Floyd, you asked me why I was against the lottery. Here's why:

[David Floyd]

I play the lottery from time to time (a few tickets a year, if that). To me it's just entertainment, a minute Vegas vacation if you will. I don't think it's stupid, anymore than any luxury or entertainment is. I understand the odds perfectly.

As do I, and as does virtually everyone. Just because we either don't know or can't be arsed to learn the math doesn't mean we can't reason that the odds are very poor.

[David Floyd]

Oh well, who cares I'm going to bed...too tired for this **** right now I'm just mainly rambling anyway...

[Ramo]

So I misspelled a word at 1 am. Get over it.

I wasn't making fun of you. I was only trying to find a statement asserting that it's "obvious."

And my answer will simply be common sense. Maybe you need something else in order to justify not playing the lottery. I don't, though.

Common sense? Most people don't usually deal with events that are totally improbable (i.e. having odds of happening in the 1/billions), and certainly they don't usually deal with numbers associated with them. Most common sense isn't applicable.

And saying that something's obvious requires a lot more justification.

If the odds of guessing a one digit number are 10%

Why do you think that's true?

the odds of guessing a two digit number are 1%,

Why do you think this trend holds? Why isn't it 9%?

Yes, that's true, but everyone who guesses the right number have to share the prize. I said MY PERSONAL prize, not the overall prize.

Common sense says that it's much more. Since you see in the news all the time about people becoming millionares after guessing the lottery correctly.

Lotteries don't exist to lose money, now do they?

I see. So people should expect that the government is ****ing them over in your ideal government?

What lotteries do you know that offer a 1% chance of winning any sort of substantial individual prize?

The ignorant person wouldn't know whether one is 1% or not.

[Ramo]

You're saying that your gut reaction to a six digit number is to think you have a GREATER chance than 150,000? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

Why not? I'd have to know some math to determine it.

First of all, poor people are not necessarily ignorant, just as rich people are not necessarily intelligent.

The poor tend to be more ignorant than the rich.

[David Floyd]

Dammit this is my last post! I need sleep!

Why do you think that's true?

One in ten means 10%. Granted, I have to know math to understand the concept of 10%, but I don't have to know math in any advanced, post-9 year old way to know that if I will win something 1 out of 10 times, I will also lose 9 out of 10 times. I'd venture to say that EVERY adult, with a "normal" IQ, can subtract 1 from 10.

Why do you think this trend holds? Why isn't it 9%?

If you can count from 0-99, you can make the connection. It's not a difficult concept, and if a reasonable adult claims to not understand it, then they aren't trying.

Since you see in the news all the time about people becoming millionares after guessing the lottery correctly.

Common sense also suggests that most people don't become millionaires. Otherwise a)people wouldn't be on the news, and b)there would be no lotteries.

I see. So people should expect that the government is ****ing them over in your ideal government?

Certainly not.

In my ideal society, government's only function is the protection of individual rights. To do this, government requires limited funding. The trick is to find a non-coercive way of providing that funding. One non-coercive way is a lottery. No one's getting ****ed except those who voluntarily allow themselves to.

The ignorant person wouldn't know whether one is 1% or not.

No, but even an ignorant person knows that if there are 100 people in the room and only enough cocaine for one person, they are not likely to get the cocaine.

Why not? I'd have to know some math to determine it.

Not really, you'd have to simply expand your mind a little bit. Adults understand the difference between 10 and 100,000, don't try to tell me otherwise.

[JohnT]

"Secondly, I maintain my statement that any reasonable person KNOWS playing the lottery is inherently stupid, if they think about it for even two seconds."

The dichotomy you have is that your political philosophy has, as one of its assumptions, that all (wo)men are reasonable, rational beings. Since you admit that playing the lottery is an irrational act, you thereby admit that not all people are rational, which makes your political philosophy false.

See? I thought there was a flaw in your arguments!

