News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The perception is wildly skewed here because you never hear from the ones who use the money responsibly to buy a home, settle debt, etc. and just live an easier life. Sure, winning the lottery should not be your only option to ever achieve anything. I just don't think that lottery winners in general have a huge problem.
Nah there's statistics on it. A huge fraction end up broke. I'm too lazy to dig them up, but you can find numbers on it. In any case, it's not a actually limited to people who but lotto tickets. Humans are generally bad at handling massive windfalls.
Why would you play the lottery in the first place if you user money responsibly? Playing the lottery is the opposite of using money responsibly.
Because for most people it's a small vice that let's you dream of a better life for a week.
That doesn't make it any less financially irresponsible. "I can afford to be irresponsible at my current income level" suggests that they will have the same way of thinking if they happen to win.
Do you spend every single dollar you get responsibly? Do you have zero vices?
Just because you’re different doesn’t mean you’re better. Get off it with this rhetoric and let people live their lives, especially when it has zero impact on you.
If by 'vices,' you mean spend money on something on the chance that I might get something good out of it but probably not, no. I do not have such vices. I spend money on things that benefit me. I don't really see the benefit of buying a lottery ticket since it will almost always lead to disappointment.
I’d encourage you to look up what a vice is.
It’s glaringly obvious your vices are different but I guarantee you have your own that some or many of us would find to be wildly irresponsible.
Okay.
Unless you count using cannabis for medical reasons and not for recreation in a state that isn't legal a vice, I do not have any vices.
I see you skipped the contextual definition immediately below the last one. Let me help you out:
“A bad habit”
Yes you do have vices.
If you know that I have them, you can tell me what they are.
Idiotic take. You’re human, you have vices. It’s that simple.
Here’s some more help: https://factmyth.com/vices-and-virtues-explained/
Do you drink soda or alcohol? Vice.
Do you eat comfort foods when you aren’t strictly needing substance? Vice.
Do you binge watch television? Vice.
Do you doomscroll? Vice.
Do you do anything at all that you look back on and say ‘maybe that’s not the thing I should be doing’ and then go on and do it again? Vice.
No one is so virtuous as to be absent of vice and your self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou sentiment is disgusting and abhorrent and in my estimation, a vice.
Game, set, match
If you drink one glass of wine a month, that is neither bad nor a habit.
Again, if you do this occasionally, it is neither bad nor a habit.
How is that a bad habit?
How is that a bad habit?
I do everything I can to avoid this.
"Saying you don't have vices is a vice" makes not more sense than "saying you're not a racist means you're racist."
I never said I was virtuous. I said I don't have any vices. You certainly haven't shown that I do, you've only shown that you don't understand what 'habit' means and you have a very conservative idea of 'bad.'
Habits are something I try to avoid unless they are beneficial.
By definition, once a month is a habit. Alcohol is technically poison. It's not much of a vice, but since you are going for technicalities, it fits the definition. But no one can prove you have a vice over the internet. But the odds of any given person not having a vice are about as small as winning the powerball.
I meant on average once a month. Come on.
Still a habit.
I never said I didn't have habits. I said I don't have vices.
It's technically poison. So if you have a habit of drinking poison, that's a bad habit. Which is a vice.
Once a month on average is not a habit. A habit is a regular thing.
Sure it is. You regularly average one drink per month.
No? Some months I might have one drink, some months I might have three, some months I might have none at all. That's what 'on average' means.
In other word, it is not habitual. It is occasional.
If you go to the movies five or six times a year, are you a habitual movie-goer?
You can try to change the word, but I am not falling for it. If you go to the movies 5 or 6 times a year, you have a habit of going to the movies. If you drink 5 or 6 glasses of poison a year, that would be a bad habit, and also a vice.
That is not what habit means.
Going to the movies 5 or 6 times a year is neither settled nor regular.
Now look up tendency. Any number range per year is a regular tendency. Per year is regular, and any nonzero number is tendency. The English language is shit. I before e except after c and several hundred other exceptions.
Nonsense. It's entirely relative.
Per year is regular for a medical checkup.
Per year is not regular for eating an egg salad sandwich. Especially when it is an average of once per year and not definitely once per year.
