Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited April 30, 2017, 6:43 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

More offshore gambling arrests

Topic closed. 25 replies. Last post 11 years ago by Todd.

Page 2 of 2
31
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
New Mexico
United States
Member #12305
March 10, 2005
2984 Posts
Offline
Posted: August 20, 2006, 1:49 pm - IP Logged

"You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded."

I'd like for you to clarify who you've included in this blanket statement. One finger pointing at me, three pointing back at you. Unless you are a life-long political activist, you can cram it with peanut butter, sunshine! Mad

It's not important enough to clarify for your benefit.  But if you've ever served on a jury and refused to vote for conviction and imprisonment of a person who was clearly guilty of a victimless crime, if you've ever done anything at all to change the situation I'll disinclude you.

Otherwise, count yourself inside the fences, amigo.

No need for me to cram it with butter and sunshine.  You excluded me inside your 'unless you're a' piece of the permission you gave me, though the 'life-long' piece of it gets fairly shaky nowadays.  I did enough in years past to make up for it.

Gracias,

J

Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

It's about number behavior.

Egos don't count.

 

Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

 

    Lurk More N00b's avatar - ummm
    USA
    United States
    Member #3312
    January 10, 2004
    35 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: August 20, 2006, 3:04 pm - IP Logged

    You have no idea what I've done. Your assumptions are baseless and asinine. You cannot blame society as a whole while leaving yourself out of the equation. It's just ignorant.

      Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
      Chief Bottle Washer
      New Jersey
      United States
      Member #1
      May 31, 2000
      23599 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: August 20, 2006, 3:10 pm - IP Logged

      By their own standards, those who use legality as the measure of morality should feel repelled by the entire issue of online gambling once it's passed by an Act of Congress and signed by the Prez.  They should applaud as they are, themselves, hauled off to the slammer for a few years if they're caught doing it.

      By the same token, they should have no problem with pornography because it is evidently not illegal (immoral).  (Except in the instance of kiddie porn, which is both illegal and immoral and actively investigated and enforced by criminal prosecution where the Internet's involved.)

      J

      Let me start by saying that I do not support the ban on Internet gambling, as I do not feel it is immoral.

      Then, my point:

      You have it backwards.  People do not use laws as the basis for what they feel is moral.  They create laws based on what they feel is moral.

      I understand that libertarians want fewer laws, and I support that to a degree, but that is because libertarians generally do not feel that there is a heck of a lot that could be deemed "immoral".  Hence, they do not want a lot of laws.

      As a society, we try to come together to create laws that cover us all, but as our population grows ridiculously large and diverse, it becomes harder and more divisive to do that, no matter which direction the country moves in.

       

      Check the State Lottery Report Card
      What grade did your lottery earn?

       

      Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
      Help eliminate computerized drawings!

        Avatar
        New Mexico
        United States
        Member #12305
        March 10, 2005
        2984 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: August 20, 2006, 3:33 pm - IP Logged

        You have no idea what I've done. Your assumptions are baseless and asinine. You cannot blame society as a whole while leaving yourself out of the equation. It's just ignorant.

        I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More.  I only gave you a couple of factors you could use to exclude yourself.

        I have no idea what you've done, nor what you haven't done.  And I haven't a care either way.

        If you wish to exclude yourself, by all means do it with my best wishes. 

        However, if you wish to exclude yourself you probably ought to be ecstatic such things are being discussed, as opposed to worrying you aren't getting pats on the back and kudos for whatever you might have done.

        All of which suggests whatever you might have done, you very did it for reasons I wouldn't admire.

         But you don't need my admiration and I certainly don't need yours.

        Whatever any of us might have done obviously wasn't enough to stop the steamroller.

        So, in my own case, I'm perfectly happy to see the steamroller squash a few feet who've done as I described, sat silently in tacit consent, applauded, or gloated while others were hauled off to the slammer for victimless crimes.

        It won't change anything, but at least they'll have a taste of the pinch they've wished on others.

        J

        Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

        It's about number behavior.

        Egos don't count.

         

        Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

         

          Avatar
          New Mexico
          United States
          Member #12305
          March 10, 2005
          2984 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: August 20, 2006, 3:59 pm - IP Logged

          Let me start by saying that I do not support the ban on Internet gambling, as I do not feel it is immoral.

          Then, my point:

          You have it backwards.  People do not use laws as the basis for what they feel is moral.  They create laws based on what they feel is moral.

          I understand that libertarians want fewer laws, and I support that to a degree, but that is because libertarians generally do not feel that there is a heck of a lot that could be deemed "immoral".  Hence, they do not want a lot of laws.