[Ramo]

If you can count from 0-99, you can make the connection. It's not a difficult concept, and if a reasonable adult claims to not understand it, then they aren't trying.

Exactly. Many people don't try to understand. They simply say, "wow 6 spots with 10 possibilities and a prize of a million, I might be able to win that even if it's somewhat unlikely." It's not totally obvious that the probability is 1/151,200.

Common sense also suggests that most people don't become millionaires. Otherwise a)people wouldn't be on the news, and b)there would be no lotteries.

Of course. But why isn't it 1/100,000 instead of 1/151,200? If that were true, and the prize is $100,000, the expected profit is greater than 0, making it rational to participate.

Meaning, if someone was on the same order of magnitude as the real answer (while you were off by one), it would be rational to participate.

In my ideal society, government's only function is the protection of individual rights. To do this, government requires limited funding. The trick is to find a non-coercive way of providing that funding. One non-coercive way is a lottery. No one's getting ****ed except those who voluntarily allow themselves to.

People can be ****ed over voluntarily if they are ignorant and/or addicted. Are people not ****ed over by crack dealers?

No, but even an ignorant person knows that if there are 100 people in the room and only enough cocaine for one person, they are not likely to get the cocaine.

Sure. But why is it 1% instead of 9%?

Not really, you'd have to simply expand your mind a little bit. Adults understand the difference between 10 and 100,000, don't try to tell me otherwise.

You're exaggerating the difference. I said two or three orders of magnitude. Meaning around 10000 or 1000. Remember, you were off by an entire order of magnitude; why would one more be over the line?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Advertisements do just that - advertise. Beer commercials don't show people throwing up if they drink too much, or dying if they drive drunk. But everyone knows that both things happen - common sense and experience.

So we're not obliged to hold our government to a higher standard than we hold beer companies to? Maybe in your ideal society, but not mine. Not by a long shot.

[Ramo]

I'd like to repeat a point I made in my previous post because I fear it will be buried. If Joe Average estimates the probability in my lottery wrongly by a factor of 2/3, it would be rational to participate. Floyd was off by an order of magnitude.

[Mihai]

I don't know how is in USA, but in Romania the most succesful lotery isn't the one with best odds, but the one with biggest prize. Usually people doesn't think what the odds are, they play because they belive/hope that they are/will be lucky.

People gamble even if is illegal. It is better to be legal and taxed.
If I feel like gambling, I play on my PC Gold Casino. I usually give up after a lose several hundreds of thousands.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by JohnT


You also misused it:

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary...query=imminent

That depends on whether he meant 'imminent' or 'eminent'.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=eminent

from the context this seems more likely.

[Lefty Scaevola]

You do not need probabilities caculations to know that lotto is a bad investment. Only that exspenses are taken out and that the state skim some for taxes. That tells anyone that the players get out less than they put in. Its a simper calculation if say 25% goes to expenses and state skim, then a $1.00 ticket is only worth .$75, and each time you buy one, you are losing a quarter.

[Dauphin]

I don't see why people getting hett up about the actual odds involved in the lottery - be they good or bad. What you should be looking at is the actual odds in relation to the offered odds. I gamble on the odd occasion, not on who I think will win a match, but on who I think is mis-quoted in terms of odds.

The lottery here gives odds of a few million to one - the actual odds are 13 million to one. A disparity of risk to return of about 6-1. Given that an intelligent person at a bookies can find near parity risk/return, and at games of skill rather than chance - better than parity odds, I think the lottery is a form of gambling that is way off on the risk return stakes.

[Japher]

hehe

I think DF is right in stating that everyone knows the odds of the lottery... If not, who cares.

As for the lottery, why is any one against it?

-Gambling should not be used to finance education.

Why not? What will? More of my tax dollars? No thanks. Maybe they can teach the ignorant ppl the actuall odds of winning.

-Government componsates their budget on education for the lottery.

