Ex-Nintendo Exec Perrin Kaplan: Bad Parents Should be Banned from Having Sex

We’ve missed Perrin Kaplan ever since she left Nintendo last year.

But she’s back, apparently, and made a bit of a splash at the just-completed PAX by remarking that:

Parents who use video games as a babysitter shouldn’t have sex to begin with.

Perrin’s comments came during a panel session on sex and violence in games. Her new company, Zebra Partners will ramp up later this year when her non-compete agreement expires with Nintendo.

Via: Spong

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

165 comments

  1. 0
    Kincyr says:

    actually, my points is: Why should sterile people, by choice or by accident, who are childless have to pay for such things like public schools when they have no children to benefit from them? It’s like those ads that say "Why pay extra?"

    岩「…Ace beats Jack」

  2. 0
    Kincyr says:

    such as a law that would say that childless sterile people don’t have to pay the part of taxes that go to public schools and child services?

    岩「…Ace beats Jack」

  3. 0
    Krayt'heili ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Who deems that we are bad drivers, or that we aren’t tall enough for roller coasters, or that someone identified as having a low IQ?

    Society, that’s what. I would LOVE to not have children. I have taken parenting classes, and have fully prepared my mentality that children are small annoyances, with a very large chance of just wasting space instead of doing something productive, or at least going to college.

    But no matter how many people try to think that we are going to "sterilize" the poor, think about this- this so called "test" (for lack of a better term) would be based on intelligence. And yes, that is discriminating against those who don’t have an education (or at least common sense). Also think about this- Would it be cruel to prevent the mentally challenged from reproducing? Some say "They have the right" but most don’t know it. On the long term, it would benifit the gene pool greatly, considering that some mental retardation disorders are, indeed, genetic.

    I’m not agreeing with making everyone stop having kids (that’d be great, but I know society wouldn’t allow it), but I am agreeing that we need to take control over our genes and spread the good ones, not the bad. Do as nature intended- survival of the fitest. We, as humans who have gained the ability of consciousness, need to put forth an effort to stop all the bad genes (AKA, behavoral, intelligence, etc) from spreading all over the world. 

  4. 0
    GRIZZAM PRIME says:

     Right on the first, wrong on the second. I fully aknowledge the problems with overpopulation, but I’ve given up on solutions that sacrifice freedoms.

     

    -Remember kids, personal responsibility is for losers!

    For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007) Just to name a few…

  5. 0
    lumi says:

    On the contrary, I’d say this article is a more accurate interpretation of her sentiments than her actual words.  I think we’ve established that allowing children to play video games as a means of occupying some portion of their time/attention is acceptable as long as the parents monitor the content of the games being played. 

    What isn’t okay is just assuming that all games are for kids, that leaving children to their own devices is fine because they’re just playing with "toys", and then bitching and moaning when their child does something wrong and blaming it on "those evil games" that THEY allowed into their home and their children’s hands.  THAT is…being a bad parent.

  6. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Exactly!  People who are supposedly video game fans should not be arguing against video games.  There’s nothing wrong with video games as an entertainment medium for kids.  It’s about time that video game advocates stopped agreeing with the anti-video game arguments and realised that video games are no worse than books or any other entertainment medium.

  7. 0
    Anonymous says:

    "Who issues the test and who decides what a "fit parent" is? Now with that in mind, which line do you think you’ll end up being tossed into? The rich and politically powerful breeders, or the sterylized poor people?"

    Well said.

  8. 0
    GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    -Entertainment isn’t the reason the world sucks. It’s the reason we know the world sucks.
    For information on games and psychology, look up:
    Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson

  9. 0
    Zevorick says:

    "But to artificially pull a number out of thin air and say ‘this will be the age where everyone is guaranteed to be ready, everyone else, tough luck’."

    I already stated I agreed with you on this point. You ARE correct that it’s ridiculous.

    "Or and smart parents don’t necessarily mean a smart baby, I can name any number of genetic defects that occur at birth which cannot be controlled by the parents. Oh and of course dumb parents don’t always produce dumb children"
     

    Yes, but genetics favors creating a child like the parents, but it looks like you already understand that.

  10. 0
    Zevorick says:

    A good number of them are overcrowded yes, but that’s not necesarily the fault of those in charge of the foster homes. A lot of juggling has to be done due to the sheer amount of cases social service workers have to deal with, and just not enough space to put them all. My girlfriends aunt is a foster mother and takes care of four children in addition to the two she had from marriage. They live in good conditions in a good neighborhood and are given everything they need. Good foster homes are out there. :p

  11. 0
    Father Time says:

    For the record you only need a license to drive on public roads. You can drive as much as you like on your own land (or other private land if you get the owner’s permission) and you don’t need a license. At least that’s the law in California (or at least I think it is, I may have misread it but I doubt it).

    "We need to have a licence to breed. There is nothing evil about it."

    BULLSHIT! Just because some people are bad parents doesn’t mean that everyone else has to prove their worth as parents. And I don’t care who you are you cannot tell whether or not the people involved will become good parents or not or whether or not they’ll be good enough for a hypothetical child of theirs.

    "Some people should not be allowed to procreate!"

    The government should not get to decide who those people are. That’s too much power.

  12. 0
    Father Time says:

    I blame 300 and God of war. If it weren’t for these idiots getting the idea that selective breeding of humans garners a society that the breeder wants then maybe they wouldn’t support such horrbile legislation.

    (For those of you who don’t get the reference, whenever a Spartan baby was born government officials inspected it, if it was deemed unfit it was left on a hill to die). (Oh and I don’t actually blame the movies).

  13. 0
    Father Time says:

    ALL children have the potential to be dumbasses, all children also have the potential to be something great.

    But let’s see your scientific evidence that intelligence is passed down through genes (or more specifically a lack of intelligence).

  14. 0
    Father Time says:

    For an example of what a corrupt government would do with that kind of God awful power let us turn to the Bible (you don’t have to believe the bible is real for this example to work).

    In the Bible the egyptian pharaoh considered the Jews dangerous and ordered all babies thrown in a pit and drown.

    Now a government has that same authority to declare that all Jews are unfit parents and should thus be banned from having kids. All jews that do have kids will be punished (and God only knows what happens to the kids).

  15. 0
    Father Time says:

    Name me one problem that allowing a corrupt power-hungry government (that would be most of them) to control who gets to have kids would solve. Oh and back it up with something.

