If you think cosmetic lootboxes are comparable to porn, you’re too stupid for internet access and your handler should limit your screen time in the future until a cure is found for whatever thing is currently affecting you.
LaLuzDelSol does not think cosmetic loot boxes are comparable to porn. They were making an analogy, not an equation. “A is like B in that C” does not imply that A is morally equivalent to B, it means that they share a similarity. In this case, “putting 10 minutes of hardcore sex in an otherwise g-rated film” is like “incorporating gambling into an otherwise child-friendly game,” in that “even if the majority of the work is child-friendly, the not-child-friendly aspects make the work as a whole not child-friendly.”
The analogy only works if you believe gambling does the same relative harm as porn.
That is the problem I have with their terrible attempt at an analogy. Not only does it imply it’s comparable, it has to be for the analogy to work as intended.
You should know better than to assume that the average Lemmy user understands analogies. Lemmy users are generally pretty smart when it comes to technology, but not when it comes to interpersonal communication or politics
Most of the game isn’t gambling, to pretend otherwise is just silly. It’s like being one of those idiots that pretend counterstrike is gambling.
If there’s an otherwise g rated movie with ten minutes of full frontal nudity and hard-core sex what rating do you think that movie is gonna get?
In statesia? Who made it?
If you think cosmetic lootboxes are comparable to porn, you’re too stupid for internet access and your handler should limit your screen time in the future until a cure is found for whatever thing is currently affecting you.
The reading comprehension situation is crazy
LaLuzDelSol does not think cosmetic loot boxes are comparable to porn. They were making an analogy, not an equation. “A is like B in that C” does not imply that A is morally equivalent to B, it means that they share a similarity. In this case, “putting 10 minutes of hardcore sex in an otherwise g-rated film” is like “incorporating gambling into an otherwise child-friendly game,” in that “even if the majority of the work is child-friendly, the not-child-friendly aspects make the work as a whole not child-friendly.”
The analogy only works if you believe gambling does the same relative harm as porn.
That is the problem I have with their terrible attempt at an analogy. Not only does it imply it’s comparable, it has to be for the analogy to work as intended.
It’s an analogy bro
You should know better than to assume that the average Lemmy user understands analogies. Lemmy users are generally pretty smart when it comes to technology, but not when it comes to interpersonal communication or politics
It’s comparable to gambling—you should keep up with the thread.