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.
An analogy is not an equation. If most of a movie is G-rated, but it incorporates 10 minutes of hardcore sex, then the movie isn’t suitable for children. If most of a game is E-rated, but it incorporates gambling, then the game isn’t suitable for children.
Most of the game isn’t gambling, to pretend otherwise is just silly.
Just because most of the [game/movie] is suitable for kids doesn’t mean the [game/movie] as a whole is suitable for kids. Do you see how both of those things share that similarity, despite not being morally equivalent?
*Edited to more precisely and concisely make my point
You’re explicity suggesting the thing is not suitable for kids, while also explicity calling something that isn’t gambling, gambling. That’s the point
Cosmetic lootboxes are suitable for kids. Unlike porn or gambling.
It’s not gambling, it just happens to function literally exactly the same as a slot machine, except that instead of getting money back on a jackpot, you get digital clothes and player characters
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.
❌ Incorrect
An analogy is not an equation. If most of a movie is G-rated, but it incorporates 10 minutes of hardcore sex, then the movie isn’t suitable for children. If most of a game is E-rated, but it incorporates gambling, then the game isn’t suitable for children.
Just because most of the [game/movie] is suitable for kids doesn’t mean the [game/movie] as a whole is suitable for kids. Do you see how both of those things share that similarity, despite not being morally equivalent?
*Edited to more precisely and concisely make my point
You’re explicity suggesting the thing is not suitable for kids, while also explicity calling something that isn’t gambling, gambling. That’s the point Cosmetic lootboxes are suitable for kids. Unlike porn or gambling.
It’s not gambling, it just happens to function literally exactly the same as a slot machine, except that instead of getting money back on a jackpot, you get digital clothes and player characters
It is literally gambling you twit
deleted by creator