Caro called out, Footy Classified | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Caro called out, Footy Classified

Giardiasis said:
They wouldn't because your hypothetical is ridiculous. Perhaps a 14 year old might.

the 14yo might prostitute themselves out, prob to buy ice or coke or whatever? happens already. in your world though it would be legal.
 
IanG said:
It normalises gambling at a very young age. If you can't see why thats a bad thing well I dunno what to say.

My old man was a course bookie and professional punter for 60 years in Melbourne and around Victoria. I reckon I've had 10 bets in my life. The races were a normal part of my life.

They're not the demon and neither is gambling when done responsibly. Anything not done responsibly can be hazardous to your life and other's lives.
 
tigerlove said:
Why not? As an individual you can make any stand you wish. She clearly is fine with gambling if it pays her wage in the form of advertising but is all over everyone else if she doesn't agree with it. As others say hypocritical, but most media personalities are these days.

So a journo can't speak out against any organisation that advertises in/on their medium?
Liberal Party advertises in Age...whoa hold all criticism.
Where would MCCran be if the ALP placed some ads in his business section?
 
Midsy said:
My old man was a course bookie and professional punter for 60 years in Melbourne and around Victoria. I reckon I've had 10 bets in my life. The races were a normal part of my life.

They're not the demon and neither is gambling when done responsibly. Anything not done responsibly can be hazardous to your life and other's lives.

I knew a bloke who lived until 91 and smoked a pack and a half a day, proves its healthy.
 
22nd Man said:
So a journo can't speak out against any organisation that advertises in/on their medium?
Liberal Party advertises in Age...whoa hold all criticism.
Where would MCCran be if the ALP placed some ads in his business section?

pretty watertight point there 22nd
 
tigersnake said:
I knew a bloke who lived until 91 and smoked a pack and a half a day, proves its healthy.

All it proves is that it was not for you to tell him to stop smoking.
 
I guess I have done it all wrong. I have taught my kids that gambling is exactly that gambling and if you are going to gamble then you only gamble what you can afford to lose and that the house is going to win more than they are.
 
yandb said:
When someone gets on their soap box and preaches that others take a stance and when questioned whether she will take the stance in her situation and baulks at it is Hypocracy.
Not at all. She is taking a stance; it's a gutsy call to call out the ethics of your employer and tell them that hey need to lift their game. Refusing to work for someone because THEY have compromised their ethics is giving in. All a bit much for Hutchy-level thinkers unfortunately.
 
Midsy said:
All it proves is that it was not for you to tell him to stop smoking.

Yeh, we need to encourage more problem gamblers.

As an aside why didn't u punt?
 
MD Jazz said:
As an aside why didn't u punt?

Dunno really. Just never interested me. My grandad was a bookie as well, so it's strong in the bloodlines. Other family members love a punt too, just not me.
 
hutstar said:
Not at all. She is taking a stance; it's a gutsy call to call out the ethics of your employer and tell them that hey need to lift their game. Refusing to work for someone because THEY have compromised their ethics is giving in. All a bit much for Hutchy-level thinkers unfortunately.

Thank you. You are also much more likely to create change from within an organisation than from outside of it.

And for those who say there's no problem with the manner in which the gambling industry advertises, do you have 8 and 9 year old children telling you the likelihood of whether a game will being won or lost by quoting the odds they hear constantly on the radio & TV? It's becoming part of their language and it's disgraceful.
 
Yandby has history with Caro, still p!ssed off she called out the half-baked board challenges. Should declare an interest if you're gunna white-ant.
 
Total Tiger said:
And for those who say there's no problem with the manner in which the gambling industry advertises, do you have 8 and 9 year old children telling you the likelihood of whether a game will being won or lost by quoting the odds they hear constantly on the radio & TV? It's becoming part of their language and it's disgraceful.
We're not saying that there's no problem with it, we are saying it doesn't justify banning it. Using the same logic, anything can be banned, there is no line to be drawn. Applying a private property and non aggression principle approach provides a clear line for when violence can be justified. Advertising does not invade the physical property of anyone else, therefore you can't justify making it illegal. The AFL can choose to not allow it to be associated with the game, but it would cost them a lot of money. People that don't like it can choose to not watch the game.
 
Giardiasis said:
We're not saying that there's no problem with it, we are saying it doesn't justify banning it. Using the same logic, anything can be banned, there is no line to be drawn. Applying a private property and non aggression principle approach provides a clear line for when violence can be justified. Advertising does not invade the physical property of anyone else, therefore you can't justify making it illegal. The AFL can choose to not allow it to be associated with the game, but it would cost them a lot of money. People that don't like it can choose to not watch the game.

G you keep crapping on about how you can't draw the line, you can. You can, and we do, the evidence is there, we draw lines, draw the *smile* out of them. Age of consent, drinking and gambling age, retirement age, to name a few biggies. And as I've said, it is based on research and social values. They are not plucked out of thin air. So to be clear, you place no credibility on any of that research? Or any of those social values?
 
tigersnake said:
And as I've said, it is based on research and social values. They are not plucked out of thin air.

So who do these researchers research? I have never been asked, nor has anyone I know.
 
tigerlove said:
So who do these researchers research? I have never been asked, nor has anyone I know.

all sorts of stuff, and they tend to publish books, articles and reports that explain it all clearly, rationale, methods, process and results.
 
tigersnake said:
G you keep crapping on about how you can't draw the line, you can. You can, and we do, the evidence is there, we draw lines, draw the sh!t out of them. Age of consent, drinking and gambling age, retirement age, to name a few biggies. And as I've said, it is based on research and social values. They are not plucked out of thin air. So to be clear, you place no credibility on any of that research? Or any of those social values?
It doesn't matter if it is based on research and social values it is still arbitrary and subjective. Who is paying for the research and what is the political bias of the researchers? It allows for all private property to be seized or for anything to be banned as long as some high IQ moron thinks that it will add to their own estimation of social utility. It allows for no line to be drawn where the government is not allowed to intervene in people's lives, and the government will always be biased towards policy proposals that enhance its own prestige and influence. The majority of people think Muslim's should be kicked out of the country and their property seized? Well that's fine by your principle. Remember when the experts where talking about eugenics? It's ok to sterilise a part of the population according to your principle. The Nazis and the Bolsheviks claimed to be following scientific conclusions when they formulated their policies. You get the idea.