Ex-Nintendo VP Kaplan: Ban Sex for Lazy Parents

And bloody well said too, it's about time someone did. This should be applauded, not made fun of.

Effectively what she is saying is that the children should never have been born in the first place.

Here's an admission that should lead to my Mum being pilloried in the public square: she would often sit me down in front of the television. Yes, it's true. Due to the fact that she was a single-parent, she would often enable books and the television to babysit me! I now realise that my old man's illness and consequent early death were simply chavvy tactics to enable my mum to scrounge off the state by working two jobs!

Effectively what she is saying is that the children should never have been born in the first place.

Here's an admission that should lead to my Mum being pilloried in the public square: she would often sit me down in front of the television. Yes, it's true. Due to the fact that she was a single-parent, she would often enable books and the television to babysit me! I now realise that my old man's illness and consequent early death were simply chavvy tactics to enable my mum to scrounge off the state by working two jobs!

And I've just been interrupted by a phone call from ELSPA!!

More of this rant later.

Darn.

Er, effectively? That's exactly what she's saying isn't it?

Anyway, I think there's a difference between your own tale of triumph over adversity, and those chav classes who use television-based entertainment as an excuse to avoid raising their kids rather than a support tool when they can only be in one place at once.

I say lets all have one big orgy hahahah err blame something or someone but come this is just ridiculous.

yes and no is i have been thinking i think and feel that it should be put in is the fact that the Parents should monitor what type of game there child is playing which goes back to games for adults the other problem with violent games and young children that play em insted of going out side and playing like children should is they do not get hurt so they grow thinking that if they go and fight the other teen that they will not get hurt and because of this you have got little jon running around with a knife and a gun going pop pop at any one that is different

Seriously, you can't possibly get involved in this conversation.

I think there are lines to be drawn and stories to be told with this story and Tim Spong makes his point clear that not every situation is black and white.

I partly agree with Kaplan though, certain people should simply not be allowed to have children - Tim was obviously not brought into this world with his parents intent to shove him in front f a TV with a gamepad, but circumstances transpired for that to happen - but there are far too many children being born these days from parents who had no intention of having them, have little idea what to do with them, and have no desire to raise them properly. Video games and TV are obviously the way that these 'so-called' parents deal with such issues.

On the other hand, Kaplan should have kept her mouth shut - for someone who loves the video gaming industry, she has just given the Daily Mail another story line!

I don't think she'd thought it through that much.



It's not so much a class issue this one. Unless 'Chav' can apply to middle class "time hungry" and upper class "send them to boarding school" types as well.

From my POV, the local 'chav' (I really don't know what they actually means as it appears to have been invented while I was being Australian) kids in my area (Wakefield) tend to hang out leaning on walls, drinking criminally cheap booze, talking "gangsta" and blaming the Poles for working to hard and taking all our cash. God knows where they get time to play video games.

See, I think Perrin (does she employ a nanny? I don't know) was just, you know, talking about the sterilization of an entire group of people.

Cheers

Tim

PS: mine was no triumph against adversity, I mean I am to this day a booze-sodden, cigarette-smoking, layabout of the worst order.

Danger! Danger! Shoving your kids first to the nanny, then to a boarding school is thoroughly acceptable; in fact it's actually aspirational? This gives you even less time with your own off-spring.

I agree that if you are going to spawn a child - yes, I do have experience of this - you should also nurture it. However, I don't agree with kneejerk reactions such as "some people should not be allowed to have kids".

My experience with my own offspring and with parents of its peers indicates to me that on more than one occasion, parents who give the appearance of doing to right things are simply that... appearing to do the right thing.



Not if she believes in what she's saying. Then, Daily Mail or no, she should stand by it. And then commit to some form of educational charity (or sterlization of course).

Cheers

Tim

--- Tim's Pomposity Rating for Today is a super-awesome 98.77% ---

Tim you're being surprisingly defensive over this. No, of course being rich enough to send your kids off to boarding school isn't good either, but that doesn't make either the lower, middle OR upper classes right instead by using the TV as a third parent.