          As a society, we try to come together to create laws that cover us all, but as our population grows ridiculously large and diverse, it becomes harder and more divisive to do that, no matter which direction the country moves in.

          Todd:

          I don't know how a Libertarian might reply to your post, but here's an alternative viewpoint:

          In a free society where freedom of religion is an ideal there's a lot of elbow room for differing beliefs concerning morality.

          Criminal laws is such a society would be intended to do the following:

          1. Discourage people from harming one another,
          2. Discourage people from threatening one another,
          3. Discourage people from destroying the property of one another,
          4. Discourage people from stealing the property of one another,
          5. Discourage people from imposing their moral values (so long as those moral values don't do any of the above) on others by any of the methods listed above, or by physical force, psychological force, intimidation, or by any other means.

          However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.

          Just my own viewpoint.

          Jack

          Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

          It's about number behavior.

          Egos don't count.

           

          Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

           

            Lurk More N00b's avatar - ummm
            USA
            United States
            Member #3312
            January 10, 2004
            35 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: August 20, 2006, 4:22 pm - IP Logged

            I'm not easily angered, nor easily drawn into flamewars on message boards, but you must understand that the way you presented your statement was very accusatory of others while offering  no evidence whatsoever that you are any better than the rest of us.
                If you are a saint, then by all means, present evidence that shows us how it's all our fault and you had nothing to do with it.

            "I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More."

            Then what was this?

            "You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded."

            Are you including yourself in this statement? Because that would be "We all".

            "All of which suggests whatever you might have done, you very did it for reasons I wouldn't admire."

            Again, you have no idea what I may or may not have done nor the reasons for which I may or may not have done it. Keep your assumptions to yourself.

              Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
              Chief Bottle Washer
              New Jersey
              United States
              Member #1
              May 31, 2000
              23599 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: August 20, 2006, 5:01 pm - IP Logged

              Todd:

              I don't know how a Libertarian might reply to your post, but here's an alternative viewpoint:

              In a free society where freedom of religion is an ideal there's a lot of elbow room for differing beliefs concerning morality.

              Criminal laws is such a society would be intended to do the following:

              1. Discourage people from harming one another,
              2. Discourage people from threatening one another,
              3. Discourage people from destroying the property of one another,
              4. Discourage people from stealing the property of one another,
              5. Discourage people from imposing their moral values (so long as those moral values don't do any of the above) on others by any of the methods listed above, or by physical force, psychological force, intimidation, or by any other means.

              However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.

              Just my own viewpoint.

              Jack

              Yes, there plenty of "elbow room for differing beliefs", but only one set of laws.

              Numbers 1-4 make sense, but number 5 is very unclear.  I think number 5 may even be wrong.  I also don't understand your sentence, "However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue."

              Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.

               

              Check the State Lottery Report Card
              What grade did your lottery earn?

               

              Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
              Help eliminate computerized drawings!

                Avatar
                New Mexico
                United States
                Member #12305
                March 10, 2005
                2984 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: August 20, 2006, 5:10 pm - IP Logged

                I'm not easily angered, nor easily drawn into flamewars on message boards, but you must understand that the way you presented your statement was very accusatory of others while offering  no evidence whatsoever that you are any better than the rest of us.
                    If you are a saint, then by all means, present evidence that shows us how it's all our fault and you had nothing to do with it.

                "I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More."

                Then what was this?

                "You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded."

                Are you including yourself in this statement? Because that would be "We all".

                "All of which suggests whatever you might have done, you very did it for reasons I wouldn't admire."

                Again, you have no idea what I may or may not have done nor the reasons for which I may or may not have done it. Keep your assumptions to yourself.

                Lurk More:

                I give you permission to be as angry as you choose to be.

                Whatever I might have said that you find offensive, I apologize.

                I promise you've not done less than you've actually done as a result of my post here.  I also promise that whatever I might have done, or haven't done, is also unmoved by what I've said here.  Both exist in the inaccessible past.

                Consider yourself unharmed by my blanket statements.  Your past is safe from my attacks and underminings. 

                I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it.  Feel free to say what you wish without fear of me replying.

                Jack

                Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

                It's about number behavior.

                Egos don't count.

                 

                Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

                 

                  Lurk More N00b's avatar - ummm
                  USA
                  United States
                  Member #3312
                  January 10, 2004
                  35 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: August 20, 2006, 5:31 pm - IP Logged

                  "I give you permission to be as angry as you choose to be."

