Ex-Nintendo VP Kaplan: Ban Sex for Lazy Parents
Plus: ban sex for lazy parents!
Posted 1 Sept 2008
Follow us on...
Share on...
Tags
Kaplan said at the panel, "Parents who use video games as a babysitter shouldn't have sex to begin with." Huzzah! Quite what her views are on those who use games as a babysitter but conceived through IVF or adoption are unclear.
The call came as Kaplan (harbinger of death for the GameCube) said that she plans to come back to gaming.
Speaking at a panel on sex and violence in games at the Penny Arcade Expo (her appearance at which alone indicates her continued interest in the industry) Kaplan said, "I have not left the gaming industry for good. I love it."
Kaplan left Nintendo last June along with other senior management apparently dissatisfied with relocation from Seattle to San Francisco and New York.
She has since set up her own company, Zebra Partners. Exactly what that company does is unclear, with its website carrying notification that it is "undergoing some changes". The one useful scrap of information it does carry is the legend, "Obsessed with Connecting Brands and Consumers". Given that and Kaplan's former role, some kind of marketing looks like a good bet for the nature of the company's activities.
Kaplan will reportedly bring games under her new company's umbrella when her non-compete clause with Nintendo ends in December.
Source: Wired
Comments
Showing the most recent 20 comments. Go to the forum to read all 43 comments
schnide 2 Sep 2008 13:03
25/43
Tim Smith wrote:
Horatio wrote:
Seriously Tim, do you never walk around your local town centre (does the underwater castle have one?) and not think to yourself "gee, i wish some of these people had not been born"?
Nope, I tend to think, "How can we construct some form of society in which co-operation is seen as a good thing."
Really? Aren't you based in Wakefield?
Tim Smith wrote:
Horatio wrote:
We could blame a lot of factors, poor schools, bad parenting, economic adversity if you like, but in too many cases it comes down to genetics, we are now bearing as a country too many village idiots.
I do blame a mix of factors only one of which is genetics.
Just for the record fact fans, human development is now thought to be a result of approximately 30% genetics, 70% environment. A child with a genetic predisposition to low intelligence in a good school may still do well, or a child with a genetic predisposition to high intelligence may be stunted with a poor lack of educational resources.
The argument would therefore follow that we need an environment which educates all to a high standard - rather than sending your kids off to boarding school because you can afford it, or plonking them in front of the TV all day because you can't be bothered to stimulate them yourself.
Tim Smith wrote:
Horatio wrote:
I get the point that you're furious about...
No, mate, you really don't. And that's no fault of yours. I'm withholding relevant personal detail.
If we have offended, I'm sure you have all our apologies Tim (but at least you know that no-one's being personal).
This thread is starting to go a little off-topic. If we ever were to prohibit society to those with a high level of IQ, I'd be interested to see where Horatio would rate in that and if he would still advocate it if it mean his elimination, either before or after birth. I don't think we're in any danger of that kind of society soon.
Regardless, IQ is hardly the sole contributor to forming a nurturing, inclusive, developed, understanding, tolerant and well-edcuated society anyway. But sitting your child in front of either an interactive or non-interactive television screen in anything more than moderation, particularly as an alternative to good parenting, is not going to get us there any faster.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Tim Smith 2 Sep 2008 15:05
26/43
schnide wrote:
Really? Aren't you based in Wakefield?
Arf and yes... we are.
schnide wrote:
If we have offended, I'm sure you have all our apologies Tim (but at least you know that no-one's being personal).
I was/am/was/amway furious. I'm not offended. Hell, I'm at SPOnG for godz's sakes, I can't afford to be offended.
schnide wrote:
This thread is starting to go a little off-topic.
Yeah, brilliant. I like that about SPOnG Forum folk. Diverse. Diversity is good.
schnide wrote:
But sitting your child in front of either an interactive or non-interactive television screen in anything more than moderation, particularly as an alternative to good parenting, is not going to get us there any faster.
Good parenting, now there's a barrel of worms all called Pandora. Maybe it's time to ask someone in authority such as, say, the governor of Alaska.
Cheers
Tim
------ Today Tim's Pomposity Rating is a pathetic 70% Apparently ----
schnide 2 Sep 2008 15:41
27/43
Tim Smith wrote:
Good parenting, now there's a barrel of worms all called Pandora. Maybe it's time to ask someone in authority such as, say, the governor of Alaska.
I'd rather to listen to the state senator for Illinois, if we're going to obscurely reference US politicians for views on abortion all for reasons I'm not entirely clear about..
Tim Smith 2 Sep 2008 15:48
28/43
schnide wrote:
I'd rather to listen to the state senator for Illinois, if we're going to obscurely reference US politicians for views on abortion all for reasons I'm not entirely clear about..
Last week, obscure; this week, not so much.
schnide 2 Sep 2008 16:11
29/43
Tim Smith wrote:
schnide wrote:
I'd rather to listen to the state senator for Illinois, if we're going to obscurely reference US politicians for views on abortion all for reasons I'm not entirely clear about..
Last week, obscure; this week, not so much.
You're still being obscure Tim - what's that got to do with the topic in hand?
(Unless you're referencing yourself here, in which case, it's your own business and not something you need to be posting on here)
DoctorDee 2 Sep 2008 17:09
30/43
Tim Smith wrote:
Here's an admission that should lead to my Mum being pilloried in the public square
Tim, I don't think anyone isn't suggesting that things wouldn't have not been better if you hadn't never been born.
Horatio wrote:
Tim Spong makes his point clear that not every situation is black and white
That's just fence-sitter talk, man. Have the courage of your convictions. Tim is famously equivocal.
Tim wrote:
I don't think I've ever been quite as furious as I am right at this moment. I'm going to go for a walk now, clear my head and realise that this is a Forum for debate.