Really. I am sure they do. Yet, I would rather have a guarenteed fund for education than to rely on the idiots some ppl elect into office, or for some bond to pass so that my kid can get a history book that was printed post WWII. I really don't care if it is 100% or 1% of the actuall money coming from the lottery, yet as long as it is 100% of the money being contributed. Really.

-Only stupid/ignorant/ or uneducated ppl play lottery.

What a blanket statement. I play every week. I know the odds. I don't think I will win, but someone does. So, why not me? If I feel that MY money is better spent on a lottery ticket than on a six pack of beer, a stupid video game, or sitting in a savings account doing nothing to help society this does not make me stupid, ignorant, or uneducated. I think it makes me and my money better spent (even if only 1 cent per dollar actually makes it way to the classroom).

My unselfish reason (the one I tell myself) for playing the lottery is none of the above. I play because of the "why not me" attitude. It makes me dream, it accents my goals, and in the end it makes me happy. Is that wrong? Is that ignorant? Is that stupid? Everyone lies to themselves to feel happy, the do it all the time! Besides, as the lottery, it does what it sets out to do... support education. By me dreaming I become reflective on myself, and makes me want to better myself. It also makes me more aware of those who have not, and those other ppl who dream... mainly the children who need the education. It is rather encouraging.

PS

John-T: Ever hear of not beating a dead horse? Leave DF alone for misspelling or missusing a word, or whatever, we all (even you) got what he meant. If not than ask to clearify instead of picking on someones simantics, it so childish.

The dichotomy you have is that your political philosophy has, as one of its assumptions, that all (wo)men are reasonable, rational beings.

hehe, you said "dich". By the way I can't find "(wo)men" in the dictionary. Is that even a word?

Also, can rational people do irrational things? Is that even possible? Are all people who gamble irrational? Maybe they just want to have fun?

You proved nothing.

[David Floyd]

Exactly. Many people don't try to understand. They simply say, "wow 6 spots with 10 possibilities and a prize of a million, I might be able to win that even if it's somewhat unlikely."

OK, but they are still responsible for their own decisions.

Of course. But why isn't it 1/100,000 instead of 1/151,200? If that were true, and the prize is $100,000, the expected profit is greater than 0, making it rational to participate.

That's only true if you can afford to buy 1000 tickets per percentage point. That is, if you want a 1% chance of winning, you have to buy 1000 tickets. That's quite a hunk of change, and you're theory becomes ridiculous when applied to reality.

Are people not ****ed over by crack dealers?

No. Crack dealers are simply providing a product that is demanded. They aren't doing anything wrong by the act of dealing drugs.

You're argument here could easily be extended to indict coffee makers, Coca-Cola, etc., to say nothing of alcohol. Those people capitalize on addictions to make money. So what? They aren't forcing anyone to use their product, and neither are drug dealers.

I mean, drug dealers aren't gonna kill you if you don't buy from them. Him: "Hey man wanna score some crack?" Me: "Nahhh, I'm good." He doesn't give a ****, you don't have to sell drugs - they sell themselves. Someone else will come along and want some crack, sure as ****.

Sure. But why is it 1% instead of 9%?

What's your point? The only one I can discern is that of percentages being based upon knowing math, and I thought I answered it by bringing up a real life example that poor ignorant people can probably relate better to.

You're exaggerating the difference. I said two or three orders of magnitude. Meaning around 10000 or 1000. Remember, you were off by an entire order of magnitude; why would one more be over the line?

Of course I was off by an order of magnitude. But my answer appears to be right to someone who doesn't know math. Hell, I don't even know why my answer was wrong (nor do I care, so don't explain it to me). This is an example of the most obvious answer being wrong, but if it's the most obvious answer, I fail to see why other ignorant people wouldn't come to the same conclusion.

[Ramo]

Its a simper calculation if say 25% goes to expenses and state skim, then a $1.00 ticket is only worth .$75, and each time you buy one, you are losing a quarter.

I imagine most people wouldn't know the 25% figure.

