It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Views on gambling(57 posts)(57 posts)
(57 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 28, 2013
avatar
Romanul: That's just semantics. Companies do not engage in speech only individuals do. To say it's privilege speech means that people who associate under a (company) charter are not allowed to speak. Speech should be free of government censorship regardless of who speaks it (black, whites, poor people, "companies", press etc).
avatar
ChrisSD: None of the people at these gambling companies are having their speech curtailed in any meaningful way.
With all do respect but who are you decide that? I for example totally disagree.

Meet Joe, he's a creative artist, when he's at home he can create whatever add he likes. However, when he goes to work he becomes a second class citizen, he loses his right to express himself to the best of his abilities.

Another example: Jack, an average citizen, decides to start a company. the moment he does that he no longer has the same rights he had before.

As far as shouting fire in a crowded theater is concerned, if individuals are not allowed to shout fire in a theater then neither should companies. Never saw a company enter a theater anyway. :)

"Most (if not all) countries already have some restrictions on advertising"

That doesn't mean it''s any good. A lot of countries restrict speech to bare minimum,doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Point is individuals express their speech and not vague notions like companies. It's the same with taxes, companies, vehicles, houses do not pay taxes (contrary to popular bureaucratic belief) but individuals do. If you tax profits the consumers, employees and shareholders pay it. If you restrict speech for companies then you restrict speech for individuals who associate with companies (shareholders, employees etc). You're obviously fine with that, I on the other hand am not okay with censorship.
Posted July 28, 2013
avatar
ChrisSD: None of the people at these gambling companies are having their speech curtailed in any meaningful way.
avatar
Romanul: With all do respect but who are you decide that? I for example totally disagree.

Meet Joe, he's a creative artist, when he's at home he can create whatever add he likes. However, when he goes to work he becomes a second class citizen, he loses his right to express himself to the best of his abilities.

Another example: Jack, an average citizen, decides to start a company. the moment he does that he no longer has the same rights he had before.

As far as shouting fire in a crowded theater is concerned, if individuals are not allowed to shout fire in a theater then neither should companies. Never saw a company enter a theater anyway. :)

"Most (if not all) countries already have some restrictions on advertising"

That doesn't mean it''s any good. A lot of countries restrict speech to bare minimum,doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Point is individuals express their speech and not vague notions like companies. It's the same with taxes, companies, vehicles, houses do not pay taxes (contrary to popular bureaucratic belief) but individuals do. If you tax profits the consumers, employees and shareholders pay it. If you restrict speech for companies then you restrict speech for individuals who associate with companies (shareholders, employees etc). You're obviously fine with that, I on the other hand am not okay with censorship.
What censorship? When Joe Artist goes to work his own work place is free to restrict his speech in many many ways (or else he's "free" to find work elsewhere). This is the legal right of the company and so it should be. When Jack Average starts a company he isn't free to subject his workers to a tirade of insults and/or sexual advances every day. His workers would be well within their right to take legal action if he did.

Anyway a company can say what the hell they like, that's free speech. However, they are not entitled to say it wherever they like and in any manner they like. The same is true of individuals. Nobody has a right to a platform. I can't turn up[ at a TV station and demand to be given 5 minutes of uncontested air time, No matter how much money I'm willing to throw at them they are able to say no without stopping free speech. Indeed every TV company in the country could turn me down and it wouldn't be limiting my free speech.

Nobody, whether as a company or as an individual, is entitled to have any platform they like.
Posted July 28, 2013
avatar
Romanul: With all do respect but who are you decide that? I for example totally disagree.

Meet Joe, he's a creative artist, when he's at home he can create whatever add he likes. However, when he goes to work he becomes a second class citizen, he loses his right to express himself to the best of his abilities.

Another example: Jack, an average citizen, decides to start a company. the moment he does that he no longer has the same rights he had before.

