|
|
|
|
|
by nfoz
4098 days ago
|
|
"Both sides win" when a consumer chooses to spend their money on gambling. They're getting what they pay for, of their own volition. I consider advertising to be offensive, and think it's appropriate for a society (big or small) to control what forms of ads are allowed via law. I'd like to see limits on what sorts of trade-offs we can make with respect to ads, so that the life experience of a citizen need not be drowning in advertisement. Riding a taxi in NYC (where ads are built-in to the cabs and cannot be stopped) is a distinctly unpleasant experience compared to elsewhere. We can only have so many forms of transit available to the people of NYC. I would rather we choose to remove the ads and pay for the transportation system via direct-monetary transfer, or taxation, or some combination. shrug |
|
Yes, they do. With some exceptions, gambling is an harmless activity that people engage in just for the fun, not expecting to win. Or quoting Motörhead: You win some, lose some, it's all the same to me / The pleasure is to play, it makes no difference what you say / I don't share your greed