Myth About People In Jail for MarijuanaPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/11/2013 12:51:09 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 2/11/2013 10:43:40 AM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/11/2013 8:14:46 AM, GWL-CPA wrote:
They are bad for society and mainly destroy the poor and lower middle class who can afford it the least.

In other words...it's a potentially addictive behavior that is only bad when one who has poor self-control becomes enthralled with it. Which can be said about...pretty much everything in life.

No, that is not what I said.

No, you didn't say it exactly, but I'm not seeing where else you are going with this. What makes it "bad", other than it has the potential to become an addiction?

And, there are plenty of things in life that are not addictive, although anything can become addictive to someone who suffers from an addictive personality.

...exactly. So how then can you say there are things which are not "addictive"? All addiction is is becoming enthralled with something to an extreme. As anyone can find pleasure in anything, anything has the potential to become an addiction to someone.

So I'm still not seeing why that is, alone, grounds to call something "immoral". I mean, EATING can be an addiction. Should EATING be considered immoral?

Reading books is an enjoyable past time and can be a learning experience; I hope more people become addicted to that lost pastime.

So then what makes gambling "bad", if not the addiction part? It would sem to me you're just picking and choosing what you'll call "immoral" or not, based on personal taste.

It would appear that you are not well read with the problem of gambling in our society or the history of gambling and why it was outlawed almost everywhere after the Wild West was tamed.

Why, because I disagree, I must not be well-informed? Charming.

Here is a fact, in all Casino games the house has the advantage, which means you will lose all your money eventually.

Yes.

And the problem?

In Blackjack, if you count cards, which is illegal and the casino can throw you out of the casino and ban you, you can have a slight percentage age over the house; but, most casinos have gone to 5 decks or more and reshuffle frequently, which makes card counting almost impossible. Poker is played against other opponents and not the house, but the casinos get a rake off every hand (% of the pot or fixed amount of each pot) and even professional poker players have a difficult maintaining a winning hourly rate, despite all the hype you see on TV and in magazine. Sure, there are maybe 1% who will show a lifetime positive ROI " Return on Investment playing poker, but most recreational players will show a lifetime loss.

Yes, and how of this a problem at all? Are people forced to play these games? No. They choose to engage in them of their own free will. It's their desire, let them do what they like. How does any of this constitute "immorality"?

Most states (32 states, e.g., Alabama, Alaska, Utah, etc.), have banned commercial casinos; but many of those states have had to allows the American Indian Tribes to open Casinos on their Reservation Lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988.

Legality is not an arbiter of morality.

Why do you think most states have banned commercial casinos? Well, crime usually goes up around casinos,

How does that make gambling immoral though? Organized crime and gambling are two different things. During the prohibition of alcohol, organized crime saw it's height, but we don't say drinking alcohol is immoral, now do we?

and too many folks become "enthralled" with it because of all the hype about how much you can win, which is a huge lie.

It's not a huge lie. If by some small, minute chance, you do win, you can win a lot. Most people lose, some people win. That's what makes a game a game. Where is the innate harm in that? If someone chooses to pay money to play a game, with the benefit of the possibility they may win money back for winning, where is the harm?

Everyone, but literally a few, lose a lot of money playing at Casinos.

Again, that's how games work. A game necessitates losers.

And, the majority of the people who play at casinos and gamble at racetracks, dog tracks, etc. are people in the lower middle class and poor that can least afford to waste that money gambling when it should be spend on their families.

1) The people who gamble has no bearing the morality of gambling.
2) Irresponsible choices on the part of gamblers does not make gambling immoral.
3) Even if you say that gamblers are pressured into gambling, or deceived into it, that is not a problem with GAMBLING; that is a problem with how we allow people to market gambling.

Gambling is actually a form of regressive tax on the individuals in the local economies.

Pfffft. Gambling is a tax? That's laughable.

It is such a huge money maker for most states that they ignore its evils

You've yet to explain what is intrinsically evil about gambling. What is intrinsically evil about wagering money on a game? What is immoral about betting on a competition?

and damaging effects on the poor and lower middle class; but, they do make some rules that are supposed to help curb the addictive nature of gambling. Most Casinos are not allowed to have ATMs in the gambling area itself. All casinos have brochures on "Responsible Gambling" " not because they are honest moral folks and want to protect the gamblers, but because that is legally required.

Which has nothing to do with gambling itself, but again, the way gambling is marketed.

Here, we are going to look at some of the statistics about gambling addiction.

Except your statistics are meaningless.

It doesn't matter how many people get addicted to something; that doesn't prove it is "immoral" or "wrong" to do that particular thing.

Anyway, I believe commercial gambling should be banned everywhere but Vegas and the Indian Casinos all shut down, unless they are in Vegas.

Why? You haven't proved a single sound justification for banning it, except personal distaste. You have not even attempted to show the "intrinsic evil" of gambling. Your entire post was meaningless.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Myth About People In Jail for MarijuanaPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/11/2013 8:14:46 AM, GWL-CPA wrote:
They are bad for society and mainly destroy the poor and lower middle class who can afford it the least.

