[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

I'm a little surprised you think alcohol is dangerous, as it is an inanimate object. Isn't the real danger the person doing the drinking? Also, I never said smoking cannabis is a bad decision. In fact, the externality costs of cannabis are far, far less than that of cigarettes. The lottery isn't gambling, it's a tax on stupid people. And since the lottery pays for education in most states, it's probably a net positive for society.

I never said that inanimate objects can not be dangerous, they more than can be.. This is simply you misconstruing what I said. I told you that inanimate objects can not commit crimes. There is a major difference.

Are you saying that the lottery is not:

" Gambling

1.
to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2. to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance "

Seems to fit the dictionary definition to me... no matter what cute names you make up for it.

So, you are not against gambling, you are against buildings that gambling takes place in (casinos).

Also, give up the externality costs argument, it is fallacious. It doesn't hold any water logically.

[MountainMen]

Originally Posted by Xander_Crews

Also, give up the externality costs argument, it is fallacious.

I didn't invent the concept, so I can't exactly cancel it. Although, it would be convenient if externality costs didn't exist.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

I didn't invent the concept, so I can't exactly cancel it. Although, it would be convenient if externality costs didn't exist.

They don't. You are correlating events and acting as if there is a causation relationship, there is not.

I can connect rape to milk by grasping at straws and linking it in a convoluted fashion, this does not make milk the cause of rape. Again, it is a fallacious argument, it simply doesn't work.

Care to actually address what I said rather than picking out a single sentence and making a flaccid argument against it?

[MountainMen]

Cost is cost. It doesn't have anything to do with a correlational or causation relationship. You can't just walk into Costco or Target and say, I want to buy a TV but I only believe theres a correlational relationship between the TV and the price you ask.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by MountainMen

Cost is cost. It doesn't have anything to do with a correlational or causation relationship. You can't just walk into Costco or Target and say, I want to buy a TV but I only believe theres a correlational relationship between the TV and the price you ask.

not the same concept.

A casino does not cost you money if you do not choose to play their game, plain and simple. You keep saying that it might make someone poor, and that person who is now poor might commit a crime, and that crime might cost you money. Guess what, the individual who actually commits the act that costs you money is at fault and therefore responsible, not the casino.

This is the exact same thing as saying milk assaults people. Because somebody might use milk as part of a mass-gain routine, they then might start a fight because of their new confidence in themselves... therefore milk assaults people.

Your T.V. analogy is a shameful, poor example of a straw-man argument.