I don't see why people getting hett up about the actual odds involved in the lottery - be they good or bad.

I was refuting the assertion that people who don't know that the lottery is a monumentally crappy investment are stupid.

What you should be looking at is the actual odds in relation to the offered odds.

Agreed. Deception on the part of the state not only punishes ignorance, but it promotes it.

OK, but they are still responsible for their own decisions.

Why should the state take advantage of their "irresponsibility?"

That's only true if you can afford to buy 1000 tickets per percentage point. That is, if you want a 1% chance of winning, you have to buy 1000 tickets. That's quite a hunk of change, and you're theory becomes ridiculous when applied to reality.

Not at all. Reduce the numbers a little (as in smaller lotteries) or even change the misestimate to an order of magnitude as you predicted, and the lottery is a perfectly rational investment.

You're argument here could easily be extended to indict coffee makers, Coca-Cola, etc., to say nothing of alcohol. Those people capitalize on addictions to make money. So what?

I don't see it as moral to sell any of these products to addicts.

They aren't doing anything wrong by the act of dealing drugs.

Someone else will come along and want some crack, sure as ****.

Do you at least agree that society would be better if no one thought that way?

What's your point? The only one I can discern is that of percentages being based upon knowing math, and I thought I answered it by bringing up a real life example that poor ignorant people can probably relate better to.

There's no particular reason to think that the trend works the way you describe unless you examine the system closer.

But my answer appears to be right to someone who doesn't know math. Hell, I don't even know why my answer was wrong (nor do I care, so don't explain it to me). This is an example of the most obvious answer being wrong, but if it's the most obvious answer, I fail to see why other ignorant people wouldn't come to the same conclusion.

To one person who doesn't know math. Most people would overestimate the probability. It seems more reasonable to me that the difference would be an order of magnitude less than more (without applying any knowledge).

[Ramo]

That's only true if you can afford to buy 1000 tickets per percentage point. That is, if you want a 1% chance of winning, you have to buy 1000 tickets. That's quite a hunk of change, and you're theory becomes ridiculous when applied to reality.

Elaborating on this point, if he misestimated the probablity by an order of magnitude (~1/10,000), if he buys a lottery ticket every day for 19 years, according to him, it's 50% likely that he'd win the lottery, and overall he'd make a huge profit.

[David Floyd]

Why should the state take advantage of their "irresponsibility?"

As a counterargument, should car dealers refuse to sell a car to someone whom they believe is being fiscally irresponsible (credit questions aside, the person is paying cash)? People are responsible for their own financial decisions, and the government least of all should question those decisions.

Not at all. Reduce the numbers a little (as in smaller lotteries) or even change the misestimate to an order of magnitude as you predicted, and the lottery is a perfectly rational investment.

So, reduce the odds to 1/1000, with the guaranteed individual prize being $5000, assuming $1 lottery tickets. Not that this has any basis in reality, but let's just assume.

In this case, it would be very logical to spend $1000 to buy 1000 lottery ticket, and making a net profit of $4000.

But this isn't how things work. If they did, I wouldn't bother going to college because I'd make my money exploiting lotteries.

I don't see it as moral to sell any of these products to addicts.

So now Coca-Cola venders should be "addict testers", and somehow magically identify which users are addicted to caffeine? Or maybe Starbucks should keep a record of its customers, and refuse service to anyone who is in more than 3 times a week? Maybe Budweiser should limit sales to one 6 pack per week per customer?



Of course not. People are responsible for their own decisions, and addicts became addicts as a result of their decision, and remain addicts by their own decision. There is help out there, such as AA or drug therapy. Just because people don't take advantage of it doesn't mean Budweiser, drug dealers, Starbucks, or anyone else should restrict sales of their products.

That's right. I see nothing immoral with the act of selling drugs.

Do you at least agree that society would be better if no one thought that way?

I agree that it is a bad idea to do cocaine, yes.

There's no particular reason to think that the trend works the way you describe unless you examine the system closer.

