| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
On August 27 2005 11:53 TreK[cF] wrote: how long of a break do u have to take? 3 hours play = 3 hours break ? 5 hour breaks between a 3 hour sitting, so basically you can have three 3 hour sessions in a day if you spread them out. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On August 26 2005 07:53 MoltkeWarding wrote: Agree. Communism isn´t to blame for China´s faults. Chinese people are to blame for China´s faults. In this case, the government is stepping in to take care of a large problem caused by Chinese people: gaming addiction. Good luck. moron -.-, so lets forbid extreme sports because people get addicted to adrenaline... I dont need the government what i can or cant do with myself, if i want to play for 5 consecutive days till i die its my fucking choice. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
| ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
On August 27 2005 13:38 baal wrote: and who cares, it wont take more than a couple of hours for the crack to be out. Yeah, but in china, do you want to be the guy using that crack, if your found out, who knows they might take your nuts. | ||
|
VdP]EpiphaNy
United Kingdom992 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On August 27 2005 13:40 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Yeah, but in china, do you want to be the guy using that crack, if your found out, who knows they might take your nuts. its not like they are allowed to have many kids anyway  | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
If the internet addiction was a real problem they would deal with it old way, like they do with Tibet or falun -gong. Not to mention the fact that there is harldy any internet in China besides the major cities. And the issue concern ppl living in them, most ppl in China will never use internet or heard about mmorpg. Beside that there is reason why in most Asian countries young ppl spend so much time surfing/playing games, while it is rare in Europe or NA. If you like the way your government is ruling, thats cool, its not my problem. I am far from juding that Chinesse lifestyle is bad or somethink like that. But for most Western ppl the fact that you dont have a choice is acceptable, i could not live like that. I live in country that was once communist, and i remmber these days, there is on comparision. No offense. | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
for the record, i'm not for or against this measure. but your entire post was bullshit. you don't have any grasp of the facts or even a real understanding of the systems of government you're referring to. please. just go away  . | ||
|
GoTuNk~~
Chile40 Posts
On August 26 2005 21:54 haduken wrote: Please go back and read what democracy is then come back and convince how this has anything to do with it. If anything, the government is actually listening to the people this time, most parents in China don't want to see their kids playing games which is an issue i won't bother go into but then again the number of parents > number of kids and the parents make up the population of the country. Any restriction to freedom is bad. I beleive u'll realize in the end. And if the reason for this is because parents want their kids to stop playing games and they can't control them, then they are BAD PARENTS. | ||
|
GoTuNk~~
Chile40 Posts
On August 26 2005 23:15 Sky101 wrote: Chinese kids are brainwashed by the Communists so no matter how we try, they just won't understand real democracy. Communism will dissapear some day, as well as the welfare government. Then everyone will enjoy the wonders of richness produced by capitalism. | ||
|
T______T
United States538 Posts
On August 26 2005 23:45 camooT wrote: goddammit. study some history. "prohibition" "alien and sedition acts" "minimum drinking age" "minimum smoking age" "illegal drugs" What is your point? That the US has done wrong as well? This duscussion is not about those things, so there is no need to bring them up. And what do you think about the rest of my post which you left out? | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
gaming addiction is a problem in china. the chinese government is enforcing a law that tries to fix it. they didn't say you couldn't game at all. they said you could game 3 hours a day, then you have to do something productive. And if this issue is a burden on families, let them deal with it. But the government has no right barging in and dictating how people spend their personal time. drugs are a problem for some families in the U.S., why don't we just let those families deal with it? Any restriction to freedom is bad. I beleive u'll realize in the end. And if the reason for this is because parents want their kids to stop playing games and they can't control them, then they are BAD PARENTS. i think not allowing kids to smoke or drink legally until a certain age is a good thing. i think prohibitting alcohol is a good thing (but doesn't work). so what if they are "BAD PARENTS?" putting a label on the problem doesn't fix it. what would you like to do, instead? | ||
|
T______T
United States538 Posts
On August 27 2005 15:31 camooT wrote: minimum drinking age is a bad thing? Yes. It's the gaurdian's responsibility to decide what their children consume. If they want to allow their kids to drink alchohol at home, then the State has no right to force them otherwise.. Public intoxication is a different matter, because other people are affected by it. prohibitting firearms in public is a bad thing? Yes, and this isn't even law in many parts of the United States. speeding limits are a bad thing? Whoever owns the road sets the rules for the road. If the State owns it, then they set the rules. gaming addiction is a problem in china. the chinese government is enforcing a law that tries to fix it. they didn't say you couldn't game at all. they said you could game 3 hours a day, then you have to do something productive. It isn't the State's job to solve problems like this. No one is hurt except the gamer (or the family, if they let the gamer do it). drugs are a problem for some families in the U.S., why don't we just let those families deal with it? See my response for alchohol. I'll never understand Republicans (assuming you are one; I don't know for sure, and I've been in trouble for assuming this). | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
