Blog or Article?
Blogs often focus on personal opinion, experiences, views, anecdotes or advice. Blogs tend to have a relaxed and conversational feel, such as in storytelling and are generally 300-500 words.
Articles aim to deliver well-researched, informative content with solid evidence to back up the points made. Articles are usually more formal, organized and frequently range 500-1000 words.
Comments
I'll add another comment to that one.
:-) Ken
Just a little bit ago this posting was showing 36 comments, the same number as my most recent posting. I came here to enter another comment just so you would still be ahead. What happened? (It doesn't really matter. You must have culled the responses.) Sue sends her love.
Bless. Ken
"Gambling" is entertainment for many. In that way it's an expense, not an investment, high or low risk. I go to the movies, pay 9 bucks and watch the movie. When I come out I don't get my 9 bucks back. I saw the movie, that's what I got for my money. There was no risk, I paid for what I got.
Gambling is of such a high risk that it can only be viewed in the same way, in order to have any entertainment value, in my opinion. The enjoyment of the game, the competition if you see it that way, the calculation of the odds at every hand - all of that could certainly have entertainment value for a person. If they "break even", it's like seeing the movie. If they make a few bucks playing, damn! that was a GOOD movie. If you lose - geez. That movie STUNK. In any case I went in with 9 bucks and I came out with the experience I bought. But that's the extent of the investment and gambling should be viewed the same. There's no risk - you're going to lose if you play long enough, so play to lose. And enjoy yourself, if that's what you want to do with your money.
Those who risk more than they have to lose are in a whole 'nother category. To do that is as immoral as stealing, IMO.
Now - having said that I'd add - I've "won" often enough in the few times I've played slot machines that I'm sure I'm an anamoly. I played once with a 100 bucks my sister gave me, "have fun!". I won a couple hundred bucks, played down to the original hundred, and gave it back to her. Had a blast for awhile but it got boring. Put the dollar in, pull the arm. Make the bet, get the cards. It's definitely not my thing. .
On a layover few years ago in Las Vegas I got off the plane looking for a place to grab a smoke in the 20 minutes we had. I found a room so filled with smoke it was a deal I couldn't pass up - no need to light up, just take a deep breath. So I went in and in the middle of this brown haze were a couple rows of slots. I looked around and found an empty stool next to an elderly woman and proceeded to add to the smog. I grabbed some change out of my pocket and put in a few quarters. What the hell. Gave the arm a pull - chik chik chik. Gave it another pull - badabing! badabing! BADABING!!!
Kachinga!!! I had a row of three goldfish or something. I realized I'd won some dough and started wiggling around to figure out how to get it out. The elderly woman next to me reached out a red fingernailed hand and pointed at a button and in a gravelly baritone rasped out "Ya gotta hit the Cash Out button, honey. Congratulations - you're a winnah". I punched that puppy and watched as the tray filled up - I think it was about 60 bucks or so. I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, so I filled up my two pockets and piled the rest up in the front of my t-shirt, pulled it up and high tailed it out of there. The people at the gate gave me a bag. I went back to my seat and said to Janet "They like smokers here".
Entertaining? Definitely. Every 6 or 7 years, kinda fun.
Hi Billy - how''re things? Allowing for individual responisibity is a gimme, and a good point I think. As we both know people will do all manner of things and think it's fine by their own moral standards. So we just have to beat on 'em till they get to learnin' better what are right.
Just kidding. I do believe games of chance can be enjoyable as a form of entertainment, especially if you enjoy parting with money quickly. If fast gets your buzzer going, gambling's the way to go. I'm just shy of the "all things in moderation" idea on this - I don't see modern gambling as something that has much margin of moderation. Less is more.
The average gambling casino is a puke parlor with a mop, most days anyway so while I have and probably will again invested a big 20 spot in quarters on the one-armed Bandits I can't stay in them very long because of the smell, of both the rooms and the people. But that's just me.
