3 ms·

I don't understand this comment at all. > They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated peo

I don't understand this comment at all. > They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people. You can probably see where this is going. Great - they've moved on from my country because of the ban. > Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time. Just above you told me what it was accomplishing. And if it "just moves one appearance of [capitalism making it so that businesses have desirable incentives that would make them willing to literally instill gambling problems in children] out of sight for a period of time" then also GREAT! That's what the legislation was FOR. If the legislation stops working, we can discuss again then.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
This is a common trope. When you're arguing against something that is obviously good, there's not many avenues left, so you hit the same three again and again: * According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. * The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent." * Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  None of those apply here.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people. This is #3, a threat that any type of action will harm poor people. > Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time. This is #2, futility in its widest sense. Not just this ban won't work, no bans work!

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

This is a common trope. When you're arguing against something that is obviously good, there's not many avenues left, so you hit the same three again and again: * According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. * The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent." * Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction

eurasiantiger 4y ago
None of those apply here.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people. This is #3, a threat that any type of action will harm poor people. > Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time. This is #2, futility in its widest sense. Not just this ban won't work, no bans work!