That's not a knee-jerk reaction, I agree with it and I'm a liberal. My concerns lay with the children who are brought into this world by people who see them as nothing more than a route to benefits or as 'something to do'. When those people get bored after five minutes, they turn on the TV and go down the pub. If that's what adults want to do with their lives then fine, but don't inflict it on children who know no better.

At the same time, if you're a loving and devoted parent who allows your children limited time with a TV or games console as part of a balanced upbringing, I'd happily babysit for them at other times when those parents want to go out. They're the ones who should be commended, and it sounds like your own experience comes under that.

Being rich enough is fine. Everybody should be rich.

So, your argument is a general one irrespective of class or financial weight?



Nope, apparently it is about people who want benefits or 'something to do'.

Let's take the "shouldn't be allowed to breed" argument at face value. How are we going to judge this and deal with it?

As far as I can see, you can only ascertain if these people are going to 'use video games as a babysitter' after they've done so. Are you suggesting some sort of legal presumption? If so, based on what? Prior form might be a good start.

Parents - I'll use their initials: Mr CH and Ms AV - used video gaming (that's what Perrin was talking about, not TV) as a babysitter for their child (let's call it DirtyLilBastard). The inspectors discovered this. DirtyLilBastard was taken into care. Both parents were then sterilized - as per the law of the land and the right thinking types.

Mr CH left Ms AV who later moved in with Mr Acceptablypleasant. As opposed to beating her senseless most nights in a cracked-out frenzy, Mr Acceptablypleasant treated Ms AV nicely and enabled her to resume her education. Lovely.

Ms AV can now see her life not as an abuse-filled, pointless mess but as a positive place to be. Mr Acceptablypleasant is in love with her. She is in love with him. He proposes marriage. "We'll have lots of kids and bring them up together! I've always wanted kids!" says he, beaming with love and thoughts of education and nurture as he goes down on one knee with a tasteful engagement ring in hand.

Oooops! Ms AV has been sterlized just like the reasonable folk had reasonably demanded.

"We'll adopt!" says Ms AV.

"Mmmm.... okay, sure, yeah, adopt," says Mr Acceptablypleasant, "But I don't want some Dirtylittlebastard from some Chav family!"

Blimey - that was all Margaret Atwood and stuff.

Cheers

Tim

--- Tim's Pomposity Rating Today has risen to an uber-awesome 98.1%! ---

Wo-oo-oa-ah, there! Is this really striking a nerve here?


Yes. It's not right to be an unattentive parent however much money you have.



Er, no, my concern is for the children, who are, until a certain age, innocent of their parents' actions.



Actually, what I meant is that you'd need to take some kind of basic parenting test to get a license to have children. In the same way I think you'd have to take a basic citizenship test in order to be able to vote.

It's Draconian, but it's also just a fantasy. Like I say, I'm a liberal and I believe in the right for people to live their lives as they choose, however distasteful - as long as it doesn't threaten the lives of others, in which these two examples come rather close..

.

If everyone were rich, how would anyone know they were rich?



Personally my initial knee-jerk made no mention of class or finiancial weight!



Christ, that was a bit full-on. If we were to go ahead and try to stop people from having the offspring in the 1st place, it would have to be an interview, much like the adoption process, confirm that parents-to-be are suitable for the job at hand. Two people with very low IQs should automatically be disqualified. "Incentives" should be put in place to keep people from breaking the new law (so if you "accidentally" have children after being told not to, you would automatically forefeit any claim to state welfare, possibly even forfeit the right to live in our fair country).

Sounds a bit like a cross between China and an Orwellian state but I'm liking it :-)

So like I said then..



But that's just out of line. 'Intelligence' does not determine whether you're a loving, capable parent. I'm considering demoting you as one of my government minister's for that, but a bit of brown-nosing and I'll probably let you stay.