We live in a town where a local Indian tribe is attempting to build a casino just on the edge of town. I've done a fair amount of research on the whole deal and sat in some meetings with the Indian rep's and their lawyers. They're real soggy snooze fests broken only by the weeping of ancient spirit guides in the wind.
I very seriously believe Native Americans deserve serious and reasonable compensation for what their ancestors had done to them and with them. But IMO the way the tribes pursue building Casino's in California on the land and how they finanace it is downright degrading to anything remotely resembling honorable pursuit.
Anyhoo - gambling specifically I can do without. I don't believe we go to Hell for scrambling a set of dice and betting a few bucks, no. The baby's diaper budget money - yeah. You're gonna burn, at least a little.
I''ll get back to you on what the differences are between investing, risk and gambling - I've been in the insurance industry working for the last 18 years and there is a dfference, as you wisely noted upfront.
PEACE!!
Comment by Joe Kriston 14 hours ago
Delete Comment Gambling, as far as casinos and state legislatures are concerned, is usually referred to as "gaming"...I think at the very core of most any game their are winners and there are losers...I would think that if you were going to question the morality of gambling, you would have to question the morality of any type of gaming, or competition...That could include, a simple game of tag, musical chairs or the Super Bowl...The fact that money wagered, and then won or lost is the stimulus that makes gambling what it is does not seem to make gambling any less or more moral than any other type of game, competition or sport...
If you are or were involved in children's sports, like say, baseball, you will notice that in the beginning, there really are no winners or losers...Everybody gets to play, scores are not kept, rules are not strictly enforced...As the kids move on up in age brackets, the "stakes are higher" as they say....Rules are enforced, some kids don't make the team, and finally, at the end of the season, only two teams get to play for the coveted championship...The rest of the 'losers', who also practiced and wagered time and money into the competition, stay home...
While athletes themselves often talk about the simple joy of playing their respective sport, I have to wonder how much they would enjoy it if nobody kept score...Personally, I love most any type of sport, game or competition (except maybe keg-tossing)...And I am a terribly sore loser....Which is why I rarely wager money on anything---I hate to lose and surely don't want to compound my misery by losing money on the deal as well...
I suppose one would have to look at the the addiction that can be a result of gambling...Of course, addiction can arise out of alcohol, credit, exercise, the internet and even religion...Legislatively speaking, how much do we want to protect people from themselves?...
Whether it's a one-armed-bandit, a game of keno or a poker game, people seem to get a charge out of those rare times that they beat the odds and finish on top...The money won doesn't hurt, either...And if they lose too often, and haven't spent the diaper budget, they will probably move on to another form of gaming or entertainment...
Economically, I guess you could say that the undertaker's gain comes about as the result of somebody else's ultimate loss...The same is true for the lawyer, the nurse, the cop, the ambulance driver and the auto-body shop...I imagine the morality issue comes into play because gamblers, unlike cops, nurses and undertakers, rely on the willful wagers of the losers to obtain their gains rather than fate...
t Comment by Steve Muratore 13 hours ago
Some of what each gamer (gambler) says about the concept is rationalization. Perhaps some is not.
I do appreciate being able to read about and ponder the various angles. Joe and Johnnie added wonderfully to the insights available.
Consider also this...
One who gambles for entertainment, who recognizes and accepts the likelihood of loss of at least a certain amount of money that he/she may have budgeted for said entertainment, can rightly be said to be -- if the game is a state run lottery -- paying voluntary taxes. If in an Indian casino, voluntarily contributing to the economic development of the members of that particular tribe.
However, as Joe mentioned, there is definite risk of addiction. Addiction to gambling can be quite insidious, I would imagine. But I don't know enough about it to speak intelligently in the least.
To me, the boundary over which morality begins to be a serious issue is wrapped up in whether any given gambling situation knowingly and/or intentionally ensnares people into the addiction.
Certainly, one not addicted is unlikely to spend the diaper money on a game of poker or blackjack, etc...
And does the gaming establishment knowingly allow gamblers exhibiting addictive behaviors to continue gambling? Are there any resources available to assist the addicted gambler or his family?
I'm sure there are many other questions and insights, but those are mine for now.