Oh, so now we’re at the “pachinko isn’t gambling because you have to go across the street to get cash for your prizes” argument. Knew we’d eventually get there.
You see, in Japan, pachinko parlors are “technically” not gambling because you exchange your winnings for cheap toys, similar to exchanging tickets at the Chuck E Cheese counter. Except there’s a store directly across the street from the pachinko parlor that buys those toys for, well wouldn’t you know it, the exact amount of your winnings!
And since it’s “not gambling” in the eyes of the law, it’s not damaging, right?
Conclusion. This study revealed that the prevalence of pathological gambling, especially among men, was much higher in Japan than in other countries. Pachinko was very popular and was strongly suggested to have contributed to this heightened prevalence.
Oof.
Yes, it’s still gambling even if you have to access a grey market to obtain fiat currency. Why? Because obtaining fiat currency isn’t a defining factor of gambling.
Okay, let’s get rid of all TCG too. I never argued against the dangers of gambling. I never said it wasn’t, it is gambling. But that’s not what this post is about. This post is specifically about a NY case against Valve. That requires knowledge of the NY Penal Code. But if you want to continue being self-righteous rather than actually debating the points, then you’re welcome to continue this debate with me.
Well, we could always go back to talking about what’s best for the children? Those days were good, weren’t they? It’s still about the parents. We don’t admonish parents with regard to other gotchas. Or if you do, then good for you.
Oh, so now we’re at the “pachinko isn’t gambling because you have to go across the street to get cash for your prizes” argument. Knew we’d eventually get there.
You see, in Japan, pachinko parlors are “technically” not gambling because you exchange your winnings for cheap toys, similar to exchanging tickets at the Chuck E Cheese counter. Except there’s a store directly across the street from the pachinko parlor that buys those toys for, well wouldn’t you know it, the exact amount of your winnings!
And since it’s “not gambling” in the eyes of the law, it’s not damaging, right?
https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article-abstract/49/suppl_1/i17/105541
Oof.
Yes, it’s still gambling even if you have to access a grey market to obtain fiat currency. Why? Because obtaining fiat currency isn’t a defining factor of gambling.
Where will you take those goalposts next?
Okay, let’s get rid of all TCG too. I never argued against the dangers of gambling. I never said it wasn’t, it is gambling. But that’s not what this post is about. This post is specifically about a NY case against Valve. That requires knowledge of the NY Penal Code. But if you want to continue being self-righteous rather than actually debating the points, then you’re welcome to continue this debate with me.
^ That was rhetorical.
Well, we could always go back to talking about what’s best for the children? Those days were good, weren’t they? It’s still about the parents. We don’t admonish parents with regard to other gotchas. Or if you do, then good for you.