The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Alcohol & gambling: more harm than good?

Alcohol & gambling: more harm than good?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 14
  14. 15
  15. 16
  16. All
Grateful, Comrade I heard some place that religion is a drug of the masses.
Seems true to me.
We must not stop trying to lessen the damage these things do but the answer is no it always will be no.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 29 August 2010 6:47:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzeonline
<<The answer to your question, Grateful, is NO.

Our funloving society would only replace these pleasures with other pursuits. >>

If the other pursuits were more constructive, then your answer should have been YES. So, for example, if instead of spending money and time on alcohol and gambling people, people could enhance their knowledge, take time off and spend for the kids, help others and lead much healthier lives. The opportunity cost of alcohol and gambling is high.

<<If a country where alcohol and gambling was banned were told the people could now have their own free will restored to them, and be able to drink or gamble if they chose to, would they feel less restricted in their life?>>

If these laws were the only reason they are not drinking and gambling, then yes they would feel less restricted in their life.

On the other hand, those for whom the decision to abstain does not depend on these laws would probably feel that such laws protected them from the negative impact that alcohol and gambling can have on peoples behaviour towards themselves and others.

I would give greater weight to the preferences of those who abstain because i think whatever benefits there may be in alcohol and gambling, they are far outweighed by the costs. But i would only have such laws when the overwhelming majority abstained from alcohol and gambling WILLINGLY: it is only in this context that they could serve a constructive role.

Thanks suzeonline, as well as nairbe, dotto, runner, foxy and Stg, for some useful comments and addressing the topic with reason.
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 29 August 2010 6:51:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful, "If i have a view about what is good for our society, i'm entitled to it even if it makes you feel a bit uncomfortabnle."

It is the way of fundamentalists to utterly believe that they have the solution for other who are misled or living in sin.

What I am telling you is that I am not buying what you are selling. I have no need for it. I am happy as I am. My freedom is a treasure.

What you should be aware of is that there are many still living who endured the needless inhibitions, impositions, restrictions and bans of fundamentalist religion post-WW2. Their stories, backed up by the newspaper and film records, would send a chill through to the bones of any student of history.

What you are selling is infinitely worse and for women a catastrophic wind-back of everything gained in decades. Your proposal to ban and limit people's rights for their well-being and welfare (as determined by you), to allow you and those like you to do their thinking and make decisions for them, is an insult to anyone's intelligence. That is especially so in a country that is still shaking off the yoke of fundamentalist religion, in particular the persistent interference of the Roman Catholic Church.

Your false dilemmas are typical of the manipulation of religious fundamentalists and are rejected, totally. Religious fundamentalism is an obscenity, a blemish on our secular society and the sooner it is all sloughed off the better we will be.
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 29 August 2010 8:29:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been thinking that grateful is some kind of proselytising Muslim, but on reflection I think s/he's actually a Methodist.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 29 August 2010 8:40:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Methodist? Do they bounce too?

Because my dear departed father once threw a Catholic priest down the steps of a Queenslander (many steps) for reducing my mother to tears. It was a 'mixed' marriage and she had given Catholicism the flick, much to the chagrin of the local ogre in black, who was wont to visit when he knew dad was away to give her a righteous serve of lip.

Anyhow, Catholic priests do bounce. However replacing the house yard cattle dog when needed works a treat and is the proactive solution of choice. No need to over-rev the tractor back to the house that way.
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 29 August 2010 9:31:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL Cornflower - hilarious mental image.

I'm not sure if Methodists bounce as well as Catholics, but I'm certain they wouldn't approve - it could be confused with dancing. Heaven forfend!

Mind you, I've known plenty of Catholics who are fond of a drink and a punt...
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 29 August 2010 10:33:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 14
  14. 15
  15. 16
  16. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy