So wait a second, you argue that your livelihood is based on people making stupid decisions and we should somehow protect it? Thats a pretty idiotic proposition.
The moral argument comes from the relationship between the gambling house and the gambler. I'm a secular humanist and I see gambling as the exploitation of irrationality, thus I'm certainly not in favor of it. That in addition to the fact that most of the evils of gambling are shouldered by poor individuals, furthering the idea of the little guy getting exploited. These sort of themes would strike a chord with religious and non-religious individuals alike. I guess you could argue that the predisposition to this argument is bullshit, however.
Theres plenty of us that don't believe a single fact can change how you view things. Call it complicity with the psychoanalysts, but I just don't find people of one mind and totally rational. "Well, i know chances are I won't win anything. But imagine how great it would be if I did. If I don't go and try, that awesome great thing will never happen, and I would have to give up on that dream. I don't want to do that."
I agree with that position. The inevitable question to it, of course, is whats stopping us from licensing the offshore gambling. Then you have the response "Gambling should be a local issue, not interfered with by the federal government." Then you respond "by making it illegal you are making the decision on the federal level" and they respond "alright so how about we license them, but part of the licensing is they have to verify that you are not a resident of an area where gambling is not allowed." To that, I'm at a loss. So does anyone want to continue this argument I'm having with myself?
I'd actually argue that the extreme regulation of gambling and outright prohibition in certain areas has worked pretty well. If thats due to the lotto outlet or the highly regulated gambling houses in specific areas, I have no idea. But I personally haven't heard of major criminal enterprises based on numbers running or football betting causing too much trouble in the united states. The prohibition has certainly marginalized it.
Peripheral damages are certainly a viable reason for prohibition. Consumer protection, environmental, and public health initiatives all contain fine examples of that. In an even more general sense, preventative measures in public policy are quite common. To take your automobile example, you can only drive certain types of automobiles due to the increased danger certain designs present to others driving, you, and any occupants you bring along.
In addition, your belief that knowledge will solve all problems is ludicrous. I would actually argue that most decisions made are not rational and informed. This is compounded in adolescents who have a late development of their prefrontal cortex, which impedes their ability to weigh decisions well. The point of the matter is, despite a prevailing idealism that you are the master of a single consciousness, the reality of the situation is quite different.
I would, however agree with your argument about the costs of prohibition. In marijuana alone, a simple review of the costs/benefits reveals that prohibition of that drug is insane. I encourage an impartial, well funded cost/benefit analysis on the hard drugs as well. I think American drug policy is going down one crazy road.
Gambling is a sticky issue though. Not only is it proven to be addictive but it also affects poorer individuals much worse than richer. Check out the lotto lines in Baltimore if you want tangible evidence of that. I think its idealism that causes people to believe that individuals are always capable and usually do make informed rational decisions on subjects that have great implications.
And take away the gambling and would the arson happen? Take away the drugs and would the mugging for drug money happen? You can't ignore a causal relationship just because it is one layer above the action. You can however argue that people should have more self control, or the fact that they commit these sort of actions are because they are outliers and defective individuals regardless of the gambling. That would be arguing that there is an even greater cause, namely the guy is unable to account for his actions in general and is a danger to society. To prove that you would have to show that gambling addiction is a rarity, a great exception to the rule. I think you might be hard pressed to do that.
Droid users like me will have to pay more for tethering. I believe its 30 bucks on top of everything else which amounts to a second data plan. With Verizon's pricing structure, I believe it is reasonable but I personally would rather see a per megabyte structure.
My curse is lifted, I was noticing that every time I replied to this guy he got modded into oblivion, but whenever I didn't reply he got modded up. I was starting to think the correlation was pointing to a casual relationship and I' have to have a duel with him on some skyscraper with pizzas.
Yeah, in the US they'd just be following the specifics of the system. Is there anyone with specific information on how Australia's system works. (Also don't mod this guy Troll, what the hell are we, Digg?)
Not a cure for cancer, a possible way to treat tumors. Theres plenty of types of cancer that wouldn't do shit for, and a heavy immune response wouldn't be very good for the brain if that other new research claiming to cure many MS cases is to be believed(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood-brain_barrier#Multiple_sclerosis_.28MS.29).
Slashdot Mirror
Aye, thats why I included both regulation and outright prohibition.
So wait a second, you argue that your livelihood is based on people making stupid decisions and we should somehow protect it? Thats a pretty idiotic proposition.
That sort of relationship never existed, or if it did, you'd have to certainly look into pre-greek history to find it.
The moral argument comes from the relationship between the gambling house and the gambler. I'm a secular humanist and I see gambling as the exploitation of irrationality, thus I'm certainly not in favor of it. That in addition to the fact that most of the evils of gambling are shouldered by poor individuals, furthering the idea of the little guy getting exploited. These sort of themes would strike a chord with religious and non-religious individuals alike. I guess you could argue that the predisposition to this argument is bullshit, however.
You would lose your house because gambling is predatory on common human psychology. Or you could say its predatory on dumb people.
Invading Afghanistan ...without any provocation from them...
What? Ever hear of 9/11? The Taliban?
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
His argument stands, he should only go directly to jail for replying to a troll. As should I.
Theres plenty of us that don't believe a single fact can change how you view things. Call it complicity with the psychoanalysts, but I just don't find people of one mind and totally rational. "Well, i know chances are I won't win anything. But imagine how great it would be if I did. If I don't go and try, that awesome great thing will never happen, and I would have to give up on that dream. I don't want to do that."
I agree with that position. The inevitable question to it, of course, is whats stopping us from licensing the offshore gambling. Then you have the response "Gambling should be a local issue, not interfered with by the federal government." Then you respond "by making it illegal you are making the decision on the federal level" and they respond "alright so how about we license them, but part of the licensing is they have to verify that you are not a resident of an area where gambling is not allowed." To that, I'm at a loss. So does anyone want to continue this argument I'm having with myself?
He should've said it doesn't help anybody us Americans care about!
I'd actually argue that the extreme regulation of gambling and outright prohibition in certain areas has worked pretty well. If thats due to the lotto outlet or the highly regulated gambling houses in specific areas, I have no idea. But I personally haven't heard of major criminal enterprises based on numbers running or football betting causing too much trouble in the united states. The prohibition has certainly marginalized it.
Peripheral damages are certainly a viable reason for prohibition. Consumer protection, environmental, and public health initiatives all contain fine examples of that. In an even more general sense, preventative measures in public policy are quite common. To take your automobile example, you can only drive certain types of automobiles due to the increased danger certain designs present to others driving, you, and any occupants you bring along.
In addition, your belief that knowledge will solve all problems is ludicrous. I would actually argue that most decisions made are not rational and informed. This is compounded in adolescents who have a late development of their prefrontal cortex, which impedes their ability to weigh decisions well. The point of the matter is, despite a prevailing idealism that you are the master of a single consciousness, the reality of the situation is quite different.
I would, however agree with your argument about the costs of prohibition. In marijuana alone, a simple review of the costs/benefits reveals that prohibition of that drug is insane. I encourage an impartial, well funded cost/benefit analysis on the hard drugs as well. I think American drug policy is going down one crazy road.
Gambling is a sticky issue though. Not only is it proven to be addictive but it also affects poorer individuals much worse than richer. Check out the lotto lines in Baltimore if you want tangible evidence of that. I think its idealism that causes people to believe that individuals are always capable and usually do make informed rational decisions on subjects that have great implications.
And take away the gambling and would the arson happen? Take away the drugs and would the mugging for drug money happen? You can't ignore a causal relationship just because it is one layer above the action. You can however argue that people should have more self control, or the fact that they commit these sort of actions are because they are outliers and defective individuals regardless of the gambling. That would be arguing that there is an even greater cause, namely the guy is unable to account for his actions in general and is a danger to society. To prove that you would have to show that gambling addiction is a rarity, a great exception to the rule. I think you might be hard pressed to do that.
Considering how he converted everything, I'd imagine us Americans must have a different definition of diameter.
Droid users like me will have to pay more for tethering. I believe its 30 bucks on top of everything else which amounts to a second data plan. With Verizon's pricing structure, I believe it is reasonable but I personally would rather see a per megabyte structure.
My curse is lifted, I was noticing that every time I replied to this guy he got modded into oblivion, but whenever I didn't reply he got modded up. I was starting to think the correlation was pointing to a casual relationship and I' have to have a duel with him on some skyscraper with pizzas.
Thats actually about the only interesting analogy I've seen yet.
Yeah, in the US they'd just be following the specifics of the system. Is there anyone with specific information on how Australia's system works. (Also don't mod this guy Troll, what the hell are we, Digg?)
Maybe the fish were listening to a region specific version of DeathKlok's Mermaider.
Not a cure for cancer, a possible way to treat tumors. Theres plenty of types of cancer that wouldn't do shit for, and a heavy immune response wouldn't be very good for the brain if that other new research claiming to cure many MS cases is to be believed(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood-brain_barrier#Multiple_sclerosis_.28MS.29).
I doubt this will significantly change the scrub procedure.
You certainly can't graduate without that drilled into your skull.
Me too.
I would not classify prions as non-harmful.
Upper layer of human skin is filled with Keratin. You could break the damn membrane and that shit still would be fine I'm sure.