6 ms·

Goodness. If this was the US, I would be losing my mind over such legislation. We must not convince the law makers that video games can be beneficial. That put

Goodness. If this was the US, I would be losing my mind over such legislation. We must not convince the law makers that video games can be beneficial. That puts the wrong emphasis on the conversation. The emphasis must be, you have no jurisdiction when it comes to raising children. Your laws are invalid. Even if video games are detrimental, you do not decide what is the best interest for a child, the parents do.

sulam 5y ago
Speaking as a parent of two kids, I mostly agree, but also think that some amount of law-making in the interest of children is appropriate and fair. Drawing the line is the interesting part.
- bjt2n3904 5y ago
  Precisely. But the statement, "the government has no business making parenting decisions" needs no qualification. It is an axiomatic statement, and it should not be a controversial statement. Like you say, what is considered a parenting decision? Reasonable people can have a discussion about this. But I'm shocked how many people seem to think A) the government actually should make parenting decisions, and B) that things like banning child abuse is an example of the government making a parenting decision. Neither of these things are reasonable, and so the discussion about what qualifies as a parenting decision will also be unreasonable.
Scarblac 5y ago
I disagree. Children deserve a lot of protection, and anybody can become a parent. A lot of people are far too bad at parenting to leave the decisions to them completely. Some intervention is needed.
- crysin 5y ago
  (USA centric view) You cannot legislate parents into being good parents. You cannot pass laws that protect children from bad parenting as best case result you may get the state to intervene and put the child in a foster system where there's a 50% chance that they end up in an even worse place.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    Laws against child labor might be an example most of us would agree are called for, instead of just leaving it up to the parents whether children should work in mines and sweatshops or not. Although I have no doubt someone will show up and say that should be left up to parents too.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      Children have assisted their parents in their work as they are able from an early age for millennia. It serves to train them in useful skills they will need as adults and also to improve the family's financial prospects, which is beneficial to the entire family including the child. Increasing wealth, in some areas, has allowed for the luxury of allowing children to prepare for adulthood in less immediately productive ways, such as schooling—but that does not imply that it is wrong for children to work. Most parents care deeply for their children's welfare; in general you can trust that if parents are asking their children to work they are doing so for the children's benefit. If you would prefer that they didn't need to work the solution is to offer them a better option, not take away one of the few ways they have to improve their situation.
  - Scarblac 5y ago
    So the only possible thing that can be legislated is a foster system?! Even the US already does far more than that, like making alcohol illegal for minors.
- bjt2n3904 5y ago
  Good grief. This debate is so devoid of reason, it's difficult to have a discussion. Saying that video games is outside the jurisdiction of the government is NOT saying there needs to be no guard rails. Further more, yes. There are a lot of bad parents. The people who would be installed as the benevolent parental decision makers for society would be the worst of all.
ceejayoz 5y ago
Is the same true for alcohol and tobacco?
beaunative 5y ago
What about child protection service, school, free lunch at school, healthcare, and more comparably age 21 restriction for alcohol consumption? Those are all examples of 'jurisdiction over raising children'.
- bjt2n3904 5y ago
  Physically abusing your child by chaining them to the radiator is not a parenting decision. Providing lunch at something the child is required to be at by law is not a parenting decision. Requiring annual physicals is not a parenting decision, nor a health care decision. However, requiring a specific treatment is both. Alcohol consumption is a grey area, and a cultural choice the country has made. Why not make the driving age 14? 18? It's a question of maturity. But this is a poor comparison. While alcohol has an objective measure of physical harm (ie: LD50, a measurable and detrimental effect on developing minds), video games do not. Listing these as examples is not a justification for the government deciding for a parent how much time their child can spend on video games. And for disclosure, I think a time limit is a much needed societal thing. But the government must not be the one to make that decision.
  - beaunative 5y ago
    A parents' can ask their kid to limit video game time, but can't have the video gaming industry to enforce it. A national government can. That's the issue. And if a parent really feels their kids deserve more video game time, they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism, that simple.
    - nsxwolf 5y ago
      That simple? Until they decide to make it a felony to evade this system in that way.
      - beaunative 5y ago
        I mean that's just a prejudice false target, right now it's just a departmental policy with effect only to businesses.
tengbretson 5y ago
The us limits kids access to most gaming establishments in the country to 0 hours.

