Is Gambling Destructive to Society?

[Homebrew]

Overlooking the shared animosity between you two, I think it’s not quite fair to claim that ElvisL1ves lied. His interpretation of your comments are a reasonable inference of your position. You said legal prostitution is not a social ill while illegal is without any (later added) qualifications. That certainly seems to position legality as the distinction between them. You may reasonably object to that interpretation; but calling it a lie is not accurate.

[Bricker]

@Homebrew

Overlooking the shared animosity between you two, I think it’s not quite fair to claim that ElvisL1ves lied. His interpretation of your comments are a reasonable inference of your position. You said legal prostitution is not a social ill while illegal is without any (later added) qualifications. That certainly seems to position legality as the distinction between them. You may reasonably object to that interpretation; but calling it a lie is not accurate.

His line: Bricker, interesting that you’re claiming that an activity only becomes a social ill if it is outlawed.

Here is why I do not believe it was a reasonable inference:

1. I spoke specifically of prostitution. He expanded my claim to encompass activities in general.

2. He reversed the premise and conclusion parts of my statement. That’s the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I said that legal prostitution is not a social ill. From that, it doesn’t follow that I said the only way to get to the state of social ill is by outlawing it. Note the word “only” in his quote.

His original misquote could well ahve been a mistake, not a lie. People make mistakes all the time. But when I called him on it, he didn’t clarify his meaning. He didn’t correct the error. He stuck to it. This suggests that he deliberately misquoted me. If he had made a mistake, and been notified of it, he would have corrected it. He didn’t.

He lied.

That’s what a lie is, Homebrew. I would certainly be willing to excuse the first post as a mistake, but the subsequent refusal to modify or withdraw proves that that the first post was exactly what he meant to say, and that it was a lie.

[begbert2]

@Bricker

If he had made a mistake, and been notified of it, he would have corrected it. He didn’t.

He lied.

That’s what a lie is, Homebrew. I would certainly be willing to excuse the first post as a mistake, but the subsequent refusal to modify or withdraw proves that that the first post was exactly what he meant to say, and that it was a lie.

Actually a lie is a statement that states false information, or, if you’re not a sea lawyer or politician, it’s a statement that was meant from the outset to convey inaccurate information. As entertaining as it is to defend onesself on technicalities, Joe Average will assess a person by what they seemed to say, not necessarily what they actually said.

As to the (frequent) accusations of ‘liar!’, you don’t have adequate evidence to prove that accusation, I’m afraid. The fact that it is one possible explanation for the series of statements Homebrew made does not at all imply that that is the actual reason he made them. He may believe that your initial statements strongly implied the position that he then stated specifically, and then when he stated your apparent position, he may have believed that you were backtracking from a “stated” position on mere technicalities in order to get away with “saying” things without being held accountable for your own statements.

Which is not to say that that’s what you were thinking, or what he was thinking. I don’t know what he was thinking, and neither do you. So you might consider reigning in these unsupportable (and inflammatory) accusations of yours.

After all, you’re hijacking the heck out of your own thread!

[begbert2]

Aw, crud, I mistakenly put in Homebrew’s name where I meant ElvisL1ves Sorry about that, all.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@begbert2

After all, you’re hijacking the heck out of your own thread!

You got that part right! I’ve never seen such blatant hijacking from the OP by the OP… maybe I just haven’t been around here long enough tho.

[spingears]

@Fiveyearlurker

And, are you counting the state runs lotteries as gambling?

Are you saying that they are NOT gambling?
All such games of chance are gambling? What else would you call them and be accurate.
They take money from the players, return a percentage (usually less that 50%) and pay the salaries and overhead of the sponsoring organization.
Participants pay to play in the hope that they will be the ONE to win.
It is a suckers game.

[msmith537]

@Hyperelastic

I still don’t see it. If Jim loses $100 at a casino, $50 of it goes to salaries for the casino workers, $20 of it goes to taxes, $20 of it goes to the casino’s overhead, and $10 goes to profit, or something like that. There’s still $100 in the economy, it’s just in different people’s hands. Nothing was created.

Nevertheless, when we measure the size of an economy, we include the value of the services as well.

In your model, the casino created “entertainment”. Like all services, these non-tangible goods must be consumed at the point of production. Think of it like the casino constantly manufactured “widgets” that could only be used once and spoil instantaneously if not used.

[msmith537]

From Wikipedia entry on “wealth”

Wealth is created through several means.

*Natural resources can be harvested and sold to those who want them.
*Material can be changed into something more valuable through proper application of knowledge, skill, labor and equipment.
***Better/smarter production methods also create additional wealth by allowing faster creation of wealth. **
***Ideas create additional wealth by allowing it to be created faster or with new methods. **

For example, consider our early ancestors. Building a house from trees created something of greater value for the builder. Hunting and firewood created food and fed a growing family. Agriculture converted labor into more food and resources. Continuing use of resources and effort has allowed many descendants to own much more than that first house.

This is still true today. It is more obvious to those working with physical material than to a service worker or knowledge worker. A cubicle worker may not be aware in how many ways their work is creating something which is of more value to their employer than the amount that employer paid to produce it. This profit creates wealth for the owners of the organization. The process also provides income for employees, and suppliers, and it makes the continued existence of the organization possible.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

You can quote Wikipedia at me all day long, but I live and work in Las Vegas and I can tell you: we don’t create wealth, we take it from people. Everything we do is designed to seperate you from your money. Period. We don’t build these places because people win.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

His line: Bricker, interesting that you’re claiming that an activity only becomes a social ill if it is outlawed.

Here is why I do not believe it was a reasonable inference:

1. I spoke specifically of prostitution. He expanded my claim to encompass activities in general.

2. He reversed the premise and conclusion parts of my statement. That’s the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I said that legal prostitution is not a social ill. From that, it doesn’t follow that I said the only way to get to the state of social ill is by outlawing it. Note the word “only” in his quote.

But that’s actually correct: If the elements of set A don’t have property B, then something has property B only if it’s in the complement of A.

So if acts of legal prostitution do not have the property of being a social ill, then acts of prostitution can only have the property of being a social ill if they are illegal.

Elvis’ expansion from prostitution to the wider world of vices is another matter. But at least as far as prostitution is concerned, I think he’s right and you’re wrong - and the ‘only’ is essential to that.

[RTFirefly]

Monkeys gamble even when the odds suck

When given a choice between steady rewards and the chance for more, monkeys will gamble, a new study found.

And they’ll keep taking risks as the stakes rise and dry spells get longer.

<snip>

The male rhesus macaque monkeys were shown either of two lights on a screen. Looking at a “safe” light yielded the same fruit juice reward each time. Looking at the “risky” light meant a larger or smaller juice reward. In the first test, the average reward was the same over time regardless of which light they chose.

The monkeys overwhelmingly preferred to gamble, even when the game was changed so that gambling yielded less juice over time.

“There was no rational reason why monkeys might prefer one of these options over the other because, according to the theory of expected value, they’re identical,” said Duke University Medical Center neurobiologist Michael Platt.

Change the odds

Okay fine. So let’s change the odds. In test two, the researchers made the average payoff for the risky target less than for the safe target.

“We found that they still preferred the risky target,” Platt said. “Basically these monkeys really liked to gamble.”

Platt and his colleague, Allison McCoy, fiddled with the odds even more, forcing a string of losses. But something kept the monkeys going, they reported in the Aug. 14 issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience.

“It seemed very, very similar to the experience of people who are compulsive gamblers,” Platt points out. “While it’s always dangerous to anthropomorphize, it seemed as if these monkeys got a high out of getting a big reward that obliterated any memory of all the losses that they would experience following that big reward.”

[msmith537]

@Snowboarder Bo

You can quote Wikipedia at me all day long, but I live and work in Las Vegas and I can tell you: we don’t create wealth, we take it from people. Everything we do is designed to seperate you from your money. Period. We don’t build these places because people win.

Do you work there as an economist?

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

So if acts of legal prostitution do not have the property of being a social ill, then acts of prostitution can only have the property of being a social ill if they are illegal.

But it’s not true that acts of prostitution MUST have the property of being a social ill if they are illegal.

Bricker, interesting that you’re claiming that an activity only becomes a social ill if it is outlawed.

If he had said, “Bricker, interesting that you’re claiming that an activity CAN only BECOME a social ill if it is outlawed,” then he’d have a leg - a damn shaky leg, but a leg - to stand on. As it is, he does not. As I said, I make room for the possibility that his post was hastily written, and inadvertantly misquoted me. But his subsequent refusal to retract and clarify proves that this wasn’t so.

[ElvisL1ves]

You could save yourself a whole lot of trouble, not to mention embarrassment, by simply stating in *your * own words what principle *you * claim drives your *own * statement. It does not appear that you know what it is or, perhaps, are willing to state it publicly. That little problem is not hidden by your pouting over others’ having the nerve to question you about it.

It’s the OP’s prerogative to trainwreck his own thread if he chooses to do so, of course, and you’re doing a damn fine job of that so far.

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

You could save yourself a whole lot of trouble, not to mention embarrassment, by simply stating in *your * own words what principle *you * claim drives your *own * statement. It does not appear that you know what it is or, perhaps, are willing to state it publicly. That little problem is not hidden by your pouting over others’ having the nerve to question you about it.

It’s the OP’s prerogative to trainwreck his own thread if he chooses to do so, of course, and you’re doing a damn fine job of that so far.

In the specific case of prostitution, the attendant social ills are mitigated by the controls that may be enforced by a regulated industry. Medical checkups, a non-coercive working environment, physical safety and protection for the workers… all of those are fruits of regulation.

