3 ms·

If there is no extensive research on gaming, it doesn't mean gaming should not be limited. Since we don't know how harmful gaming is, keeping it widely availabl

by gnull 5y ago

If there is no extensive research on gaming, it doesn't mean gaming should not be limited. Since we don't know how harmful gaming is, keeping it widely available might be as dangerous as limiting it. Keeping games available is as much of a decision as limiting them. Why do you think picking the former option requires extensive research and the latter doesn't?

alentist 5y ago
Because one is forcing people to do something while the other is letting people choose for themselves.
- gnull 5y ago
  Does this mean its outcome is inherently better and it should be the default decision? I find this super questionable, especially when we talk about children.
  - alentist 5y ago
    The burden of proof is on you.
throwaway675309 5y ago
Number one there absolutely is extensive research on gaming and its potential physiological ramifications. Number two even if there weren't, by your logic you could justify restricting anything in the entire universe by stating that there isn't sufficient research. A.k.a. we don't know what long term ramifications may be caused by extensive winking, so will be restricting to the amount of winking you can perform to 50 winks per day.
- gnull 5y ago
  > Number one there absolutely is extensive research on gaming and its potential physiological ramifications. The parent comment suggested there isn't, and the reply I gave was modulo this assumption. If you say there is extensive research, give it to the parent comment. > by your logic you could justify restricting anything in the entire universe by stating that there isn't sufficient research You do a strawman argument here, your interpretation of my argument is self-servingly absurd. The parent comment wanted to discard one of the alternatives because there's too little research. I objected saying that if there's not enough research, this makes the two alternatives equally favorable (not that it strengthens the other alternative!).

by gnull 5y ago

alentist 5y ago

Because one is forcing people to do something while the other is letting people choose for themselves.

gnull 5y ago
Does this mean its outcome is inherently better and it should be the default decision? I find this super questionable, especially when we talk about children.
- alentist 5y ago
  The burden of proof is on you.

throwaway675309 5y ago

Number one there absolutely is extensive research on gaming and its potential physiological ramifications. Number two even if there weren't, by your logic you could justify restricting anything in the entire universe by stating that there isn't sufficient research. A.k.a. we don't know what long term ramifications may be caused by extensive winking, so will be restricting to the amount of winking you can perform to 50 winks per day.

gnull 5y ago
> Number one there absolutely is extensive research on gaming and its potential physiological ramifications. The parent comment suggested there isn't, and the reply I gave was modulo this assumption. If you say there is extensive research, give it to the parent comment. > by your logic you could justify restricting anything in the entire universe by stating that there isn't sufficient research You do a strawman argument here, your interpretation of my argument is self-servingly absurd. The parent comment wanted to discard one of the alternatives because there's too little research. I objected saying that if there's not enough research, this makes the two alternatives equally favorable (not that it strengthens the other alternative!).