LDS Church agrees to repay donations from $25 million fraud case

[Calm]

You can find research on almost anything these days:

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/most-gamblers-are-just-out-fun

"Research shows that, while gamblers do exhibit many irrational behaviors, for most its just simple entertainment.

Is gambling an addiction or a form of entertainment? Mostly the latter, according to a new academic study that found evidence that most people have strict "loss thresholds" they will not cross when gambling.

However, casinos' efforts to market to gamblers — giving free chips, drinks, hotel rooms, and shows to lure them to the tables — are especially successful at encouraging gambling activities among people who already exhibit addictive behavior....

The final conclusion of the study was that marketing efforts by casinos do, in fact, result in people making decisions to play more often, and to bet more. One worrisome aspect of this was that Narayanan and Manchuanda also found evidence that marketing works particularly well on those consumers who already exhibit addictive behavior. "We need to do further work to determine precisely what kind of marketing works best, and on what kind of gamblers," said Narayanan. "Casinos themselves want to understand what is happening so they can self-regulate and avoid having onerous regulations imposed upon them. Policy makers need to know so they can safeguard consumers against exploitation. In either case, there's a lot more research to be done in this area."

Edited June 2, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

You can find research on almost anything these days:

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/most-gamblers-are-just-out-fun

"Research shows that, while gamblers do exhibit many irrational behaviors, for most its just simple entertainment.

Is gambling an addiction or a form of entertainment? Mostly the latter, according to a new academic study that found evidence that most people have strict "loss thresholds" they will not cross when gambling.

However, casinos' efforts to market to gamblers — giving free chips, drinks, hotel rooms, and shows to lure them to the tables — are especially successful at encouraging gambling activities among people who already exhibit addictive behavior....

The final conclusion of the study was that marketing efforts by casinos do, in fact, result in people making decisions to play more often, and to bet more. One worrisome aspect of this was that Narayanan and Manchuanda also found evidence that marketing works particularly well on those consumers who already exhibit addictive behavior. "We need to do further work to determine precisely what kind of marketing works best, and on what kind of gamblers," said Narayanan. "Casinos themselves want to understand what is happening so they can self-regulate and avoid having onerous regulations imposed upon them. Policy makers need to know so they can safeguard consumers against exploitation. In either case, there's a lot more research to be done in this area."

This is why I say the potential inability of people to control themselves is not my only beef against gambling. More egregious to me is the fact that gambling, by nature, is predatory. You cannot succeed at it without diminishing someone else.

[The Nehor]

On 6/2/2017 at 0:34 PM, ttribe said:

My FIL refers to the lottery (for example) as a "tax on the poor"...there's some truth to that.

I refer to it as a "stupidity tax". I need to work on the whole charity thing.

[Stargazer]

On 5/31/2017 at 10:05 PM, mfbukowski said:

The church does accept tithing on gambling winnings.  I had occasion as a leader to research this as far as I could and could not get a straight answer from headquarters.

Part of the problem is that the entire economy of Las Vegas is based on gambling and many members work in casinos.  It is difficult to determine what constitute "gambling winnings" in these circumstances and so they allow the members to decide if a) their income is honest and b) whether or not they are tithing worthy.

At some point the distinctions become undefinable.

Remember tithing settlement is ultimately a yes or no question.

There is a legend that Butch Cassidy paid tithing on his share of the proceeds of his gang's robberies.

Not sure if this is a common legend -- it's just something I heard once, and I am not sure any longer from whom or how long ago.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There is a legend that Butch Cassidy paid tithing on his share of the proceeds of his gang's robberies.

Not sure if this is a common legend -- it's just something I heard once, and I am not sure any longer from whom or how long ago.  

I've never heard it before. But it sounds like just the sort of fake news antagonists would spread around just to embarrass the Church.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There is a legend that Butch Cassidy paid tithing on his share of the proceeds of his gang's robberies.

Not sure if this is a common legend -- it's just something I heard once, and I am not sure any longer from whom or how long ago.  

It is reported in this book as a claim of one researcher, but it neglects to name them plus it says others said he was quite disaffected with the Church:

https://books.google.com/books?id=t8ubnFNQOpUC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq="butch+cassidy"+tithing+mormon&source=bl&ots=J68SN4PuM0&sig=s2HSMH0oPnw5-IvVhOXuzJNyDkg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWpZaR3KXUAhVG6GMKHerhAQgQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=Tithing&f=false

This makes the same claim without documentation that I can tell, though with the variation of him doing it retroactively if I understand it correctly.

https://books.google.com/books?id=CPuzzlK-sH0C&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq="butch+cassidy"+tithing+mormon&source=bl&ots=rTlkr6kriy&sig=Ul5rkybBXmm4HEID77f1RrxhMYI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWpZaR3KXUAhVG6GMKHerhAQgQ6AEILzAF#v=onepage&q="butch cassidy" tithing mormon&f=false

Edited June 5, 2017 by Calm

[Thinking]

On 6/2/2017 at 11:34 AM, ttribe said:

My FIL refers to the lottery (for example) as a "tax on the poor"...there's some truth to that.

