• Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Lol, this explanation is about as plausible as the “threat” of strangers offering me free drugs (which I must definitely say no to, rofl).

    • seven_phone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yes what I was saying was that it is a safe unsafe thing, safe at least to them in any way that matters but still problematic to the people around them which is exactly the thing people want at that age. Seemed a perfectly reasonable thing to say, not sure why it’s downvoted so much.

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Bcs kids like to experiment and grow, the dangers involved (as a side effect!!) being to them, not systemic risks to whole countries and the world.

        If I did extreme sports as a kid my grandma wouldn’t get radicalised from my money spent on that.
        If I support a shitty app from a shitty corp my grandma could get a higher chance of seeing shitty one-sided news of just whatever is profitable to that corp.

        Doing anything affects the world around you, so doing something that affects everyone & saying that you like the ‘danger’ doesn’t make sense bcs it’s not primarily towards you.

        Thats why the problem ‘if you click this button you get a million monies but a random person is killed’ wasn’t made to debate the “danger” but rather morals of such a decision.