    I’d sonner implement A modest Proposal then resort to a licensing system for kids, and I mean that wholeheartedly.

  16. 0
    Father Time says:

    But to artificially pull a number out of thin air and say ‘this will be the age where everyone is guaranteed to be ready, everyone else, tough luck’.

    Or and smart parents don’t necessarily mean a smart baby, I can name any number of genetic defects that occur at birth which cannot be controlled by the parents. Oh and of course dumb parents don’t always produce dumb children.

    But even if we have this thing called ‘public education’ which can help the slower kids immensely.

  17. 0
    Father Time says:

    "Anyway, all I’m saying is that it wouldn’t be such a bad idea if there was a at least a test or something to see if couples were fit to be parents, just like driving a car.  If they fail, then they’ll be put on birth control.  I’m not saying they couldn’t have sex.  They’d be free to fuck all they want, they just won’t multiply like rabbits, that’s all."

     

    That would be a TERRIBLE idea. Anyone who really thinks it’s a good idea hsn’t thought this through. First off who defines what a ‘fit parent’ is eh? It sounds like something that would be impossible to tell from just a couple interviews. Second having children should be a right not a privilege. Don’t ‘unift’ parents have rights too? If they become REAL bad we have child services (which has had cases of abusing power anyway en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Wade). Oh and if we’re going to go by your car analogy the best way to learn how to drive a car is to actually drive one. Sometimes you learn as you go. Third people who are determined enough will get a child, whether it be through adoption or finding some way around the birth control (and I would help them find a way around it too if such an insane law was actually passed). Fourth are you REALLY willing to trust the government with the power to decide who gets to have children? The same government that politicizes the justice department? That just leaves the door open for all kinds of governmental abuse.

    All in all it’s an absolutely terrible idea, and what will we get out of it anyway?

    Before you give me the argument of overpopulation there are many ways to help reduce overpopulation that don’t involve trampling on people’s rights.

    In India for example one section of it encourages women to get sterelised after two kids. They don’t get punished if they don’t but those who do get a bunch of stuff like qualifying for certain loans, and it’s worked really well. And if welfare doesn’t rub you the right way there are other means too.

    Oh and stupidity is not Aids, it does not necessarily transfer to children. I can point out all the numerous cases where kids prove to be smarter than either parent

    If my government ever got so powerful that it could decide whether or not I have kids, (even if I didn’t have some infectious disease) I would try to overthrow it.

  18. 0
    Zevorick says:

    "It’s as if you can figure out when ANYONE will be ready based off a stupid formula."

    Actually… you can, but it has much less to do about WHEN they marry and has more to do with HOW they marry. If you take educational classes with your partner that prepare you for marriage (and they are out there, just hard to find sometimes) that teach you how to manage money as a team, conflict resolution, how to compromise, and how to communicate, then you are much less likely to get divorced than those who take no such classes. It’s much better to find out before you get married that your partner can’t balance a checkbook or do laundry without ruining the wash and trying to correct it than after the fact.

    I do, however, agree with your statement overall. We need more good parents having sex. More sex for smart and responsible people! Pop them youngun’s out!

  19. 0
    ed ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    What a bunch of bullshit being touted on here. New lows for the GP comments.

    Makes me furious to read suggestions that, based on some armchair wanker’s “criteria”, people be stopped from procreating. How short-sighted, bigotted or just plain stupid do you have to be to not see where that leads?

    Pull you collective heads in.

  20. 0
    GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    -Entertainment isn’t the reason the world sucks. It’s the reason we know the world sucks.
    For information on games and psychology, look up:
    Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson

  21. 0
    Anonymous says:

    damnit, ive been saying it for years. FORCED STERILIZATION for those who fail to meet a certain criteria on an intelligence test. they MUST NOT PROCREATE.

  22. 0
    face777 says:

    As mine is with YOUR argument.

     

    I do not believe the sex drive is primarily about passing on ones genes.  f you do, more power to you, but if an authority were to be created enforcing the lisencing of children then I woud support it.  It would solve many of the problems in the world.

  23. 0
    SS says:

    hmmm, I don’t think it’s possible to regulate it.  That would be a violation of basic human rights. 

    I kind of like the idea but it won’t work and i don’t want the government making the choice of whether people have kids or not.

    I take back my support for the idea of regulating kids, even though it sounds good. 

  24. 0
    Anonymous says:

    I like what she’s saying. Simply put:

    One horny dumbass + another horny dumbass (opposite sex) = Two dumbasses and a child with the potential to be a dumbass.

  25. 0
    black manta says:

    Oh jeez, man, can’t you take a joke, or sarcasm, when you hear it?  I guess maybe I should have used the "[SARCASM], [/SARCASM]" tags to make it more clear.  The truth is, some people really are that stupid and just keep popping out baby after baby.  Case in point, while I was in a CVS one time I saw a white trash couple with a brood of about three kids.  Both of them were real class acts, let me tell you; either yelling at their kids or ignoring them no matter how much they begged for attention.  The wife was a real mouth-breather, too, and at the time I was thinking something along the lines of if she closed both the holes in the top and the bottom, maybe they wouldn’t have had to deal with as many kids as they had.  Those are the kinds of people where maybe something like that would apply.

    Ever hear of the movie Idiocracy?  It’s based on the theory that stupid people breed faster than smarter ones.  A casual glance at society in general seems to bear this out.  If that’s the case, maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to institute some compulsory measures.  Ender’s Game showed a future society where married couples weren’t allowed to have more than two kids (China already has a similar law in effect, I hear).

    Anyway, all I’m saying is that it wouldn’t be such a bad idea if there was a at least a test or something to see if couples were fit to be parents, just like driving a car.  If they fail, then they’ll be put on birth control.  I’m not saying they couldn’t have sex.  They’d be free to fuck all they want, they just won’t multiply like rabbits, that’s all.

  26. 0
    black manta says:

    I think I ought to have taken the word "unfortunate" out in hindsight.  I still stand by what I said, however, in that it just so happens to be a reproductive function as well, like you said.  The thing is, though, there are people out there who will insist that sex is intended for procreation only and don’t believe it can be for recreational purposes as well, and those tend to be the Bible-thumpers and anti-porn crusaders.  And I had them in mind as I was writing as a dig at them.