In other words...it's a potentially addictive behavior that is only bad when one who has poor self-control becomes enthralled with it. Which can be said about...pretty much everything in life.
Forums Home > Debate.org

Myth About People In Jail for MarijuanaPosted 7 years Ago

At 2/10/2013 6:50:32 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I was joking if you couldn't tell. Gambling is immoral and if you don't see that you're a horrible person.

I disagree completely. Where is the innate harm in gambling? If I have $5, and I decide to bet it in friendly competition with a friend, suddenly we are both immoral, and horrible people?

And if not, then where's the difference when I go to a casino to play a game?

I fail to see what is immoral.
Forums Home > Debate.org

"Black People"Posted 7 years Ago

At 2/10/2013 2:19:02 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/9/2013 10:38:41 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
At 2/9/2013 5:43:00 PM, poorlydrawnelephant wrote:
and you dont think that by defining inherent you are "projecting meaning onto something by method of outside determination"?

I am doing precisely that. I've never claimed that the word "inherent" has that inherent meaning. The word "inherent" can mean apple pie for all it matters.

But the IDEA of inherentness is what I'm getting at here. If something is defined by outside forces, it cannot inherently be that way, is the idea of being inherente necessitates something to be that way "in of itself".

As for your posted Wikipedia link, how about your explain your thoughts.

Bing squiggle jim bam hung dong phil softly wiggle sweet tum.

In other words, you have no counter argument, but you are too stubborn and close-minded to admit your own faulty reasoning.

Yeah...and you accuse me of a tarnished reputation.
Forums Home > Society

"Black People"Posted 7 years Ago

At 2/9/2013 5:43:00 PM, poorlydrawnelephant wrote:
and you dont think that by defining inherent you are "projecting meaning onto something by method of outside determination"?

I am doing precisely that. I've never claimed that the word "inherent" has that inherent meaning. The word "inherent" can mean apple pie for all it matters.

But the IDEA of inherentness is what I'm getting at here. If something is defined by outside forces, it cannot inherently be that way, is the idea of being inherente necessitates something to be that way "in of itself".

As for your posted Wikipedia link, how about your explain your thoughts.
Forums Home > Society

"Black People"Posted 7 years Ago

At 2/9/2013 4:52:24 PM, poorlydrawnelephant wrote:
wrong. again im no longer going to bother with the cyclical garbage of semantics

...then why are you arguing about words in the first place?

Further more, what a beautiful and well-thought rebuttal. I am swooned.

In any case, yes, I am correct. If something is "inherent", it means it is that way regardless of outside factors. The "define" something is to project meaning onto something by method of outside determination. That is the complete opposite of being "inherent".

http://debate.org...
I'm one of the few here who will take your side on this

...Are you trying to bribe me, by saying you'll vote for me if I stop arguing with you? Disgusting. I don't want to win that debate. I deserve to lose that debate. While I believe in my position, by arguments were scattered and disorganized, and I didn't get to a great deal of what my opponent said. Any thinking person should come to the conclusion that I performed poorly. I would be ashamed to win that debate.

but you should stop contributing to this before further discrediting your somewhat tarnished reputation.

'Tarnished reputation"? On what grounds?
Forums Home > Society

"Black People"Posted 7 years Ago

At 2/9/2013 4:15:43 PM, poorlydrawnelephant wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:10:07 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Why does "permanent" have that definition?

because it was inherently defined that way

Uhhh...you do realize that is contradictory, yes?

If something has been "defined", it has been dubbed in a particular manner by outside forces.

That is the complete opposite of "inherent".
Forums Home > Society

"Black People"Posted 7 years Ago

At 2/9/2013 3:53:11 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:52:12 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
True,
Thank you. Now make sure you think before you speak. Or write.

Uhhh...what? Did you even bother to read the rest of my post?

Kettle, meet pot.
Forums Home > Society

"Black People"Posted 7 years Ago

At 2/9/2013 3:51:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:46:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:45:33 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
He goes even farther with his advocacy of women to say that porn is always bad for women- and then puts an almost naked picture of a woman as his avatar.

That is pretty hypocritical.
When did a half-naked woman become identical to pornography?
Did you get this, Ma'am?

Yeah, sorry, I was reading the topic from the moment I left the thread forward, and responding to posts as I encountered them. I just got to yours.
Forums Home > Society

"Black People"Posted 7 years Ago

At 2/9/2013 3:46:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/9/2013 3:45:33 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
He goes even farther with his advocacy of women to say that porn is always bad for women- and then puts an almost naked picture of a woman as his avatar.

That is pretty hypocritical.
When did a half-naked woman become identical to pornography?

True, there is a tad bit of a jump there, but consider the following: Porn is an expressly sexual thing. Being naked typically is a sign of sexual expression or desire.

So while not intrinsically attached, the two have some relation on a day to day basis.
Forums Home > Society

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.