The NHL embracing sports gambling was a major mistake

[daver]

So you just get to say things like "the default position is to not limit people [sic] freedom" without any sort of justification? Cool. Then I get to say you're wrong and the default position is to set limitations to freedom when there is a benefit to society, and I get to say it without any justification.

So everything we do has to be seen through a lens of potential societal benefit before being allowed to do it? Who gets to decide what is and what isn't a "benefit to society"? A panel? A government agency?

It may not be pretty or fair (life isn't meant to be pretty or fair) but not limiting freedom is the default position. This does not mean freedom from consequences.

One of those consequences can be society determining that the state does need to intervene. In this particular case, this may be the curtailing of gambling site ads on publicly broadcasts.

 

[JPT]

So everything we do has to be seen through a lens of potential societal benefit before being allowed to do it? Who gets to decide what is and what isn't a "benefit to society"? A panel? A government agency?

It may not be pretty or fair (life isn't meant to be pretty or fair) but not limiting freedom is the default position. This does not mean freedom from consequences.

One of those consequences can be society determining that the state does need to intervene. In this particular case, this may be the curtailing of gambling site ads on publicly broadcasts.

I realize that to continue this discussion I would have to get into ideas about the difference between unlimited freedom and rights, and I'd have to basically lecture about the philosophical state of nature. I'm not going to do either of those things on a hockey board, so I'll simply say that you misinterpreted my point and move on.

 

[daver]

I realize that to continue this discussion I would have to get into ideas about the difference between unlimited freedom and rights, and I'd have to basically lecture about the philosophical state of nature. I'm not going to do either of those things on a hockey board, so I'll simply say that you misinterpreted my point and move on.

I think you guys were saying the same thing. The other poster is wary of authoritarianism and you are probably thinking of obvious limits of freedom such as driving as fast as you like on a road.

You are probably on a similar page about gambling (or maybe not), it should be viewed as a controlled vice. Unlimited ads and integration into a hockey broadcast, and half-hearted "gamble responsible" messaging attempts by government or the NHL, in complete contrast with it's promotion of gambling do not appear to be "controlling".

 

[daver]

I realize that to continue this discussion I would have to get into ideas about the difference between unlimited freedom and rights, and I'd have to basically lecture about the philosophical state of nature.

You could simply present ideas and viewpoints rather than coming from a starting point of "lecturing"; something that effectively closes the door on having a mutually beneficial discussion. Not saying that whatever you have to say is not beneficial but rather it may very well be that you are the one who benefits from what the other person has to say.

Wouldn't that be a better way to approach a topic?

 

[JPT]

You could simply present ideas and viewpoints rather than coming from a starting point of "lecturing"; something that effectively closes the door on having a mutually beneficial discussion. Not saying that whatever you have to say is not beneficial but rather it may very well be that you are the one who benefits from what the other person has to say.

Wouldn't that be a better way to approach a topic?

Theyre pretty strict about their no-politics rule here, so it's really not worth getting into further since it would require quite a bit of political philosophy discussion that, to be done properly, would need a lot of boring talk. That's all I meant. It's just not that deep.

 

[Reality Czech]

I agree we ought to be rid of them, but just because they are annoying. I just think the “gambling is bad, thus, we need to get rid of it so poor people don’t become gambling addicts” thing is a bit much.

Same logic people used by making strict drug laws. And as we all know, people stopped using drugs when the government made them illegal.

 

[JPT]

Same logic people used by making strict drug laws. And as we all know, people stopped using drugs when the government made them illegal.

Is someone advocating for making something illegal?

 

[SirJW]

Still, the in game promotions suck.