  27. 0
    Father Time says:

    Yeah when people propose the idea I think they must be joking or that they only gave the idea a split second’s worth of thought. Because I couldn’t make sense of the world otherwise.

  28. 0
    TJLK says:

    Important to note that it is not and never will be acceptable to prohibit anyone from having children.  Prohibiting the birth of children is a terrible idea that goes against the existence of a free society.  You should be able to choose when you have sex and when you want to have sex to procreate.  If you want to start issuing licenses for such things then you are just as bad as the people who want the government to regulate the sale of entertainment and art.  Infact, I’d call you a bigger enemy of liberty because having children is a basic human birthright.  So you don’t think that if the government began regulating who gives birth we wouldn’t see racism, elitism and even Nazi-like motives arise?  This is one idea you’ve got to put in the dirt immediately upon hearing it.  No appologies and no beating around the bush.  It is absolutely one of the worst ideas you can possibly express if you wish to live in a free society.  Its just asking more problems that will cause violent reactions and punishment of innocent people that are doing what humans are supposed to do.  I’m honestly surprised I’ve heard it here numerous times.  Something is wrong with your brain if you think the regulation of games is wrong any the regulation of the right to have children is right.  (No, I’m not sorryo for putting it that way.  Terrible idea).

  29. 0
    jkdjr25 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Interesting, while she may have a point about bad parents, the thing that’s more interesting to me is the reaction here.

    You have several people calling for the regulation of a person’s right to have children. Now if any of you advocating this are pro-choice then you’ve just outed yourself as a hypocrite.  For the past 30 years or so the pro-choice movement has hammered the point that the woman and only the woman has the right to make this kind of choice. Saying then that the government should step in and regulate it is the height of hypocrisy. It also makes me laugh so thank you for that.

  30. 0
    TJLK says:

    If you replace the word sex with children then I’ll agree.  I don’t the only purpose for sex is to create life.  Why couldn’t they have sex with the use of condom or birth control?

  31. 0
    Voligne the Archon says:

    Nefario, its not so much as not keeping your children occupied with that elmo game for the 360, or with some toy or TV show, that is ok. Just don’t do it a whole lot, you need to spend time with your kids so you can raise them to be happy and productive and successful.

  32. 0
    Father Time says:

    I hate people who think they know what people should and shouldn’t be doing even though they never met them. Reminds me of this one person who said people shouldn’t be allowed to get married till their late 20s or something like that because they wouldn’t be ready before hand. It’s as if you can figure out when ANYONE will be ready based off a stupid formula. What a joke.

    Oh and Dennis you should change the title to

    "Ex-Nintendo Exec Perrin Kaplan: Bad Parents Should Not be Having Sex." There’s a HUGE difference between that and saying you should ban it.

    I believe that normal healthy people should not smoke marijuana but I am firmly in favor of legalization.

  33. 0
    neferio says:

    it was a stupid comment that just garnered some laughs. i was in the panel myself. what shes trying to tell me she has never used anything like a book? or elmo toy? or spongebob tv show? to keep her kids attention for a few moments while she gets some personal time. bull!@#$.

  34. 0
    Zevorick says:

    If you’ve ever seen neglected foster children (what got them in the foster home, not the condition they are currently in) then you’d know just how right this statement is.

  35. 0
    C. Aaron Browbowski Jr. says:

    The parents of JT shouldn’t of ever f*#!ed in the first place to begin with, this site would have never existed perhaps. You know what ex-exec is wearing her ovaries on the outside, now ain’t she?

    Jesus Jack Jones Thompson told me to do it!

  36. 0
    Yuka Takeuchi Fan says:

    This… this is… holy crap, I’ve believed this for the past eight years, and to hear someone just come out and say it renews a great deal of my faith in the human race.

  37. 0
    Krono says:

    It’s my personal belief that sex is for pleasure and that babies just happen to result from it.  An unfortunate side-effect if you will.

    An unfortunate side effect? That it makes babies is half the purpose of sex. You say it yourself, it’s a basic human drive – namely the reproductive one.

    -Gray17

  38. 0
    Ken ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It makes sense since parents want to find everything and anything to blame for their kids’ behaviour, instead of blaming themselves for their shitty parenting.

  39. 0
    black manta says:

    We’ve often long said that certain people shouldn’t breed; that those who are irresposnible parents shouldn’t even be having kids in the first place.  Of course, we say it privately to ourselves or to our friends when no one else in in earshot, out of fear we’ll be called rude or "politically incorrect."  But still, it’s the truth and it does need to be said.  And it’s refreshing to finally hear someone in a business position, especially someone from the video game industry, who has the balls to come out and say it and put irresponsible parents – who try to shift the blame from themselves to society and whine to politicians and lawyers from Miami – in their place.  Personally, I’m all in favor of involuntary sterilization.

     

    @ Cyberskull

    It’s my personal belief that sex is for pleasure and that babies just happen to result from it.  An unfortunate side-effect if you will.  However, if you are well-informed and responsible and use one or more of the birth control devices and procedures available (Which unfortunately most teenager’s aren’t.  Thank you, Bush administration, for cutting Sex Education!) unwanted pregnancy can be avoided.  Just don’t feed me any of that abstinence bullshit.  Sex is a basic human drive, just like eating or sleeping, and it’s wrong to try to suppress it.  People will have sex whether we like it or not. 

  40. 0
    lumi says:

    Again, people are missing the point.  This was not an anti-video game statement.  She was speaking against parents who blindly assume all games are for children, and so allow their children to play games with age-inappropriate content, and then blame video games for any trouble with their children down the line, when in fact the root of the problem is neglectful parenting.

  41. 0
    lumi says:

    Eh, I’m not making a statement either way about the "birth license" thing, but I think your analogy is faulty.  Abortion is a debate between the rights of the fetus versus the rights of the mother, and the question of "when does life begin?".  It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not we believe the mother should be allowed to contribute to the gene pool.

  42. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You don’t have to have the government regulate it – they could just disincentivise having kids for certain people (those who can’t be arsed to learn anything new – especially about parenting, communication, and marriage). Tax cuts, etc.

  43. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The problem is sustainable growth on a global scale. We are approaching a population saturation point – this will be when people can no longer grow enough food. At that point, people will either starve, or (more likely) attack other people who have food, or something else entirely.

