When something has negative outcomes, the thing requires justification.
The negative outcome has to be placed on a third, unrelated party that has not consented to having that outcome on them.
If the only negative outcome is on the person who consented (e.g., the gambler), then why should they be denied their choice to participate?
alt Hacker News
The negative outcome has to be placed on a third, unrelated party that has not consented to having that outcome on them.
If the only negative outcome is on the person who consented (e.g., the gambler), then why should they be denied their choice to participate?