ForumGarden

I live with some very strict religious folks who often come home from church with some random social or moral questions in the vain hope that they can try and understand my very liberal lifestyle and maybe just maybe convince me to stop doing whatever it is we're debating about. So naturally I thought of posing this debate to my newfound mates on FG.

ANYWAY I'll get to the question now shall I!

Is playing the lottery a form of gambling? :-3

Is frequently trading in the stock market / buying selling shares etc no matter how big or small the amount a form of gambling also? :-3



Thoughts anyone?

The lottery, yes it is. There's no skill involved, as opposed to the stock market trading.

As the OED says of the verb "to gamble", "To play games of chance for money, especially for unduly high stakes; to stake money (esp. to an extravagant amount) on some fortuitous event. As the word is (at least in serious use) essentially a term of reproach, it would not ordinarily be applied to the action of playing for stakes of trifling amount, except by those who condemn playing for money altogether." Lotteries these days aren't trifling amounts. People buy more than a single ticket a week, for example, thinking that the more tickets they buy the greater their chance of a jackpot. Some low-income families are crippled financially, playing the national lottery. It's why some churches here held out against it being legalised.

Both are gambling.

jpcme;556963 wrote: Both are gambling.


In what way is stock trading gambling? Some pension funds, for example, rely on the practice to tie their investments into the wealth of the nation, they've done it for decades with considerable success. Many traders are skilled at turning a reliable profit. That's not a "game of chance".

QUOTE=spot;556974]In what way is stock trading gambling? Some pension funds, for example, rely on the practice to tie their investments into the wealth of the nation, they've done it for decades with considerable success. Many traders are skilled at turning a reliable profit. That's not a "game of chance".


In the same way as betting on a horse race is. You can study all factors and take an educated guess at what will win but in the end you do not know so you take a gamble that you got everything right. You can lose money and win money on stocks and shares so when you buy them you are taking a gamble that you will gain. No matter how skilled the trader is he can not guarantee that he will make money. It's a gamble.

jpcme;556984 wrote: In the same way as betting on a horse race is. You can study all factors and take an educated guess at what will win but in the end you do not know so you take a gamble that you got everything right. You can lose money and win money on stocks and shares so when you buy them you are taking a gamble that you will gain. No matter how skilled the trader is he can not guarantee that he will make money. It's a gamble.
If you can't see the difference between an uncertain outcome and a game of chance, you could try reading a statistics manual. The two have very little in common. The key phrase in the definition of "gamble" is "fortuitous event".

spot;556988 wrote: If you can't see the difference between an uncertain outcome and a game of chance, you could try reading a statistics manual. The two have very little in common. The key phrase in the definition of "gamble" is "fortuitous event".


I can see the difference. I do not see horse racing as a game of chance as there are many factors that influence the outcome. A game of chance would be the role of the dice where the outcome is completely random.

OED also states

take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

Somes up the stock market nicely.

Perhaps I misunderstood the question, and perhaps different countries employ different legislation. In Great Britain gambling is controlled by the Gambling Act 2005, the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and (in the case of Spread Betting) the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The activities of the Stock Exchange fall into a totally different category and have nothing to do with gambling at all over here. I'd be very surprised if they did in the US either.

I think they're both gambling but I don't see anything wrong with either. You buy your ticket, you take your chance. Like anything else it can be abused but that doesn't make it wrong or bad.

I'd class as the Lottery as gambling yeah. I don't do it myself but don't see the harm.

My younger brother did telemarketing for Canadian lotteries one summer but quit because their calling lists were obtained from Gamblers Anonymous. Don't know how the list was obtained but they had it and all the people he called were Americans who were known gamblers trying to recover.

I'd say that means that the lottery company felt that they were a form of gambling.

As to stock markets, how one decides to use them determines how much of a risk is taken. Normally it is considered a form of investment though some do use it to gamble.

For that matter, every time you walk out the door you take a gamble on returning safely. If you want to argue with the religious folk about it, that's the angle I'd choose.

I'd call the lottery entertainment. And religion a gamble. They are betting that their religion is right. :wah:

OzBoy;556959 wrote:

Is playing the lottery a form of gambling? -3

Is frequently trading in the stock market / buying selling shares etc no matter how big or small the amount a form of gambling also? -3




a) Yes, and a particularly daft one, at that;

b) No.

spot;557014 wrote: Perhaps I misunderstood the question, and perhaps different countries employ different legislation. In Great Britain gambling is controlled by the Gambling Act 2005, the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and (in the case of Spread Betting) the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The activities of the Stock Exchange fall into a totally different category and have nothing to do with gambling at all over here. I'd be very surprised if they did in the US either.


From a legal stand point you are correct.

However if I go and buy a house today with the intention of selling it in a years time for a profit I am gambling that the cost of housing continues to increase. Some call it speculating, it is still a gamble and not covered by any gambling act.

If I decide to cross the road while blindfolded I am taking a gamble that no traffic will be coming. There are many forms of gambling of which the stock market is just one.

jpcme;557071 wrote: However if I go and buy a house today with the intention of selling it in a years time for a profit I am gambling that the cost of housing continues to increase. Some call it speculating, it is still a gamble and not covered by any gambling act.

If I decide to cross the road while blindfolded I am taking a gamble that no traffic will be coming. There are many forms of gambling of which the stock market is just one.
I'll let the Methodist Church of Great Britain know next time I pass their office. They've been opposed to gambling ever since John Wesley preached on the subject around 1742 but none of their leaflets have criticized home ownership, they're obviously remiss and need to pull their socks up. On the bright side, they do counsel against suicide.

eta: that particular church does have a statement somewhere about the Stock market, now I think about it - not to own shares in unethical trades like arms manufacture. They do own lots of shares though, together with a whole slew of buildings which have appreciated in value since they were erected.

spot;557115 wrote: I'll let the Methodist Church of Great Britain know next time I pass their office. They've been opposed to gambling ever since John Wesley preached on the subject around 1742 but none of their leaflets have criticized home ownership, they're obviously remiss and need to pull their socks up. On the bright side, they do counsel against suicide.

eta: that particular church does have a statement somewhere about the Stock market, now I think about it - not to own shares in unethical trades like arms manufacture. They do own lots of shares though, together with a whole slew of buildings which have appreciated in value since they were erected.


Your point being?

Sorry do not see how what the Methodist Church believes has any relevance. As for them owning shares and being opposed to gambling they would not be the first religious organisation to show hypocrisy. House ownership in itself is not gambling as it has been know that some people actually buy houses to live in.

jpcme;557451 wrote: Sorry do not see how what the Methodist Church believes has any relevance. As for them owning shares and being opposed to gambling they would not be the first religious organisation to show hypocrisy.As you will, we seem to differ on the matter. The relevance is that I know no group which has put so much time, thought and effort into establishing and representing a reasonable position on gambling over the last two hundred years.

http://www.methodist.org.uk/static/fact ... mbling.htm sums up their current position quite well, I think. I've tended to stick closer to the 1936 declaration (which argued that “belief in luck cannot be reconciled with faith in God) than to what I see as a watered-down stance of the last fifteen years. There's more damage here from the National Lottery than there ever was from earlier forms of gambling, in my opinion.

I dont think I should answere I have a weekly poker game, and I um, loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove poker.