4 ms·

Nice theory, but how is your kid going to love World of Goo when: > Note: Netflix games aren't available for Kids profiles. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/1

Nice theory, but how is your kid going to love World of Goo when: > Note: Netflix games aren't available for Kids profiles. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/121442 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/121442

Rebelgecko 3y ago
On the Netflix app it takes maybe 3 seconds to change profiles. Does it work differently with their games?
- diggernet 3y ago
  No idea. But if you let your kid use your profile to play, how are YOU going to enjoy World of Goo?
  - personjerry 3y ago
    You're allowed up to 5 profiles. Why does this line of technicality even matter?
    - diggernet 3y ago
      Because of the absurdity of offering kids games, but disallowing them from kids profiles.
      - JimmyAustin 3y ago
        This is most likely lawyer CYA, rather than any real attempt to stop kids from playing games. Is it absurd? Yes. Is anyone going to have any issues with it? No.
      - recursive 3y ago
        Is world of goo a kids game? I mean, it's appropriate for kids, but it doesn't seem to target them particularly. This adult enjoys it.
stavros 3y ago
Is there a name for this missing of the forest for the trees?
- jonahx 3y ago
  This looks like a case "straw manning" the original argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
  - stavros 3y ago
    It's not exactly that, the GP isn't claiming something the parent didn't say, they're just treating the example as the whole point. They act as if attacking the example invalidates the whole argument, when the point clearly stands and it's trivial to just find a better example.
    - jonahx 3y ago
      Yeah it would be nice if there were a more specific word, but I think this still qualifies as a straw-man. It misrepresents the argument as a whole by acting as if refuting the "your kid" example refutes it completely.
- Timothee 3y ago
  It’s not exactly that either but it’s close to sealioning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Rebelgecko 3y ago

On the Netflix app it takes maybe 3 seconds to change profiles. Does it work differently with their games?

diggernet 3y ago
No idea. But if you let your kid use your profile to play, how are YOU going to enjoy World of Goo?
- personjerry 3y ago
  You're allowed up to 5 profiles. Why does this line of technicality even matter?
  - diggernet 3y ago
    Because of the absurdity of offering kids games, but disallowing them from kids profiles.
    - JimmyAustin 3y ago
      This is most likely lawyer CYA, rather than any real attempt to stop kids from playing games. Is it absurd? Yes. Is anyone going to have any issues with it? No.
    - recursive 3y ago
      Is world of goo a kids game? I mean, it's appropriate for kids, but it doesn't seem to target them particularly. This adult enjoys it.

stavros 3y ago

Is there a name for this missing of the forest for the trees?

jonahx 3y ago
This looks like a case "straw manning" the original argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- stavros 3y ago
  It's not exactly that, the GP isn't claiming something the parent didn't say, they're just treating the example as the whole point. They act as if attacking the example invalidates the whole argument, when the point clearly stands and it's trivial to just find a better example.
  - jonahx 3y ago
    Yeah it would be nice if there were a more specific word, but I think this still qualifies as a straw-man. It misrepresents the argument as a whole by acting as if refuting the "your kid" example refutes it completely.
Timothee 3y ago
It’s not exactly that either but it’s close to sealioning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning