Never was a fan of moral crusades in general, and the one against gambling is particularly obnoxious. I knew my vote was going to Radley before I even read the arguments.

If we follow his “Bank Robber” argument to the illogical end, we’re not just going to be outlawing gambling. We’ll also be outlawing everything from drugs and alcohol to capitalism itself. Most bank robbers are just go out and buy crap. You don’t design or change a system based entirely on outliers.

#24 | Dakota | July 23rd, 2010 at 1:35 pm

I think poor Les thinks that his story about the unarmed bank robber is somehow a “rebuttal” to the Sal Culosi story.

It’s unspoken, and I don’t want to put words like this in his mouth, but my suspicion is that Bernal thinks that Culosi “deserved it” for promoting gambling.

I almost feel bad for Bernal, Radley just had a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

The fuck? What kind of dictionary is this guy using?

check out the support this clown gets and you’ll see the makings of a real active group… remember gay marriage in California and who spearheaded that?

Did I tell you about the bald guy who broke into my car? Well, Radley and Les won’t like the logical proposal I have to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

Then, I’ll prove why God doesn’t exist because some priests rape kids.

This is weak. He needs to do a lot more than vaguely cite that study about one casino to show that legalized private “for-profit gambling among individuals” is somehow untenably dangerous/costly.

The issue of gambling aside, this is my observation on activities that, when freely allowed (Like gambling, drinking, sex, creative lawnmowing) cause a statistical likelihood of abuse:

Abuse of these freedoms through addictive or obsessive behavior is a symptom of a greater problem, not a problem in the freedom itself. Ignoring the greater problem and focusing on the system is like prescribing pain medication for a broken leg instead of fixing the leg.

My hypothesis is that human beings are flexible, they are programmed by their interactions with their environment. But they are not locked in by that environment like animals are, they have an illusion of free will that allows a small amount of self direction in that programming. When they are happy, or at least largely so, they tend to focus that programming towards their greater good, they have ‘hope’. If their environment is shittastic, they tend to focus that programming destructively, they have ‘despair’.

In a larger social sense, people must be allowed to gravitate towards ‘hope’ or ‘despair’ by being as free as possible to make their own choices.

I submit that a region that gravitates towards ‘despair’ will do so in all things, and will do so not because of the liberties involved, but rather the environment that exists. There is something wrong with the social environment in that region, something toxic that is producing despair as a symptom in response to freedom.

The two solutions to that decay are replacing the environment with totalitarian control or fixing the toxic aspects of the environment.

Totalitarian control is near impossible. You need a dictator with absolute control for that. Historically, it’s worked in the short term… violators are thrown into the volcano, shot, gassed, or sent to Gulag. (Depending on the society)

The real solution is to focus on why the region is toxic to the influx of freedom, or why available choices result in the accumulation of ‘despair’ instead of ‘hope’. An example would be “There are no jobs!” the solution would be “Work on attracting jobs!” instead of focusing on suppression of freedoms to eliminate the symptom.

This gambling debate isn’t about casinos being good/bad, but knowing that gambling is NOT just gambling for millions of people is important to the real world discussion. It is entertainment with millions of people (win or lose) leaving feeling entertained.

To Legate’s comment, it is still the same old argument of outlawing steak because babies don’t have teeth.

Casinos tend to teach you what people really like. Based on going to casinos, people like entertainment, drinking, and boobs. Nothing wrong there.

BTW, I’m going to Foxwoods tomorrow and I’m gonna drop an extra $40 on craps just as a little jab at Mr. bernal and his ilk.

(If I never comment on here again, it’s because I’ll have succumb to the lights and manipulations and will be living in the gutter)

I imagine that the number of groups motivated to eliminate gambling is far larger(and the groups are more vocal) than those who agree with Radley. I also suspect they have no problem whatsoever unleashing their own emotionally charged, cause-loving minions to skew the vote (-;

1. I think Radley wanted to say “Imperial Japan”, not “Imperialist Japan”. “Imperialist” is something you say about the US, not WW2 Japan…

2. I’m disappointed that the discussion moved from gambling to mostly casinos. I thought Radley started really well by discussing private betting in his opening statement; I would’ve loved to see this line of thought being developed further and have his opponent struggle with a reply.