Is getting a medical checkup a habit? If so, is it a vice? Because, again, I don't deny I have habits. I'm denying I have vices.
Nothing in the definition says anything about relative. You are applying your interpretation to the definition. But everyone can have a different interpretation. So you can't do that and still be "technically" correct.
Are you seriously claiming that having, on average, one egg salad sandwich a year is both a habit and a vice?
Pretty sure I never said anything specific about egg salad. But yeah, English sucks. Technically it is a habit.
No, I said something specific about egg salad, on average, once per year and you said it is a habit.
Me:
You:
So basically everything anyone could possibly do from swallowing a thumbtack to dying of listeria is a habit.
I keep trying to tell you that english is a shifty language. I believe you can exclude one time events if you dig into the definitions of the words used in the definition of habit. But that is probably the technical limit of things truely excluded.
I see... So if you eat a plum when you're 6 years old and then never eat another plum again until you're 90, it's not a one-time event, and therefore is a habit and a vice.
Holy shit the colors of lines aligning with replies are so pretty. It’s 4 full rainbows.🌈
You guys truly have some serious vices of online pointless arguments. How humane of you.
I congratulate you on being just like the rest of us.
Yes on the habit technically. Thats a once every 45 year habit. But a vice? Well I don't think eating a plum is bad for you unless you are allergic or something. So not a vice I think.
I don't think you will find a single other person on this planet that would agree with you that doing something two times over the course of your entire life is a habit. Not one.
Now that's just silly. Even the most absurd thing one could think of could find one person on the planet that would agree with it.
Now remember, you took this down the "technically" path. I personally would use habit closer in line with how you would. But Vice is similar. The definition says it is a habit, but it is common for people to use it in reference to things that aren't a habit by your interpretation. So you can pick if you want to be technical, or interpretive. But you can't mix and match. Either way, the original point of everyone has a vice is true if you use the technical branch and if you use the interpretive branch. It is only false if you use the interpretive for habit, and the technical for vice.
Okay, find me that person. I'll wait.
Dr oz.... Donald Trump, any of the maga Republicans...
Lmao at you pretending not to know what a vice is to win a petty argument.
I know exactly what a vice is, which is why I know I don't have any.
Not everyone who plays the lottery plays it consistently. I think I'm reasonably responsible with money, and I'm probably spending something like $20/year playing the lottery. If I won, the very first thing I'd do is get a lawyer. I wouldn't even tell my friends or family until I got things sorted with a lawyer.
You don't sound like the typical person I hear about winning the lottery.
That's because you don't hear about the majority of people winning the lottery. In some states, you can claim it anonymously (I know in CA you can't). In those that don't allow anonymous claims, you can set up an LLC to claim it.
People tell stories about the lottery winners who go bankrupt, but there are million dollar tickets sold literally every week. You don't hear much about those because the jackpots are in the hundreds of millions now.
I am a fiscally responsible person with the amount of money I make. I spend more money on beer in a week than I do lottery tickets in a year, but I still drop a $20 when the jackpots hit a billion. If I would have won, I wouldn't have told anyone except a trusted financial planner/adviser until all the stuff is all set up, and then I would only tell a few specific people. To everyone else, I would just say I helped a buddy start a new company that was sold to investors. You wouldn't ever hear about me.
Even in California, the only information you're required to release is your name and the city (maybe even the exact store) the ticket was purchased. You don't have to get your picture taken and everything, someone with a commonish name living in a populated area could easily stay anonymous.
You know, you don't have to put every penny you earn into a savings account. You're allowed to spend it on stuff you find fun.
I could totally imagine someone with an already fairly stable income buying a set amount of lottery tickets within their budget as a hobby. It's not my thing, but a fair number of people are into it.
I can't speak from those who gamble without being financially stable, but I join a lottery pool by contributing $5 whenever the jackpot is over $1B. My wife and I also have a decent salaries and save 65% of what we make. I guess that makes the $5 irresponsible while still being responsible financially overall?
Yeah exactly, I don't think that's irresponsible at all. You could have also spent $5 on a cookie you ended up hating.