|
作者
|
內容
|
|
kevincck
|
Posted -
2001/6/28 上午 11:43:17
|
|
|
社會上討論激烈，很多所謂專家，大學講師都表態支持，理由都似是而非。相反，反對人士被視為「不理性」了，這是個甚麼的社會？我們有信仰的指導、教會的立場嗎？
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/6/28 下午 06:02:48
|
|
|
當然有 - 教會反對"賭" - 任何形式的"賭"。
"賭博合法化"是前朝留下的副文化,似是而非的副文化:以"賭"來作經濟來源,簡直教壞子孫。跟"吸毒合法化"其實本質上一致。
"東亞病夫"就是如此養成的了。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/6/29 上午 10:51:05
|
|
|
教會沒有反對"任何形式"的賭, 只反對貪.
與友人夾兩蚊買六合彩有否違反教會訓導? 我敢肯定無, 除非你是赤貧.
|
|
Timber
|
Posted -
2001/7/3 下午 05:23:00
|
|
|
身為教徒的, 我們可以(或應該)對自己有很高的道德要求, 但對於賭波, 除了信仰因素外, 我們仍有足夠理據反賭波合法化!
足球和跑馬六合彩不同, 足球是運動, 且是在社會上十分普及的運動, 把之與賭博聯繫在一起, 我真的不敢想像結果會如何. 網上賭波如何盛行也好, 把之合法化也就是使其方便化, 容易化, 一旦實行起來, 政府也免不了會擔當起"教育", "倡導" 的任務. 我們也見不到政府有任何把賭波的後遺症(對社會做成的傷害) 減到最低的誠意. 它眼裡只看到那四百億稅收.
沒有相應的教育和"配套"措施, 我們怎能期望市民(特別是青少年)有足夠的免疫力? 可預見的是, 將來上P.E.課阿Sir叫學生盡力踢, 卻有學生回敬他:
"駛mud gum 搏呀, 我買對面贏ga!"
看球賽的時候, 那些所謂球迷只希望自己捧的那隊贏二比一好了, 因為贏多一粒就沒有錢分了!
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/3 下午 05:53:13
|
|
|
這就是了 - 踢球跟賭博,風馬牛不相及的;以常識來賺取金錢,亦是怪現象的一種呀!
當今的人不再了解何為"無用"之"用"了;皆因"utilitarianism"("功用主義")已深入人心。"人"還是"人"嗎? 有朝一日,複製人成行成市,咱們可以因應"需求"複而製之,欠缺大件頭的,可製大隻佬,欠缺食腦的,又可以多造Stephen Hawkin,多好,多好。
|
|
Timber
|
Posted -
2001/7/3 下午 06:51:44
|
|
|
不錯, 有怎樣的社會, 就有怎樣的政府, 就有不知所謂的法例!
世道不行, 黑白顛倒, 才會出現那麼多光怪陸離的現象!
我認為基督教循道衛理堂(在灣仔)行了非常好的一步, 把大大的布幕掛出, 向世人昭示反賭波合法化的立場. 只是, 社會仍需更深刻的討論, 光是喊口號式的爭取是不夠的.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/4 上午 10:37:37
|
|
|
我看,討論是有的, 不過討論還不過是"大隻講"!
首先,要有人明白到"效益主義"的末流,對社會及教育所造成的危害;跟着,明白到自己右手做的,正打著自己的左手,矛盾之致......當然,今日本港的死症是"秀才遇著兵",有罵戰沒對話，而致命處,是給你講,也不知應該說啥才是合乎真理。
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/6 下午 06:07:29
|
|
|
Greetings to all, I am new here. This is indeed a current issue being widely debated. The topic here is:- The LEGALISATION of Football betting. But I can see people have been lumping different issues together instead of addressing directly to the topic.
So what are the issues? Nobody would doubt football being a healthy sport. The game itself involves skill, teamwork, and the main purpose is to score more goals than the opponents in order to win. It also involves risk.
Another issue is the problem of gambling. Gambling to me in this context basically means a risk taking activity, with the objective to reap a greater reward, (monetary or not) than would normally be the case if such risk taking activity is not undertaken. But there are two problems that would arise from this.
