> Why do Dopers start contests regarding grave matters?
Argh, I just got this now! “Grave matters”! Get it? LOL
No, it’s not. It’s an example of a possible subject of gambling.
I did not criticize making predictions. I did not criticize discussion. My OP was very specifically target at games, specifically a type of gambling.
You are a sick, twisted individual who almost made me snort coffee out my nose. 
As I said before, my OP does not exclude death pools. That is just not the example I chose. You may certainly include death pools in this conversation if you like. It’s just another example of the phenomenon.
But you are presenting the two possibilities as mutually exclusive. Little Mikey gets starved or beaten.
I say, why not both?
I wager 400 quatloos on the newcomer!
Nope.
Oh, I see the problem here:
Read as:
Would you gamble on whether the neglected child next door is going to be (starved or beaten)?
Not:
Would you gamble on whether the neglected child next door is going to be (starved) or (beaten)?
In any case, this particular matter of parsing is not relevant to the actual discussion.
Would you gamble on whether the neglected child next door is going to be starved or beaten?
Nope?
But I wanna put money on Mikey being starved and beaten.
Nope, as in “no, I did not present two mutually exclusive outcomes.”
In English, or can be inclusive of and, unless exclusivity is specified, such as in mathematics.
One book in my top 3 books is Joseph Heller’s Catch 22. It finds witty humor in war and death and other morbid stuff. To me, its a book that makes you think and reflect on your own biases.
Milo Minderbinder in that book specializes in betting / gambling / entrepreneurship, and is probably one of the funniest characters.
OK, but what kind of odds are you offering?
And why are we limiting this to English?
I actually find this to be an interesting question and it reminds me of an Atlantic Monthly article I read in '97 (A Grief Like No Other - The Atlantic) about the organization “Parents of Murdered Children” that I still think about from time to time. Much of the article talks about the popularity of murder as entertainment. One passage in particular always keeps me thinking:
“The popularity of murder games and murder-mystery weekends infuriates Nancy Ruhe-Munch. She cannot view them as innocent amusements. “Can you imagine having a child-abuse game?” she asks. “Can you imagine having a rape mystery game?””
Sometimes making light of a grave situation is the only way to cope with it. The world’s a mess, and it doesn’t help anything to take it too seriously.
I’ve long thought about starting a thread for the over/under on toddlers shot by unsecured guns this year, and it’s been much more laziness than any sort of moral dilemma as to why I haven’t.
Can you imagine a limited series based upon the actions of a serial killer being very popular?
My GF and I watch a lot of very calm shows about people in other countries cooking food in old customary ways, mostly outdoors. Very relaxing. Then we binge watched Dahmer, another type of cooking show. Not so relaxing!
You don’t need to gamble on an outcome in order to engage in gallows humor. The two things are very distinct in my mind.
But baby needs a new pair of shoes!
Well this is the thing. Though the Atlantic article makes me think and ponder, I’ve been as big a fan of “Criminal Minds” and various “CSIs” as the next person (and my wife and I are watching “Shetland” on Britbox, which is really good btw).