just let me remind you that that happens offline, and it is provable if copies are not preserved.
Fascinating.
if someone cannot properly configure their phones, then they need to be made liable
So, this is exactly the problem I have with you and the other person. It’s this contempt you have for your fellow people. It’s extremely selfish. This isn’t how you talk to your neighbors. You’re not getting invited to any cookouts or block parties with this attitude.
If you and I can agree that children shouldn’t be in casinos, then they shouldn’t be allowed into the casino. I am open to your suggestions.
well I personally certainly don’t. I have too little power to do that, and I’m afraid too much care about non-existent made up problems, and too few about things like this.
Fascinating.
your response actually is! does not sound too genuine.
If you and I can agree that children shouldn’t be in casinos, then they shouldn’t be allowed into the casino. I am open to your suggestions.
children shouldn’t get uncontrolled access to smartphones. access needs to be controlled by the parent. For medicine and cleaning things most already know to place those items out of children’s reach. from this aspect, we would need to tackle the problem that the children obtains the parent’s phone. some small items, maybe cleaning appliances too, are made to have a bad bitter taste so that children don’t want to put them in their mouth. according to that pattern, we would need to mandate that online services are ugly and irritating to use. but is that the solution we actually want? I don’t think so. or could we just ban services that are tuned to make people addicted, like drugs? but how do we define that, and that too is a double edged sword.
but ultimately, we either make casinos unattractive, or make the parents be the casinos’ first line bouncers, in the digital world.
the first one sounds good, but the internet and even social media is not only for taking advantage of people, contrary to casinos.
the second one requires cooperation. how would you incentivise cooperation? tie benefits to it,or part of the benefits, through child protection services or something?
or make the parents be the casinos’ first line bouncers
Or, you know, we could just have bouncers on site. Such as a system which asks you to prove you’re older than 13 before you’re allowed to access it.
I mean, this sure is a lot of pontificating and wondering about how the legal system could ever handle such an absurdly vague and difficult task when it already seems to be doing that.
I’m going to invoke a comparison here that you’re not going to like very much. I promise, you shouldn’t take it personally.
I have had 1,000 arguments with fascists who looove tilting this way and that about how philosophically undefinable their behavior is. Zeno’s paradox, the ship of theseus, what really is a “casino” anyway? I’ll tell you this: I’m fine with 80% success. “Oh, but what if someone who is 19 but doesn’t have an ID is rejected by the system? They won’t be allowed to play. :(” Uh, that sucks for them. Oh well. I guess they’ll have to go back to Atelier Ryza.
You elect lawmakers.
Fascinating.
So, this is exactly the problem I have with you and the other person. It’s this contempt you have for your fellow people. It’s extremely selfish. This isn’t how you talk to your neighbors. You’re not getting invited to any cookouts or block parties with this attitude.
If you and I can agree that children shouldn’t be in casinos, then they shouldn’t be allowed into the casino. I am open to your suggestions.
well I personally certainly don’t. I have too little power to do that, and I’m afraid too much care about non-existent made up problems, and too few about things like this.
your response actually is! does not sound too genuine.
children shouldn’t get uncontrolled access to smartphones. access needs to be controlled by the parent. For medicine and cleaning things most already know to place those items out of children’s reach. from this aspect, we would need to tackle the problem that the children obtains the parent’s phone. some small items, maybe cleaning appliances too, are made to have a bad bitter taste so that children don’t want to put them in their mouth. according to that pattern, we would need to mandate that online services are ugly and irritating to use. but is that the solution we actually want? I don’t think so. or could we just ban services that are tuned to make people addicted, like drugs? but how do we define that, and that too is a double edged sword.
but ultimately, we either make casinos unattractive, or make the parents be the casinos’ first line bouncers, in the digital world.
the first one sounds good, but the internet and even social media is not only for taking advantage of people, contrary to casinos.
the second one requires cooperation. how would you incentivise cooperation? tie benefits to it,or part of the benefits, through child protection services or something?
Or, you know, we could just have bouncers on site. Such as a system which asks you to prove you’re older than 13 before you’re allowed to access it.
I mean, this sure is a lot of pontificating and wondering about how the legal system could ever handle such an absurdly vague and difficult task when it already seems to be doing that.
I’m going to invoke a comparison here that you’re not going to like very much. I promise, you shouldn’t take it personally.
I have had 1,000 arguments with fascists who looove tilting this way and that about how philosophically undefinable their behavior is. Zeno’s paradox, the ship of theseus, what really is a “casino” anyway? I’ll tell you this: I’m fine with 80% success. “Oh, but what if someone who is 19 but doesn’t have an ID is rejected by the system? They won’t be allowed to play. :(” Uh, that sucks for them. Oh well. I guess they’ll have to go back to Atelier Ryza.
Damn, that sucks for you.