[margalabargala]

I honestly don't know what your point is. The best I can come up with is:

"The whole point of sports (in my opinion) is X good thing therefore betting on sports is more acceptable"

Making bets on good things doesn't make the betting better. Just because Polymarket would allow you to bet money that the infant homicide rate goes down next year, doesn't mean it's a good thing to allow betting on.

[gusgus01]

His point is pretty simple. Sports don't inherently involve life or death, the whole point is that it's a competition that "respects each other's humanity", eg not a competition to the death.

The same can't be said for war (bombings), which Polymarket allows betting on.

Seems like a fundamental difference to me.

[hhh]

Sports just delay the death or move it to injury instead, and people bet on the injuries just the same.

[speefers]

> Seems like a fundamental difference to me.

one is more culturally taboo than the other, but they are fundamentally the same activity

[saalweachter]

... if I post a multi-paragraph long reply on the incentives created by betting on less infant homicide, am I going to find out that you understand perfectly well what the incentives are, and that was the entire point of your comment?

[margalabargala]

The actions people have taken in accordance with sports betting incentives is everything up to and including murder. The moral ideal the parent commenter associates with sports doesn't make that okay.

If you have a point to make about how the age of the person being murdered means it's a categorical difference rather than a difference of degree I'll read it.

[saalweachter]

Just checking that you knew betting on good outcomes was how you incentivized bad ones.

Eg, to be rid of a turbulent priest, you'd place a bet that Thomas Becket will live to see the year 1171, which is a "good" outcome to bet on happening.

[margalabargala]

Glad we're both clear on which one of us missed the other's point...