4 ms·

The difference is that gambling or loot boxes aren't fulfilling a human need. Human connection is a human need. Unless you're offering a solution to the problem

The difference is that gambling or loot boxes aren't fulfilling a human need. Human connection is a human need. Unless you're offering a solution to the problem that these services are addressing, you're not creating net good in the world, you're just eliminating an accessible way these people have to met a human need.

zo1 6y ago
Loot boxes and gambling could arguably be fulfilling a human need as well. Just depends on your definition of human need. Happiness is a human need and loot-boxes and gambling definitely give that to people on some level. Further, we need not go into "human need" territory at all. We as a society have also put measures in to place to prevent the vulnerable from being exploited despite their objections (e.g. age of consent / alcohol and smoking age consumption laws). My take on it, despite being libertarian-minded, is that we should ban/regulate these sorts of things that can have detrimental, generational-impacts on the viability of our society. These individuals should be going out, socializing, eventually fulfilling someone else's need for companionship at the same time as their own, and then procreating to further society. As much as it fulfills their immediate needs, it's a patch that is arguably non-viable in the long term for them and the wider society.
- hackinthebochs 6y ago
  >Loot boxes and gambling could arguably be fulfilling a human need as well. No. There is a categorical difference between a first-order human need and an nth-order need. >we should ban/regulate these sorts of things that can have detrimental, generational-impacts on the viability of our society. This is absurdly paternalistic. This new moralism is frightening. There was a time when religious moralizing dominated society. We finally broke free from that and now the left is replacing it with secular moralizing. Some people seem to have an intrinsic need to control the behavior of others, the justification is mostly ad-hoc. I am immediately suspicious of any offered moral precept that has zero cost to the advocate. For someone with no problem socializing or finding new friends, I'm sure it seems like a great idea to you. It turns out few people actually believe in freedom, they just want freedom from other people's arbitrary rules.

zo1 6y ago

Loot boxes and gambling could arguably be fulfilling a human need as well. Just depends on your definition of human need. Happiness is a human need and loot-boxes and gambling definitely give that to people on some level. Further, we need not go into "human need" territory at all. We as a society have also put measures in to place to prevent the vulnerable from being exploited despite their objections (e.g. age of consent / alcohol and smoking age consumption laws). My take on it, despite being libertarian-minded, is that we should ban/regulate these sorts of things that can have detrimental, generational-impacts on the viability of our society. These individuals should be going out, socializing, eventually fulfilling someone else's need for companionship at the same time as their own, and then procreating to further society. As much as it fulfills their immediate needs, it's a patch that is arguably non-viable in the long term for them and the wider society.

hackinthebochs 6y ago
>Loot boxes and gambling could arguably be fulfilling a human need as well. No. There is a categorical difference between a first-order human need and an nth-order need. >we should ban/regulate these sorts of things that can have detrimental, generational-impacts on the viability of our society. This is absurdly paternalistic. This new moralism is frightening. There was a time when religious moralizing dominated society. We finally broke free from that and now the left is replacing it with secular moralizing. Some people seem to have an intrinsic need to control the behavior of others, the justification is mostly ad-hoc. I am immediately suspicious of any offered moral precept that has zero cost to the advocate. For someone with no problem socializing or finding new friends, I'm sure it seems like a great idea to you. It turns out few people actually believe in freedom, they just want freedom from other people's arbitrary rules.