I've also heard the lottery described as a "tax on people who are bad at math."

[Stargazer]

35 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I've also heard the lottery described as a "tax on people who are bad at math."

How many people who have won major lottery prizes have NOT had serious problems as a result?  Here's a report on that...

 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

How many people who have won major lottery prizes have NOT had serious problems as a result?  Here's a report on that...

Yep. There are also many stories of pro athletes and entertainment stars who don't know how to handle the sudden wealth and end up with more debt and problems than necessary.

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Yep. There are also many stories of pro athletes and entertainment stars who don't know how to handle the sudden wealth and end up with more debt and problems than necessary.

I occasionally buy a lottery ticket, just to see if in winning I can buck the trend.  Hasn't happened yet, but who knows?  Maybe I'll get unlucky and win some day.

[Scott Lloyd]

On June 2, 2017 at 3:17 PM, stemelbow said:

Certainly good to hear you rank Ponzi schemes as more contemptible than gambling.  Seems pretty rude to characterize all people who lose money while gambling as being so ignorant.  But, to each their own, I suppose.  I think most people who lose in gambling, walk away happy enough (I do recognize some have problems in this area though).

Don't know why you would think I have any respect at all for Ponzi schemes. I don't even like multi-level marketing (maybe that's what you meant). 

Your comment doesn't address my point about gambling being by nature predatory. So even if you win, you lose in the sense of it being spiritually corrosive. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Don't know why you would think I have any respect at all for Ponzi schemes. I don't even like multi-level marketing (maybe that's what you meant). 

I didn't suggest that's what I think. 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your comment doesn't address my point about gambling being by nature predatory. So even if you win, you lose in the sense of it being spiritually corrosive. 

It's not predatory, necessarily.  People create careers these days out of playing card games, for instance, using strategy, and mental toughness as their skills.  That was my point.  The quote offered didn't address gambling so much as things like Ponzi schemes.  I'd question the spiritually corrosive assertion too. 

I'm not in any way a fan of gambling but to state things like it's by nature predatory or that it creates or supports "the attitude of taking something from someone else in order to enhance our own position" seems ignorant at best--unless, of course, that someone who suggests as much as recognizes all business and jobs does some of that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't suggest that's what I think. 

It's not predatory, necessarily.  People create careers these days out of playing card games, for instance, using strategy, and mental toughness as their skills.  That was my point.  The quote offered didn't address gambling so much as things like Ponzi schemes.  I'd question the spiritually corrosive assertion too. 

 

People making careers out of gambling does nothing to refute that it is predatory behavior. And I don't know why you keep bringing up ponzi schemes. I've already expressed my disapproval of them.

And you may question all you like that it's spiritually corrosive. The fact still remains that you can't succeed at gambling without diminishing someone else. I'd call that predatory.

Quote

I'm not in any way a fan of gambling but to state things like it's by nature predatory or that it creates or supports "the attitude of taking something from someone else in order to enhance our own position" seems ignorant at best--unless, of course, that someone who suggests as much as recognizes all business and jobs does some of that. 

Any proper business deal should be mutually beneficial to all parties. Otherwise, it's flawed and harmful. If its intent is to get ahead at someone else's expense, then it is, by definition, predatory.

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

People making careers out of gambling does nothing to refute that it is predatory behavior. And I don't know why you keep bringing up ponzi schemes. I've already expressed my disapproval of them.

And you may question all you like that it's spiritually corrosive. The fact still remains that you can't succeed at gambling without diminishing someone else. I'd call that predatory.

That's not a fact, Scott.  That's your assertion.  I'd suggest your claim is only true if nearly all jobs these days are also there to prosper one while diminishing another. 

  I already explained why I brought up Ponzi schemes.  The quote you offered described them but not gambling. 

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Any proper business deal should be mutually beneficial to all parties. Otherwise, it's flawed and harmful. If its intent is to get ahead at someone else's expense, then it is, by definition, predatory.

 

I don't see how your definition of predatory works.  Just because a business deal may benefit all parties, as that is the ideal, does not mean someone did not get ahead at someone else's expense.  Business is all about getting ahead at someone else's expense. 

[Calm]

If the majority of gamblers do it for the entertainment value, they set themselves a certain amount to lose and stick to it, not sure how much different that would be than going to Disneyland or elsewhere where one goes home with significantly less money than when one left.

