook" definition of tu quoque. If you believe my post represented a tu quoque argument, then identify precisely what behavior I accuse the OP of preaching but not practicing.

[Homebrew]

You misunderstand the tu quoque fallacy. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html) Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.You sought to deflect criticism of a Republican by pointing out "Democrats do it too".

[Bricker]

You misunderstand the tu quoque fallacy. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html) You sought to deflect criticism of a Republican by pointing out "Democrats do it too".

Absolutely not what I did.

I asked if the OP's criticism would extend to Democrats as well. This was a relevant inquiry, because the OP made a point of the hypocritical conservative douchebag status of his legislator. It makes it relevant, then, to show that being a conservative is not a necessary and sufficient condition to oppose gambling. One can make this showing in two ways: by identifying other conservatives who favor gambling, or by identifying liberals who also oppose it.

How would you contend it's appropriate to refute the implied charge that "hypocritical 'conservative' douchebag[s]" are the ones that oppose gambling?

[Bosstone]

Now, that clearly introduces partisanship to the discussion.
Bull fucking shit. You can niggle over Kyl's own philosophy, but the OP is right; ostensibly, a conservative (note: not a Republican, a conservative) should be against legislating bigger government. There is no insult in that, it's the fucking definition of a conservative. The fact that a conservative wants to legislate against something he opposes because he doesn't like it makes him a hypocrite. It's not because he's a Republican, it's because he's supposedly a conservative who is nonetheless ignoring conservative philosophy because he's personally morally opposed to something. That's what makes this Pitworthy. Conversely, a liberal legislator pushing for more regulation may well be a douchebag, but is not necessarily a hypocrite for it, because the liberal philosophy advocates bigger government.

Now where's the partisanship in that, I ask?

[AskNott]

In all of this erudite discussion, I believe you folks are missing one of the biggest points of the 60 Minutes piece. Politicians are making a grandstand play with their positions against internet gambling. They can dramatically play to their moralist base and pass a law that cannot be enforced at all. The only real effects are to drive these companies, and their taxable income, offshore.

[Bricker]

Bull fucking shit. You can niggle over Kyl's own philosophy, but the OP is right; ostensibly, a conservative (note: not a Republican, a conservative) should be against legislating bigger government. There is no insult in that, it's the fucking definition of a conservative. The fact that a conservative wants to legislate against something he opposes because he doesn't like it makes him a hypocrite. It's not because he's a Republican, it's because he's supposedly a conservative who is nonetheless ignoring conservative philosophy because he's personally morally opposed to something. That's what makes this Pitworthy. Conversely, a liberal legislator pushing for more regulation may well be a douchebag, but is not necessarily a hypocrite for it, because the liberal philosophy advocates bigger government.

Now where's the partisanship in that, I ask?

That's an interesting argument, but it's one that the OP disavowed.

[Bricker]

Bull fucking shit. You can niggle over Kyl's own philosophy, but the OP is right; ostensibly, a conservative (note: not a Republican, a conservative) should be against legislating bigger government. There is no insult in that, it's the fucking definition of a conservative. The fact that a conservative wants to legislate against something he opposes because he doesn't like it makes him a hypocrite. It's not because he's a Republican, it's because he's supposedly a conservative who is nonetheless ignoring conservative philosophy because he's personally morally opposed to something. That's what makes this Pitworthy. Conversely, a liberal legislator pushing for more regulation may well be a douchebag, but is not necessarily a hypocrite for it, because the liberal philosophy advocates bigger government.

Now where's the partisanship in that, I ask?

And by the same token -- although THIS is a tu quoque observation -- a liberal should be fighting for personal freedom: if it doesn't hurt anyone, the government should permit it.

But both that view of liberalism and your characterization of conservatism are myopically flawed. There is no question that the conservative movement holds that regulating moral behavior is a legitimate role for government. You have them confused, I think, with libertarians.

There is no inherent hypocrisy in a conservative seeking to ban gambling, or adultery, or sex toys, while simultaneously preaching small government for general purposes. That's what they do. Libertarians will reliably select small government across the board.... not so conservatives.

[treis]

There is no inherent hypocrisy in a conservative seeking to ban gambling, or adultery, or sex toys, while simultaneously preaching small government for general purposes. That's what they do. Libertarians will reliably select small government across the board.... not so conservatives.

See now theres hypocracy but you can't even see it.

[Bricker]

See now theres hypocracy but you can't even see it.

No. There is a distinction which you apparently refuse to recognize as valid as between social ills and general governmental functions. A conservative may say the proper role of government is to enforce morality, but let the free market deal with other issues.

Why, specifically, do you say it's hypocrisy? Because you contend that there is no meaningful distinction between morality and other government functions; you believe the same set of rules should apply to each. But that's simply your own belief -- that's not a rule of nature. And rejecting that interpretation does not make someone a hypocrite.

[treis]

No. There is a distinction which you apparently refuse to recognize as valid as between social ills and general governmental functions. A conservative may say the proper role of government is to enforce morality, but let the free market deal with other issues.

Why, specifically, do you say it's hypocrisy? Because you contend that there is no meaningful distinction between morality and other government functions; you believe the same set of rules should apply to each. But that's simply your own belief -- that's not a rule of nature. And rejecting that interpretation does not make someone a hypocrite.

Becuase saying you are for small government and them :drum roll: doing the complete opposite makes one a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with their political beliefs or not. I just happen to have the ability to rub two brain cells together and realize that legislating morality is not small government. If a politician is advocating small government yet supports lots of large government policies they are a hypocrite.

[VegemiteMoose]

You misunderstand the tu quoque fallacy. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html) You sought to deflect criticism of a Republican by pointing out "Democrats do it too".
I think, looking at your very own link, that Bricker's correct. It isn't 'tu quoque'. The diversion part would apply, but you seem to be saying that he did so not by using the exact same argument used by the OP against the OP, but by introducing a new one: partisanship.