    Having kids *is* a birthright, but being honest about your ability to support and raise the child must be a birthresponsibility. At some point we have to be honest and practical about the problems we all (as a human race) have to face.

  44. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Now hang on here – you’ve got "smart" and "good" mixed up. The point is not that your kid turns out a certain way, but that the parents put sufficient time and effort into raising them.

  45. 0
    Krono says:

    You miss my point. Making babies isn’t a "side-effect" of sex. It’s half the purpose. Saying that it’s a side effect is like saying that getting nourishment is a side effect of eating.

    -Gray17

  46. 0
    jkdjr25 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Remember folks. Them wanting to take your videogames = evil; but them using Nazi ideals of procreation is just fine and dandy.

    *sarcasm mode off*

  47. 0
    black manta says:

    Again, maybe I should make myself more clearer next time.  I was just being sardonic.  I’ve noticed that doesn’t come across well in text, so I apologize for my failed attempt at sardonic humor.

  48. 0
    Icehawk says:

    Venom off already.  There is a difference between an idea and reality.  She is making a point (and a valid me in my opinion) but hardly saying to seek out and neuter the masses.   

    Games are not the source of the evil of childrens actions if the parents will not become involved or take responsibility.   Fair and valid if a bit blunt for most. 

  49. 0
    GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    Who issues the test and who decides what a "fit parent" is? Now with that in mind, which line do you think you’ll end up being tossed into? The rich and politically powerful breeders, or the sterylized poor people?

     

    -Entertainment isn’t the reason the world sucks. It’s the reason we know the world sucks. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson

  50. 0
    GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    Oh my god…really? People come on here and rant and rave about their rights to play games, but then we here people talk gleefully of forced sterylization…you realize if it was a law, we’d probably be the ones that were forbidden from having kids, right? The average people, the ones who aren’t rich or politically powerful.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are some fucked up people out there who shouldn’t reproduce, but the damage this sort of thing would do would outweigh any good, and the fuck ups would probably just slip through anyway.

     

    Who would decide who gets sterylized and who doesn’t? What category would you fall in?

     

    -Entertainment isn’t the reason the world sucks. It’s the reason we know the world sucks. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson

  51. 0
    Anonymous says:

    It has never made sense to me that you need a licence to drive but you can squirt out as many kids as you want.

    We need to have a licence to breed. There is nothing evil about it. Some people should not be allowed to procreate!

  52. 0
    GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    Licensing based on what standards? One frequently hears of the slippery slope effect on this site. Do you think it works differently with breeding? What’s to keep the people who issue these liscenses from deciding to ban everyone who didn’t perfectly fit their image? It would most likely be the religious zealots like JT who would decide who reproduces, so we’d all be fucked.

     

    -Entertainment isn’t the reason the world sucks. It’s the reason we know the world sucks. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson

  53. 0
    TJLK says:

    In favor of involuntary sterilization.

    So you are against the regulation of entertainment products and you are for the involuntary sterilization of American Citizens?  Am I getting that down right?  So you basically want to take away a basic human birthright and at the same time protect something is based around entertainment?  What?

    Now I believe irresponsible parents are to blame for all the flak the game industry receives.  But prohibiting people from having children?  That is on the level of legalizing slavery or reinstating segregation.  Yes, thats how terrible the idea is.  Its on that level.  You’ve just sank that low.  Great job.

  54. 0
    GrimCW ( User Karma: -3 ) says:

    i’ve based it off of direct observation.

    i’ve watched mothers walk children UNDER 15 out in public with the child screaming obseneties at them and the mother only agreeing, or shrugging it off. things like the kid literally calling her a "Bi***" and demanding certain things. not once have i seen this, but multiple times.

    i’ve watched parents disregard their kids activities, and take no part in them.

    i’ve watched as parents just stick their kids in front of a TV to "get away from them". then proceed to ignore the child for a period of time under the impression "what harm can they do?"

    i’ve watched as parents would stand there and disregard a clerk trying to give them good advice (I.E. don’t buy GTA SA its got prostitution in it) and listen to a kid who responds with "no it fu**ing doesn’t!, he’s a fu**ing lier!) I’ve also seen parents who’s money spending limits obviously are limited beyond the PS3 and a handful (not just two, but like 4 or more) games. all for a kid under 10.

    its not generalizations, its the truth sadly.

    no its not all parents, no one said it is, it is however a growing issue among them.

    its nothing new, its nothing surprising, its just something that gets brushed off as someone elses fault at every corner, because people don’t want to deal with their own mistakes.

     

    i’m not saying parents should be super 100% attentive, personaly i liked my time roaming town at a near free pace. (boundries being the street immediately in front of our house for a long time, eventually i was able to wonder off into the forests and fields, but was required to remain within earshot of the house, cause if i didn’t come running ASAP when my parents called, it was a nasty time with my dads leather belt waiting for me when i did get back, as a long sit in an EMPTY bedroom (as in, no toys left, my room was stripped CLEAN right down to the posters on the wall) as followup.

    but boundries were set, and held. the only consoles i saw as a kid were my DADS atari, a Nintendo we eventually got as a FAMILY gift during X-Mas, and the eventual Sega for the same reason (that and my dad worked for a company that tried to do the "sega channel" service) and even on the consoles limits were set and maintained, we were often kicked out of the house and told to be constructive with our time, and that video games and tv didn’t count.    there were no parks, no play area’s nothing of the sort. only an empty street, some yards, a wooded area, and a railroad that was deemed off limits.  so wheres the excuse of lacking recreational facilities now?

    why should the government be supplying these at the tax payers expense?

     

    i’m all for taking the kids to the farm yard and setting them loose too, but someone needs to WATCH them and ensure safety no less. not just nod off and watch the game with a few buddies and some beer.

    the problem is the latter is the more common amongst us lately. or rather, let me rephrase that, "the latter is the more commonly SEEN amongst us lately" moreso than are the more common.

     

  55. 0
    GrimCW ( User Karma: -3 ) says:

    move to a better neighborhood for one thing.

    as for going to someone elses house and playing them, be sure to VOICE your opinion of certain types of content to the other childs parents on what you find appropriate/inappropriate for your child. If they fail to adhere to your guidelines for your kid, don’t allow them over there anymore.

    simple as that. I had a friend who’s parents did just that, they didn’t approve of a number of things most people would’ve considered just plain stupid (hardcore religious people are like that though i suppose) his parents were very vocal about what they deemed "safe" and not so safe.

    most anyone worth their weight would respect a fellow parents decisions regarding their kid, and cleanup, or at least try to avoid, anything the other parent would object too.