I suppose one needs to be a psychologist in order to closely examine such issues. I don't claim to be one. However, you seem to be the only person left trying to argue that people don't know the odds are stacked against them when they play the lottery, so I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on that theory.

To one person who doesn't know math. Most people would overestimate the probability. It seems more reasonable to me that the difference would be an order of magnitude less than more (without applying any knowledge).

Don't really see how. All one has to do with a six digit number, to reach the number I came up with, is to tack six zeroes onto the end of 1, which corresponds to the six numbers they have to guess. Seems logical.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ignorance should be punished at every opprotunity.

I can't believe I missed this statement until now. Such a wasted opportunity...

[Ramo]

As a counterargument, should car dealers refuse to sell a car to someone whom they believe is being fiscally irresponsible (credit questions aside, the person is paying cash)?

That's an inappropriate analogy. Closer to the point, car dealers shouldn't rip customers off with crappy deals.

People are responsible for their own financial decisions, and the government least of all should question those decisions.

This isn't about government questioning anyone's decisions; it's about government taking advantage of people.

But this isn't how things work. If they did, I wouldn't bother going to college because I'd make my money exploiting lotteries.

Of course most people don't think the odds are stacked in favor of them in lotteries. But I doubt most people who participate in them regularly understand the sheer and utter futility of winning in a lottery. It's one of the worst investments possible. And since the state deliberately lies about this, the lottery is incredibly exploitive.

So now Coca-Cola venders should be "addict testers", and somehow magically identify which users are addicted to caffeine? Or maybe Starbucks should keep a record of its customers, and refuse service to anyone who is in more than 3 times a week? Maybe Budweiser should limit sales to one 6 pack per week per customer?

Not at all. If someone has a serious addiction (granted, I've never heard of anyone who had a serious addiction to coca-cola, but I'm sure it's possible) to a harmful substance, it's totally morally irresponsible to exploit that addiction for your financial gain.

Likewise, if someone had a serious addiction to alcohol, it's morally irresponsible to sell alcohol to the alcoholic.

Of course not. People are responsible for their own decisions, and addicts became addicts as a result of their decision, and remain addicts by their own decision. There is help out there, such as AA or drug therapy. Just because people don't take advantage of it doesn't mean Budweiser, drug dealers, Starbucks, or anyone else should restrict sales of their products.

Sure they should. It isn't practical for them to do so, though.

I agree that it is a bad idea to do cocaine, yes.

If society would be better off without cocaine, how is it morally righteous to contribute to the cocaine industry?

I suppose one needs to be a psychologist in order to closely examine such issues. I don't claim to be one. However, you seem to be the only person left trying to argue that people don't know the odds are stacked against them when they play the lottery, so I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on that theory.

That's not what I'm saying. In reference to it possibly being financially responsible, I was addressing the claim of stupidity.

However, there's absolutely no doubt people don't understand quite how much the odds are stacked against them.

Don't really see how. All one has to do with a six digit number, to reach the number I came up with, is to tack six zeroes onto the end of 1, which corresponds to the six numbers they have to guess. Seems logical.

Why tack zeroes ad infinitum? It's not obvious. And my lottery is more comlex than that. And if you were off by one order of magnitude with your algorithm, why is it not possible that you were off by two?

[David Floyd]

Closer to the point, car dealers shouldn't rip customers off with crappy deals.

You're right, they shouldn't commit fraud. But there's nothing wrong with them airing advertisements featuring "dazzling automobiles" and "great deals". It's up to the consumer to decide what is dazzling and what isn't.

Fraud would be if they guaranteed that a car would run fine for at least three years, knowing full well it would break down next week.

This isn't about government questioning anyone's decisions; it's about government taking advantage of people.

It would only be taking advantage of people if these people did not have any way to figure out that lotteries are a bad deal. This is not the case, though.

Of course most people don't think the odds are stacked in favor of them in lotteries.

Not only that, but they know the odds are heavily stacked against them.

