Right.
I banned my kid from doing lots of things.
I didn’t ban her from starting up a sports betting account, because it would have been similar to banning her from selling ivory.
Important to me, yes, but unnecessary.
4 Likes
For the foreseeable future, yes. I don’t think it’s healthy to have saturation advertising or making the odds part of the show. I don’t think it sends a good message to kids. I think it needs to be dialed back. Little steps first.
1 Like
And of course that’s all we’re talking about…in this little offshoot.
Alcohol and cigarettes have long been separated from the promotion of sport. Difficult to see why gambling shouldn’t, too.
2 Likes
Interesting article byy Tom Cummings ABC News
Updated 27 May 2011, 8:34am
Bacchus my young fuckling*, whilst we could sit and share much wisdom from our accumulated many failed marriages, I think it’s more vital we discuss moral philosophy. You seem to reject situations where some people make decisions regarding moral issues which affect others. It seems you want each individual to be able to be free to make their own moral choices.
I can agree with you in terms of personal decisions that impact only the decision maker. We could argue that even self harm effects our family and close friends, but maybe each person gets to determine whether or not they restrain themselves from self-indulgence just for the benefit of others.
But when we engage in actions that effect the wellbeing of others, our society only functions because we agree to a moral social contract whereby we restrict activities which cause harm. Advertising of addictive products is a prime example. People are free to choose to consume legal addictive products as we are not banning their consumption. However our society is collectively worse off if we allow those who profit from increased consumption to use the science of consumer psychology to increase consumption and therefore the level of harm to society which increases as a direct result of consumption. Every person knows about drugs, alcohol and gambling and the process of legitimising and sensationalising these products through advertising provides no net benefit for society.
Attaching a celebrity or football club’s brand to an addictive product is Marketing 101 standard practice to get around restrictions to advertising directly to the next generation or batch of addicts. It is not at all logical to allow promotion activities which increase the collective burden on the taxpayer to deal with the negative social effects of the consumption of these addictive products. Just like you and I with our failed marriages, we are too easily seduced into coming back for more.
*oh dear I just googled the meaning of this expression & that wasn’t what I meant at all.
1 Like
When the governing body is the ones doing the bombarding then it kinda looks like individual sanctimony rather than any reasoned approach to addressing the issue. Again, EFC exiting pokies does nothing at all to reduce problem gambling. The ONLY thing it does is shift the profits from a club that provides entertainment for hundreds of thousands of people as well as numerous community benefits like the work the players do with sick & special needs kids, the remote community work as well as donations of time & resources to junior football. Instead of the pokies profit doing some good it will revert back to a few extra million for a corporation that is greed driven. Its a lose lose scenario.
4 Likes
We arent one of the richest clubs anymore. The saga crippled us financially and I wouldn’t be surprised if we are still years away from getting back to where we were pre saga.
Sad but thats the cold reality.
As to your contention here I don’t necessarily disagree with being against what pokies represent but that loss of income isn’t something the club is obviously willing to part with yet. And I dont disagree with them on that.
Murky one.
Lord Ewok, I am a firm believer in central government control, but totally reject anyone telling me about morals. Indeed all individuals are entitled to make their own moral choices, and as long as they are legal then no government needs to interfere.
“Every person knows about drugs, alcohol and gambling and the process of legitimising and sensationalising these products through advertising provides no net benefit for society.”
I am part of society and a person, and you do not know what I know, so you are totally discredited.
we are a rich club. just because we have debt doesn’t mean otherwise. debt means nothing if well managed/leveraged.
2 Likes
Club balance sheet, assets minus liabilities =equity. We are 4th wealthiest in the AFL. Fark Carlton has less equity than the tin rattlers. They can thank big Jack for that.
2 Likes
Slavery was legal but it was never ethical.
Putting gay men in prison for being gay was once legal but was never ethical.
The law trails behind the prevailing moral values of any society.
Hence being a good person goes beyond just abiding by the law.
You can buy your chocolates or undies from companies that exploit child labour to produce those goods. Your act of buying is quite legal. I won’t and hope that my footy club doesn’t just because the law allows it.
Actually, Bacchus - I think you know I enjoy your posts & perspective - all I am trying to achieve here is for you to recognise that the law lags behind morality, and that individuals acting legally can cause suffering to other people - and we have a moral obligation not to do that. Footy clubs can contribute to that suffering or they can choose to express their moral preference not to engage in those activities.
4 Likes
,
Again Lord Ewok, while you think “law lags behind morality”, I think it just follows public opinion.
And individuals acting illegally cause much more suffering to others, and while I will agree that some laws are really stupid, banning alcohol and gambling is even more stupid.
If I have any morals, I will not try to force them on others. Democracy forces the will of others on me, and while I could go and live in more enlightened place, probably could not easily get to my seats at the G, so we all have to make sacrifices.
Which means Lord Ewok, moralising about others is a poor character trait.
Keep in mind that I agree with you entirely that people acting illegally causes much suffering to others (not sure about ‘more’ - but only because I can’t measure it); and I agree entirely that drinking alcohol and gambling should not be made illegal - if this was part of this discussion I missed it. The discussion I saw and tried to contribute to was that the advertising of addictive products needs to be regulated (including attaching a popular brand to a product) given the incredible creative brilliance of consumer behaviour experts to increase consumption against the better more rational judgement of consumers (that’s why they can spend $b’s on advertising but still create more profit).