sulam 5y ago

Speaking as a parent of two kids, I mostly agree, but also think that some amount of law-making in the interest of children is appropriate and fair. Drawing the line is the interesting part.

bjt2n3904 5y ago
Precisely. But the statement, "the government has no business making parenting decisions" needs no qualification. It is an axiomatic statement, and it should not be a controversial statement. Like you say, what is considered a parenting decision? Reasonable people can have a discussion about this. But I'm shocked how many people seem to think A) the government actually should make parenting decisions, and B) that things like banning child abuse is an example of the government making a parenting decision. Neither of these things are reasonable, and so the discussion about what qualifies as a parenting decision will also be unreasonable.

Scarblac 5y ago

I disagree. Children deserve a lot of protection, and anybody can become a parent. A lot of people are far too bad at parenting to leave the decisions to them completely. Some intervention is needed.

crysin 5y ago
(USA centric view) You cannot legislate parents into being good parents. You cannot pass laws that protect children from bad parenting as best case result you may get the state to intervene and put the child in a foster system where there's a 50% chance that they end up in an even worse place.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  Laws against child labor might be an example most of us would agree are called for, instead of just leaving it up to the parents whether children should work in mines and sweatshops or not. Although I have no doubt someone will show up and say that should be left up to parents too.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    Children have assisted their parents in their work as they are able from an early age for millennia. It serves to train them in useful skills they will need as adults and also to improve the family's financial prospects, which is beneficial to the entire family including the child. Increasing wealth, in some areas, has allowed for the luxury of allowing children to prepare for adulthood in less immediately productive ways, such as schooling—but that does not imply that it is wrong for children to work. Most parents care deeply for their children's welfare; in general you can trust that if parents are asking their children to work they are doing so for the children's benefit. If you would prefer that they didn't need to work the solution is to offer them a better option, not take away one of the few ways they have to improve their situation.
- Scarblac 5y ago
  So the only possible thing that can be legislated is a foster system?! Even the US already does far more than that, like making alcohol illegal for minors.
bjt2n3904 5y ago
Good grief. This debate is so devoid of reason, it's difficult to have a discussion. Saying that video games is outside the jurisdiction of the government is NOT saying there needs to be no guard rails. Further more, yes. There are a lot of bad parents. The people who would be installed as the benevolent parental decision makers for society would be the worst of all.

ceejayoz 5y ago

Is the same true for alcohol and tobacco?

beaunative 5y ago

What about child protection service, school, free lunch at school, healthcare, and more comparably age 21 restriction for alcohol consumption? Those are all examples of 'jurisdiction over raising children'.

bjt2n3904 5y ago
Physically abusing your child by chaining them to the radiator is not a parenting decision. Providing lunch at something the child is required to be at by law is not a parenting decision. Requiring annual physicals is not a parenting decision, nor a health care decision. However, requiring a specific treatment is both. Alcohol consumption is a grey area, and a cultural choice the country has made. Why not make the driving age 14? 18? It's a question of maturity. But this is a poor comparison. While alcohol has an objective measure of physical harm (ie: LD50, a measurable and detrimental effect on developing minds), video games do not. Listing these as examples is not a justification for the government deciding for a parent how much time their child can spend on video games. And for disclosure, I think a time limit is a much needed societal thing. But the government must not be the one to make that decision.
- beaunative 5y ago
  A parents' can ask their kid to limit video game time, but can't have the video gaming industry to enforce it. A national government can. That's the issue. And if a parent really feels their kids deserve more video game time, they can always lend their own account to their kids, which would disable the mechanism, that simple.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    That simple? Until they decide to make it a felony to evade this system in that way.
    - beaunative 5y ago
      I mean that's just a prejudice false target, right now it's just a departmental policy with effect only to businesses.

tengbretson 5y ago

The us limits kids access to most gaming establishments in the country to 0 hours.