I do not, nor have I ever, made any argument generalizing those to any issue. My comment was about prostitution specifically.

That’s the principle that drives my statement.

Persons who are interested in debating that proposition have done so. Persons who are interestred in twistng my words by misrepresenting what I’ve said are… well, are only you, so far.

[Siege]

The thing is, there’s more to gambling than just Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Football season’s starting up and most of the offices I’ve worked in in my current city have a weekly office pool. This is pure luck – you pick as many squares as you’re willing to pay for out of 100 and the numbers for the last digits of the two teams scores are assigned after all the squares have been taken. I’ve participated in them, although I draw the line at $20 a square Super Bowl pools, and enjoyed them. There’s a certain comic distress in wondering whether to root for your beloved home team to win or your numbers to win. It enhances the game a bit for me.

My current state has a couple of daily number games and several other lotteries. When they introduced the daily number, I sniffed and turned my nose up at it because it paid 500-1 on a 1,000-1 shot, and I wanted the odds to be a bit less blatantly in favor of the house, but I’ve been known to buy a lottery ticket once in a while.

My home city’s heavily Catholic. While I don’t play bingo myself, I’m pretty sure I’d have no problem finding a game if I wanted to and there are schools out in the country around here who’ve played cow-patty bingo as a fund raiser.

I lived in Hawaii for several years, where the government is so dead set against gambling they don’t even run a state lottery. That didn’t stop a notoriously stupid friend of mine from going into debt gambling. He made the classic stupid gambler’s mistake – when he started losing money, he bet more to make up his losses. My boyfriend, his best friend, participated in the same games (I think they were football pools), and didn’t go into debt. I don’t know if he broke even or not; I do know he considered the money he spent on gambling the equivalent of the money he spent on video games and did so on the theory that the money he spent paid for the entertainment he derived from it.

I have met people who tell me that, because I occaisionally have an alcoholic drink, I am an incipient alcoholic and that no one can drink alcohol safely. These people have all, I think, been recovering alcoholics. I beg to differ. If I were going to become an alcholic, believe me, I would have by now. I’ve had the opportunity and the excuses.

So it is with gambling. The weekend’s coming up and, while I’m still working on my plans, no doubt it’ll involve spending some money on entertainment. For that matter, money I spend on wool for knitting or books for reading is money spent on entertainment. Right now, I’m a little flusher than usual, thanks to a recent inheritance. The money I spend will be within my means and appropriate to my wants. For example, some of that inheritance money’s going towards a vacation. It’ll be a weekend in Niagara Falls, not a week in Paris because that’s what suits my budget. Is dropping a few bucks at Casino Niagara really worse than dropping a few at Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum? How about a few at the Shaw Festival or on a bottle of Canadian wine to bring home to Mum? Actually, as far as the law is concerned, that last one is worst. You see, you’re not allowed to bring alcohol into my home state.

No doubt I have my addictions – I’m concerned this message board might be one of them – but I don’t see gambling as inherently bad for society, although I admit it is bad for some individuals.

CJ

[Shodan]

@ElvisL1ves

You could save yourself a whole lot of trouble, not to mention embarrassment, by simply stating in *your * own words what principle *you * claim drives your *own * statement. It does not appear that you know what it is or, perhaps, are willing to state it publicly. That little problem is not hidden by your pouting over others’ having the nerve to question you about it.

So you are admitting that you lied?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I do not, nor have I ever, made any argument generalizing those to any issue. My comment was about prostitution specifically.

You’ve stated that several times even though once was enough, but you still refuse to answer the question, even though someone of your articulateness doubtless understands it: Is there or is there not a general principle about “social ills” that you recognize? If there is, how is prostitution different from gambling? If there is no general principle by which those two can be distinguished, why are you distinguishing it?

There has been no misquoting on anyone’s part, no matter how fondly you may wish it to be the case, but there is considerable evasiveness on *your * part.

Clear now? Or do you wish to continue your silly trainwreck, one which one other Usual Suspect has now joined? No apology is expected from you, but one would be welcomed anyway.
[/QUOTE]

[Shodan]

I’ll take that as a Yes.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

Thanks. I must admit I didn’t expect you to apologize and admit that you lied. I do appreciate the fact that you have admitted deliberately misquoting me. [sup]1[/sup] When the chips were down, you had class. Well done.

@ElvisL1ves

Is there or is there not a general principle about “social ills” that you recognize? If there is, how is prostitution different from gambling? If there is no general principle by which those two can be distinguished, why are you distinguishing it?

I don’t believe there is a reliable general principle with respect to social ills and legality. I would expect to see some correlation between criminal acts and acts that are recognized as social ills, but there are undoubtedly social ills that are legal, and legal acts that are social ills. At best, the issue of legality may create rebuttable presumption of social soundness. Even that is not a conclusion I’m comfortable with, though… so, in short: no.
[sup]1[/sup] If he’s gonna do it, I’m gonna do it. Naturally, there has been no such admission.