The first one is the problem of greed and unjust reward. Most daily live activities involve some sort of gambling and risk taking. A crude example is that, when people run trying to catch the bus, it is already a risk taking activity as they put their live at more risk than just walking on the street, and need extra energy to run, hoping to catch an earlier bus. That is gambling. The thing people find gambling objectionable is when it touches the issue of greed and unjust reward.
The second one is the problem of addiction. People do not normally buy a Mark 6, but most people would occassionally do so when there is a huge Jackpot waiting. Not many people would find that wrong as they only put on a few dollars. So, the problem is not gambling itself, but addiction to gambling. The gambler losing his own self control. Addiction is not only peculiar to gamblers, but possible to all sorts of activities. Many people find gambling objectionable is because they believe it is addictive.
Gambling is also an attitude issue, with sociological, cultural, and psychological perspectives, let alone the theological point of view.
However, the issue here is whether there should be LEGALISATION of football betting.
We always have a choice, either to do nothing so that the current situation remains untouched. Apart from the legally sanctioned betting on horse racing and Mark 6, many other forms of betting and gambling are commonly carried out among the people which the law did not prohibit, nor was the law enforced to its letter. If do nothing is our objective, we could simply ignore it and happily end our discussion here. Well, I would not.
We could, however, make proper legislation in order to take proper control of the problem, which I see the fundamental problem here is effective enforcement and control against illegal gambling (not just illegal football betting). After legislation, there will be direct legislation that law enforcers and the judiciary could rely upon. Legislating does not mean that football betting would be completely legal. It would only be legal if it is carried out in accordance with the law.
I will address more issues in another post later.
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/7 上午 12:14:45
|
|
|
I support legislation for football betting, for better and effective control and enforcement, and specifying what can and what cannot be done. That does not in any way imply that I endorse gambling of any kind. There is simply not enough arguments against legislation, or arguments against gambling of any kind. Alternatively speaking, I am taking a pragmatic approach, choosing a lesser of the two devils in this imperfect world.
Rights is a term which can easily be abused. Interested parties simply raise their banners to say whatever they want, it therefore automatically becomes their rights that they should have what they want. Apart from this absurdity, such right is not absolute. One fundamental restriction is that in exercising such right it will not harm or significantly interfere with the rights of others. Alternatively speaking, a person has a right to do what he wants, unless there are grounds justifying any interference. Regarding football betting, the people involved are the people who place their bets and the bookmakers. Any harm allegedly to be done to their families or the society lies at the issue of greed and unjust reward, and the issue of addiction, together with various less significant points of view. One example is sufficient here, if you say betting would make the gambler not able to look after his family, the issue really lies in his greed and addiction to gambling, and his irresponsibility. The only relation to football betting is a coincidence as it is a medium, not a cause. If he is a fanatic paintings collector (as most people would say aesthetic values are praiseworthy) who ended up not able to look after his family, he is equally being too greedy in his collection and has become addicted to his desire, and irresponsible. I could say a lot more on this, but I trust it is enough to say that there is no sufficient ground to take away their rights to bet on football, especially where other forms of legal betting are available.
This leads to the issue of fairness. However unpalatable to those diehards or puritans that morality of the society should be kept pure, as there are other forms of gambling officially sanctioned, where are we to draw the line that this particular form of gambling should remain illegal. Unless of course all forms of gambling are banned, but that would require a totalitarian regime to achieve that. Looking into the concept of fairness in a broader context, everyone is entitled to have their need and idiosyncrasies fulfilled in their own preferred way. It is not an artificial rule stipulating that everyone is entitled to exactly the same and no more. Therefore, if A wants to bet, he does it his own way, and if B wants to sleep, he does it his own way. Fairness is more about providing equal opportunities for each person to pursue their preferred mode of entertainment. The opportunities to be provided to the football betters do not create any extra obligations to the non betters other than those already existing with regard to horse race betting and Mark 6. On the contrary, not allowing those football betters to bet will deprive them one of their mode of entertainment.
