zlacker

Assuming this isn't sarcasm... I would be very careful about banning or even dismissing anything that has been popular for thousands of years.

>>apitma+(OP)
Like gambling?

>>apitma+(OP)
Well, sarcasm is against the guidelines I think, so let's say it was reductio ad absurdum. I'm responding to the idea that gambling+skill is just as bad, or bad enough to also ban. It would make the legislation and policing a lot simpler, close up some loopholes, and would have the side effect of outlawing the stock market, but I'm still against it.

>>parine+o1
Yes. Consider the tradeoffs carefully. Try the experiments. Do the research. Then make a decision.

>>apitma+Y3
Haven't you already made a decision by saying "if the research finds X is true, we have a moral duty to ban gambling"? It's the is-ought problem.