Seems 'tu quoqe' is the fancy name for "You're a stupid head" "No you're a stupid head!. So if the OP is "This guy's an idiot", Bricker would have had to say "No. you're an idiot", not "Aren't these guys also idiots?".

If Bricker introduced a new thing as a diversion that isn't actually in the OP, isn't that just the simpler "red herring" but not "tu quoque"?

[Bosstone]

And by the same token -- although THIS is a tu quoque observation -- a liberal should be fighting for personal freedom: if it doesn't hurt anyone, the government should permit it.

That's There is no inherent hypocrisy in a conservative seeking to ban gambling, or adultery, or sex toys, while simultaneously preaching small government for general purposes. That's what they do. Libertarians will reliably select small government across the board.... not so conservatives.
I suppose that is the current political landscape. It's changed enough that conservative and liberal have shifted meanings in the last few years. I'm not happy with the reason it's shifted, but I'll leave it at that and just agree that anyone who tries to turn their personal morality into legislation is a douchebag.

[Bricker]

Becuase saying you are for small government and them :drum roll: doing the complete opposite makes one a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with their political beliefs or not. I just happen to have the ability to rub two brain cells together and realize that legislating morality is not small government. If a politician is advocating small government yet supports lots of large government policies they are a hypocrite.

Ah, an opportunity to trot out another overused SDMB cliche -- that happens, here, to be accurate. This is a strawman. Conservatives are NOT saying, "We are for minimal government in all things." That's YOUR construction.

Conservatives are saying, "We are for small government in the regulation of business, trusting the free market; we are for strong government regulation of morality."

No hypocrisy. Except in your version of their argument.

[Bricker]

If Bricker introduced a new thing as a diversion that isn't actually in the OP, isn't that just the simpler "red herring" but not "tu quoque"?

It would be arguably correct to call my comment a red herring, especially if you feel that the OP's argument actually had nothing to do with partisanship.

[VegemiteMoose]

It would be arguably correct to call my comment a red herring, especially if you feel that the OP's argument actually had nothing to do with partisanship.
Thanks for the response Bricker. I was just curious to see what the heck 'tu quoque' was. Cause, ya know, it sounded naughty.

[Princhester]

It would be arguably correct to call my comment a red herring, especially if you feel that the OP's argument actually had nothing to do with partisanship.

Which, to rub the point in, it didn't. The OP's senator is a conservative hypocritical douchebag. Because he's the OP's senator, he's the senator that the OP is criticising, using available means. It is you who instantly sought to turn this into a partisanship debate.

How would you contend it's appropriate to refute the implied charge that "hypocritical 'conservative' douchebag[s]" are the ones that oppose gambling?

He didn't make that charge. You are the one who morphed the OP's charge into a charge that conservatives are exclusively the ones that oppose gambling.

There is no question that the conservative movement holds that regulating moral behavior is a legitimate role for government.

You are prevaricating on "conservative" and "the conservative movement". The movement as it may in fact be is not necessarily ad idem with "conservative" as a philosophy. The OP only used the former. You have switched in the latter because it suits your argument better.

There is no inherent hypocrisy in a conservative seeking to ban gambling, or adultery, or sex toys, while simultaneously preaching small government for general purposes.

Yes, yes there is. You are so used to the idea that you don't see it, but it is blindingly obvious that there is.

Conservatives are NOT saying, "We are for minimal government in all things." That's YOUR construction.

Conservatives are saying, "We are for small government in the regulation of business, trusting the free market; we are for strong government regulation of morality."

No hypocrisy. Except in your version of their argument.

I would agree with you if and only if many conservatives did not use "small government" as an argument in itself when it suits them. If conservatives argued for lassez faire economics and no gun control (for example) purely on other rational bases, then yes, you'd be right. But they don't. Many conservatives throw round the "small government" and "Freedom" rhetoric like confetti right up until they don't like something morally or philisophically and then those ideas go out the window. Those conservatives are hypocrites.

[Princhester]

I should've said:

Yes, yes there is. You are so used to the idea that you don't see it, but it is blindingly obvious that there is, because of what "general" means.

[BabaBooey]

Wonder how much the US is missing out in tax dollars with companies operating out of other countries because of this tomfoolery. Could be helpful with, you know, the massive defecit we've got now?

[treis]

Ah, an opportunity to trot out another overused SDMB cliche -- that happens, here, to be accurate. This is a strawman. Conservatives are NOT saying, "We are for minimal government in all things." That's YOUR construction.

Conservatives are saying, "We are for small government in the regulation of business, trusting the free market; we are for strong government regulation of morality."

No hypocrisy. Except in your version of their argument.

Whatever, if you truly believe that conservatives by and large don't claim to be for small government then so be it. Thats something I simply can't prove but thats certainly a platform the Republican party has run on. Certainly Senator Jon Kyl thinks he is for limited government:

I’ll continue to fight, as I always have, to limit federal spending and the size and scope of the federal government.

http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/budget.cfm

So, is he a hypocrite?

[Sweet Mercury]

No, I'm not. The OP could have simply railed against the actions of Senator Kyl. But he did not. He included a description of Kyl as a conservative, and suggested that it was Kyl's conservative political outlook that drove his opposition to gambling. In case you're unable to read the OP for some bizarre reason, let me remind you of the pertinent phrase:

Now, that clearly introduces partisanship to the discussion.I see the problem here; you must live in the U.K. Well, here in America, we don’t have a Conservative Party. Our major parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. I can see how you made the mistake. Of course, had he mentioned, even once, the Party of John Kyl and how it relates to his stance on the issue, then I might see how he had introduced partisanship to the discussion.

Of course, upon rereading with this newfound knowledge, it will be easy for you to see how the OP did not mention anything about party politics, but about the particular politics of Sen. John Kyl, what he views as a hypocrisy—one which, in fact, not only permeates the entirety of modern conservatism, but most of any mainstream political affiliation.