  56. 0
    Anonymous ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This lady had a child at the age of 44 that has downs because of her having him as such an old age.  she is a bad parents that mades selfish choices, and does not think about others.

  57. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Fair question. My position is that people should be incentivised to have children within their means, both financial and emotional. I emphatically do not support any form of state-sponsored sterilisation, eugenics, or breeding restrictions. I support government fiscal support and social preference for smaller, more sustainable families. The most important point is that people should be encouraged to really think about the burdens of parenting. It costs a lot of money, time, and emotional effort, and not everybody has that. I’m sure you won’t deny that some people are awful parents? For some of them, they may be better off waiting to have a child until the time is right and they actually want one, instead of it being a mistake. There is no absolute guarantee that this will stop people who are wrong for parenting from conceiving, but at least there’s a chance.

    Maybe by now you can see that I’m not in the same basket as some of the more extreme voices, so I’ll agree with you that the forced sterilisation, etc. is bs and should be fought.

    No, for it to be ad hominem it would have to be a personal attack. As in: "F**k every one of you gutless tin-pot knee-jerk throwaway-commenting sh*t-heels" (emphasis mine).

    Data that shows that some people are bad parents? I refer you to your nearest Child Protection charity for more data you could shed tears at.

    I can has staying on thread priviledges?

  58. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Really? Which ones exactly do you support, and why? I can only see two direct statements on it from you:

    At the end of the day, though, people are just carelessly popping out sprogs that they have no interest in raising

    they could just disincentivise having kids for certain people (those who can’t be arsed to learn anything new – especially about parenting, communication, and marriage)

    Yet more generalistions – who are these "people" you speak of?

    You take exception? This utter bullshit has to be fought and fought hard. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to suggest forced sterilisation, eugenics, or the removal of breeding rights, ever, but especially when the basis for those suggestions is willful ignorance.

    And BTW, for it to be ad hominem, there would have to be an ARGUMENT or factual claim that I am ignoring. There isn’t – just a bunch of generalistions touted as a reason to stamp on my rights.

    So how about you "debate with logic" yourself. You could start by providing some data that shows there is even a problem, or maybe clarify your position and the reasons behind it, or leave the thread your damn self.

     

  59. 0
    JustChris says:

    Having no sex really is the ultimate preventer of bad children. But when they do have children and do the best they can, how do you keep them from being warped by neighborhood kids that might be bad? 

    I’ve watched a debate where a pro-gamer and pro-parenting advocate had said that parents should just not buy inappropriate games for their kids. The other side’s response? That these kids will go to their friends’ houses anyways and play the games there. I didn’t like this response because it implied that parents should just give up trying to block content, when the correct response would be to raise your child in order to properly take in the content. It also brings up an interesting point. It takes a whole village to raise a good child. Or a whole neighborhood, whichever fits. Good parenting should be a collective contribution.

  60. 0
    Eville1 says:

    Birth control? Just pull out and wipe it on her pillow case. Sheesh, problem solved, no rug rat fuck trophy to park in front of the tv taking up all of YOUR precious console time.

  61. 0
    lumi says:

    Actually, that’s a pretty solid factor in bad parenting.  Blaming the current cultural scapegoat for their own lack of research and information?  Yes, that is definitely a negative factor.

    Note also that a parent can certainly make some bad parenting decisions and still not be a bad parent.  No parent is perfect, and I’m not saying we confiscate the children of everyone who ever blamed anything on video games.  What I am saying is that we should recognize this irresponsible pattern of behavior for what it is: an irresponsible pattern of behavior.

     

    EDIT: I think the meaning of the "ACTIVE ROLE" comment above is less about actual level of activity and more about the quality of that involvement.  There are plenty of parents out there who are TOO involved in their children’s lives.  It’s not about dictating exactly what your child does at any given moment, it’s about having enough information and setting up the proper safeties and guidelines to ensure that your child is not coming to harm.  Knowing what they play is a part of that.

  62. 0
    Father Time says:

    Dude just because a parent thinks video games are harmful doesn’t mean that "the parents these days aren’t taking ACTIVE roles in their kids lives".

    People have blamed society’s ills on popular culture for decades, it doesn’t mean they’re bad parents.

  63. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Couldn’t disagree more. I think she’s a brilliant parent for her statement concerning the pregnancy revelation. It was something to the effect of: she’s going to have a lot on her hands and it’s going to grow her up faster than we (her and her husband) ever could. She also said that the entire family would be there to support her.

    If that’s not a good family, I don’t know what is. Also – it’s the 21st century – why is everyone still viewing a teenage pregnancy as a life-ending catastrophe?

  64. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I support some, but definitely not all of the viewpoints here and I take exception to your crude ad hominem attacks. Debate with logic, or leave the thread if you can’t contribute.

    Other people have opinions. Deal with it or debate it.

  65. 0
    Deep Thorn ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Can I add to this?  Parents that can’t handle the kids they already have should be banned from having sex as well…  There are a lot of shotty parents out there, and them having 8 kids and not even able to manage 1 is insane…  (Our potential Republican VP is a shining example of people who have more kids than they can handle, and now her 17 yr old is prego.)

  66. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Of course, if more people had replied to her comment instead of the title of the article, then people might have been a little more sensible.

    She never suggested making it law.

  67. 0
    sortableturnip says:

    WoW!!!  Over 100 comments and not a JT post to be seen…I think this is a record!

    Seriously, though, she wasn’t being serious about this…I think some people are taking her comments way too seriously…

  68. 0
    face777 says:

    Somebody here obviously isn’t having sex, hence their hangup about this issue.  My fiancee and I don’t want children at all, primarily because the way the world is going and the issues raised by those irresponsible enough to have children when they SHOULDN’T.  You wonk on about rights, but face it, this world IS going Orwellian, in regards to surveillance and rules.  We are increasingly being told what to and what not to do.  Perhaps the better idea would be to stop all child-related perks and benefits which make the option of popping brat-bastards out more lucrative than getting of ones arse and working. All IMHO, and arses like the poster above should put a similar disclaimer.

