Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmirate | Hacker News Reader

Gambling/lotteries basically only harm people with innumeracy; ergo why should it ever be prohibited?

On one hand, I can see this. Having worked in a casino, my gut reaction is, "If you are that dumb then you deserve to lose everything." But on the other hand, there is the societal good of not having people throw away their money and spend it on things like paying their rent/mortgage and healthcare and education and not be a burden to society.

I would say there is more social good in banning junk food. Imagine the healthcare cost savings.

Gambling would be pretty low on social good list.

> I would say there is more social good in banning junk food. Imagine the healthcare cost savings.

The same cost savings could be realized by simply not providing healthcare for the complications of chronic overeating.

(The only downside of such a plan is that the complications of chronic overeating can sometimes fail to onset until after the patient has reproduced.)

Alcohol is factually poisonous to humans. Every day people die, become sick, lose jobs, destroy families, etc etc all due to this poison. The facts regarding alcohol are beyond question.

Will you destroy all of your personal stock of this poison for the benefit of society and forsake it forevermore? If not, why not?

Oh, it's no doubt a mind-destroyer; that alone makes it quite scary to me, no need to contemplate its other effects.

And I'll gladly forsake it quietly, and let those with excess affinity for it, use it to destroy themselves if they so desire. We didn't need such weak people anyway.

Society doesn't need such callous people as you.

Oh? And how else would society figure out that providing things to every warm body that claims to need them, is wasteful?

(Oh, wait, we're still socialistic in exactly that manner. So I'd say we need many more people like me. But that will have to wait 'till genetic engineering exits the drawing board...)

> "If you are that dumb then you deserve to lose everything."

Exactly. Full stop.

> burden to society

They are only burdens because our society takes people upon itself as burdens. This socialism ought be solved directly rather than worked-around by things like gambling bans and other such legislative nannying.

You can fully understand the -EV of gambling yet still act against your own self-interest by engaging in it.

(Most) humans aren't emotionless machines, even highly intelligent people engage in self-destructive behaviour despite recognizing it as such.

And human brains are totally wired for gambling addiction.

Then what better way is there, other than legalizing gambling, to select-out-of-the-population those people who are weak-minded enough to become gambling addicts?

The narcissistic approach isn't going to serve you well.

Narcissism, eh? That's a new one.

There are probably several hundreds of millions of personnel who will produce more net-worth in their lifetimes than I will in mine (and who therefore have a greater right to their lives than I've to mine; but that's not important right now). Where in this thread have I made a claim about myself that was more extreme than that?

> (Most) humans aren't emotionless machines

Indeed, and much to our detriment. Which is why...

> even highly intelligent people engage in self-destructive behaviour despite recognizing it as such

... this justifies permitting those with self-destructive abilities to exercise their abilities; such that the intelligent people who remain, are both intelligent and resilient.

In other words, gambling should be allowed because it only harms the under-educated? I'm not sure that's a very compelling argument considering the current state of K-12 education in the US.

Just because K-12 education has become complete shit, does not mean we ought to decrease our standard expectations of the capabilities of an adult mind. It merely means that more will fail those expectations. And not merely more, but very many more; but how is that any concern? Is the U.S. truly so deficient in population that it must extend a coddling (and a circus) to every single warm body that requires it?

I support the legalization of gambling, but you’re wrong. By analogy, that’s like saying only people who don’t understand the risk of unprotected sex have unprotected sex.

And that analogy is wrong because unprotected sex means not only STDs, but also pregnancies, and the latter are why such ignorant peoples' families continue to exist over generations.

Gambling, on the other hand, does not impart any benefits whatsoever upon its sufferers, and that is why I argued it ought to be allowed for anyone stupid enough to want it.

Gambling does have benefits for some people.

Ah, pardon my imprecision; gambling, unlike reproduction, does not have any expected benefits for its sufferers.

because maybe your brother or my brother is innumerate.

> your brother

I lack siblings.

> or my brother is innumerate

You led with "maybe"; to keep my next sentence's structure from becoming a complete mess, I'll assume that your hypothetical is true.

If some random person tells me "my brother is innumerate" ... then why should that information be of any consequence to me, in the absence of further context?

EDIT: and by further context I mean further information about you or your brother.

The further context is that your brother could be harmed by gambling or lotteries. The information should be of consequence due to human empathy usually associated with family members and hopefully, also other humans in general.

> your brother

You mean their brother? Presuming so, then my next paragraph applies to this item also.

> other humans in general.

But who? I draw much different conclusions from a physician or a programmer or a chemist or etc, than from a hobo or an organized-criminal or etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com