Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is It Time To Clamp Down On Online Betting
64 Answers
This poor lady obviously couldnt cope with her addiction and took the ultimate way out.
She is not alone, this scourge of society needs dealing with. Continual adverts on tv and radio, free money to get you in and hooked. This is not bingo, there is no social aspect however much the misleading adverts portray it.
I say time to ban it or at very least strictly regulate it with draconian restrictions.
https:/
She is not alone, this scourge of society needs dealing with. Continual adverts on tv and radio, free money to get you in and hooked. This is not bingo, there is no social aspect however much the misleading adverts portray it.
I say time to ban it or at very least strictly regulate it with draconian restrictions.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
To answer your question, Brainiac, yes I COULD go a month without having a punt. But what reason would I have to do so. I have said many times on here that I gamble for fun, staking only that amount I can easily afford to lose. Just like thousands and thousands of sensible punters worldwide. I am fully aware that I am not going to get rich quick by having a punt and that the only way to make a small fortune from gambling is to begin with a large one. I feel for those who are addicted, I really do, but to make on line gambling inaccessible to all is not the answer.
Ken - // The blame culture at it again! Mum and dad looking for a scapegoat for their daughter's unfortunate and untimely death. //
I think that is perhaps a harsh assessment.
Grieving people look for explanations over a suicide, that is human nature, but looking for a reason, and looking for someone or something to blame are not the same thing.
// Perhaps they could have done more themselves knowing she suffered from depression? //
I am sure that is a point that will haunt them to their dying days, but knowing someone is suffering from depression and being able to help them are once again two very different things.
// I would love to know the percentage of 'problem gamblers' within the many thousands of those who enjoy a punt. I'd bet odds-on the figure would be small. By all means ban all the advertising but to ban on line gambling would be punishing the majority for the sake of a few who cannot curb their addiction. //
This argument raises its head every time a debate like this is raised - why should the 'responsible many' be 'penalized' for the irresponsible few?
Simply put, it is because a responsible society needs to accept that just because most of it is sensible, sadly a minority is not.
If the consequences of that irresponsible behaviour were confined solely to the irresponsible people, then society would not have an issue.
But of course, it doesn't - it impacts on all of us, socially, financially, and morally.
For that reason, society has to take responsibility for protecting itself, and that means, in effect, saving some individuals from themselves, because we are a compassionate society, and we don;t abandon people simply because their lifestyle choices lead them into difficulties.
I think that is perhaps a harsh assessment.
Grieving people look for explanations over a suicide, that is human nature, but looking for a reason, and looking for someone or something to blame are not the same thing.
// Perhaps they could have done more themselves knowing she suffered from depression? //
I am sure that is a point that will haunt them to their dying days, but knowing someone is suffering from depression and being able to help them are once again two very different things.
// I would love to know the percentage of 'problem gamblers' within the many thousands of those who enjoy a punt. I'd bet odds-on the figure would be small. By all means ban all the advertising but to ban on line gambling would be punishing the majority for the sake of a few who cannot curb their addiction. //
This argument raises its head every time a debate like this is raised - why should the 'responsible many' be 'penalized' for the irresponsible few?
Simply put, it is because a responsible society needs to accept that just because most of it is sensible, sadly a minority is not.
If the consequences of that irresponsible behaviour were confined solely to the irresponsible people, then society would not have an issue.
But of course, it doesn't - it impacts on all of us, socially, financially, and morally.
For that reason, society has to take responsibility for protecting itself, and that means, in effect, saving some individuals from themselves, because we are a compassionate society, and we don;t abandon people simply because their lifestyle choices lead them into difficulties.
-- answer removed --
But where does it all end, Andy? Do we close all pubs and ban the sale of alcohol (again i'd bet odds-on that there have been many more suicides through alcohol than gambling). Do we stop the sale of all foodstuffs which may cause obesity? Do we ban the sale of gaming stations because our young people are addicted to them? Just how many r soles do we, as a caring society, have to wipe?
Ken - // But where does it all end, Andy? Do we close all pubs and ban the sale of alcohol (again i'd bet odds-on that there have been many more suicides through alcohol than gambling). Do we stop the sale of all foodstuffs which may cause obesity? Do we ban the sale of gaming stations because our young people are addicted to them? //
Clearly such points are the gist of the argument you are offering, and equally clearly they is not remotely practical, or indeed desireable.
I do take the point that people are responsible for their own behaviour, but that is in an ideal world, and clearly that is not this world where we live.
