This is a flawed argument. If you were to never make your bet in the first place, the "person who can't stop gambling" would still be losing their money to the bookie. You're not enabling the bookie taking their money.
In fact, if you're winning more than you're losing, you're decreasing the profit of the bookie. You are therefore making it a less worthy venture for them to hold these ethically-negative gambling events. If you were to win enough, the bookie would lose money from the venture, eventually resulting in them no longer hosting gambling events.
So actually, winning money off of bookies is an ethically good behavior, since it's negative feedback for them enabling other gamblers with "uncontrollable behavior" to lose their money.
In fact, if you're winning more than you're losing, you're decreasing the profit of the bookie
Not if it's a parimutuel betting [1] system, as described in the story. The Hong Kong Jockey Club takes a flat 17% cut. The rest is exchanged between winners and losers. This is no different from playing poker at a casino, where the house collects a rake but otherwise the players only win money off one another.
Note how in the story, the Jockey Club contacts Benter and offers assistance rather than blacklisting him. If he were decreasing the profit margin of the bookie, as you call it, they would have ample reason to cut him off. In actuality, he was increasing their profits (but not their margin, which remained a flat 17%) simply by increasing betting activity. This is something poker sites have also hit upon, and as a result they've developed sophisticated rewards programs for their top players.
"We’ve spent less than $1000 on hiring, but I’ve had coffees or breakfasts with probably hundreds of candidates. Measured by hours, recruiting is one of our largest investments"
Wierdly he mentions an extra $2000 in the article: "Two of our engineers were good friends of the existing engineers, and we give a $1000 bonus to employees who refer people that are hired.". And "Got coffee, drinks, and meals with friends that we know are strong engineers". Drinks and meals are surely quite expensive too.
But as implied, time and opportunity cost is what really matters, the dollars are minimal in comparison.
When founding our company, actual costs were low. Opportunity cost was large (not earning our existing salaries). Now the business is good and salaries vastly outweigh all other expenses (and we are in a low tech town, unlike SF).
I saw a Sherlock Holmes quote on here once, I liked it and I think it's relevant to your comment so I'll post it here.
"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."
Elsewhere Conan Doyle had Holmes explain that he did not know, or care, whether the Sun circled the Earth or vice-versa, because that fact was irrelevant for his activity.
While it is "arguing from fictional evidence", there's something here about why "personal growth" annoys me.
You'll find no end of people talking about things they do for their personal growth - an ongoing, endless growth. Exactly as if they have elastic walls and eidetic memories. (and no particular goal to grow towards, so they know when to stop, but that's another topic)
Whataboutism isn't a defense. Folks can legitimately be outraged and push for change based on CA. Reflection on past or ongoing abuses should absolutely happen.
Whataboutism isn’t excusing; it’s deflecting. To quote from the OED:
“The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue”
While whataboutism is definitey toxic to conversation, I've noticed a lot people tend to throw accusations of whataboutism around when they are uncomfortable with their hypocrisy being pointed out.