Or in the more direct words of BayleDomon, bull fucking shit.My post responded to that charge by pointing out that Democrats, who we presume are NOT "...hypocritical 'conservative' douchebag[s]" also oppose gambling.Ah, again, I would be interested to see you attempt to point out exactly where the OP introduced his arguments against Republicans, but I will save you the trouble since he did no such thing. This clearly demonstrates the immaturity of your knee-jerk, political wisdumb, considering your hastiness to assume his correctly labeling of a single man as conservative, and subsequent criticism of this man’s views, as an attack on Republicans that you felt the necessity to refute along bullshit party lines.The fallacy of tu quoque is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, and it occurs when the listener is told that the rhetor does not practice what he preaches. Cite. (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm)“Behold the superfluous! They steal the works of the inventors and of the sages for themselves; “education” they call their theft…”

Ah, the danger of idiocy mixed with the internet. I might be impressed, but Since (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html) anyone (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html) can (http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/tuquoque.asp) Google (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#tuquoque) tu (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tu%20quoque) quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque), I am not. You would have had a shot if you had bothered reading one of them. You lament about people lacking high school debate skills, yet you clearly fall short of the mark yourself. It has sadly become the new internet cliché to spout of logical fallacies as though you are some sort of logic machine, yet what is lost in all of this self fellating is subtlety. Your obvious tu quoque (which was observed by others as well), was fueled by your hasty generalizations and straw men regarding the OP’s ‘attack’ on, let’s say, non-Democrats. Your response? “But the Democrats do it to!! I have a cite to prove it!!”My post did not suggest the OP doesn't practice what he preaches.Ah, if only this were the only depth to the tu quoque fallacy, you might have a leg to stand on. It questioned whether the OP was willing to extend the ire he preached against conservatives who seek to ban gambling and level it against liberals who seek to ban gambling. In other words, it sought to determine if the criticism arose solely from the politician's attack on gambling, or whether there was an undeveloped secondary leg of the attack that depended on the target being conservative.

For example, the OP could have responded, "My gripe is not with banning gambling at all. I object to the hypocrisy of a conservative banning gambling. I expect a liberal, who wants to see government control, to be in favor of banning gambling."

If you believe my post represented a tu quoque argument, then identify precisely what behavior I accuse the OP of preaching but not practicing.And yet again, a childlike, over simplistic view of both politics and verbal logic. The world is hardly stratified into only “conservatives” and “liberals," and logic is not as cut and dry as the golden calf you have made it out to be.

[sigh]

No one is impressed with your nonsense, and your thick-headedness in the face of multiple posters shoving your face in your obvious shit like a dog who refuses to learn his lesson is laughable.

I now wash my hands of this pissing contest, I would rather just watch you embarrass yourself.

[danceswithcats]

Speaking as a lifelong PA resident, Rep. Paul Clymer has consistently voted the nanny slate, and after 25 years of this horse's ass, he's one of many poster children for term limits.
(If the relevance seems absent-refer to post #10)

[Evil Captor]

No. There is a distinction which you apparently refuse to recognize as valid as between social ills and general governmental functions. A conservative may say the proper role of government is to enforce morality, but let the free market deal with other issues.

Why, specifically, do you say it's hypocrisy? Because you contend that there is no meaningful distinction between morality and other government functions; you believe the same set of rules should apply to each. But that's simply your own belief -- that's not a rule of nature. And rejecting that interpretation does not make someone a hypocrite.

Because any sincere attempt to enforce morality implies big government. Really big government. John Law is intrusive enough when he tries to keep us from taking drugs. If he tries to regulate our bedrooms, he's gonna have to have all sorts of powers, and all sorts of bureaucracies and so forth to make it possible for him to exercise them.

[Evil Captor]

Ah, an opportunity to trot out another overused SDMB cliche -- that happens, here, to be accurate. This is a strawman. Conservatives are NOT saying, "We are for minimal government in all things." That's YOUR construction.

Conservatives are saying, "We are for small government in the regulation of business, trusting the free market; we are for strong government regulation of morality."

No hypocrisy. Except in your version of their argument.

Translation: "We want to let Big Business rob you blind while curtailing any activities you might have that can be described as 'fun'." Why the fuck people EVER vote conservative, I will never understand, because Bricker is exactly right about conservative goals and my translation is spot on.

[Homebrew]

Translation: "We want to let Big Business rob you blind while curtailing any activities you might have that can be described as 'fun'." .
Like bondage.

[Bricker]

You are prevaricating on "conservative" and "the conservative movement". The movement as it may in fact be is not necessarily ad idem with "conservative" as a philosophy. The OP only used the former. You have switched in the latter because it suits your argument better.


Even if I did -- that's the fallacy of amphiboly, or possibly equivocation. Not tu quoque.

[Bricker]

No one is impressed with your nonsense, and your thick-headedness in the face of multiple posters shoving your face in your obvious shit like a dog who refuses to learn his lesson is laughable.


I happen to think many people here are impressed by my nonsense. Have you taken a survey? Is this the royal 'we' in operation here?


Ah, the danger of idiocy mixed with the internet. I might be impressed, but Since anyone can Google tu quoque, I am not. You would have had a shot if you had bothered reading one of them. You lament about people lacking high school debate skills, yet you clearly fall short of the mark yourself. It has sadly become the new internet cliché to spout of logical fallacies as though you are some sort of logic machine, yet what is lost in all of this self fellating is subtlety. Your obvious tu quoque (which was observed by others as well), was fueled by your hasty generalizations and straw men regarding the OP’s ‘attack’ on, let’s say, non-Democrats. Your response? “But the Democrats do it to!! I have a cite to prove it!!”

How, specifically, does the above show my use of tu quoque?

It's amazing for you to speak of subtlety in one breah, and completely disregard it in the next. It's arguable that I did say, in effect, "But the Democrats do it too!" But that alone does not constitute a tu quoque argument. Come, let us reason together, and you shall learn the error of your ways.