                  Hey, thanks mom!

                  Rather than blowing mud all over Todd's forums, I will agree to let it be and call it a day.

                    Avatar
                    New Mexico
                    United States
                    Member #12305
                    March 10, 2005
                    2984 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: August 20, 2006, 5:31 pm - IP Logged

                    Yes, there plenty of "elbow room for differing beliefs", but only one set of laws.

                    Numbers 1-4 make sense, but number 5 is very unclear.  I think number 5 may even be wrong.  I also don't understand your sentence, "However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue."

                    Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.

                    1. Discourage people from imposing their moral values (so long as those moral values don't do any of the above) on others by any of the methods listed above, or by physical force, psychological force, intimidation, or by any other means.

                    However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.

                    I'm uncertain which part of the Item 5 was unclear.  However, there's probably no reason for us to elaborate.  We're both well established in our viewpoints and in no danger of changing them as a result of anything one of us might say to the other.

                    Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.

                    If so, the collective morality of the citizens preceding us in this nation wasn't entirely out of step with the collective morality of the citizens of the early 21st century in spirit, if not in detail.

                    • The collective morality that made it a criminal offense to help slaves escape their bondage,
                    • The collective morality that allowed Japanese American citizens to be jailed during WWII,
                    • The collective morality that made it a criminal act for a black man to sit in the front of a vehicle of public transportation,
                    • The collective morality that made it a criminal act for a black person to use a public restroom other than the one designated for use by blacks,
                    • The collective morality that made it a criminal act for black people to marry white people,

                    all those are gone.

                    All that's left is the spirit, the confidence that it's right, that collective morality.  That it's sufficient reason, that collective morality, to exchange those details of past criminality for others more germane to today.

                    Which is the reason we have more prisons and prisoners in this country than any other country in the world (as RickG correctly pointed out).

                    What sort of people, a person might ask himself, would be willing to imprison others for behaviors they might find offensive, but which behaviors do not touch the lives of those doing the imprisoning?

                    The answer is clear enough.

                    J

                    Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

                    It's about number behavior.

                    Egos don't count.

                     

                    Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser

                     

                      Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
                      Chief Bottle Washer
                      New Jersey
                      United States
                      Member #1
                      May 31, 2000
                      23599 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: August 20, 2006, 6:16 pm - IP Logged
                      1. Discourage people from imposing their moral values (so long as those moral values don't do any of the above) on others by any of the methods listed above, or by physical force, psychological force, intimidation, or by any other means.

                      However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.

                      I'm uncertain which part of the Item 5 was unclear.  However, there's probably no reason for us to elaborate.  We're both well established in our viewpoints and in no danger of changing them as a result of anything one of us might say to the other.

                      Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from "imposing their moral values" is more of a philosophical proposal than a practical one.

                      If so, the collective morality of the citizens preceding us in this nation wasn't entirely out of step with the collective morality of the citizens of the early 21st century in spirit, if not in detail.

                      • The collective morality that made it a criminal offense to help slaves escape their bondage,
                      • The collective morality that allowed Japanese American citizens to be jailed during WWII,
                      • The collective morality that made it a criminal act for a black man to sit in the front of a vehicle of public transportation,
                      • The collective morality that made it a criminal act for a black person to use a public restroom other than the one designated for use by blacks,
                      • The collective morality that made it a criminal act for black people to marry white people,

                      all those are gone.

                      All that's left is the spirit, the confidence that it's right, that collective morality.  That it's sufficient reason, that collective morality, to exchange those details of past criminality for others more germane to today.

                      Which is the reason we have more prisons and prisoners in this country than any other country in the world (as RickG correctly pointed out).

                      What sort of people, a person might ask himself, would be willing to imprison others for behaviors they might find offensive, but which behaviors do not touch the lives of those doing the imprisoning?

                      The answer is clear enough.

                      J

                      Your post is a cliché.  It is a common crutch of the left to throw out "bad things" that happened in history, as if people on the right were the ones who did those things, or as if the liberals of the time were the ones who "righted the wrongs".

                      The fact is that people of the liberal persuasion were most often the ones who started and maintained those problems, and the conservatives were the ones who ended them.  I could go into detail on each of your bullet points, but I'll leave that up to your inevitable reply.

                      Your posts are sounding angry these days, and I don't think you realize it.  Yes, the posts are being made with your literary flare, but they sound like pent-up anger.  Just telling it like it is.

                       

                      Check the State Lottery Report Card
                      What grade did your lottery earn?

                       

                      Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
                      Help eliminate computerized drawings!