-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Trump administration pushing aggressive expansion of sports betting
- Thread starter FireDragon76
- Start date
- Sep 4, 2005
- 30,119
- 17,588
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
It's not cynical, it's what Nevada gaming/resort trade lobbying groups have done in the past.
When my state of Ohio legalized casinos a few years back, there were ads trying to turn the public against it...those ads were funded by Nevada-based trade groups who would much prefer that if some guys is going to go blow Jr's college fund at the card tables, he do it in a Nevada casino and stay in a Nevada hotel, right after he dines in a Nevada restaurant.
Nevada did the same thing back in the 90's during the Prop 5 fight, when California had it on the ballot to allow the expansion of Tribal casinos/gaming. Nevada financed ads to try to turn people against it, not because they had any sincere concerns about the impacts of gambling, or that they were afraid California wasn't going to regulate it enough (it's Cali after all, they wrote the book on regulation, and the zoning permits required to read the book...kidding, but you get the idea)
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 30,119
- 17,588
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
But per the stats I posted before, why would it be hypocrisy for people who are okay with gambling, to not call him out for expanding gambling?
If you look at the charts and links I posted before, there's not a single demographic group where over half think gambling is morally wrong.
Who, exactly, is this group that's supposed to be calling him out for lack of consistency?
Even the "nearly weekly" church group, fewer than 1/3 think it's morally wrong.
The Falwell/Dobson types of have been a dwindling breed for quite some time.
That can also be evidenced by how red states have voted on other issues (that never would have flown back in the 80's). Like the deep red states that have voted to legalized pot, or the number of red states that, after the overturning of Roe, voted to officially legalize abortion.
Trying to claim that modern day republicans are hypocrites because they're not as die-hard as Jerry Falwell was back in the 80's isn't a fair critique.
You should be thankful they're not. If social attitudes among the GOP were the same now as they were back in the 80s, and given how Trump likes to pander to his base, you should be glad they've shifted on some of those issues. In an alternate timeline, we could be having a discussion about Trump trying to outlaw rated-R movies.
Upvote
0
Say it aint so
Well-Known Member
- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,341
- 3,634
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
The religious right. That's who I am calling out in rank hypocrisy. Sorry you had to do so much work to critique a point I am not making.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 30,119
- 17,588
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
But my point was, how much is left of the "religious right" (in a Falwell/Dobson sense of the expression, not what's considered "religious right" by 2026 standards)
Are there even any prominent voices among that small remaining subset? So my question remains, who's the person or persons who's supposed to be doing this "call-out" for lack of moral consistency that we'd even get wind of?
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 34,036
- 21,097
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You seem to be criticizing motives rather than substantive arguments themselves. That's what is known as the genetic fallacy or Bulverism.
At any rate, having to fly to Nevada introduces friction and reduces the odds that people will travel impulsively to gamble in the first place. Would-be gamblers going to Nevada have a definitive timetable for their expedition and usually a return ticket. They are far less likely to be the kind of problem gamblers that would be likely to targetted by apps on a phone. Nevada also has the infrastructure to absorb the social costs of problem gambling more readily than other states. People there are more aware of the gambling industry and the problems around it, and the state has actual programs to address problem gambling, to attempt to contain the harms that come from the gambling industrty through regulation and education. Is Ohio going to do this? I'm guessing the temptation is there to ignore the externalities, given that the public perception now is that gambling is merely a "personal choice" with no social costs.
I'm not sure what distinction you are making here. The Evangelical Fundamentalist political movement is far less clownish than they were in the 1980's in terms of legal and lobbying representation, with decades of experience. They also have alot more real political acumen. And they represent a constituency that feels even more embattled and desperate to hold onto that power, as a significant portion of their actual grassroots membership has declined in the past decade and a half or so. So they've chosen a narrower set of interests than in the past, and made more compromises, ones that won't be as risky politically.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Say it aint so
Well-Known Member
- Jun 19, 2020
- 4,341
- 3,634
- 28
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Dobson dead, Falwell Jr who is definitely religious right having to step down because of his and his wife's perversion left a religious right institution still intact. Frankly Graham is still very much alive and religious right. Those who once condemned the character of a president being unfit for office because of his morality, now hold the view, "well, 'We're Not Voting for the Pastor-in-Chief" to explain away their cognitive dissonance. It doesn't take a clinical science to see how both groups rely on each other for the sake of power; which mutes the church group to hypercritical criticism
Upvote
0
Similar threads