For example: let us say that some morons - or, better yet for teaching purposes, let us say you - advance the following argument:

Cast your vote for Democrats, the ethical party! Republicans are mired with scandal, and several prominent Republicans have been indicted!

In response to this, someone says: "Democratic politicians have also been indicted, and mired in scandal!"

Is that a tu quoque response?

(Hint: no)

Why?

[jsgoddess]

In North Carolina, it's the Democrats opposing gambling. Cite. (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784294896) Are these guys also douchebags and asswipes?

Yes, and if they're conservative, they're relevant to the OP.


In Texas, proposals to legalize video slot machines at racetracks and create other casino-style gambling opportunities in Texas are being blocked by.... Democrats. Cite. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/05/legislature/3110424.html) Please let me know how much you despise them.

Heaps. And if they're conservative, they're relevant to the OP.


Gambling in Maryland, favored by Republican Governor Robert Erlich, has been scuttled by opposition from Maryland Democrats. Cite. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.slots29apr29,1,7115010.story?coll=bal-local-utility) I know you will join me in condemning the Democrats for their asswipery and douchebagginess, and cheering the efforts of Republicans in this arena.

Sure! And if the Democrats are conservatives, they're relevant to the OP.


Right?

Absolutely! And since the OP specifically mentioned conservatives, and since it's possible for Democrats to be conservatives, then some of the Democrats you've mentioned are quite possibly guilty of the same hypocrisy as the legislator the OP mentions.

If they aren't, however, they're putzes and fucktards for different reasons, ones not relevant to the OP.

3. As I have made plain many times on these boards, I myself am a gambler. I certainly oppose any attempt to criminalize gambling. But I am willing to criticize members of both major political parties equally for their asshattery in this regard.

Funny, I don't see you criticizing the subject of the OP, just stomping your feet and yelling that Democrats do it, too.

[Malacandra]

You know what's funny? I actually opened up this thread expecting to see a big ol' shitstorm about gambling. :dubious:

[Bricker]

Funny, I don't see you criticizing the subject of the OP, just stomping your feet and yelling that Democrats do it, too.

I have posted in excess of fifty times on this board about my gambling, my feeling that gambling should be legal, and my disdain at criticism of gambling. Why should I keep typing that out over and over again? I've ALREADY criticized the subject of the OP. Multiple times. I've yelled and screamed about it. Why should I do it again?

[Bricker]

Yes, and if they're conservative, they're relevant to the OP.




Heaps. And if they're conservative, they're relevant to the OP.




Sure! And if the Democrats are conservatives, they're relevant to the OP.



Why is it that only conservatives are the subject of his ire?

[Opus1]

Why is it that only conservatives are the subject of his ire?

Well, I've made my position clear that I support legalized gambling. There are certain political positions that I would expect to agree with this position on principle. Those that ostensibly espouse those positions but are actually hypocrites receive my ire. Those that don't I merely disagree with, but see no reason to get angry at them.

If a prominent death penalty opponent suddenly makes an exception when her husband is killed, she's a hypocrite and should be pitted for it.

If a prominent death penalty proponent supports giving the death sentence to her husband's killer, then I see nothing pit-worthy, even if I personally oppose the death penalty.

Do you get it now, Bricker?

Finally, a reading comprehension test. When a newspaper article says that 100% of the Republican representatives in the state legislature are opposed to a lottery, and a handful of Democrats are, giving the "antis" just enough votes to block the bill, which of the following is a *more accurate* summary of the article:

1) Democrats block efforts to legalize lottery.
2) Republicans block efforts to legalize lottery.

Note that neither is 100% accurate. I'm just looking for the *more* accurate version.

[brickbacon]

Bricker, just let it go. You made a stupid argument, and you were called on it. Please stop arguing, you are embarrassing yourself.

[Bosstone]

Why is it that only conservatives are the subject of his ire?
As I tried to note before, it's because he perceived it as hypocritical, whereas it wouldn't be if the congressman held a more liberal philosophy. Making a case that conservative and liberal philosophies have changed in recent years would probably gain more ground than trying to say 'Stop picking on just Republicans!' Trying to insist that the OP must direct his ire to everyone instead of just one particular conservative (or conservatives) is trying to draw a false equivalency, because conservative and liberal philosophies are not the same.

I shouldn't even be getting back into this, as I have neither the time nor ability for a prolonged hash-out, but I see more reflexive retaliation in your responses to this thread than real arguments.

[Homebrew]

I have posted in excess of fifty times on this board about my gambling, my feeling that gambling should be legal, and my disdain at criticism of gambling. Why should I keep typing that out over and over again? I've ALREADY criticized the subject of the OP. Multiple times. I've yelled and screamed about it. Why should I do it again?You had options. You could have refrained from posting at all. Or you could have crafted a response that both joined with his denouncement of HIS OWN representative as well as brought up additional offenders. Had that been your purpose you could have brought up both Republicans and Democrats who seek to limit online gambling.

Instead you chose to respond in a way to criticize the OP for singling out HIS OWN representative by bringing up offenders in OTHER STATES who "just happened" to be Democrats. It is obvious that you bristled at the condemnation of a conservative (and a Republican) and you only sought to bring up Democrats to deflect attention rather than add to his criticism.

As it is, I agree that it's hypocritical of people who belive in personal freedoms to seek to limit online gambling, as well as other so-called vices. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians of any stripe who are really for increasing personal freedoms. Too many social conservatives want to legislate against the Seven Deadly Sins and too many "liberals" want to censor video games and other forms of entertainment.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

I think there's another source of confusion of the relationship 'conservatives' have with gambling.

Broad brush here, but conservatives tend to support economic freedoms (lower taxes, less regulation of business, etc.) more than liberals do. The opposite is be true for personal freedoms -- liberals are more likely to support drug legalization and abortion rights.