As far as shouting fire in a crowded theater is concerned, if individuals are not allowed to shout fire in a theater then neither should companies. Never saw a company enter a theater anyway. :)

"Most (if not all) countries already have some restrictions on advertising"

That doesn't mean it''s any good. A lot of countries restrict speech to bare minimum,doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Point is individuals express their speech and not vague notions like companies. It's the same with taxes, companies, vehicles, houses do not pay taxes (contrary to popular bureaucratic belief) but individuals do. If you tax profits the consumers, employees and shareholders pay it. If you restrict speech for companies then you restrict speech for individuals who associate with companies (shareholders, employees etc). You're obviously fine with that, I on the other hand am not okay with censorship.
avatar
ChrisSD: Anyway a company can say what the hell they like, that's free speech. However, they are not entitled to say it wherever they like and in any manner they like. The same is true of individuals. Nobody has a right to a platform. I can't turn up[ at a TV station and demand to be given 5 minutes of uncontested air time, No matter how much money I'm willing to throw at them they are able to say no without stopping free speech. Indeed every TV company in the country could turn me down and it wouldn't be limiting my free speech.

Nobody, whether as a company or as an individual, is entitled to have any platform they like.
Nobody said anything about having a right to somebodies else's property. Since that's what you're implying. Individuals should be free to engage in voluntary transactions (I can't pay for 5 minutes of time on TV, too bad). What I''m saying is that I'm not okay with using the power of government in censorship the company just because I don't like the message. I am free to change the channel and not buy its products. You however, are not only advocating to for censorship of speech you don't agree with (calling it privileged speech for companies etc) but you're even saying that restricting those peoples right to speech is not censorship( putting it on the same level as stopping sexual harassment) how orwellian of you. Oh well, some people are less tolerant than others I suppose.

Anyways, it's late where I live and I said what I had to say. Let's agree to disagree and call it a day, okay? :)
Posted July 28, 2013
Gambling never interested me. I'd rather have more control over how I have no money: games, books, music, beer. :-)
Posted July 28, 2013
I think the advertising of gambling, drinking, smoking, and other risky behavior should also show those risks involved. For drinking instead of showing the dudes always having the pretty girls around, how about showing the dude waking up in bed with a hideous looking woman or man. Show the dudes that drink it with the beer guts. Gamblers instead of always showing everyone in the casino winning, show the poor schlup crying as he gets dragged away from the table, or the 80 year old chain smokers playing the nickle slots. Smoking in the US has already started showing those disgusting commercials, although not from a tobbacco companies. It's time we see them for those other vices.

As for Pete Rose, he doesn't belong in baseball anymore, however he does belong in the Hall of Fame. His managerial decisions should not be tied to his playing career. He was one of the greats and should be included as one. As for Arod and the juicers, if not a lifetime ban he should at least get a year and the rest of this year sitting at home without pay. Braun's 65 Game sentence was a little light for cheating for the second time (technicality aside). Arod deserves a lot more as he tried to tamper and destroy evidence that he cheated. Not to mention this is the second time being officially caught.
Posted July 28, 2013
avatar
tinyE: THIS IS A TOUGH ONE! Oy, I'm not kidding.

Freedom of choice rules out above all else (in my opinion) but I keep seeing town after town in the States destroyed by the introduction of gambling. Where I grew up in Missouri gambling almost overnight turned beautiful riverside towns into septic tanks rife with the dregs of society because of casinos not to mention the destruction (albeit mostly superficial) of the once beautiful river banks.

When I was a kid there was a beautiful spot across the river (about 45 minutes from where I was born) where people would gather to see the bald eagles migrate. Now look at it (see below). It looks like a fucking paint truck exploded not to mention NO EAGLES.