But I doubt most people who participate in them regularly understand the sheer and utter futility of winning in a lottery.

If they can't make the connection between horrible odds in one lottery and horrible odds in another, I'm not gonna feel sorry for them.

And since the state deliberately lies about this, the lottery is incredibly exploitive.

In what way does saying, "You could be next!" or "You can't win if you don't play" equate to lying?

Not at all. If someone has a serious addiction (granted, I've never heard of anyone who had a serious addiction to coca-cola, but I'm sure it's possible) to a harmful substance, it's totally morally irresponsible to exploit that addiction for your financial gain.

Likewise, if someone had a serious addiction to alcohol, it's morally irresponsible to sell alcohol to the alcoholic.

My point was that it is not my place to go out of my way to determine if somone has a "serious addiction". My job (well, my potential job) is to sell a good to a customer. I'm not a social worker or a doctor. People are ultimately responsible for themselves - it is up to them to seek help, not their local Starbucks shop or liquor store.

Sure they should. It isn't practical for them to do so, though.

Why should they? You're saying that buying a coffee should be like buying a gun currently is? "OK, that'll be one grande espresso, now just fill out these forms in triplicate, we'll fax them off to our National Addiction Control Center, and we'll get your coffee to you sometime tomorrow."

This isn't their job. Their job is to provide a good and/or service to a paying customer, who seeks out this good or service of their own free will.

If society would be better off without cocaine, how is it morally righteous to contribute to the cocaine industry?

Because it's not immoral to sell a good that someone (or, in this case, a great many someones) want. I may wish cocaine never existed, but since it does exist and isn't going away, I see no problem with someone selling it, either.

However, there's absolutely no doubt people don't understand quite how much the odds are stacked against them.

Two points:
First of all, it is their responsibility and easily within their means to figure out the exact odds.
Secondly, the fact remains that they are STILL buying lottery tickets, KNOWING the odds are strongly against them in some form or fashion.

Why tack zeroes ad infinitum? It's not obvious.

Seems to be obvious to me *shrug*, but I don't think we're gonna get any further in this particular area anyway.

[Ramo]

You're right, they shouldn't commit fraud.

Why not? Given the morality you've expressed in this thread, I don't see why fraud is any worse.

But there's nothing wrong with them airing advertisements featuring "dazzling automobiles" and "great deals". It's up to the consumer to decide what is dazzling and what isn't.

Car dealers shouldn't try to pass a car off for $5000 if it's only worth $1000. It is the customer's responsibility to determine whether the car dealer is being honest, but it's the car dealer's responsibility to be honest.

Fraud would be if they guaranteed that a car would run fine for at least three years, knowing full well it would break down next week.

Doesn't sound morally worse to me than exploiting a crack addiction.

And by that criteria, governments certainly do committ fraud with lotteries by lying about the probabilities. SD gave us an example a while back.

It would only be taking advantage of people if these people did not have any way to figure out that lotteries are a bad deal. This is not the case, though.

Again, it's not a question of realizing whether it's a bad deal; it's realizing whether it's an insanely bad deal which is not obvious.

If they can't make the connection between horrible odds in one lottery and horrible odds in another, I'm not gonna feel sorry for them.

If they don't know the probability of one, why should they know the odds of another?

In what way does saying, "You could be next!" or "You can't win if you don't play" equate to lying?

It's certainly deceptive. Right out lying is saying that the probability is x, when it's much less than x.

My point was that it is not my place to go out of my way to determine if somone has a "serious addiction". My job (well, my potential job) is to sell a good to a customer. I'm not a social worker or a doctor. People are ultimately responsible for themselves - it is up to them to seek help, not their local Starbucks shop or liquor store.

It's the responsible of everyone to be decent people to everyone else. That's how society should work. People shouldn't be total *******s to each other.