Wow, Tim's pomposity rating broke clean through 100%.
Tim Smith 2 Sep 2008 17:33
31/43
DoctorDee wrote:
That's just fence-sitter talk, man. Have the courage of your convictions. Tim is famously equivocal.
I may or I may not be. In the case of Eugenics, I am firmly and unequivocally in the "That is an insanely s**t idea developed by people who prefer to generalise than get all confused by the complexities of human interaction."
Tim
DoctorDee 2 Sep 2008 18:04
32/43
Tim Smith wrote:
I may or I may not be. In the case of Eugenics, I am firmly and unequivocally in the "That is an insanely s**t idea developed by people who prefer to generalise than get all confused by the complexities of human interaction."
Alternatively. There are unarguably people without whom the world would be a better place. If we could devise a good way of identifying these people before they are born, and preventing their birth, it saves us the bother (and moral unpleasantness) of hunting them down and killing them like an endangered animal in Sarah Palin's (telescopic) sight.
Tim Smith 2 Sep 2008 18:11
33/43
DoctorDee wrote:
Alternatively. There are unarguably people without whom the world would be a better place. If we could devise a good way of identifying these people before they are born, and preventing their birth, it saves us the bother (and moral unpleasantness) of hunting them down and killing them like an endangered animal in Sarah Palin's (telescopic) sight.
The only unarguable thing is that world would be a different place.
Cheers
Tim
haritori 2 Sep 2008 18:18
34/43
Tim Smith wrote:
DoctorDee wrote:
Alternatively. There are unarguably people without whom the world would be a better place. If we could devise a good way of identifying these people before they are born, and preventing their birth, it saves us the bother (and moral unpleasantness) of hunting them down and killing them like an endangered animal in Sarah Palin's (telescopic) sight.
The only unarguable thing is that world would be a different place.
Cheers
Tim
I knew it would only be a matter of time before this discussion got onto Temporal Physics! why must every discussion end with infinitive outcomes!
DoctorDee 2 Sep 2008 18:27
35/43
Tim Smith wrote:
The only unarguable thing is that world would be a different place.
Different, yes... but in a better way.
OptimusP 2 Sep 2008 18:32
36/43
DoctorDee wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The only unarguable thing is that world would be a different place.
Different, yes... but in a better way.
Better as in...the entire human race wiped out by its own actions?
hmmm...God does have a great sense of humour.
headcasephil 2 Sep 2008 18:39
37/43
OptimusP wrote:
DoctorDee wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The only unarguable thing is that world would be a different place.
Different, yes... but in a better way.
Better as in...the entire human race wiped out by its own actions?
hmmm...God does have a great sense of humour.
we are in the process at the min of wiping are selves out so we do not need to worry
OptimusP 2 Sep 2008 18:53
38/43
phil cort wrote:
OptimusP wrote:
DoctorDee wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The only unarguable thing is that world would be a different place.
Different, yes... but in a better way.
Better as in...the entire human race wiped out by its own actions?
hmmm...God does have a great sense of humour.
we are in the process at the min of wiping are selves out so we do not need to worry
That's the beauty of our race isn't it? We always find infinite ways to do something, including wiping ourselves out. The Gods just made wager on us i think...one of them said "you know what would be fun, making a race so unstable in its thinking processes that at one point it can wipe itself out"
"Alright, let's do that, and i bet my magical slippers that they'll wipe themselves out in 6,5 million years!"
"5 million! And can we intervene?"
"Only as reincarnations of them or as something magical...like angels or stuff, no all-powerfull intervening!"
"This will be fun to watch!"
TurnedOutFine 2 Sep 2008 20:22
39/43
Tim Smith 3 Sep 2008 09:02
40/43
DoctorDee wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The only unarguable thing is that world would be a different place.
Different, yes... but in a better way.
Yes, but better for some means unbetter* for others.
*all hail the universal negator. It makes the world an unworse place!
schnide 3 Sep 2008 10:19
41/43
Tim Smith wrote:
DoctorDee wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
The only unarguable thing is that world would be a different place.
Different, yes... but in a better way.
Yes, but better for some means unbetter* for others.
Even if they never existed in the first place..?
config 3 Sep 2008 13:18
42/43
So, that just leaves adoption
OptimusP 3 Sep 2008 23:45
43/43
config wrote:
I consider wanking into a cup to be sex - lonely sex, unless you can get the nurse to give a hand.
So, that just leaves adoption
So, that just leaves adoption
Entire child population of China says hi!!!
Related News
Latest Features
| Opinion// Sonic and the Retro Revival |
| Review// Dante's Inferno |
| First Look// Monster Hunter Tri |
| Interview// Biking legend Steve Parrish |
Nope, I tend to think, "How can we construct some form of society in which co-operation is seen as a good thing."
I do blame a mix of factors only one of which is genetics.
I understand that for many people 'Genetics' is superior because it sounds all 'sciencey and stuff' and therefore has some form of 'truth' to it (and gets mentioned on Csi a load of times). I understand that that 'poor schools and economic adversity' sound less sciencey and stuff and are therefore less 'truthy'. What I don't understand is - if we discount all the environmental factors ('less truthy') and agree that it comes down to genetics - it would mean that Genetic Evolution (which is loads of science all in one go) is in fact making us more stupid.
Erm... why?
No, mate, you really don't. And that's no fault of yours. I'm withholding relevant personal detail.
I don't think I've actually quoted you at all yet.
Because (a) there is no way of objectively judging an absolute IQ (b) being clever doesn't make you nurturing (c) being the child of clever parents does not make you sane.
Nope. I would not. I would currently have sex with Lila from series two of Dexter.
Cheers
Tim