Sometimes people confuse freedom of choice, and fairness as I said about with the utilitarianism. Utilitarianism presupposes that people should rationally maximise their pleasure and values, and to minimise pains as their proper goal in life, but may be hindered by selfish prejudice and ignorance. And the value of the society is the aggregation of the values of all individuals to maximise overall happiness. Admittedly, what I have all said are not value free, but I have yet given a value to football betting (except the two main problems generally associated with it). The problem with people supporting and against football betting based on the concept of utilitarianism simply is to inflate their personal values by cosmetically packaged into some sort of intellectual theory. I would say no more about utilitarianism, but to discuss the main points raised by both sides under such general guises.
More to follow.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/7 下午 12:15:41
|
|
|
I don't think there is a problem of confusion between 'utilitarianism" and 'freedom of choice' as such.
A choice is free choice only if it is free from sin. That is all. No need to be overly complicated. Under "utilitarianism", "use" is regarded as a virtue. It is a 'presupposed' choice and not a real free choice, since 'use' by itself is neither good nor bad. It is a 'compulsive' choice by habit but not a 'free' choice that is made after true discernment.
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/7 下午 02:07:53
|
|
|
First of all, I do not agree in principle what utilitarianism advocates. And discussing it further here is not conducive to the topic at all. Maybe I did not write up my two posts in its strictest use of terms, especially as regards freedom of choice. I might have failed to have it defined unwittingly as I thought it would be a common sense matter in view of the pragmatic approach that I am taking. However, this is the only issue being picked upon by the reader Cissie. Therefore, I will briefly respond here before I continue writing about the topic.
Basically utilitarianism is more result based, or teleological if you like to be more exact, or simply the end result justifies the action. Should read this in the context what I have already said previously. Will not repeat. It is however wrong to suggest that there is neither good nor bad under utilitarianism, unless it is the primitive and unrefined form of utilitarianism you were talking about, which in fact have been discarded years ago. Surely you do not agree with it. Neither do I. Some of those refined forms do take into account good or bad, and values in a qualitative way. And none of the orthodox utilitarian advocates a compulsive choice at all. People are free to choose. It only presupposes what I have said earlier. Anyway, we are definitely off track here.
Freedom of choice does not mean what Cissie has stated either, namely a choice is free choice only if it is free from sin, that is an absolute point of view, nothing conducive to the topic. As I have stated in the beginning, I take a pragmatic approach, concentrating MORE on the rules, instead of the end results or the motives of the people. We all do live under sin, and we are all limited in some way. Freedom of choice is to allow a person to choose from what is available and there should not be any artificial or subjective rules to prevent or interfere people from doing so unless there is a ground justifying to do so. Let me explain further with a crude example, what drinks are generally available at the pantry are coffee, tea, water, and alcohol. All workers have freedom of choice to choose which to drink according to his theologically limited free will under sin (OK?). One ground justifies the prohibition of consuming alcohol during office hours as by drinking such would impair your skills in performing your duty as a worker. This is what freedom of choice I am talking about. Nothing to do with the theological absolutist view which in any event is meaningless here.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 上午 09:46:08
|
|
|
"I take a pragmatic approach, concentrating MORE on the rules, instead of the end results or the motives of the people. We all do live under sin, and we are all limited in some way. Freedom of choice is to allow a person to choose from what is available and there should not be any artificial or subjective rules to prevent or interfere people from doing so unless there is a ground justifying to do so. "
I am afraid that is what exactly is the problem.
Unless we address this "head-on", I do agree there will not be fruitful discussion.
What is "compulsive" in context is that one that is being motivated by the "instincts" of men - I drink coffee, not tea, because I do have some sort of addiction to coffee. The same applies to games of chance and many other passtimes. That is "compulsive". To be pragmatic, one invariably finds the easy way out - the way that suits the "prevailing" values. Those values, I must stress, are NOT those that should be taken per se by Christians without reflections, however attracted he or she is by them.
To discuss, therefore, we do need to have a set of terminology, just like in any other discipline. I also find it difficult at the outset to understand brother HANDSOME and borther EDWARD's termininology in theology, so we try to be more "plain". At the same time, I also studied more Catholic and Christian literature. It is most useful. It would also be more useful to discuss in Chinese, though I always have difficulties in expressing myself in Chinese.