     

  69. 0
    Father Time says:

    Quick question, I know I mentioned it before but how many people would rather implement Swift’s ‘A modest proposal’ then forced sterelization/child licenses? I know I would.

  70. 0
    Ben says:

    She didn’t seriously mean that parents should be banned from having kids, nor is Dennis trying to stir up shit. People on here are just succumbing to knee-jerk reactions, and not realizing how hypocritical they sound.

    Also, kudos to Father Time, ed, Grizzam, and others for keeping there cool during this cluster-fuck of a discussion

  71. 0
    thefremen says:

     "A thing worth doing should be worth doing well."

     

    SRSLY, every time I hear some idiot say "ZOMG HOW DO YOU EXPECT ME TO KNOW WHAT MY KIDS R WATCHIN’/PLAYING!?!" I think they’re idiots.

     

    I realize that in order to pay bills you have to have 2 jobs (at least) but there such things as v-chips that kind of thing.

  72. 0
    Ed ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    AND LO, IT CONTINUES!

    "the parents these days"
    "The mentality these days is "what harm can they do on their own?""

     

    Where are you even getting this from? What "news" outlet are you listening to that is filling your head with such crapola? Or have you conducted a local survey of, say, 1000 parents and their attitudes towards parenting? Do you have data? Links?

    These are GENERALISATIONS that help nobody.

    BEGONE – go do some bloody reading and come back when you’re at least slightly informed beyond your own anecdotes.

  73. 0
    GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    Excellent sum up.

     

    -Entertainment isn’t the reason the world sucks. It’s the reason we know the world sucks. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson

  74. 0
    GrimCW ( User Karma: -3 ) says:

    how so?

    no ones willing to admit it.

    it IS the parents fault, the parents these days aren’t taking ACTIVE roles in their kids lives because they are to busy with "work"

    BOTH my parents worked when i was young, but my mother left her full time job to take care of me and my siblings when we where young, when she did get a new job she went to work part time at a gas station for minimum wage, just so she could be home when we got home from school.

    She also only hired TRUSTED babysitters, HUMAN ones no less. The mentality these days is "what harm can they do on their own?" just before a kid drinks bleach, or burns the house down.

    but its the bleaches fault, or the gas companies fault, NOT the parents?

    its not the parents fault when their kid doesn’t know the differance between reality and virtual reality?

    my father used to pull me aside and give me a constant lecture on the differance between them, and he never censored any of my vid games (back when they had censorship built into some PC games) so i was allowed to play Duke 3D uncensored at the age of 9, and Half Life in full gore (my fave aspect of it really)

    my parents involvement in my life is what kept me from being jail bait, and believe me i was not an easy kid to take care of. five schools i had been kicked out of, FIVE!  and they STILL supported me, and STILL never gave up hope or listened to so called "experts" on trying to pretend it was all the governments fault and should pay them to take care of me.

    most parents would’ve given up after the first problem (in my case it was destroying a library at a local catholic school.)

  75. 0
    Father Time says:

    the first time? Were you not here when some people complained that RE4 was racist?

    Apparently most of the people can only identify one type of knee jerk reaction which is why they make so many (not a jab at the op but to all the people saying a breeding license is a good idea).

  76. 0
    Father Time says:

    First off if we’re going to believe that you need proof of violent video games’ supposed harm before you outlaw them I think it would be very hypocritical to pass something like this without proving that Dumb/Bad parents ALWAYS make bad kids.

    But applying the logic of ‘you need a license so we’re sure you won’t screw up’ we would also need a license for

    Alcohol

    Video games (some people may be psychopathic)

    A knife

    etc.

    But go on let’s waste more of our money providing a system that gives out licensing. I’m sure it will work oh so well, I mean just look at our car licensing system and how little car accidents we have. I’m also positive that nobody will have kids secretly and that giving the government this much power will have absolutely no negative consequences and that they will only go after the really bad kids. I’m also quite positive that using the blunt of law enforcement to try to turn society into something we prefer (but do not need) in a matter that removes personal freedoms and is totally unnecessary, is perfectly fine and nothing like those holier than though asshole ‘moral majority’ types who want to ban anything they see as ‘unfit for public consumption’ in the name of ‘protecting society’. I also believe that these views are in no way hypocritical, wrong minded and insane.

    Now excuse me while I go laugh myself into a coma.

  77. 0
    Ed ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I can’t get over the cavalcade of ass-hattery that’s come out in these comments. I mean, the massive wave of useless generalisations is just swamping the few intelligent responses. YOUR ASS-HATTERY IS MAKING ME FURIOUS!

    Let’s review, shall we?

    "ars*holes and trailer trash "
    "you should need [a license] to breed as well"
    "So if you wanna do it, you gotta be prepared for the possibility of kids"
    "People should start to raise their kids. "
    "We’ve often long said that certain people shouldn’t breed"
    "Personally, I’m all in favor of involuntary sterilization"
    "The truth is, some people really are that stupid and just keep popping out baby after baby."
    "A casual glance at society in general seems to bear this out."
    "all I’m saying is that it wouldn’t be such a bad idea if there was a at least a test or something to see if couples were fit to be parents"
    "Create a parenting liscense that you have to earn the right to have kids."
    "It makes sense since parents want to find everything and anything to blame for their kids’ behaviour, instead of blaming themselves for their shitty parenting."
    "Banning sex? Not even the Iranians have done that yet.. I think."
    "It would solve many of the problems in the world."
    "damnit, ive been saying it for years. FORCED STERILIZATION for those who fail to meet a certain criteria on an intelligence test. they MUST NOT PROCREATE."
    "We need to have a licence to breed. There is nothing evil about it. Some people should not be allowed to procreate!"

    F**k every one of you gutless tin-pot knee-jerk throwaway-commenting sh*t-heels! Keep your crap ideas out of my life and everybody else’s. You are not part of the solution – YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

  78. 0
    Father Time says:

    Aye, generalizations and holier than though attitudes for the epic loss.

    They may as well be saying, "Us smart people are what make society great, you stupid people are like a wart on the greater society. We need to have a way to make you dumb people go away so that us smart people can inhabit the Earth." It sounds a lot like the Nazis complaining about the Jews (I don’t give a damn about Godwin’s law here it really is appropriate).

  79. 0
    Anonymous says:

    I’m also going to voice my disgust at the reaction to this statement. While knee-jerk reactions and sensational speech is nothing new, the blatant hypocrisy among politically-active gamers on this topic has been disgusting.

