Look your big point is clearly that betting on sports has caused, indirectly, at least one death in the world. We get it. Thanks for your input.
But what if porn caused a death down the road? (like August Ames and many others)
1 Like
That might help someone who hadnāt already said that itās not the act of losing a bet that destroys people but the consequences of losing all their money, possessions, home and health.
If they had no access to gambling what do you think would have happened to them? Totally normal life? Letās say they only had illegal access to gambling?
1 Like
I really donāt know. Iām not an expert on the subject unlike you and ikes.
Yet youāre here, for some reason. Anyways, back to actual talk about the props please? Preferably from people who know something about them?
Iām here because wichita posted something factually incorrect that gave a false impression about the seriousness of gambling addiction.
Sigh, more ingroup vs outgroup nonsense.
Have fun.
Selfishly, I should clearly vote yes on 27, but this is my basic attitude as well. Every year, my first instinct is to vote no on everything. None of these appear to be urgent, and if it is important enough the legislature should address it (unless the proposition is necessary to undo a previous one, e.g. the 2018 dst prop). Also, the passage of more and more conflicting and restrictive propositions may in time lead to issues with the budget (Prop 13?) and ability to legislate.
I believe the last two propositions that I voted yes on were the 2016 one to eliminate the death penalty and the 2018 one to allow the elimination of daylight savings.
Thereās very little discussion that isnāt policed by posters which I think kind of makes it look worse than it is. Doesnāt seem to be tearing Wichita up? Is this debating (maybe bickering) really that unbearably annoying?
Edit: onto discussion though, I like anything that legislates funding for arts. Even if, as CN said, it is somewhat unclear wording/purpose. Lack of funding is why the world is a corporatist hellhole imo
Gambling addicts: famously known for staying within good bankroll management principles so that the small edge the book has never bankrupts the addict.
Yeah. Thanks Ikes! Thanks a lot!
Also obvious yes on prop 31. Everybody I know now vapes and none of them ever had the decency to at least smoke. Seems like a terrifying future given vapes are so cheap too ($25 aud or $16ish USD for 2500 puffs which is a week or so for a near constant smoker).
The issue is that it doesnāt actually provide funding though. It takes the same pie and says this much has to be used for the arts. At least as far as I can tell.
Yeah it seems unclear but call me an optimist but I just like stuff around arts being in the political discussion. Arts/music has been repeatedly gutted, particularly post COVID, here in Australia.
Sureā¦ but I donāt want English/math or whatever to be gutted for arts/music either.
Yes me saying gambling addiction is bad but not as bad as literally dying in large numbers while doing it is factually incorrect. What the fuck.
I believe that firing some heroin in tonight is worse for someone than a MNF bet tonight? Does anyone not? I never said either is good.
2 Likes
Ya, going no on anything related to gambling. Gambling is bad.
1 Like
You donāt need to post every time you think someone elseās post is unnecessary, you can just ignore it and move on.
1 Like
This point is perfectly reasonable. The immediacy of the danger when taking drugs compared to sports betting/gambling cannot be disputed.
The leap to these though seems tenuous.
Death isnāt the only way to define ādestroy your lifeā and the (relative) slow acting nature of gambling addictions doenāt mean it is a less dangerous problem than the others. Iām not sure there is data to support your point either.