There has to be an element of control over most aspects of modern life, because otherwise, things swing wildly out of control.
I personally find the 'It's their fault if they ...' attitude to be unacceptable, because it speaks of a lack of care and sympathy for people who may be unable to live their lives as we do, and might wish them to as well.
// Just how many r soles do we, as a caring society, have to wipe? //
Just enough to merit our ability to call ourselves a caring society - that will do for me.
Clearly such points are the gist of the argument you are offering, and equally clearly they is not remotely practical, or indeed desireable.
I do take the point that people are responsible for their own behaviour, but that is in an ideal world, and clearly that is not this world where we live.
There has to be an element of control over most aspects of modern life, because otherwise, things swing wildly out of control.
I personally find the 'It's their fault if they ...' attitude to be unacceptable, because it speaks of a lack of care and sympathy for people who may be unable to live their lives as we do, and might wish them to as well.
// Just how many r soles do we, as a caring society, have to wipe? //
Just enough to merit our ability to call ourselves a caring society - that will do for me.
"clearly that is not this world where we live."
Andy you're painting a picture where no body is responsible for their own actions and anyone who may do harm to themselves by either taking drugs or gambling is a pathetic little animal who has no self control or thought and they should be wrapped in a blanket, pittied then helped.
The world we live in is one where we are responsible for ourselves. If I commit a crime my parent's aren't arrested for bad parenting.
Andy you're painting a picture where no body is responsible for their own actions and anyone who may do harm to themselves by either taking drugs or gambling is a pathetic little animal who has no self control or thought and they should be wrapped in a blanket, pittied then helped.
The world we live in is one where we are responsible for ourselves. If I commit a crime my parent's aren't arrested for bad parenting.
TheDevil at 11:18 - // To blame anyone but the woman herself is unfair. We all have money and we can all make choices. Some gamble and others don't. Some gamble and gamble responsible, and some don't. No ones fault but her own no mater how much emotion you put into it. She should have gotten help. //
TheDevil at 14:23 - // In this woman's case she needed looking after and wasn't in a position to help others. //
If you are going to play devil's advocate, as you do on a daily basis, you need a good memory to avoid contradicting yourself a matter of a couple of hours later.
If you really believe your earlier posts, then you shouldn't be saying the opposite now.
I think you just like an argument, and will take a contrary provocative stance simply to provoke people.
My exchanges with you on this thread are now finished.
TheDevil at 14:23 - // In this woman's case she needed looking after and wasn't in a position to help others. //
If you are going to play devil's advocate, as you do on a daily basis, you need a good memory to avoid contradicting yourself a matter of a couple of hours later.
If you really believe your earlier posts, then you shouldn't be saying the opposite now.
I think you just like an argument, and will take a contrary provocative stance simply to provoke people.
My exchanges with you on this thread are now finished.
"I personally find the 'It's their fault if they ...' attitude to be unacceptable, because it speaks of a lack of care and sympathy for people who may be unable to live their lives as we do, and might wish them to as well."
Apply this ideology to paedophilia or murderers and boy are we quickly seeing flaws in what you're saying. People have demons that are their own. Be that gambling, being a hard drug user or finding children sexually attractive, it comes back on you, and you need to go out and get the help you need. Not expect society to do some buck magic to fix your life.
I do have a lack of care and sympathy for those I don't know who do themselves ill. Why should I care? Why should I sympathise?
Apply this ideology to paedophilia or murderers and boy are we quickly seeing flaws in what you're saying. People have demons that are their own. Be that gambling, being a hard drug user or finding children sexually attractive, it comes back on you, and you need to go out and get the help you need. Not expect society to do some buck magic to fix your life.
I do have a lack of care and sympathy for those I don't know who do themselves ill. Why should I care? Why should I sympathise?
There's nothing wrong with arguing that people should try and take care of themselves, as long as it doesn't give you an excuse to avoid helping them if they need it. Some people have slipped too far either to realise the problem or to do much about it without outside help, and they shouldn't be abandoned if they've got to that position. Gambling (at this scale) is an addiction, and like all other addictions it often can only be tackled effectively with intervention.
Many of you speak as if the betting industry are doing nothing at all to prevent this type of irresponsible gambling. Most of the reputable big firms do have a 'maximum stake' control whereby the punter can choose just how much he/she wishes to gamble in one week, or deposit in one 24 hour period. Once the option is taken, it cannot be altered until the time scale is up. Of course, the punter can then visit other websites to place their bets or play the slots. Such as the ones mentioned in the OP's link - firms which I have never heard of.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.