The freedom to gamble is sort of a hybrid liberty. It's economic in that it involves money, but it's certainly a personal freedom as well. For this reason, it's not clear to me that conservatives are unanimous as to how to treat it.

E.g., here in Maryland, the Republican governor (Ehrlich) favors slot machines. House Democrats oppose him. But some of their staunchest allies are religious Democrats, who can be quite conservative on social issues, but have weighed in against gambling.

Hence the disagreement in this thread about whether conservatives are being hypocrites when they oppose gambling.

FWIW, I believe that Democratic politicians in the Maryland House are partially motivated by simple knee-jerk partisanism.

[treis]

Whatever, if you truly believe that conservatives by and large don't claim to be for small government then so be it. Thats something I simply can't prove but thats certainly a platform the Republican party has run on. Certainly Senator Jon Kyl thinks he is for limited government:

I’ll continue to fight, as I always have, to limit federal spending and the size and scope of the federal government.

http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/budget.cfm

So, is he a hypocrite?

It seems you have overlooked this post Bricker.

[Evil Captor]

Like bondage.

Well, I wasn't gonna bring it up, but now that you mention it ... :D

[Bricker]

As it is, I agree that it's hypocritical of people who belive in personal freedoms to seek to limit online gambling, as well as other so-called vices. Unfortunately, I don't think there are many politicians of any stripe who are really for increasing personal freedoms. Too many social conservatives want to legislate against the Seven Deadly Sins and too many "liberals" want to censor video games and other forms of entertainment.

And THIS is a well-balanced and nuanced criticism -- with which I agree completely.

[Bricker]

It seems you have overlooked this post Bricker.

No. It's just that one line doesn't prove the entirety of the man's philosophy.

[treis]

No. It's just that one line doesn't prove the entirety of the man's philosophy.

No. Fucking. Shit.

This is becuase he is a hypocrite. He supports a large bureaucracy and increasing the scope of the Federal Government so long as it coincides with his interests and moral beliefs. Saying that he is for limiting the scope and size of the Federal government is contrary to his position on this issue and that makes him a hypocrite. Why you can't see this is beyond me.

[Bricker]

No. Fucking. Shit.

This is becuase he is a hypocrite. He supports a large bureaucracy and increasing the scope of the Federal Government so long as it coincides with his interests and moral beliefs. Saying that he is for limiting the scope and size of the Federal government is contrary to his position on this issue and that makes him a hypocrite. Why you can't see this is beyond me.

I'm for the freedom to walk down the street swinging my fists.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite if I announce I'm against people being punched in the nose.

My general philosophy: freedom to walk down the street swinging a fist - is modified by a more specific philosophy: not hitting people.

His general philosophy is small federal government. It is modified by a specific philosophy: government should enforce moral values.

Not hypocrisy.

[jsgoddess]

Why is it that only conservatives are the subject of his ire?

The conservative is the one he feels is guilty of the type of hypocrisy he's pitting in that section of the OP--his own, self-avowedly conservative legislator.

Later, he brings in NYC and applies no labels at all, yet you focused solely on the word "conservative" from the beginning of the OP and translated it into "Republican."




For my two cents, I expect pretty much every politician to be a hypocrite, especially when it comes to gambling. I find the "liberal" hypocrisy worse than the "conservatives'" because, frankly, I expect no better of the conservatives right now.

[treis]

I'm for the freedom to walk down the street swinging my fists.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite if I announce I'm against people being punched in the nose.

My general philosophy: freedom to walk down the street swinging a fist - is modified by a more specific philosophy: not hitting people.

His general philosophy is small federal government. It is modified by a specific philosophy: government should enforce moral values.

Not hypocrisy.

I don't understand this example at all. Having a specific philosophy that is contrary to your proclaimed general philosophy is the very definition of hypocrisy. You are proclaiming beliefs, feelings and virtues that you do not hold. Senator Kyl has proclaimed a belief in limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government. He clearly does not hold this belief becuase his specific beliefs in many areas under the umbrella of morality and government are anathema to that general proclamation ergo he holds hypocritical beliefs. While Mr. Kyl may be for limiting the scope of Federal Government in other areas the many beliefs he holds in enlarging the scope of the Federal Government in moral issues are sufficient to render his statement of limiting the Federal Government in general false.

[Weirddave]

Instead you chose to respond in a way to criticize the OP for singling out HIS OWN representative by bringing up offenders in OTHER STATES who "just happened" to be Democrats. It is obvious that you bristled at the condemnation of a conservative (and a Republican) and you only sought to bring up Democrats to deflect attention rather than add to his criticism.


See, I don't see this at all. In fact, I see the opposite: Bricker's first post in this thread, in it's entirety, went thus:

In North Carolina, it's the Democrats opposing gambling. Cite. Are these guys also douchebags and asswipes?

In Texas, proposals to legalize video slot machines at racetracks and create other casino-style gambling opportunities in Texas are being blocked by.... Democrats. Cite. Please let me know how much you despise them.

Gambling in Maryland, favored by Republican Governor Robert Erlich, has been scuttled by opposition from Maryland Democrats. Cite. I know you will join me in condemning the Democrats for their asswipery and douchebagginess, and cheering the efforts of Republicans in this arena.

Right?

Where is this criticism that you are referencing? It seems pretty clear that he is not trying to excuse what Senator Kyl is doing by claiming "oh, Democrats do it too" (the tu quoque accusation which has been pretty clearly rebuffed by this point), but rather asking the OP if his/her outrage is caused by the political persuasion of Senator Kyl (conservative, which is usually used interchangeably with "Republican" on the boards. Not always-but usually) or by his actions, in which case he lists several instances in which Democrats are doing similar things. If the outrage is at the action, then the OP should be quick to condemn them as well. If the outrage is at the Senator because he's a conservative, well then this entire thread is no more than more partisan glurge of the type that regularly clogs these boards. Now, the OP did in fact condemn the actions of those Democrats doing the same thing that Senator Kyl is doing, and kudos to him for doing so, but everyone else seems to be doing nothing more than making a partisan political attack on what they perceive (without any basis in fact, AFAICT) as a partisan political attack.

