zlacker

Just about everything that's fun is a "vice".

>>ravens+(OP)
There might be someone hopelessly addicted to amateur astronomy, frequently disrupting their sleep schedule and taking out usurious loans to pay for their equipment. But, that's not happening on a scale that we need societal regulation. Gambling is a different sort of vice than many fun activities.

>>ravens+(OP)
Playing tennis is a vice?

>>ravens+(OP)
You have a bit of a point: things that are fun are much more addictive than things that are hard or boring. And vice versa: addiction makes people believe it is fun. An addict will accept any kind of rationalization before giving up the addiction.

That doesn't mean it should be allowed. Not all fun is healthy. It's been known for over a century that gambling is detrimental, to both society and individual.

>>ravens+(OP)
The christian morality summed up in one sentence.

>>wavemo+4x1
Tennis can certainly be viewed that way.

It's done recreationally, costs money, costs time, can cause injuries and joint problems, and is not productive. There are health benefits, but nothing that can't be had by much safer and less costly means of exercise.

>>ravens+xm3
Well, anything "can be viewed" in any way. That doesn't mean the view is correct or commonly used or accepted.

So criticizing the concept of vice on the grounds that "everything that's fun is a vice" is somewhat of a semantic strawman - you're criticizing the word by changing its meaning.

>>wavemo+9D3
No it isn't. It's an opinion as to whether something is a vice. There is no theoretical model of what makes a vice; no piece of kit to measure the viceness of something. There is no morality particle to reference. It's also an opinion whether a vice is actually something negative or just a necessary aspect of the human experience.