The so-called betting or gambling or whatever is just an attempt to add a stake to the analysis. I am no longer surprised when people mistake analysis for advocacy because of interactions on sites like this.
I can see where one wouldn’t like second order effects from serious analysis that includes odds as it can be a psychological benefit or detriment to various factions.
Sure that’s definitely something that to me is implicit when you bet on something. It’s inherent in gambling, the idea that putting a stake—even just a psychological stake—one side or another is okay, because what matters is whether you win the bet.
That’s why I don’t see the same kind of problem with betting in sporting events, because it fundamentally doesn’t matter who wins the outcome of a sporting event. It truly doesn’t matter in a fundamental way to the world or society.
I think you’re ignore the whole “That’s one bet I’d love to lose” aspect of it. Some people have said “Trump is likely to run in 2024 and win.” They are praying they are wrong, but that’s what they think will happen.
Nobody cares more about being right on a obscure and anonymous web thread than they care about the future of democracy.
Do you really honestly see saying that a contest predicting election results is on the same axis as betting which neighbor gets sent to a concentration camp as doing that?
Godwinizing is not always poor form but starting off a discussion explicitly JAQing followed by that? It’s a as good as a sign flashing “Troll Bridge Ahead”
Maybe that’s your reaction once you make a wager (especially one of no value), and sad for you if so.
For me on these little to no value “bets” - I’ll tend to bet a bit against what I want to happen: “hope for the best expect the worst”. But I prefer to have as decent of a handle on reality as I can manage.
That’s one reason why I don’t care for fantasy football much. I’ve done it a few times, but it can be conflicting when my favorite team is going up against a QB that I’ve started on my fantasy roster. I’m betting against my own team in that case. (And sometimes there is real money on the line, where people chip in $50 or whatever to start out and then at the end they win a portion of the total pool of money based on how their “team” did. Actual gambling there.)
All that being said, it doesn’t bother me when other people do it. I see nothing morally repugnant about it. Nor do I see a problem with something similar when predicting political outcomes.
Someone can predict that a MAGA nutjob will win a race in Arizona without actually hoping they’re right.
This is it exactly. So many times in my life have I predicted something bad and said quite fervently that I hope I’m wrong. And I really mean it. There are times when you absolutely want to be wrong.
This thread is turning into an “OP doesn’t understand humans” discussion.
The only typo I see is “e” and that was specifically because, to the best of my knowledge, Acsenray uses that pronoun instead of he or she.
It’s hard to dig up a cite because of the hidden profile, though.
ETA: Okay, I see now. Should have written “games” instead of “a game”. Sorry.
~Max
The main point of the post of mine that you are quoting is that your post is dumb. Since you chose to ignore that address something else I am forced to assume that you agree with my assessment.
Forced.
You choose to assume. I don’t think my post was that dumb, at least no dumber than the conversation it appeared in… the one you were having with Acsenray.
~Max
You invented a ‘direct participant’ criterion which appeared nowhere in the other dumbass’s definition of gambling.
Then you somehow misapplied your own invention.
Then to cap it off you said a youth baseball tournament doesn’t count as games.
When I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assumed you meant to type, “[A]nd thus don’t count as gambling,” which would almost make sense, but you just confirmed that you meant a collection of baseball games do not count as games. That’s certified brain genius stuff right there.
But all of that is beside the point. The goofball who pitted a thread he didn’t read gave some criteria which he believes define gambling. I replied that by those criteria there are lots of things that are obviously not gambling, that would be categorized as gambling.
Then you came along with some version of, “If things were different, things would be different,” and somehow fucked that up which is pretty impressive since it’s a tautology.
You should now.
I really wish this thread was about the Death Pool. It would be a lot more interesting if it were.
Or at least understandable.
That is the most remarkable thing I’ve seen on this board for a long time.
I’m still reading, hoping to find out if the kid gets starved or beaten. Big money riding on this.
It’s not NOT about the death pool. Anyone who wants to can talk about the death pool. My comments and opinions are equally applicable to it. I chose to mention one example that caught my eye. It wasn’t meant to define the entire topic.
Nvmd.
Recall I never criticized predicting or discussing a topic. Only constructing a game in the form of gambling. My comments have always been narrowly directed at that specific set of conditions.
Asked, and answered many times.
You don’t like them, you don’t participate in them or read them. Period, end of story. The question is not whether your panties should be in a twist about this, it is whether anyone else should care.
I’m not forcing anyone to care. No one has to comment in this thread or even read it.
You literally don’t even know what gambling is. You have a self-invented definition of it. Somehow people can gamble if they aren’t wagering anything and not risking anything.
It’s like complaining about someone feeding dog food to their cat and you show a picture of a dog. And when people point out that it’s a dog, you insist that dogs have floppy ears and this animal has pointy ears so it’s a cat. It’s cartoonishly ignorant. It’s impossible to have a discussion, and you deserve all of the ridicule you’re receiving.