    For the first time I find myself wholly ashamed to be a part of this community.

  80. 0
    lumi says:

    Are…are you kidding?  How about a little outlet called Fox News?  Probably all of NewsCorp, for that matter.

    The fact that a non-trivial portion of government and news media blames video games (and other forms of media) for the ills of society, specifically problems with society’s youth, isn’t even disputable.  How can you even question that?

  81. 0
    lumi says:

    I was going to throw a similar comment out to see people’s reactions, but you beat me to it.

    Also?  Bastardizations of the word "pregnant" should all be grounds for denying procreative rights =P

  82. 0
    Grifter_tm ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’d agree. Of course, she never itended for it to be taken literally. It’s more like "Censoring video games isn’t the problem, bad parenting is the problem", deal. Thing is bad parents tend to blame non-human "babysitters" (TV, movies, rock music, video games) for almost all the crappy things that happen to the kids and sometimes the world in general. To bad parents, they don’t have a problem and they don’t makle mistakes, ‘coz their the parents and they know best (totally bull, parents should know they are only human).

    It’s turning into a pro-choice/life/eugenics thread when it wasn’t the main intention.

  83. 0
    Sai says:

    She’s not saying they should be "banned from sex", I’m pretty sure she was making a play on parents being all outraged over their kids playing games with sex and violence that weren’t aimed at their age group and their parents had to have bought for them in the first place.

  84. 0
    Sigvatr ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    PS: I’m not blaming you for that by the way, I suppose what I’m trying to say is don’t take another publication’s spin on an article and copy it over to your site. I’d rather see the evidence presented truthfully.

  85. 0
    Sigvatr ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I think the implication that she said bad parents should be banned from having sex is bad journalism. I’d rather not see this story on the front page at all rather than have it here with a clearly deceptive title.

  86. 0
    lumi says:

    99.9% success rate of contraception is .001 chance of getting pregnant, not .01.

    And while it will never reach that "magic 100% mark", that’s true of a myriad things in the scientific and mathematic worlds.  At some point the fraction becomes so low that it’s worth accepting as "0".

  87. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    520 * .01 = 5.2 (rounded down because I’m thinking of the children 😉

    Not sure who’s approach is better (probably yours), but either way there *is* a chance, however slim. Is it not better to be prepared for a kid (mentally, at least) and not have one, than have one and not be prepared?

    I’ll accept your edit, but it will never completely reach that magic 100% mark, will it?

  88. 0
    lumi says:

    At what point does acceptance of scientific research into success rates move from "blind faith" to "acceptable level of implicit trust"?  If a contraceptive is generally recognized to be 99.9% effective, and I and my girlfriend decide to trust in it to keep us from getting pregnant, is that "blind faith"?

  89. 0
    lumi says:

    99.9% effective would mean 1/1000 chance of getting pregnant.

    Twice a week, 52 weeks in a year, 104 chances to get pregnant.

    5 years would be 520 chances.  Still barely over a 50/50 split.

    How exactly are you figuring 5 kids in 5 years?

    Personally, I think 1 kid in five years of sex is pretty conservative.

    Edit: I’ll also toss out there that using pretty much ANY two methods of contraception in tandem (birth control pills and a vaginal contraceptive filter, for example), drops the chances of pregnancy considerably further.

  90. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Well, using your own figures, contraceptives are only effective 99.9% of the time – that means if you have sex (averaged out) twice a week for 5 years it means you could potentially have 5 kids.

    The original poster had a good point – it may be an old-fashioned viewpoint, but it is still technically the correct one.

  91. 0
    lumi says:

    That "whoosh" was the entire point of her statement going over your head, friend.

    Also:

    "If we take that notion to its logical conclusion, parents who use a babysitter as a babysitter are bad parents."

    …wait, what?  That makes no sense.

    As Michael Chandra put it:

    "Most likely the quote was about people who let their kids play video games without any supervision whatsoever, and yet blame these same games for how fucked up their kid might become due to an improper education which has nothing to do with the games and everything with the parents."

    Exactly.

    No hypocrisy here.  She supports video games, she opposes parents who want to blame video games for all society’s ills despite using it as a stand-in when they can’t be there and without heeding appropriate content warnings, and we support that standpoint.  I’ll concede that the way she stated this notion (not the way GP reported it) was perhaps a little provocative.

    This is not to say that every parent has to be on call for their children 24/7.  That’s not realistic.  But if you’re going to rely on video games to maintain your child’s attention when you can’t do it yourself, you’re damn well responsible for the content you allow them to be exposed to.

  92. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Utter bollocks, mate. A human babysitter != a video game. Try again.

     

    Although I do agree with you that parents these days have more time constraints. It just means better time management, but the facts are there – people have to work harder just to enjoy the same QoL as yesteryear.

  93. 0
    Clever says:

    What you’ve said about the less affluent amongst us supports her remarks though – if you are unable or unwilling to provide adequate attention to your children then perhaps, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, you should not be allowed to have them. Obviously this is a scoche harsh but it applies to all families be they lower class or the bourgeoisie you assume all upper class households belong to.

    However I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with letting kids play games in their spare time, unfortunately any sedentary activity that isn’t schoolwork is bound to come under fire at some point. Letting games or TV be a babysitter when there are other options available that would involve parents interacting with their kids is tatamount to abandoment – I think that’s what really is under attack here and not neccessarily games being played when the child has some free time…

    Of course this all loops back around to parents suddenly discovering that they object to something in a product they bought with a bright red warning label telling them what was in it… this way they can at least pretend they care without having to get to know their kids… hence why they shouldn’t have them in the first place because they don’t want to put the effort in…

  94. 0
    Michael Chandra ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I don’t know the original context of the quote, but I can guess, and I think you’re jumping to conclusions here. Most likely the quote was about people who let their kids play video games without any supervision whatsoever, and yet blame these same games for how fucked up their kid might become due to an improper education which has nothing to do with the games and everything with the parents.

    "My child found pornography in this hentai game I bought him!!! It’s rated AO but he said he wanted it, so I bought it for him!"

    Something like that, perhaps.

    Unless of course you mean an education of any kind is a luxury good.