Yes. It's the gaurdian's responsibility to decide what their children consume. If they want to allow their kids to drink alchohol at home, then the State has no right to force them otherwise.. Public intoxication is a different matter, because other people are affected by it. no one's going to stop kids from drinking while under 21 in their homes. selling liquor to children in stores or at bars on the other hand... Yes, and this isn't even law in many parts of the United States. why is allowing people to carry firearms in public a good thing? Whoever owns the road sets the rules for the road. If the State owns it, then they set the rules. don't dodge the question. you could also argue that this is your car, why can't you do with it what you like? the government has these restrictions in place to keep people safe. likewise with gaming, a three hour restriction to keep you from wasting your life away. See my response for alchohol. I'll never understand Republicans (assuming you are one; I don't know for sure, and I've been in trouble for assuming this). no i'm not. i don't understand how you could deduce that i was unless you were completely ignorant on the differences between the two parties. restrictions against business are things republicans (in general) hate. i'm not socially conservative either, but i do think that there are instances where government involvement can help. anyway, i've said this before -- labeling the problem doesn't fix it. "it's the parent's responsibility" isn't a valid argument if the problem persists. your argument is effective if you believe in the conservative doctrine of less government is better, but practically you're wrong. the good that government involvement has done seriously outweighs the bad. note that i'm not arguing that any of these restrictions are effective, i'm just citing examples where the u.s. government has restricted the freedom of its people for the good of society. more examples: 1.) minimum wage. 2.) public safety standards 3.) work safety standards 4.) mandatory auto insurance 5.) driver's license 6.) new deal - roosevelt was one of our most liberal presidents. although most of his programs were questionably effective, he did leave behind a legacy that some of us would rather not be without. social security, the SEC, national labor rights, fair labor standards. etc. etc. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
I think that's one problem the libertarians have in this country, although the biggest is still that promising bigger and better socialist programs gets you elected. Anyone who has as part of his platform to remove all funding for family planning, substance abuse treatment, and the like has my vote. Let's let people and their families take care of themselves, eh? EDIT@ Social Security: Social Security is about the most inefficient way of using your money to save for retirement. If you and your employer invested the same amount of money into a mix of stocks and bonds (transitioning to safer investments as you get close to retirement) you'd EASILY outstrip the modest money S.S. guarantees. What's even worse is that when *I* retire Social Security benefits will be slashed, the retirement age will be raised and I won't see the money I put in. Yes I know you weren't arguing effectiveness but you have no idea how badly I want to kill the golden cow. | ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
| ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
T______T
United States538 Posts
don't dodge the question. you could also argue that this is your car, why can't you do with it what you like? the government has these restrictions in place to keep people safe. likewise with gaming, a three hour restriction to keep you from wasting your life away. I didn't dodge; I answered why I have no problem with it. The "it's your car" argument is ridiculous; it's your body, so who cares what you do when on someone else's property? That statement is identical to yours. anyway, i've said this before -- labeling the problem doesn't fix it. "it's the parent's responsibility" isn't a valid argument if the problem persists. Your first statement is true; labeling a problem doesn't fix it. However, you are getting confused with your second statement. It is the parents' responsibility (or in this case, the family's and the gamer's). However, that doesn't mean that the State must step in if they don't solve the problem. In doing so, the State utilizes resources taken from others, which causes more problems (you have to look at every result of an action). Because the gamers are only hurting themselves and their families (if they let them), there is no need to utilize the police power of the State to step in. I'm not going to respond to the other things you said, because your responses were laughable, and the reader can see that. | ||
| ||
|
|
Escore
PiG Sty Festival
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs Zoun
Big Brain Bouts
Nicoract vs Neeb
TriGGeR vs ShoWTimE
CranKy Ducklings
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Krystianer
Solar vs Cure
IPSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
Maru vs Shameless
Reynor vs TriGGeR
IPSL
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
