Ever said something, and then later decided it could be better explained in another manner? That happened on Political Pistachio Radio during my interview with Jay Lakin. I meant to use pornography as an example of creeping incrementalism, but it came out weird.
Okay, let's set it up. The guest says, "Why ban online poker but not online horse racing or gambling on Fantasy Sports? It should be all or nothing."
From a moral point of view, he is exactly right. And in my book, it should be all banned. Then, when the guest seemed to not think gambling is that big of a deal, I meant to use porn as an example why it is a big deal, and how it could destroy a society. Gambling is like sexual immorality. It begins with the little pictures, moves to movies, then eventually you have people (because of the addictive tendency with any addiction to have a never ending need for more and more) moving in directions both dangerous and highly illegal (such as pedophiles and such). All from the innocent pictures that started it all.
Same thing with gambling. It starts small, and builds into disaster.
However, I recognize the rights of people to have the opportunity to gamble (or purchase a Playboy Magazine), and as I admitted on the show, I go to Las Vegas on occasion and play the slots or the craps table. Difference is, I have enough self control that once I lose the money I planned to use to gamble I stop there.
And yes, I am proclaiming there are people out there without the same kind of control. Maybe that is a little bold of me to say.
Does that make me a hypocrite since I also proclaim I am not pro-gaming?
I don't know. I suppose it depends on how you look at it.
And I suppose the way to explain it is I think that it is a good thing that certain assault weapons are banned (although I don't agree on all of them), but I believe that other guns should remain available for private ownership. Using Mr. Lakin's all or nothing theory, that would be hypocritical - either all guns should be legal, or all should be made illegal.
That's idiotic.
Well, anyway, I just wanted to say that I believe that gambling is a dangerous activity as it is when limited to places like Vegas or Atlantic City. I watched it destroy the marriage of a friend who's wife became addicted to gambling, to the point that she was gambling away their mortgage money. And situations like that are not merely the exeption. It can be dangerous, and best left in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and Monte Carlo. It has no place in my community, and no place on the internet where it can be accessed by the kids. Yes, parents should have control of their children too, but there must be a shared responsibility. Gambling is too dangerous to be left unchecked and readily available in that manner.
While we are at it, by the way, porn on the internet should be banned too - because as discussed on the radio show, age verification is darn near impossible. At best, be made more limited, perhaps by replacing the www prefix with an xxx prefix instead.
That's my two cents.
---------------------------
Tune in Saturday to my radio show. Atlas Shrugs is going to join me to honor our Veterans for Veteran's Day coming up on Sunday. The show begins on Saturday at 7pm Eastern Time on Blog Talk Radio.
No comments:
Post a Comment