[Miller]

I don't understand this example at all. Having a specific philosophy that is contrary to your proclaimed general philosophy is the very definition of hypocrisy.

For reals? So, although I deplore physical violence and think that it is wrong to harm another human, the fact that I make an exception for self defense makes me a hypocrite?

I think you've confused "hypocrisy" with "nuanced."

[brownie55]

<snip>
There is no inherent hypocrisy in a conservative seeking to ban gambling, or adultery, or sex toys, while simultaneously preaching small government for general purposes. That's what they do. Libertarians will reliably select small government across the board.... not so conservatives.
In the text bolded above, why are these special classes of business? Why does the free market system espoused for other business not work for them?

[Bricker]

I don't understand this example at all. Having a specific philosophy that is contrary to your proclaimed general philosophy is the very definition of hypocrisy. You are proclaiming beliefs, feelings and virtues that you do not hold. Senator Kyl has proclaimed a belief in limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government. He clearly does not hold this belief becuase his specific beliefs in many areas under the umbrella of morality and government are anathema to that general proclamation ergo he holds hypocritical beliefs. While Mr. Kyl may be for limiting the scope of Federal Government in other areas the many beliefs he holds in enlarging the scope of the Federal Government in moral issues are sufficient to render his statement of limiting the Federal Government in general false.

I know you don't understand this example at all.

But it doesn't have anything to do with the example being false.

I'm against placing people in chains against their will. But I support the ability of the police to use handcuffs.

I'm against using sharp implements to cut open people and remove their organs. But I support the ability of cardiac surgeons to exercise their trade.

I'm agaiinst the GENERAL PRINCIPLE. But I support it under the following SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Can't get any simpler than that. You still don't understand it? Someone else will have to explain it to you.

[Bricker]

In the text bolded above, why are these special classes of business? Why does the free market system espoused for other business not work for them?

Now this is a good question. Is the distinction a meaningful, principled one?

A libertarian would say that the free market system should be sufficient for all cases.

This is where libertarians and conservatives part company. A conservative believes that the free market system has no particular moral compass, and that a pure free-market society will inevitably make the right purely business decisions, but because man is sinful, not the right moral decisions. So morality is a special case in which the free market system cannot be left to function alone. Why? Because the free market concerns itself entirely with market forces, not moral ones.

[Miller]

In the text bolded above, why are these special classes of business? Why does the free market system espoused for other business not work for them?

Because the free market system would allow these businesses to flourish, and to certain conservative mindsets, those businesses represent a social ill that needs to be stamped out. Supporting a free market does not mean thinking all products should be legal. Even the most ardent, libertarian free market proponent is not going to advocate the return of, say, the slave trade, or the legalization of contract killing. No one thinks that all conceivable industries should be allowed to operate freely. The difference is where one draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable trades.

[Bricker]

Because the free market system would allow these businesses to flourish, and to certain conservative mindsets, those businesses represent a social ill that needs to be stamped out. Supporting a free market does not mean thinking all products should be legal. Even the most ardent, libertarian free market proponent is not going to advocate the return of, say, the slave trade, or the legalization of contract killing. No one thinks that all conceivable industries should be allowed to operate freely. The difference is where one draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable trades.

The ardent libertarian would - I assume - absolutely welcome the slave trade, as long as the slaves are "created" voluntarily -- that is, by people selling themselves into slavery with full understanding of what they are doing. Contract killing would be impermissible because it constitutes the initiation of force against an unwilling victim.

[mhendo]

My esteemed Senator, John Kyl, is trying to introduce legislation to essentially ban on-line gambling by preventing any U.S. bank or credit card company from doing business with such sites.

<snip>

So I wake up Monday morning thinking that the outlook for on-line gambling is good, and that the morality police may be getting less brazen in their bullshit attempts to selectively enforce nonsensical 100 year old laws.

Then I see this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051121/ap_on_re_us/poker_clubs_losing_hand;_ylt=ArYfi.5R_LvDOWQVmy31TksDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl).

Sigh. New York police apparently have nothing better to do than shut down dozens of poker clubs that have been operating fairly openly for years. Another excellent use of taxpayer money to prosecute victimless crime and shove Puritanical morals down everyone else's throat.

Go fuck yourselves morality police, unless there's some 200 year old law against masturbation that you want to enforce as well.At the risk of actually addressing the OP, i'd just like to point out that these are really two separate issues.

Rag on politicians all you like about their gambling policies, but i don't think that the police in this case deserve the same level of opprobrium. The police are charged with enforcing the law, not writing it. If those poker clubs in New York are illegal, then it's rather pointless to slam the cops for shutting them down. Rather, direct your attention to the legislators who have the power to change the NY laws regarding gambling.

Also, the cops who raided the poker places were taking their orders from further up the chain of command, and the upper-level cops could well have been acting under pressure from politicians or district attorneys or even the press.

Now, i agree that the police sometimes selectively enforce these archaic laws, but in the end it's up to the people, through their elected representatives, to change the law.

[mhendo]

Even the most ardent, libertarian free market proponent is not going to advocate the return of, say, the slave trade, or the legalization of contract killing. That's true, but the libertarian opposition to those things would have little to do with free market economics. Libertarianism is about more than just economics, and in this case the opposition to slavery or contract killing would be based on issues of personal ownership, and the comcomitant belief that you have no right to usurp another person's property in him- or herself by enslaving or killing him or her.

[Sweet Mercury]

Can you not read?

I now wash my hands of this pissing contest, I would rather just watch you embarrass yourself.Had I stated the underlined portion in quatrain form, I could have been the next Nostradamus. Enjoy yourself.

