Comments below.


--- john foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> >> As a fact you don't need to make a moral judgement on the issue. IT
> is
> >> cruel
> >> to the animal simple because the animal is serving the 'pleasure and
> >> pride'
> >> instinct of the well to do. That is because the people who engage in
> the
> >> sport are perhaps 'bored' or idle. Concupsience is the original sin
> >> [Augustine]. 
> >
> >Geez John would it be better if it were a pastime of the poor?  I mean
> why
> >are you getting so worked up over fox hunting when cock fights not only
> >serve the purpose of entertaining those who watch, but also are usually
> >run as money making events (gambling).  Is it because those who tend to
> >attend a cock fight are poor and thus are some how less wrong than the
> >rich?
> >
> >Frankly, this smacks of elitism.
> >
> >Steve
> 
> Gambling does not make money. Only governments and corporations issue
> legal
> tender to the bearer. Gambling simply results in instant hoarding, theft

What are you talking about.  You need to revisit an introductory
Macro-economics text.

> if
> you will. A loser never is happy with his loss. 
> 
> Frankly. You have answered your own question. Those who are poor cannot
> justify spending scarce cash on gambling. Only those that are relatively
> rich can afford to do so. This 'suerte' notion (instantly large
> payments)
> fails to explain the gambling addiction of men and women. At least with


No, you are dodging the question.  The question once again is why you get
so worked up over fox hunting vs. cock fights when the former is for sport
and pleasure, while the latter is for sport, pleasure, and gambling which
many see as a vice?  Further, given you comments above gambling is
something you disapprove of.

> lotteries some of the proceeds go to charity, education, sports, and the
> environment. The issue here is one of appropriateness of the investment:

Well if this is how you justify it to yourself then fine.  However, the
fact is that lotteries (states sponsored or not) simply redistribute
wealth from many individual's to a few.  This is a fact.

> cock fighting, fox hunting is cruel, whereas bingo is not cruel to
> animals,

Yeah, and?  My point was not that you were complaining about gambling
(although I get the impression you don't like it), but that you seemed to
see fox hunting as inherently worse than cock fighting.  Further, that you
also gave the impression that you expected better behavior of the rich
than the poor (or more simply you expect the poor to behave unethically,
but not the rich, or maybe you feel that it is less onerous for the poor
to engage in cock fighting than for the rich to engage in fox hunting.  I
am not sure which you meant, but either way the impression is not good).

> but if there are no rules on the amount that can be gambled in bingo,
> many
> people spend scarce cash which would be better used to obtain food,
> clothing
> and shelter. The rich don't need to gamble. They are already rich,
> whereas
> the poor are dupped by odds against winning. Entitlements on the other

So the poor are stupid?

> hand
> are relativel guaranteed by law, winning in the gamble is not
> guaranteed.
> The problem with gambling is very severe for low income families where
> states sanction gambling. Gambling is vice. Hence the virtue of
> pensions:
> everyone is required to pay into them by law, and no one is deprived in
> the
> end from the value of their own labours. Now if the person choses later

Uhhh, what are you talking about?  This may be true in Canada, but here in
the U.S. there is no such legal requirement.  Further most pension funds
are invested in some sort of securties and hence there is usually some
level of risk (i.e. you could lose money).

> in
> old age to gamble that is their responsibility but it is also the

What?  Why?  Why do you allow the older person to make these decisions,
but not the younger person?  Is the younger person stupid, incapable of
making the decision?


> responsibility to limit the gains from owners of the gambling
> institution
> obtained by 'fortuitious usury.' Legalized gambling that ruins family
> incomes and assets should be illegal. Hence cock fighting which engages
> the
> relatively poor person in a precarious situation is wrong on two
> accounts:
> (a) it is cruel to the animal, and (b) it is cruel to the person that
> loses
> since the better has virtually no control over the cocks. 

Isn't this supposed to be the case in gambling?  What kind of gambling
gives one of the gambler's control over the outcome (technically it is no
longer gambling, but literally theft in that gambling is supposed to based
in some part on a random event).

Steve

=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 
'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come." 
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%