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 下午 04:43:45
|
|
|
Cissie, everyone have a choice to choose what is good for them. My first starting point regarding my pragmatic approach begins at what is permissible under our faith, of course, that is subjective to me. The very reason I come here is to share and to make my faith a better one. Never have anyone told me that taking a pragmatic approach is an easy way out, apart from you. It involves the taking account of all views and values, juggle among them, and find out what is best in the particular circumstances. The easy way out to me, is either to completely ignore the issue and let others sort it out, or to take the absolute point of views, stating that it is either completely wrong or completely right. That means, either banning it all together or either let it does freely without any restrictions. The pragmatic approach takes into account all of these, and to make it only right in a very restricted circumstances. That is the most difficult approach that I understand of. If that is the easy way out, I am truly amazed what will be the difficult way out for you.
According to you, it is true that some men are motivated by their instincts. But not all men are. And in no way that a compulsive behaviour could be motivated by the instinct of man. Further, you simply defined compulsion in relation to instincts, and explained instincts with an example where some form of addictive elements are present. Pardon me for being stupid, I do not understand what you really mean by compulsion, instincts, and what your example wants to tell. So, would you please let us have your terminologies more clearly explained, as you personally have raised this to be desirable too.
In the meantime, I understand why you said people choose coffee instead of tea because there is some sort of addictive thing in coffee. But the fact is, in general, tea has more caffeine than coffee, and so people should be more addicted to tea if compulsive behaviour is simply an instinct of man. But your example shows the opposite. And there are so many people that prefer to drink water, like me, than coffee or tea. Everything in the world requires us to make decisions, to choose one or the other. People have preferences, and desires, and particular need in particular situations. Some might be addicted to coffee, some might need it to stay awake, some simply like the taste, some just want some varieties for a change. In this context, I truly do not understand what you want to say.
By the way, I have firstly mentioned the two evils generally associated with gambling. The first one is greed and unjust reward. To put it simply, people are not CONTENT or SATISFIED with what they have, and try to maximise such, sometimes through UNJUST ways. The second one is addiction. That means the person has lost his SELF CONTROL and SELF DISCIPLINE. To me, depending on the degree of addiction, the person has also lost his limited free will, his rational thinking, and also his instincts as well. I have come across with some, if not many, addicted people, their will, their understanding, and their instincts truly tell them not to go on, but they still do it nevertheless.
Anyway, the topic here is about legalisation of football betting. Hope discussing addiction here is not too off the mark.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 下午 05:10:07
|
|
|
"E.D." - If you'd prefer to be called:
It is indeed difficult to 'explain' some thing to some one who do not have a conviction at the same time, since different people have different responses to life situations. If you have read literature relating to awakening of the mind, self-awareness, etc., it would not be difficult to grasp what I mean.
Addiction, moreover, has ALL the things to do with football gambling.
The concept of gambling per se (that is, not being practised by human being) is neutral. However, human weaknesses have made it no longer neutral. If you are all for pragmatism, you would undoubtedly realise this truth. You may NOT wish to admit, since personal pride, ego etc. have all made human beings unwilling to confront themselves, particularly their own weaknesses.
So let us let go all hypocritical inclinations and face ourselves bare and square when discussing here. Otherwise it is not meaningful to spend time typing.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 下午 06:02:05
|
|
|
"taking a pragmatic approach is ... taking account of all views and values, juggle among them, and find out what is best in the particular circumstances. "
What is "best"? From whom's perspective?
You see, this raises more questions than answering it.
You may dislike my tone of speech; may may even disagree with what I said. But it would not subtract or add to the things under discussion. An opinion of value is one that a person genuinely believes in. That's all. If he/she changes his/her conviction, that would only take place after a certain among of internal work. So it is really up to you to buy my stuff or to ignore it. No big deal at all.
We all 'believe' that we are doing the best - which again is one big lie. Same with our faith. You 'believe' that is God's message from the Holy Spirit - if you are not critical of yourself, your 'belief' will also become your stumbling block. That is how Satan works.
|
|