[ElvisL1ves]

I'm agaiinst the GENERAL PRINCIPLE. But I support it under the following SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Can't get any simpler than that. You still don't understand it? Someone else will have to explain it to you.And you still don't acknowledge the problem with "I want government not to interfere with people's lives, just their morality"? :dubious:

[Miller]

That's true, but the libertarian opposition to those things would have little to do with free market economics. Libertarianism is about more than just economics, and in this case the opposition to slavery or contract killing would be based on issues of personal ownership, and the comcomitant belief that you have no right to usurp another person's property in him- or herself by enslaving or killing him or her.

Exactly my point: the free market is a component of libertarian thought, but is balanced with other factors, such as the principle of non-coercion. Conservative thought is also strongly free market, but is balanced with factors such as public morality and traditional values. To say that a conservative is being a hypocrite because he does not support a free market in every circumstance is a straw man. The free market is an important part of conservatism, but it is not an over-riding consideration in all decisions.

Which is not to say that there isn't a huge element of hypocrisy in a lot of conservative moralizing, only that it is not a necessary element in conservative moralizing.

And yes, Bricker, the same can be said of the left, as well.

[Weirddave]

Can you not read?

Had I stated the underlined portion in quatrain form, I could have been the next Nostradamus. Enjoy yourself.
An inarticulate blowhard whose "prophecies" are about as accurate as a $2 watch? I couldn't agree more. Based upon your earlier post, this is indeed an apt description of you.

[Weirddave]

And you still don't acknowledge the problem with "I want government not to interfere with people's lives, just their morality"? :dubious:
Well, see, you have a problem with it, and *I* have a problem with that (hey, here's a big clue as to why I am not a Republican, despite my conservative/libertarian leanings on many issues), but many people believe that interfering with peoples morality (or defining it) is a legitimate function of government. That's not to say either side is wrong necessarily(although naturally I think they are), it just recognizes that it is a legitimate subject for debate.

[Contrapuntal]

In North Carolina, it's the Democrats opposing gambling. Cite. (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784294896) Are these guys also douchebags and asswipes?Most politicians of any notable rank are douchebags and asswipes. However, you have seriously mischaracterized the situation in NC regarding the lottery, by claiming that "it is the Democrats opposing gambling." Five hardly counts as "the Democrats." In fact, the Democrats pulled a sneaky pete and passed the lottery. It seems that the matter appeared deadlocked, causing Senate Leader Marc Basnight to declare the matter closed for the year. After a couple of Republicans left town for the weekend ... Oops! Just kidding! (http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050830/NEWSREC0101/50830013/1001/NEWSREC0201) Your cite, dear fellow, is shite.

[Homebrew]

Most politicians of any notable rank are douchebags and asswipes. However, you have seriously mischaracterized the situation in NC regarding the lottery, by claiming that "it is the Democrats opposing gambling." Five hardly counts as "the Democrats." In fact, the Democrats pulled a sneaky pete and passed the lottery. It seems that the matter appeared deadlocked, causing Senate Leader Marc Basnight to declare the matter closed for the year. After a couple of Republicans left town for the weekend ... Oops! Just kidding! (http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050830/NEWSREC0101/50830013/1001/NEWSREC0201) Your cite, dear fellow, is shite.
Wow, Bricker. Either you were too hasty with your generalization that it was "The Democrats" or you were outright lying.

[Bricker]

Most politicians of any notable rank are douchebags and asswipes. However, you have seriously mischaracterized the situation in NC regarding the lottery, by claiming that "it is the Democrats opposing gambling." Five hardly counts as "the Democrats." In fact, the Democrats pulled a sneaky pete and passed the lottery. It seems that the matter appeared deadlocked, causing Senate Leader Marc Basnight to declare the matter closed for the year. After a couple of Republicans left town for the weekend ... Oops! Just kidding! (http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050830/NEWSREC0101/50830013/1001/NEWSREC0201) Your cite, dear fellow, is shite.

Whoops.

Well, I must admit I was hasty with that characterization. I found it after a quick search, and didn't look into it thoroughly. So I withdraw it, and concede that the shitheels obstructing things in NC were Republicans.

But that doesn't alter my point.... just that particular exemplar of my point.

[Bricker]

Can you not read?

Had I stated the underlined portion in quatrain form, I could have been the next Nostradamus. Enjoy yourself.

Sure, I can read.

And yet here you are, continuing to post. So I'd say your hand-washing has been remarkably ineffective.

Much like your handwaving.

[brownie55]

Whoops.

Well, I must admit I was hasty with that characterization. I found it after a quick search, and didn't look into it thoroughly. So I withdraw it, and concede that the shitheels obstructing things in NC were Republicans.

But that doesn't alter my point.... just that particular exemplar of my point.
Bricker, I think you are one of the more honest supporters of the conservative cause around here, and the above "Whoops" supports that. However, when I read the OP, my first thought was to wonder when you would be in to list some Dems obstructing gambling. Man, you did me proud, the second post.

I appreciate your reasoned response to my earlier questions regarding certain types of busness and the lack of a moral compass in a free market. Are you saying that it is OK to regulate the sale of sex toys, but not push for higher fuel efficiency? Because I see them both as negatives, but you seem OK with one and not the other. Yeah, I probably just built a nice straw man. Be gentle with him, OK? It's not his fault.

[Sweet Mercury]

An inarticulate blowhard whose "prophecies" are about as accurate as a $2 watch? I couldn't agree more. Based upon your earlier post, this is indeed an apt description of you.Exactly who are you, and what bridge did you crawl out from under?

I suppose it might require work to put your money where your mouth is, and explain exactly what was innacurate about my previous post? I shouldn't expect much from someone who cheerleads the "debate" efforts of fool who can't even properly define the meaning of a tu quoque fallacy and ignores various citations provided when they displease him.

