• Flying Squid
    link
    31 year ago

    but I think it’ll be happen less than more

    Oh good, as long as it’s only some child abuse…

    • Dissasterix
      link
      -11 year ago

      Well, whats the ambient level of abuse? Do you think it’ll tick up significantly? Lets say a growth of +5%? Im very doubtful. Abusing foster kids has an immediate economic incentive, the vote is a 50/50 gamble on a slow trickle of incentive. The game-theory will still favor abusing foster kids, IMO.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        31 year ago

        Wow. Are you really ‘game theorying’ child abuse?

        • Dissasterix
          link
          -11 year ago

          Yes. And that’s not an argument. If we had a genie, it’d probably be in my three wishes. However we do not. Do you disagree with my incentives reasoning or not? I think it’s still pretty good.

          I think it could also be argued that being a cognitively functioning adult that has not attempted to teach the youth is also abusive. You’re letting em rot. If you dont take one then they’ll just go to someone presumably more abusive than you-- You monster! :p And in doing so, in saving the youth, you’d be allowed to select some stooges into office. Its sounding better by the reply, lol.

          • Flying Squid
            link
            31 year ago

            Specifically how many abused children are acceptable in this “solution?” Let’s hear a number.

            • Dissasterix
              link
              -11 year ago

              It sure feels like Im the only one doing any explaining here :p Lets do a lil quid-pro-quo. Ill ramble on after you’ve shown some sign of life here, sheesh.

              Again: Do you think my incentives rationale makes sense?

                • Dissasterix
                  link
                  -11 year ago

                  Lmfaoooo :] Read what I said and try again. Pretty sure even a bot could figure this out.