Quote from: EarnOnVictor on Today at 02:13:28 PM

Quote from: Dewi Aries on February 25, 2024, 05:30:28 PM

Quote from: EarnOnVictor on February 25, 2024, 11:34:02 AM

The way I see it is a little bit different here, fine, gambling can be better for those who are gainfully employed, after all, they will have more money to gamble and perhaps the instances of their losses will not affect them so much compared to those who are just struggling financially and still gambling to lose. But one thing I will not so much agree with is the fact that being gainfully employed will stop you from gambling more or wagering higher. What I see here is greed, nothing else, and it is until you curb or control it, you will never be healed of it, not even if you have more money, it will only push you to risk more. To think it my way, look around you, you would discover that many people are gainfully employed but still gamble more, while some are not so financially buoyant, yet they limit their gambling activity because they are contented and are wise with it. This shows that anything about gambling is not rigid for all persons, it's about individuals in this context.

The point is that gambling is more recommended for those who do have a job that produces in the real world, none other than because by having an income, the defeat of gambling will not make you experience too much trouble, because by having an income, at least you still have a number of budgets from your monthly salary to make ends meet. In the sense that gamblers who do not have a job or are unemployed are not really recommended to gamble because they do not have the income to finance their gambling activities and the fear is that it is very possible for them to take out a lot of loans or even commit crimes just to gamble.

I've already captured most of your points in my post and I must say that you have a point in some sense of this, but when it comes the sense of the context in which I replied to, I strongly believe that greed is still the highest factor to consider here, and not about being employed or not. As I said, being employed will only make more money available to you to gamble with, which invariably means you can also waste more money in the process. So, being employed doesn't make you automatically disciplined or a better planner when it comes to gambling. Your point can only prove well in the area of extra backup cash, which if not carefully utilized, will only amount to more financial ruins. Also, gambling is for everybody, the only distinction is that we should be responsible in it. Those who have more may gamble more and those who have less may gamble less. All that matters is for us to consider our finances and gamble cautiously and proportionately without intimidation or fear. We may gamble with money that will not pain us, and even an employed person may still be able to part ways with a few bucks for gambling. But such should not just go beyond that.

Wait a minute, so you believe that because someone is not employed, such could be tempted to take a loan to gamble? Do you think that is as easy as that? What collateral would such use, and even if he was lucky to get the loan through some cheap loaners with a higher interest rate, would such be able to pay back in most cases? Such does not have a job, so with time, the process would hook and there would not be any means for him to borrow money again. It is discouraging to take a loan by this set of people. And do you think the employed gambler is exonerated from this as well? I don't agree with that, they can also take loans if they exhaust the money they have. We should just pray we are not addicted to gambling, a lot are betting in advance of their salaries and the fact that they are employed often motivates them since they have the means to easily pay it back.

For this, I do not see the "thin line" you were trying to draw regarding the loan between the employed and jobless gamblers. All I see is individuality and how engrossed/addicted people (employed/unemployed) are to gambling. If either of them can't be disciplined enough to control themselves, the story will always be bad due to emotion that entails greed, fear, anxiety, curiosity, depression and even worse.

Yes buddy I understand what you mean here and regarding my statement above I was just saying in simple terms which is more likely to lead to the difference between someone who has a job and some people who are unemployed when both are involved in gambling activities, but I understand what exactly you mean that it is not about the situation of whether they are working or not but rather something that is in a person such as greed and emotions. which is simply that even if you have a good income or even you are one of the rich people you can still end up poor or bankrupt when you cannot treat gambling activities properly in the sense that as you said, which is simply that even if you have a pretty good income or even if you are one of the rich people you can still end up in poverty or bankruptcy when you can't treat gambling activities properly in the sense that as you said that when they have good finances along with having the wrong approach to gambling then obviously the chances are that their income from work will only be allocated to their gambling activities in the sense that they have the possibility of experiencing much greater losses.

So the point is not whether you are employed or not but whether or not you are responsible or have the recommended approach in your gambling activities, I agree and understand with this statement. On the other hand about what I said above about unemployed people getting involved in loans, I'm just saying that it's "likely" that eventually they will take out loans to fulfill or finance their gambling activities, and I'm not saying that it's "certain" to happen, because there may still be people who are able to control themselves, and I'm referring to those who are irresponsible or who are unable to control their gambling activities such as addicts. It's clear that in some cases addicted people use "borrowing" or even "stealing" as an alternative to finance their gambling activities, and I understand that with the situation of not having a job it will make it difficult for them to take out loans at some services and it makes it difficult for them to take out loans because there is no guarantee of anything that can be trusted by the service, I understand this but I think this is going too far and usually they just try to borrow from people around them by saying something that can make others trust enough, but isn't this also a loan that can make the situation worse by getting into debt? because they basically don't have the income to be able to pay it back.

So what this means is that the situation of the unemployed can be more chronic than that of the employed when it comes to the pressure they feel about not being able to make ends meet, I think you should understand what I mean in this context, for the issue of loans I am not saying that loans are only for unemployed people, because after all this is an alternative that can help someone in an emergency situation and not just in terms of gambling, but gamblers who have the wrong approach to gambling always try to take advantage of the situation and use loans as an intermediary to finance their bad habits. Okay let's put aside the context of "working or not" because the point is whether you can treat gambling with the recommended approach or not, because no matter how rich you are if you have the wrong approach then you can end up being a beggar.