  95. 0
    Anonymous says:

    If we take that notion to its logical conclusion, parents who use a babysitter as a babysitter are bad parents.  But the fact is, not everyone has a good enough job that they can either afford a babysitter or have one parent stay home all day, and many less affluent parents are too tired after both parents have worked 8 hours or more putting food on the family table to spend the rest of their day fawning over their offspring like the idle rich can.  At a certain point, folks like Perrin Kaplan need to realise that in the real world, folks working from paycheck to paycheck don’t have the luxuries that Ms Kaplan enjoys.  Not to mention the fact that no study has ever shown that video games are a worse babysitter than the TV that the rest of the developed world uses to babysit its youth.

    People – especially game fans – need to stop supporting the anti-game lobbyists and start realising that there is nothing wrong with kids spending their spare time playing games.  Kids have been doing it for centuries, and while playing football or soccer may be a more healthy option, video games are no more harmful than the chess club or a Dungeons & Dragons group.

    I mean, I thought that GamePolitics.com would be full of game ADVOCATES, not people who see games as a sort of embarrassment that they (shame-facedly) enjoy, but that they want to keep their kids away from.

    The elitism and hypocrisy of some of you folks is unbelievable.

  96. 0
    Steve ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Well said, mate – my parents were not very wealthy, yet I was never neglected and I got all the stuff I needed (although I did need to learn the difference between need and want).

    At the end of the day, though, people are just carelessly popping out sprogs that they have no interest in raising, which eventually becomes a global problem – do we do something now, when we have a good chance of phasing in changes, or do we just wait for the overpopulation to pressure us into WW3?

  97. 0
    Firebird says:

    My parents were immigrants from Mexico, so we were low-class when I came to be born.

    But even so, my parents always had time for me, and they even saved up to buy my first NES.

    I think that people are reffering that most parents that neglect their children MOSTLY ARE low-class, which is truly a bit of a stereotype (just a bit).

    But I can see the underlaying theme of this article….,

    If you are going to have a child, you must be dedicated to spend time with him/her, or risk view those damn child-kills-inspired-by-the-damned-newest-form-of-popular-media-that-had-little-or-nothing-to-with-it news prompts.

    Now if you would excuse me, I am going to go play GTA on my PS3. (Bitchin’)

  98. 0
    Anonymous says:

    So, if people can’t afford to have one parent stay home all day, perhaps they shouldn’t have kids either.  At what point do you start advocating the forced sterilization of poor people?

  99. 0
    Anonymous says:

    I have for a long time held the belief that if you need a license to drive a car, own a gun, or vote republica, you should need one to breed as well. Do you think that would appease the trash?

  100. 0
    face777 says:

    Bloody well said.  But now the ars*holes and trailer trash who believe it is their ‘human right’ to do so will complain that they are being victimised.

  101. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Hey, anyone remember Jurassic Park? You remember how all the stupid people were killed and eaten? And most of the intelligent people survived? (Sorry, Samuel L. Jackson, but you went to the shed alone: bad move. Same with you, kinda-crazy hunter guy; going it alone = getting eaten) (and yes, that includes the kids and old guy; they had enough know-how to survive)

    Does anyone also remember the Discovery Channel special about how scientists theorize that they could reverse-engineer/devolve birds into dinosaurs?

    How much you wanna bet that if they succeed and create raptors and t-rexes and whatnot, and they escape into modern civilization, that most of the stupid (not sick/mentally challenged/poor/etc., just plain stupid) people will be eaten?

    Think about it……No need for forced sterilization. Nature evens itself out.

  102. 0
    Father Time says:

    A. I wouldn’t base your logic on fiction and predictable movie events (i.e. minor/idiotic characters get eaten).

    B. I’m pretty sure the scientists have watched Jurassic park as well or at least have considered how to contain the dinos.

    C. Natural Selection can work without Dinosaurs.

  103. 0
    TBoneTony ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Also for parents who don’t understand videogames, there is ALWAYS the ESRB, BBFC, PEGI and the OFLC content classification ratings that are there to help them.

    but because there will always be parents who just will never understand the Videogame Classification Ratings there will always be misinformed parents and there will always be parents who just never understand videogames and place the blame on Videogames when their kids turn out bad.

    And finally someone from the Videogame Industry is finally pointing that out and say that we do all the good work, but parents need to take their own responsibility to raise their kids.

  104. 0
    TBoneTony ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Well it is about time that a person ‘who used to be from nintendo’ finally said that Parents need to take the responsibility of raising their children instead of letting them thinking that all you need to do it to put a TV in front of a child and they will ‘learn’ everything

    sadly parenting is not as simple as that, as I have learned from a few examples from my external family.

    Parenting takes time and even though children don’t understand their parents, it can also be said that parents don’t understand their children too.

  105. 0
    Zevorick says:

    Well, considering that having sperm meeting an egg is the only process that leads to fertilization, and that having sex is a very effective way of producing this effect, then saying they shouldn’t have sex would be, by proxy, saying they shouldn’t have children.

    If you haven’t gotten pregnant then congratulations, you’re among the more responsible(if using protection) or lucky (if not) people out there.

     

  106. 0
    Chuma says:

    That’s a very old fashioned point of view if I may say so.  Also taking PROPER precautions would make the chance of pregnancy negligable.

    The problem is not sex itself, it is sex without precautions of any sort.  If you take sensible precautions you are stating your desire NOT to have children.  Preparing for the improbable or impossible that you don’t want in the first place strikes me as rather stupid.

  107. 0
    Anonymous says:

    She’s right, it’s as simple as that, if they weren’t using Video Games as a babysitter, they’d be using the TV etc, it’s not the nature of the medium that is the problem, it’s the nature of the parent.

  108. 0
    Freyar says:

    Parents who can’t or don’t take care of their kids ought to not have sex. These parents that don’t understand that violent games aren’t for their little seven-year-old are in the same boat. Granted she said it straight out, point blank, and got a bit of a shock, I would expect.. but at least there is one more person that I’ve heard about that UNDERSTANDS how this stuff works.

    —- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians. http://www.goteamretard.com

  109. 0
    Father Time says:

    You know it’s funny that most of the people who are in favor of this terrible idea also think that if a parent let’s their 10 year old play GTA they must be bad parents (never mind the fact that there are so much more things about being a parent then that), without ever meeting the 10 year old and meanwhile still proclaiming GTA to be harmless. I wonder what society would be like if these people were the ones deciding who gets to have children.

Leave a Reply