Loot box = gambling ?

[sigur.9453]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@sigur.9453 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@castlemanic.3198 said:

@"kratan.4619" said:Nothing said on this forum is going to be taken into account when the nanny state will decide for us if they are illegal or not.

It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it.

I disagree.

nanny state

nouna government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.

Parents should be responsible for their children. Not the government.

Parents ARE still responsible for their children.Gov. Just makes the guidelines.

Alcohol laws.Tabac laws.Minimum driving ages.Sexual consent minimum age.Generell abuse/beatingAnd yet, despite those laws, these things happen anyway. A deviant person will, by definition, go against his/her society's morals and rules. Fortunately, for many societies, these deviants represent a very small minority. Should those societies continue to make rules and laws that oppress the majority's freedoms while the deviants would continue to go against them anyway?

Yes, they do, but are ILLEGAL because of those laws, and can be proseccuted = good thing in my opinionAnd please do not ignore that those laws are not only valid for privat persons, they also count for companys which some are already operating without ethics. Only Profit counts.Where am i am opressed when im not allowed to sell a minor a pack of Cigaretts? Where am i opressed that my child can´t legally gamble? Where am i opressed that i cant beat someone else? That has nothing to do with your so called freedom.Do you feel opressed because there are so strict securtiy protocols on many airports? As you said, only a tiny minority is responsible for those. You ok with that?

Would you prefer to live without them since it’s parents job anyway?I would prefer that society agree on a set of morals and/or laws and then punish those who decide to oppose them. Parents ought to be a child's first arbiter of moral and ethical guidelines. Sadly, many parents lack in this responsibility.

Again, you are not getting the point.Look on all those parents feeding their childen with absolutly sugar infestet shit. Its unhealty but legal so companies target especially children with it. Congrats for beeing the most obese, sry, i mean free country!You can look up how advertisement works on children/teenagers. There is a reason why there ary psychologists working in marketing companies. (im not even touching the subject with which techniques adults are targetet)And you have advertisements literally everywhere in this age.

Without these laws some companies would sell a minor alcohol/tabac... no questions asked, without legal consequences.Again, laws that are for the benefit of the majority of the society in which they are written should be enforced.

You can’t Lock up your kids at home till they are 18/21, neither should you.I never suggested that kids be locked up. I am advocating for parents to take their responsibilities seriously and teach right and wrong and to know and understand what their children are doing. If their kids are deviating from what should be expected of them, then the parents should be the first ones to discipline them and not abdicate that responsibility to the government.

You forget that everyone has his own definition of right or wrong, thats why we need a common ground (law).The goverment DOES NOT disipline the children!It protects the childen legally that others who are trying to make the child do/take/whatever something that is beside this goverments society norm are punished.In those cases the PARENTS or OTHER ADULTS/COMPANIES are the ones dicsiplined.

These laws are rather „I will protect your children from....“ then „you have to protect your children from...“

Sorry, i'm not understanding what you're trying to say here.

You still seam to think that laws are telling you how to raise children and are dictating your children what to do and whats not to doMy simple line was there to signal you that those laws are there to ptotect your children from outside sources like other adults and companies.

Your nanny state opinion always baffles me, and I am really wondering where it’s coming from. In EU you would be quite the minority, and I never spoke to someone with that mindset, so it would be really interesting to hear.I'm not so sure that I have had a "nanny state" opinion? As for where my opinion does derive, it is based on the freedom that all persons were given at creation. The rules, morals, ethics, laws ... whatever one wants to call them should be established by the majority of the society in which they are founded. You and I certainly have a different take on what this means; many EU countries appear to be more socialist driven than here in the US. It may be that you are more used to stricter laws and governmental control over your decisions and actions than I am.

Yes, those rules are in fact established by the majority by electing (literally called) Lawmakers.Again, wrong definition from your side.I have the same controll over my life in my socialist country than you, BUT im also more protected in some ways from companies that might wan´t to harm me to make more profits.Stricter Gambling lawsStrict food related laws (ingridient list)Strict pricing laws (xx€/kg, for comparission in the supermarket)In "compensation" we got:Legal drinking age is 16 same as tabaccoDrug possesion might get you a fineGay marriageAbortionTip whatever you likeAlmost like Freedom

[Astralporing.1957]

@"kharmin.7683" said:And yet, despite those laws, these things happen anyway. A deviant person will, by definition, go against his/her society's morals and rules. Fortunately, for many societies, these deviants represent a very small minority. Should those societies continue to make rules and laws that oppress the majority's freedoms while the deviants would continue to go against them anyway?Yes, because it's exactly due to that whole network of restrictions system of laws creates to limit our freedoms, that we can talk about "deviants" and "small minority" and not about a more widespread problem. Case in point: a huge majority of gambling addicts aren't any kind of "deviants".

I would prefer that society agree on a set of morals and/or laws and then punish those who decide to oppose them. Parents ought to be a child's first arbiter of moral and ethical guidelines. Sadly, many parents lack in this responsibility.That's contradictory. If it's society that agrees on a set of morals and/or laws, then there are going to be people that will object to that agreement (which, remember, is practically never unanimous), quite often on the ground that it "opresses the majority's freedom". Additionally, once some laws are agreed on, it will be the society, not individual people (like parents) that will be arbiters of adherence to them. On the other hand, if it's the parents that are "a child's first arbiter of moral and ethical guidelines", it means there's no such thing as a social agreement (like laws) that can be placed above them. Which means your principles may very well end up directly clashing with those of your neighbours, with society having no means to regulate such disputes. And that quickly leads to social instability and bloodshed.

Again, laws that are for the benefit of the majority of the society in which they are written should be enforced.It's not up to individual voices to decide which laws are to the benefit of the society, and which ones aren't. It's up to the society as a whole. If the anti-gambling laws get passed, you can be sure it won't happen against the will of the society. Especially since there's a lot of money and lobbying involved in trying to trivialize this problem, so pushing it through without social approval will not benefit decision-makers at all. If that problem is being talked at the decision making level at all, it's only because it does already have a wide social support.

I never suggested that kids be locked up. I am advocating for parents to take their responsibilities seriously and teach right and wrong and to know and understand what their children are doing. If their kids are deviating from what should be expected of them, then the parents should be the first ones to discipline them and not abdicate that responsibility to the government.Nobody prevents you from trying to teach and discipline your kids. The laws will be the backup in cause you fail at this.

I'm not so sure that I have had a "nanny state" opinion? As for where my opinion does derive, it is based on the freedom that all persons were given at creation.If we still had all of those, no society would be stable and no country would be able to exist.

The rules, morals, ethics, laws ... whatever one wants to call them should be established by the majority of the society in which they are founded.So, if the law passes (due to majority being behind it) you will no longer have a problem with it?

[BnooMaGoo.5690]

There's a lot in "rewards/incentives" that encourages your continuiing participation in Black Lion keys etc.Some of the dyes are like a reverse pyramid scheme, you need this many to progress to make one of the next level & so on.You can also take a chance spending karma on those merchants that give you a choice of 3 possibilities once a day only to find out that you already have unlocked that random reward (even though karma is free that doesn't take away from the bad taste of the experience)It's buyer/player beware pretty much, that's how I keep it in perspectiveStill, my negative experiences have a way of coloring the rest of the game