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.
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?
Again and again: Does my incentives idea make senset to you?
Again: Ill ramble at you when you seem like a person and not an NPC. Good luck, you got this! This IS an answer, the answer is just ‘no, you first.’ ;]
No, your idea doesn’t make sense to me. Now answer my question: What is the minimum number of abused children that is acceptable to you based on this plan? You yourself said it might be an increase of 5% of abuse cases. If you’re right, do you find that acceptable?
Do you think you could possibly answer without insulting me this time? I never called you an “NPC” or any other names.
After several attempts I get “No, it doesnt make sense.” This is precisely why I insulted you. You’re doing the least ammount possible and show no candor. I think it makes total sense. What Im trying to do is find an agreement so we can work from there.
I picked 5% because I intuit that would be n egregious game-over uptick. I do not know the ambient rate, for all I know 5% is ~20 kids. In terms of abuse statistics that would still be too great for me. Remeber what Stalin said about detahs and statistics…
The 2D take is that ‘no amount of child abuse is right!’ Obviously. The 3D take is that it happens, but we should seek to limit it. The 4D take is/will be that the immediate financial incentives of foster care makes it a better vector for abuse than the long-earned gamble of the vote. That people will more likely abuse children for dollars, not votes.
As an analogy: You’re going to rob a gas station. You pull out a weapon and begin to make your demands. You see a register and a wall of lotto tickets. You could take the cash in the register, maybe $1000, or you can take the lotto tickets and potentially win $1quadrillion dollars. What do you think will be stolen? Is one in the hand worth two in the bush? [Yes, IRL they will take both. But this is a thought-experiment to better understand the game-theory above.]
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.
Specifically how many abused children are acceptable in this “solution?” Let’s hear a number.
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?
That’s not an answer.
Lmfaoooo :] Read what I said and try again. Pretty sure even a bot could figure this out.
Still not an answer.
Again and again: Does my incentives idea make senset to you?
Again: Ill ramble at you when you seem like a person and not an NPC. Good luck, you got this! This IS an answer, the answer is just ‘no, you first.’ ;]
No, your idea doesn’t make sense to me. Now answer my question: What is the minimum number of abused children that is acceptable to you based on this plan? You yourself said it might be an increase of 5% of abuse cases. If you’re right, do you find that acceptable?
Do you think you could possibly answer without insulting me this time? I never called you an “NPC” or any other names.
After several attempts I get “No, it doesnt make sense.” This is precisely why I insulted you. You’re doing the least ammount possible and show no candor. I think it makes total sense. What Im trying to do is find an agreement so we can work from there.
I picked 5% because I intuit that would be n egregious game-over uptick. I do not know the ambient rate, for all I know 5% is ~20 kids. In terms of abuse statistics that would still be too great for me. Remeber what Stalin said about detahs and statistics…
The 2D take is that ‘no amount of child abuse is right!’ Obviously. The 3D take is that it happens, but we should seek to limit it. The 4D take is/will be that the immediate financial incentives of foster care makes it a better vector for abuse than the long-earned gamble of the vote. That people will more likely abuse children for dollars, not votes.
As an analogy: You’re going to rob a gas station. You pull out a weapon and begin to make your demands. You see a register and a wall of lotto tickets. You could take the cash in the register, maybe $1000, or you can take the lotto tickets and potentially win $1quadrillion dollars. What do you think will be stolen? Is one in the hand worth two in the bush? [Yes, IRL they will take both. But this is a thought-experiment to better understand the game-theory above.]