[Nick Rivers]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a good counter-point.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No its not. Partly because the practice (which I'm thinking is overstated in his post) is not widely known.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, it is widely known and it wasn't overstated. Do you think there are more underaged gamblers (the chief complaint that the moralists have against online gambling) or more child slave laborers?

[ QUOTE ]
And partly because a certain minimum age law IS an example of something that might be right for the US but not for certain other countries. When Nike employs 15 year old teens at 25 cents an hour they make sure that they can point out to their parents and concerned Americans that it is because of them that their twelve year old doesn't have to work for a dime an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an absurd argument. You're never going to sell the "moral majority" of America on the idea that 13 year old slave labor in Bangladesh is right. What corporations do to prevent having to justify their production practices is clamp down on it as hard and as fast as possible whenever something does leak out, but the scandals still get out and people still hear about them. The truth is it has nothing to do with perception or double standards regarding corporate policy and everything to do with a culture addicted to consumption and hypocrisy. The American addiction to convenience and consumption is far greater than any addiction to poker we, as a group may have, and it absolutely cannot be ferreted out, no matter how hard the people who vehemently oppose slavery work to raise awareness about it. We don't want to pay through the nose for our furniture, shoes, clothes, toys, and so on. This is why Harrah's is not taking a huge risk. The people who gamble at Harrah's already aren't going to care that Harrah's is expanding its operation to include online gaming overseas. The people who are opposed to internet gambling probably don't gamble at Harrah's to begin with. Fundamentally, Americans are apathetic about what's right or wrong in the world and don't even voice their disapproval of corporate practices via their wallets. And, even if they did, it wouldn't matter in Harrah's case because none of their existing customer base would care anyway. Ultimately, everyone knows in the back of his mind how goods from third-world countries are produced and why they come to us for astoundingly cheap prices, just like everyone in a casino knows in the back of his mind that gambling is a losing proposition and that the house is the statistical favorite to win. People just don't care. You postulate that there will be some great psychological affect from Harrah's moving into the internet realm but, in truth, most people don't even know who Harrah's is and, for those that have heard the name, they really don't care and probably don't care about whether online poker is legal or not.

Casinos aren't in the business of sticking their necks out or taking risks. This should be obvious by Harrah's lack of presence in the online gaming arena even after it has existed for years and they have been steadily taking over the world of brick and mortar gaming. If they're making a move now, it's because there is no risk, and it's not a big deal. It's just a safe time to grab up money from an as yet untapped (by them) market.

It still is significant, though, to the professional poker player that Harrah's is considering a move into the online arena. If other gaming outfits follow suit (and they usually do tend to move in lockstep), then the potential for a domestic online gambling industry becomes a real possibility. Not because of public opinion or psychology, but because of sheer lobbying power and economics. When corporations stand to make billions and when the vast majority of Americans don't care about an issue standing in the way of that money, you can bet that the corporations in question will get their way.

[ QUOTE ]
In the case of of internet poker the same does not apply. I know for instance from the SMP forum that British people are not that backward. So if internet poker is bad for us it is bad for them too. Like I said, I don't even think this issue has even been thought about much. So I hope someone will read this thread and suggest the pointed question I broached earlier to ask Harrah's publicity director Jan Jones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another absurd analogy. Consider the myriad differences in the healthcare systems of America and Britain. Should we now, based on your argument about gambling, believe that we should adopt the British system of healthcare because, afterall, the British are not backwards and so what they do will work best for us too?