I think the problem with gambling for most people is the culture surrounding it, the whole idea of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" is disgusting and a lie (you can't separate days out of one's life as if they don't exist) for example.  Gambling is generally considered part of a criminal organization's portfolio for a reason.

[hagoth7]

On 6/1/2017 at 4:18 PM, Calm said:

 My dad taught my brother not to gamble by giving him $.25 for a gas station slot machine when we were driving through Nevada. My brother, around 6 or 7 at the time, won like five bucks. That is the problem with not following Church mandated lesson plans.  

And the lesson is that by gambling, even on a supposedly *good* day of it, you still *lose* 80% of your resources?

Actually sounds like a worthwhile object lesson.

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, Thinking said:

I've also heard the lottery described as a "tax on people who are bad at math."

The whole, "We pay out 95% of the time!" means that for every dollar I give them, they'll give me $0.95 back.  Sounds like a sweet deal ... for them!  

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

... I don't see how your definition of predatory works.  Just because a business deal may benefit all parties, as that is the ideal, does not mean someone did not get ahead at someone else's expense.  Business is all about getting ahead at someone else's expense. 

I disagree.  Your assertion posits a world in which all entities value all resources equally when that's rarely the case.  Yes, deals in which one party "wins" and another party "loses" do happen quite frequently in business, but they're not a sin qua non for completing a deal.  If I give up something I value less in exchange for something I value more, while the other party does the same thing, we're both benefited.  Stephen R. Covey wrote a lot about "Win-Lose" and "Lose-Lose" vs. "Win-Win" transactions, and I think there's a lot of truth in what he wrote.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

And the lesson is that by gambling, even on a supposedly *good* day of it, you still *lose* 80% of your resources?

Actually sounds like a worthwhile object lesson.

He walked away with $5 where he started with a quarter, where did he lose any resource?

Edited June 5, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see how your definition of predatory works.  Just because a business deal may benefit all parties, as that is the ideal, does not mean someone did not get ahead at someone else's expense.  Business is all about getting ahead at someone else's expense. 

A grocer buys food and sells it with a markup enough to cover purchase, transportation, storage, personnel, etc, plus enough profit to make it worth his while.

People purchase the food with money they have earned because they prefer having food on the table to eat rather than green tasteless paper.

The grocer provides a product (food) and a service (making it accessible).  The consumer benefits from both the product and the service usually to at least the value of what they pay for it, if not more.  As long as the grocer has reasonable prices, where is he getting ahead at someone else's expense?  At the end of the day, both parties are better off from the exchange.

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The whole, "We pay out 95% of the time!" means that for every dollar I give them, they'll give me $0.95 back.  Sounds like a sweet deal ... for them!  

Yes it is.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

If the majority of gamblers do it for the entertainment value, they set themselves a certain amount to lose and stick to it, not sure how much different that would be than going to Disneyland or elsewhere where one goes home with significantly less money than when one left.

I think the problem with gambling for most people is the culture surrounding it, the whole idea of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" is disgusting and a lie (you can't separate days out of one's life as if they don't exist) for example.  Gambling is generally considered part of a criminal organization's portfolio for a reason.

The difference is that going to Disneyland does not have as its object the intent to enrich oneself at someone else's expense. Predatory and spiritually corrosive, as I've said. That's why it fits so well in a criminal milieu. 

Edited June 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I disagree.  Your assertion posits a world in which all entities value all resources equally when that's rarely the case.  Yes, deals in which one party "wins" and another party "loses" do happen quite frequently in business, but they're not a sin qua non for completing a deal.  If I give up something I value less in exchange for something I value more, while the other party does the same thing, we're both benefited.  Stephen R. Covey wrote a lot about "Win-Lose" and "Lose-Lose" vs. "Win-Win" transactions, and I think there's a lot of truth in what he wrote.

The business deal or transaction that is not mutually beneficial to both (or all) parties is stupid on the one hand and unethical on the other. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's not a fact, Scott.  That's your assertion.  I'd suggest your claim is only true if nearly all jobs these days are also there to prosper one while diminishing another. 

  I already explained why I brought up Ponzi schemes.  The quote you offered described them but not gambling. 

I don't see how your definition of predatory works.  Just because a business deal may benefit all parties, as that is the ideal, does not mean someone did not get ahead at someone else's expense.  Business is all about getting ahead at someone else's expense. 

You're not making any sense here. 

[hagoth7]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

He walked away with $5 where he started with a quarter, where did he lose any resource?

Ah. (First time through, I didn't see the decimal point in your $.25). 

Oops. Jots. Tittles.