Why should they? You're saying that buying a coffee should be like buying a gun currently is? "OK, that'll be one grande espresso, now just fill out these forms in triplicate, we'll fax them off to our National Addiction Control Center, and we'll get your coffee to you sometime tomorrow."

This isn't their job. Their job is to provide a good and/or service to a paying customer, who seeks out this good or service of their own free will.

This is a strawman. Coffee addictions certainly aren't as serious as crack addictions.

Two points:
First of all, it is their responsibility and easily within their means to figure out the exact odds.

1. It's the responisbility of people to be civil to each other.
2. They sometimes find odds from the government. Often, the government is lying.

Secondly, the fact remains that they are STILL buying lottery tickets, KNOWING the odds are strongly against them in some form or fashion.

They usually don't understand the odds are stacked against them as much as they are.

Seems to be obvious to me *shrug*

But you were wrong.

[Shi Huangdi]

" Given the morality you've expressed in this thread, I don't see why fraud is any worse."

Fraud involves dishonesty in your dealings. Lotteries don't neccesarily involve dishonesty.

[David Floyd]

Car dealers shouldn't try to pass a car off for $5000 if it's only worth $1000.

Are you saying car dealers shouldn't try to turn a profit, or shouldn't try to turn an excessive profit?

Does this mean it is wrong for Best Buy to sell Belkin printer cables for $30-40, when they buy them from Belkin for about $4-6, and Belkin manufactures them for far less?

Sorry, I'm not gonna buy that. Prices should be what people are willing to pay - if people are willing to pay $5000 for a $1000 car, so be it.

And by that criteria, governments certainly do committ fraud with lotteries by lying about the probabilities.

Well, I will concede that the government shouldn't lie. That doesn't mean that lotteries are wrong, though.

Again, it's not a question of realizing whether it's a bad deal; it's realizing whether it's an insanely bad deal which is not obvious.

It's stupid to dump money into an insanely bad deal, and it's still stupid to dump money into merely a "bad" deal.

If they don't know the probability of one, why should they know the odds of another?

They know the odds on both are bad.

It's certainly deceptive.

So are beer commercials that show beer drinkers surrounded by 23 hot girls, rolling around together in the sand.

It's the responsible of everyone to be decent people to everyone else. That's how society should work. People shouldn't be total *******s to each other.

OK, but if a person opens a liquor store, for example, the are simply meeting a demand. It is not their place to be a social worker, but rather to sell alcohol. They aren't doctors, either, or psychologists, and probably have no idea what addiction "looks like". They shouldn't be held responsible for any problems that result from alcohol consumption, that's preposterous.

This is a strawman. Coffee addictions certainly aren't as serious as crack addictions.

Fine. Substitute Starbucks for your local liquor store.

Often, the government is lying.

Well, then the government shouldn't lie. But that doesn't mean lotteries are bad in general, just that certain people are bad.

They usually don't understand the odds are stacked against them as much as they are.

Don't feel a bit sorry for them. They knew the odds were bad, they played anyway, and they lost. Boo-****ing-hoo.

But you were wrong.

I could have told you that from the beginning. My answer was based, though, on my initial gut reaction to the question.

[Ramo]

Ummm... he's said there's nothing morally wrong wtih crack dealing.

[Ramo]

Are you saying car dealers shouldn't try to turn a profit, or shouldn't try to turn an excessive profit?

Profit is not necessarily relevant (the car dealers have costs, etc.). The issue is whether the car dealer is lying about the price being fair.

It's stupid to dump money into an insanely bad deal, and it's still stupid to dump money into merely a "bad" deal.

I've knowingly dumped money into situations where it wasn't likely I would come out ahead (gambelling, for instance). I don't think that makes me stupid. It can be fun. The problem is in lotteries, the odds or stacked incredibly out of the gambler's favor, and the government is deceptive about it.

They know the odds on both are bad.

They don't know they're that bad.

So are beer commercials that show beer drinkers surrounded by 23 hot girls, rolling around together in the sand.

Yep.

