5 ms·

Human brains have bugs, and anyone going into a casino or a pay-to-win games know what they are going into. (If they don't that's their problem for not doing th

Human brains have bugs, and anyone going into a casino or a pay-to-win games know what they are going into. (If they don't that's their problem for not doing their own research and using common sense before putting their money) Human brains also have a bug around sugar consumption. I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated. Human brains also have a bug making many of them social media addicts. Human brains have so many bugs. At the end of the day regulating these businesses will hurt more people who voluntarily want to be involved than saving potential addicts. The real solution is never preventing people from doing things (of course as long as they affect only the person and not the others' rights), instead, it's educating. If those governments placed their efforts into educating the people about addiction mechanics of those games/casinos etc. instead of blocking/regulating altogether, it would be much more beneficial than blocking people from their own decisions.

less_less 4y ago
> Human brains have bugs, and anyone going into a casino or a pay-to-win games know what they are going into. (If they don't that's their problem for not doing their own research and using common sense before putting their money) "It's OK if people's lives are intentionally ruined purely for corporate profits, so long as it's at least partly those people's fault. They shouldn't let themselves be tricked." > Human brains also have a bug around sugar consumption. I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated. By the way, San Francisco taxes sugary drinks and requires them to have a warning label. > The real solution is never preventing people from doing things (of course as long as they affect only the person and not the others' rights), instead, it's educating. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps it's best to find a balance between them?
- eesmith 4y ago
  > San Francisco taxes sugary drinks And see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax . Also, NYC tried to ban some sales of sugary beverages over 16 oz, thrown out by the courts.
- can16358p 4y ago
  Ruining their lives is a bit exaggeration for playing pay to win games though. I do not support them, I only hate the idea of banning anything more. I believe education is the key but never see that done enough. (Not only about these topics but pretty much anything). Banning should really, really be the last option.
oneeyedpigeon 4y ago
> I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax#United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax#United_King... This might not quite meet your threshold, but it's probably close. More regulation around sugar is definitely around the corner.
- can16358p 4y ago
  Okay. That's a step in the right direction. Taxing might be the middle ground instead of banning something outright.

less_less 4y ago

> Human brains have bugs, and anyone going into a casino or a pay-to-win games know what they are going into. (If they don't that's their problem for not doing their own research and using common sense before putting their money) "It's OK if people's lives are intentionally ruined purely for corporate profits, so long as it's at least partly those people's fault. They shouldn't let themselves be tricked." > Human brains also have a bug around sugar consumption. I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated. By the way, San Francisco taxes sugary drinks and requires them to have a warning label. > The real solution is never preventing people from doing things (of course as long as they affect only the person and not the others' rights), instead, it's educating. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps it's best to find a balance between them?

eesmith 4y ago
> San Francisco taxes sugary drinks And see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax . Also, NYC tried to ban some sales of sugary beverages over 16 oz, thrown out by the courts.
can16358p 4y ago
Ruining their lives is a bit exaggeration for playing pay to win games though. I do not support them, I only hate the idea of banning anything more. I believe education is the key but never see that done enough. (Not only about these topics but pretty much anything). Banning should really, really be the last option.

oneeyedpigeon 4y ago

> I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax#United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax#United_King... This might not quite meet your threshold, but it's probably close. More regulation around sugar is definitely around the corner.

can16358p 4y ago
Okay. That's a step in the right direction. Taxing might be the middle ground instead of banning something outright.