[zoyd]

Interesting that you now say you don't hold the casinos responsible since previously you said they were an institution that ruined families. Which are they, not responsible or ruinous institutions? Can't be both. In one of those two statements you're BSing me.

sigh... casinos are a place you can go, and voluntarily ruin your life. OK? If you go there, and ruin your life, it's not the casino's FAULT. But it IS an institution that ruins peoples lives. Do you see that I am not BSing you? Semantics.

And what's with this 'loser argumment, your hypothetical is already addicted' crap? Split some more hairs, disco. Some addicted gamblers will ruin their lives, some won't. Some will start before they get married, others won't. Same with drugs, same with drink. What difference does it make what DAY someone becomes addicted? You're really verring off topic. And it's not a red herring.

Is it immoral to waste $ 8 million that could have been donated to worthy causes? That's what Bennett is allegedly down over a decade. That's certainly NOT virtuous. That's just my point. Bennnett prides himself as a virtuous man. It's not whether or not 'he can afford it'. It's the choices he chooses to make, and gambling is NOT a moral choice. It's a potentially (and evidently) addictive pasttime that MORAL people should avoid.

You know, I'm not the first person on the planet to suggest that casino gambling is a harm to society. There's a reason casinos are rare in the world. There's a reason politicians and moralists rail against gambling.

It's funny to me that, as a libertarian, I have to explain to you all why gambling might be considered immoral, or at the least, NOT VIRTUOUS.

[Senator Pardek]

I wonder what this fraud would say about rock stars who can afford their habit, and have a $200,000 line of credit from the dealer?

[discostu]

Wait, when I said the person was responsible you called that liberal headed. You're totally reversing position.

Not all gamblers are addicted, not all coke sniffers are addicted. An assumption of addiction is incorrect.

How much money has Bennett earned in that decade? What is that 8 mil as a percentage? Raw dollars don't tell the whole story, if that's only 1% of the money he's made over that time period big deal it's meaningless. To us 8 mil is a lot, is it a lot to him?

Feeding an addiction is immoral, having some legal non-exploitive fun once in a while is not immoral. That's my point. He's not hurting anybody in anyway including himself therefore it is NOT immoral. I don't care why it "might be considered" immoral, lots of stupid things are considered immoral by some subset of stupid people. The question here is whether or not it is immoral in the absolute. I say no. You say yes. Bennett, who makes his living making this kind of judgement says no. That's 2-1 against, sorry.