OK, but if a person opens a liquor store, for example, the are simply meeting a demand. It is not their place to be a social worker, but rather to sell alcohol. They aren't doctors, either, or psychologists, and probably have no idea what addiction "looks like".

Right. That's the point. They don't know, so it isn't practical. With lottery, it comes down to ignorance or addiction.

They shouldn't be held responsible for any problems that result from alcohol consumption, that's preposterous.

However the same does not apply to crack dealing, where addiction is nearly universal and extreme.

Fine. Substitute Starbucks for your local liquor store.

That's impractical, and the same applies to a lesser extent. However, I do think it's morally wrong for the local liquor store clerk to knowlingly sells alcohol to addicts.

Don't feel a bit sorry for them. They knew the odds were bad, they played anyway, and they lost. Boo-****ing-hoo.

They were taken advantage of, it comes simply down to that. And the state certainly shouldn't be involved with that.

I could have told you that from the beginning. My answer was based, though, on my initial gut reaction to the question.

I though it was based on reasoning; you explained it. I don't consider that a gut reaction.

Besides, what you asserted is not obvious since it is not true.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Ummm... he's said there's nothing morally wrong wtih crack dealing."

So long as you are dealing with adults and are honest about the products effects. I'd agree with that. If you're an adult, it's your responsibility to look out for your welfare, not the responsibility of sellers to determine what is good for you or not. That said, must crack dealers today do plenty of illegal things associated with dealing crack(such as killing other dealers), but that would probably go away if it was legalized.

And if you think crack dealing is immoral, then what about selling fatty foods? Over a long period of time they can kill you.

People are free to make their own choices. I would think most people who buy lottery tickets would have to know their chances of winning are very small. They also know though that it is possible that they could get lucky and become rich, and in purchasing a ticket they are willing to give away some money for that chance. True it's not very smart, but I see no problem with them wanting to do that. I do have a problem though with government saying "We know better than you that this is a waste of your money, so we are going to take it away"

[David Floyd]

Profit is not necessarily relevant (the car dealers have costs, etc.). The issue is whether the car dealer is lying about the price being fair.

Pricing has little to do with "fairness", whatever that means, and much to do with what people are willing to pay. What people are willing to pay IS the fair price.

I've knowingly dumped money into situations where it wasn't likely I would come out ahead (gambelling, for instance). I don't think that makes me stupid. It can be fun.

No, stupid comes in when you play with the expectation of winning.

The problem is in lotteries, the odds or stacked incredibly out of the gambler's favor, and the government is deceptive about it.

I see nothing wrong with creating a voluntary system, where the odds are stacked against winning, and using non-coercive, truthful (but not necessarily clear) advertising to get people to play. It's certainly better than an involuntary system backed by coercion.

They don't know they're that bad.

They should. It's obvious. Common sense dictates that a lottery with a $10 million jackpot is going to have HORRIBLE odds.

However the same does not apply to crack dealing, where addiction is nearly universal and extreme.

But if a person does crack one time, they obviously should expect to be addicted. In that sense, they are choosing addiction, and trading pleasure for a probable shortened lifetime. It was their choice all the way around.

However, I do think it's morally wrong for the local liquor store clerk to knowlingly sells alcohol to addicts.

Not that they have any way of determining who is an addict.

They were taken advantage of, it comes simply down to that.

No, it comes down to a bunch of ****ing idiots throwing money away that they can't afford.

though it was based on reasoning; you explained it. I don't consider that a gut reaction.

My INITIAL gut reaction was that the odds were along the lines of 10 million to 1, when I applied my reasoning to it I came up with 1 million to 1. My gut reaction and my reasoning are usually used in conjunction with each other, and either way, the odds are horrible.

[Capt Dizle]

when a government of the people by the people fleece the people with gimmicks such as a lottery then something is out of whack somewhere

[Urban Ranger]

I fail to see any entertainment value in a lottery. Watching little balls rolling about is almost as bad as watching cricket.