Also, if you get some time, go hang out in a pawn shop near a casino, bring a tissue, it's sad. People handing over their fillings for slot money. People cashing in their kid's college funds for a few more hands of black jack. I make it sound melodramatic but it happens every day. I'm not saying this means we should get rid of gambling, far from it, I just know that the farther I am from that stuff the happier I am.
TinyE, I'm actually from the same area, except I lived on the Kansas side rather than the Missouri side. I'm not old enough to remember eagles migrating, but blame the ones who built the Argosy Casino rather than gambling itself. But I do agree that it is a tragedy that that opportunity no longer exists.

Anyways, I currently live in Arizona, only a few hours south of Las Vegas and people here drive up there on weekends all the time. It is their choice, and it is their personal responsibility to call it quits. I do realize that, just like any addiction, family usually suffers, but I wouldn't do anything to ban/restrict gambling.
Posted July 28, 2013
Right, 2 distinct advertisments are very prominent in Czech Republic: advertisments for companies which will loan you money just for asking, even if you can't prove you're capable of paying back, and advertisments for companies which collect unpaid loans. THAT makes me fucking uncomfortable.
Posted July 28, 2013
avatar
Fenixp:
Yeah, there are very similar sounding companies operating here. The most infamous loan company right now is probably a company called Wonga.

They offer short-term loans to cover people over until pay day, at an APR of over 4,000%. They make this very clear when people take the loans out, but damn.
Posted July 28, 2013
avatar
Fenixp:
avatar
Goatbrush: Yeah, there are very similar sounding companies operating here. The most infamous loan company right now is probably a company called Wonga.

They offer short-term loans to cover people over until pay day, at an APR of over 4,000%. They make this very clear when people take the loans out, but damn.
Sounds like the Native American run Loan Companies we have airing commercials across the US.
Western Sky
At least in my eyes, they say up front that their interest rate is sky high, and you can see it is 98.6%. Legal Loan Sharking is big business in the good 'ol USA.
Posted July 28, 2013
avatar
jjsimp: I think the advertising of gambling, drinking, smoking, and other risky behavior should also show those risks involved. For drinking instead of showing the dudes always having the pretty girls around, how about showing the dude waking up in bed with a hideous looking woman or man. Show the dudes that drink it with the beer guts. Gamblers instead of always showing everyone in the casino winning, show the poor schlup crying as he gets dragged away from the table, or the 80 year old chain smokers playing the nickle slots. Smoking in the US has already started showing those disgusting commercials, although not from a tobbacco companies. It's time we see them for those other vices....
I agree. I believe health warnings on tobacco products is global - just in varying degrees.

It's bizarre then that gambling ads have a tiny "gambleaware" text flash up briefly, barely visible when it affects so many. Alcohol is the same - you see an ad with cool party people drinking neon liquid (which is wrong on so many levels!) then a brief, tiny fonted "drink responsibly" message.

Why the double standards? All generate taxes, so it can't be financial clout.
Posted July 28, 2013
avatar
hedwards: Or just ban certain types like electronic gambling. One of the things I find to be particularly disturbing is the way that

I'm quite talented when it comes to gambling, which is why I refuse to ever do so again. At some point luck does trump skill.
avatar
tinyE: Using your autistic brother to count cards while playing Black Jack doesn't count as "talented".

I'M JOKING! :D
I do my own card counting. In fact, I developed my own system of card counting.
Posted July 28, 2013
avatar
Fenixp: Right, 2 distinct advertisments are very prominent in Czech Republic: advertisments for companies which will loan you money just for asking, even if you can't prove you're capable of paying back, and advertisments for companies which collect unpaid loans. THAT makes me fucking uncomfortable.
Ugh, disgusting. There really should be an international law against high rates so people don't fall ill for it.

My last year in high school a few years ago there was a hot topic regarding "message loans". You send a text message and you instantly loan money, useful for an emergency but the interest rates could rise as high as 20,000%* and I think there should be a limit around 20-30% (not including needed exceptions). It's beyond ridiculous.
Post edited July 28, 2013 by Nirth
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Views on gambling(57 posts)(57 posts)
(57 posts)