Gambling

I agree that we cannot change the choices that some people will make; they are ultimately responsible for their own demise. But gambling is not done in a vacuum. I see it differently than other "vice" behaviors, since your contribution to it keeps the system going, and when the system is going, lives are being ruined. And I would rather my time and money not be spent with a such a destructive system.

 

cc, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to say "your" in the sense that you gamble. Sorry for the confusion - I was speaking in general terms, rhetorically if you will. IOW, if you gamble, then your contribution... I understand that you don't - and that's a good thing. :thumbs:

 

I understand your point, if I was one to gamble would refrain from doing so that system fails and the addict wont have a place to go to.

My problem with that is that does away with any and all personal accountability on the part of the addict. Thats like saying if I refrain from driving my car I in turn will not give the drunk driver a target, thus saving my life and theirs in the process.

 

Yeah this is silly logic that doesn't work. This is like saying my buying groceries at the supermarket contributes to some poor guys addiction to over-eating. Or that flying on an airplane helps terrorists kill people. It's a silly line of logic that isn't coherent.

 

Your analagies of groceries and plane tickets don't equate with gambling. When you buy groceries, you are exchanging cash for goods. Your trip to the supermarket has no affect on whether or not Gluttonous Gary goes out later and buys a case of Twinkies to eat in one night. Gambling is different in that in order for the system to work and the house to gain, there needs to be enough participants to pool their money for the game. Some are winners, more are losers, but the house always wins. The pooling effect of the system is what makes it works. If you are a winner, your money doesn't come from the house, it really comes from the losers, some of whom are throwing their money away in an ugly addiction. If you are a loser, some of your losses go the house, while the other part of your losses goes to the winners, some of whom are addicts who are then fueled by the excitement of the win and then go on to gamble more and ultimately back to a loss position. So the group effect of gambling makes it inherently different from other standard economic activity like buying food.

Also, as a sidenote, this is one reason why stock market investing is different than gambling. Gambling always requires a loser, but that is not the case with investing. With economic growth, everyone can win - it is not a rob Richard to give to Gary type scheme, which gambling is. Also, investing isn't mere chance like gambling - good investors do research and know the business world and make informed decisions in their investing.

 

In no way do I excuse the gambling addict of his folly. His demise is ultimately his responsibility. But in an effort to love my neighbor, which includes the gambling addict, I do not want to contribute to a system that directly supports his destructive behavior.

 

Another vice thread. At least the drinking threads have some Biblical merit to argue. This subject has none. Either you gamble or you don't. End of story.

 

Since if you know you are going to win, it is not gambling; and since if you know you are going to lose, it is not gambling, it is a gift; then if I go to the racetrack assuming I will lose, then if I win, it is an extra benefit!

Therefore, If I go to the casino knowing I will lose more than I win, and I actually do win, I did not gamble, I just got a lot of money.

 

Some of our stocks involve gambling$$, that's a thought.

 

Not quite. Stock investing does not require a loser. Gambling does. Good stock investing is also based on informed business research. Gambling is based on mere chance.

 

That makes no sense. How do you think people who work for a living build a retirement? Usually, a retirement program is the company matching at some percentage, and then you deciding how to invest the money (as of late, not well). To equate that with going to a casino or buying a lottery ticket is not a valid comparison.

In a way, everything in life is a gamble. I am gambling I will make it safe to work tonight. Oh, I forgot, gambling is a Baptist no-no, so I will sit home, not go to work, and stay safe.
:BangHead:

 

Sorry, I mean we have a mutal fund(s) which partially invests $$ into Stations Casino who manage some or all of the Indian Casino's, amongst other Casinos.

 

The stocks will be changed around soon, but maybe you all could look and see what your mutual funds are exactly. What you are investing in because a man (stockbroker) handles our portfollio and invests for us. You may find out your money is going to build these Casino's (which also include bars)
I knew this but didn't seriously consider the implications until this thread. My wife handles the majority of our finances.

 

I have no problem with someone gambling with moderation while meeting the basic necessities of his/her family.

 

I totally agree.

One thing though, for those who think they'll win big...those over the top casinos in Las Vegas weren't built because the casinos lose money. Ultimately, the house always wins.

 

It does require a loser somewhere. If you buy stock at a price and sell it for a higher price, then you have 'made' money (assuming comission and fees were at least more than covered), so someone sold it a price less than your selling price. If that person also made money, you could go down the line to where either someone lost money, or else the company just issued more stock to raise money, which inevitably means somebody's loss somewhere; if the company's in the black, then employees, suppliers, or others were not given their true value; if it's in the red, the initial investors or others who bailed out then lost.

That's not entirely or inevitably true, either. If a gambler places a bet on a horse without even looking at (or knowing in any way) the racing form and the odds, that might be mere chance. But placing a small bet on a 2-to-1, as opposed to a large bet on a 30-to-1, cannot be the same probability and expectancy of return, and that in itself would disqualify any gamble as "mere chance" in relation to any other.

 

1 Corinthians 10:23
(KJV) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not