If I can’t ‘moralise about others’ then I cannot condemn ethnic cleansing or the murder of Falon Gong practitioners in China, or the treatment of political prisoners in North Korea, or the wilful neglect of indigenous people in my own country, as these things happen within the prevailing laws of that country sanctioned by their governments.
Rather than being a poor character trait, trying to resolve the big moral issues of our time is actually one of the better things we can do as good global citizens, and sticking our head in the sand and suggesting that morality is determined by each individual is to suggest a return to a primitive society where ‘might is right’ and where there is no collective will to protect the vulnerable.
edit - Bacchus, sorry for the inappropriate name calling on previous x 2 post and your good natured response. I was looking for a label which meant young, naive, inexperienced one…
2 Likes
Lord Ewok, no issue with any name calling. I am impervious to ridicule if any sort.
You and I have differing views on what are moral issues it seems. Condemning treatment of others in any place across the world is not about morals but about human rights. In my view the abortion debate for example is not one of morals but the right of a woman to make decisions about her body.
I actually do not care what others do to themselves, only when it affects others. So I would never seek to question your morals or push mine upon you. Though as I have very few it is doubtful there would ever be this issue.
The question of pernicious advertising soiling the mind of the young is one perhaps for parents and not for Government. Perhaps changing cigarette advertising has had the effect of cutting those who smoke, but maybe it is partly the restrictions on where you can smoke or perhaps the realisation that it is bad for your health. If we have concerns about our young turning away from sport and spending their inheritance on sports gambling then maybe we could start with buying them a footy instead of an iPad.
Perhaps I am naïve, but not inexperienced and sadly no longer young.
Morality or ethics is just about what we ought to do.
Ought I have an abortion is a moral question.
The human rights framework is one of many possible ways of answering these moral questions - ie I ought not violate someone’s human rights. Aristotle suggested we identify virtues that we should aspire to - and what we ought to do is what that virtuous person would do. Our society - business and government - is based on utilitarian ethics - what are consequences of what I am about to do? I ought do what brings about the greatest good for those affected by my actions.
In business you would make many ethical decisions every day. If you like I can consult for your business at $500 per hour. Alternatively you could just apply your human rights framework together with liberal doses of fairness and kindness and your obvious high levels of common sense and you would probably arrive at similar decisions at a cost of didley squat.
Lord Ewok, thank you for kind offer at a reduced rate of only $500 per hour. I will check with my Shareholders on that.
They will but put off by your view that business decisions are about virtue and what is correct for the common good. They may think you some type of socialist, which would not be good for the bottom line and their Shareholder return. And if you think any business is run for the common good then sadly I fear you are mistaken.
While we pay our staff well and send them birthday cards, the motive is to keep the good ones and drive their performance to enhance profit, and we do give to charity, when we get good advertising and it is tax deductible.
I was once a true believer in human spirit and the goodness of mankind, but that was a myth and the “common good” is only what is good for those with wealth and power.
Let us have our alcohol, tobacco and gambling; us poor western suburbs types need a reason to live.
No doubt you perform cost-benefit analysis (CBA) everyday - even if informally in your mind - as you make decisions to improve your business. CBA is a utilitarian decision framework ie what are economic consequences of this decision? Social CBA would add the social and environmental consequences to that decision process ie a Triple Bottom Line process.
The only issue for you is whether you just consider the needs of (yourself and) shareholders or whether you broaden your views and consider the impact of your business decisions on other (all?) stakeholders. I imagine you are a loving grandparent. If your business is adding to the destruction of the environment and reducing the quality of life that your grandchildren will experience in 50 years, I imagine they would become relevant stakeholders to you when making business decisions that impact the environment. I think if I do something that affects you then I am accountable to you for my actions. That fits my view of fairness.
When you decide to only consider the views of shareholders, that is still a business decision about ethics, where the only consequences you are concerned about are for your self and for your shareholders because that will affect the consequences for your self. This ‘what is good for the self’ approach to making moral decisions is very much a cause of many of our problems. I know you are better than this.
Get a room.
4 Likes
Of course Lord Ewok, I am being facetious. Our shareholders are Mrs Fox and I, and some of our Staff who have taken up the offer of ownership.
However I have held senior positions in large Companies and know many other small business operators, and they never employ any morality to their business practices. They obey the law, avoiding tax as much as possible, paying staff the legal remittance and conditions, ecstatic when Governments cut penalty rates and make industrial relations more one-sided towards business. There is no “common good” provision in capitalist business practice.
Your point about business and its role in the future of the planet is worth further disucssion. Sadly I think that Government needs to legislate to ensure that business does not kill the planet, as I see the reluctance of most business to even take small conservation steps. The triple or quadruple bottom line scenario is a con.
A major part of our business deals with Mining and OIl & Gas markets, and most of these Companies profess to be commited to environment safeguards. Many do not practice this, so our Company needs to decide who to deal with. Big decision as if for example we shun BHP for the environmental disaster they caused in Brazil and their lack of empathy for the victims, we would lose much income and perhaps need to cut a job or two. I yearn for the day, which is coming soon, when I can retire out of business and just sit back delivering scorn to transgressors without actually doing anything; making me like a Greens.
With regards to grand-children; I am only loving to the extent that they go away when I want to them to.
2 Likes
what the ■■■■ am I reading?
1 Like