For example, statistically speaking Iranian Dude might be better-off using their bet-money for targeted purposes, like stocking up on imported durable goods that may become scarce, ideally ones that would have resale value even if nothing catastrophic happened.
The convenient online prediction-casino doesn't require people to have more than a general sense of worry to place a bet, but that also limits how effectively anyone can defend themselves. If you're worried about famine, better to have a payout of food than a payout of cash that won't be able to buy anything.
Did we really kill God to have some bloodsuckers in suits tell us what’s right and what’s wrong?
Aside from the government, who is it that you prefer to do judgment and enforcement?
And yes, you can construct an argument to ban polymarket that does not rely on morality too. But don’t try to sell it to me with a “we will ban it because it’s eeeeevil”.
Ok, I'll bite. Why is it bad to deprive you of your possessions?
And given that the house always wins, is it not depriving the gamblers of their possessions?
I'd say, because we as a group decide they are "bad".
Not sure how you can remove moral judgments from any discussion of banning
Which are valid arguments in your opinion?
In other words the money spent on bets that involve killing directly foments more killing.
[1]https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/04/30/polymarket-s-mil...