The only people who appreciate a sycophant are people worthless enough to be themselves easily swayed by flattery. Unless you have something more than bullshit to offer, don't waste my time.

[Weirddave]

Exactly who are you, and what bridge did you crawl out from under?

I suppose it might require work to put your money where your mouth is, and explain exactly what was innacurate about my previous post? I shouldn't expect much from someone who cheerleads the "debate" efforts of fool who can't even properly define the meaning of a tu quoque fallacy and ignores various citations provided when they displease him.

The only people who appreciate a sycophant are people worthless enough to be themselves easily swayed by flattery. Unless you have something more than bullshit to offer, don't waste my time.
Me? I'm nobody, who are you?(That's Emily Dickinson, I wouldn't expect you to get the reference)

I'm no sycophant of Bricker's, in fact, I don't believe that he particularly likes me, but your pathetic attempts to define this argument as a tu quoque fallacy even after it has clearly been demonstrated that it is not merely reveal your own idiocy. Try doing what you are so ready to accuse others of and actually read what the definition of a tu quoque fallacy is. Bricker never tried to excuse the Senator's actions by saying that the other side did it too. Learn to read you fucking moron.

[Sweet Mercury]

Me? I'm nobody, who are you?(That's Emily Dickinson, I wouldn't expect you to get the reference)

I'm no sycophant of Bricker's, in fact, I don't believe that he particularly likes me, but your pathetic attempts to define this argument as a tu quoque fallacy even after it has clearly been demonstrated that it is not merely reveal your own idiocy. Try doing what you are so ready to accuse others of and actually read what the definition of a tu quoque fallacy is. Bricker never tried to excuse the Senator's actions by saying that the other side did it too. Learn to read you fucking moron.I didn't accuse him of tu quoque originally, just introducing bullshit partisanship into the equation where it didn't belong.

Secondly, his entire first post of saying, "What about the Democrats? They do it too! See?" isn't him saying that the other side did it too? I suppose that tu quoque is no longer latin for "You, also" as well? Your argument might be worth its weightom shit if Bricker had actually defined the fallacy correctly, as you seem to have chanced upon.

Seriously, if your going to be sucking this guy's dick so passionately, at least read through the thread so you don't catch some sort of sexually transmited stupidity.

[Princhester]

Even if I did -- that's the fallacy of amphiboly, or possibly equivocation. Not tu quoque.

Snort. I said you were prevaricating. You say that you were possibly committing the fallacy of amphiboly or equivocation (which is pretty much the same thing) but say in your "defence" that you did not commit the fallacy of tu quoque, a fallacy I never mentioned or suggested you were committing.

But anyway, on to a more substantive point

[Bricker]

I appreciate your reasoned response to my earlier questions regarding certain types of busness and the lack of a moral compass in a free market. Are you saying that it is OK to regulate the sale of sex toys, but not push for higher fuel efficiency? Because I see them both as negatives, but you seem OK with one and not the other. Yeah, I probably just built a nice straw man. Be gentle with him, OK? It's not his fault.

I'm not saying i t's OK. I'm saying neither represents hypocriscy. I personally don't believe onerous regulations in either area are wise public policy. But those that do are simply in error, not hypocrites.

[Bricker]

I'm no sycophant of Bricker's, in fact, I don't believe that he particularly likes me...

I like you just fine. Would I have risked $20 otherwise? :)

[Bricker]

I didn't accuse him of tu quoque originally, just introducing bullshit partisanship into the equation where it didn't belong.

Secondly, his entire first post of saying, "What about the Democrats? They do it too! See?" isn't him saying that the other side did it too? I suppose that tu quoque is no longer latin for "You, also" as well? Your argument might be worth its weightom shit if Bricker had actually defined the fallacy correctly, as you seem to have chanced upon.

Seriously, if your going to be sucking this guy's dick so passionately, at least read through the thread so you don't catch some sort of sexually transmited stupidity.

Yes, yes, I can see how my reading skills deserve to have been criticized, given your on-going passionate commitment to stepping back and washing your hands of this.

:rolleyes:

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I'm a little confused as to why the federal government even bothers about online gambling. They have no problem with states allowing various forms of gambling, and the lion's share of states do. It used to be that you had to go to Nevada or New Jersey to find a casino but that's hardly the case any more. And that's not to mention other forms of state-sanctioned gambling like horse racing and lotteries.

All in all it seems pointless.

[Grits and Hard Toast]

I'm a little confused as to why the federal government even bothers about online gambling. They have no problem with states allowing various forms of gambling, and the lion's share of states do. It used to be that you had to go to Nevada or New Jersey to find a casino but that's hardly the case any more. And that's not to mention other forms of state-sanctioned gambling like horse racing and lotteries.

All in all it seems pointless.

The main point of the segment on 60 minutes was that the federal government doesn't bother about online gambling. It is illegal, but no one enforces the laws. The show did not make it clear to me whether it doesn't bother because it has more important things to worry about, or because it can't do anything about it anyway. But the show left me with the impression nothing was going to be done about it any time soon, so the whole show seemed pointless to me.

Another thing the show did not make clear was what forms of online gambling are illegal, and which are legal. They implied that ALL online gambling was illegal. But if that is the case, why would a gambling site withhold taxes for the federal government and report winnings above a certain level to the IRS? There must some exceptions to the online gambling laws, but the show didn't say anything about those. Does anyone here know what the actual rules are?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

The main point of the segment on 60 minutes was that the federal government doesn't bother about online gambling. It is illegal, but no one enforces the laws.

No, I meant, why did they even bother to pass the federal law? For instance, wrt the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) I disagree with the whole idea of drug prohibition, but these drugs were already strictly controlled separately by the laws of each individual state, so I can understand how the CSA was the result of a perceived urgent national need. Gambling's different in that it's been legal in Nevada for time out of mind, and the Feds never saw the need to crack down on it--and now it's legal in one form or another, in certain places at least, in nearly every State.