I avoid watching him, but now he stepping in our turf..
I ignore marketing hypes, even though I am not completely immune to them, but what do I care if someone wants to buy something that gives them pleasure or makes them happy or game all day? Who am I to judge how another should spend his time so long as it is their time and bother no one?
He rants about how bad it is to play games, and then gives an example of people he believes are not wasting their time playing video games.. (see both bold)
Bill O’Reilly Slams PS3 Launch, Gamers, iPods, Digital Tech (not in that order)
Apparently sparked by the PlayStation 3 launch, conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly took off after video game culture and digital technology generally in yesterday’s Radio Factor.
The controversial talk show host, who advertises his program as a “no spin zone” offered the following spin on gamers and much of their favorite gear:
American society is changing for the worse because of the machines… In the past to flee the real world people usually chose drugs or alcohol… now you don’t have to do that, Now all you have to do is have enough money to buy a machine…
Basically what you have is a large portion of the population, mostly younger people under the age of 45, who don’t deal with reality - ever. So they don’t know what day it is; they don’t know temperature it is; they don’t know what their neighbor looks like. They don’t know anything… because they are constantly diverted by a machine. Now what this does is it takes a person away from reality because they’ve created their own reality…
Here comes the PS3 rant:
The newest thing is the PlayStation 3. Now this is a machine that allows you to play games in hi-def and all this other stuff… It’s the newest state of the art system from Sony…. It has a video game console, plays DVDs, connects you to the Internet, tells you how handsome you are. It’s six-hundred bucks. Now people lined up for hours to get this thing. Hours!
Next, O’Reilly recounts some of the various, well-publicized incidents that took place on PS3 lines around the country, before launching into:
The problem with this stuff is that some people can deal with it constructively… but other people get addicted to it, just like opium, just like drugs and alcohol… So this is a big, big problem. It’s going to change every single thing in this country.
At about this point, O’Reilly has Blois Olson of the National Institute on Media & the Family on as a guest. Olson talked about some issues regarding video game addiction, but was quite reasonable. As for O’Reilly? He thinks your video gaming may well doom you to a life of poverty:
The have-nots are growing. Why are they growing? Because the skill set that is necessary to earn a decent living is being deemphasized in a fantasy world of football games and shooting zombies and all that…. Now you have the “knows” and the “know-nots”, because if you spend all your youth being prisoners of machines….. you’re not going to know anything…. You’re gonna fail.
And, even though O’Reilly’s pay site offers a podcast, the pundit rather curiously disses the iPod and seems to equate video gaming with national collapse:
I don’t own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod… If this is your primary focus in life - the machines… it’s going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America… did you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them? …I really fear for the United States because, believe me, the jihadists? They’re not playing the video games. They’re killing real people over there.
His Message Don't play be games, be serious get some skills, be a jihadist?
LOL.. Mr. dinosaur is on his way to extinction if he keeps up this rhetoric.. its not like he himself does not spend his life in front a machines (Camera), and then glued to another.. (TV) Frigging hypocrite. I personally don't use consoles and I am a PC die hard gamer.. but this guy is finally getting on my nerves..
Sorry, just venting, live & let live I guess ~
oh yeah almost forgot, he don't like i-pods either..
okay, let's see. Farily often I lose track of what time of day it is, what day of the week it is, not because of video games, but because of my academic work and how messed up my sleep schedule gets as a result of all-nighters and lab-sessions. Going to sleep at 6am consistently = not healthy . Coming back from the lab at 3am at the earliest = not cool.
I did play a shit ton of console games from ages roughly 8~18, meaning I should be leading a life of poverty according to EL Factor. But my projected earnings, if I chose to work next year, would be somewhere upwards of $50k year, looking at statistics of past ELE major graduates from my school. That's doing better than a good chunk of society, whatever way you look at it.
Oh but wait, I'm going to graduate school so I WILL BE POOR next year. OH NOES Mr O'Reiley was correctorz.
He didnt make any good point, not even worth quoting or arguing. The guy must be losing raiting I think? scaring the few conservatives that watch him saying to them that games are bad etc, just another attention whore.
oh yeah.. thedeadhaji thank you very much for pointing that out.. I am the quintessential example of a gamer.. I been frigging gaming since PONG game out.. I have lived the history of video gaming in vivo from ground ZERO and played games on arcades, pet computers, apples, atari's etc.. you name it.. and not only do I lead a productive life and help a lot of people on a daily basis but I ain't doing too bad at all when it comes to money. This O'Relly.. maybe as a kid no one let him play in the play ground..
On November 23 2006 18:32 Physician wrote: oh yeah.. thank you very much for pointing that out.. I am the quintessential example of a gamer.. I been frigging gaming since PONG game out.. I have lived the history of video gaming in vivo from ground ZERO and played games on arcades, pet computers, apples, atari's etc.. and I would like point out that, not only do I lead a productive life and help a lot of people on a daily basis, have a nice family.. I ain't doing to bad when it comes to money plus I never hurt anyone.. this O'Relly is a phuking idiot..
Who cares? You know it's true. Whoever thinks that video games are actually good and useful for you? It's just a thing to waste time and help when you're bored.
I think the whole thing is summed up nicely in: Bill O'Reily is an asshole. I wanted to email him, but I couldn't find the link on his page. I'd rather watch Scarborough.
Contact Bill O'Reilly If you are a BillOReilly.com Premium Member and would like to send Bill a question or comment, use the Contact Bill O'Reilly Contact Bill O'Reilly form.
If you are not a BillOReilly.com Premium Member, you can send email to Bill at oreilly@foxnews.com.
On November 23 2006 18:53 Physician wrote: and I also forgot ~ Countries that game
How very "unproductive" of nations were there is a lot of gaming...
The 231 in that list all have some sort of gaming?
I don't think O'Reilly understands that video games are the second largest (I think they're second now) form of entertainment in this country, and a billion dollar industry yearly. Not to mention that he uses iPod services in his podcasts, and that his shows are shown on this "disruptive" technology. Why not go back to the way it used to be when there was no TV, and no radio? Heck, why not just make Bill O'Reilly supreme commander of the world?
It seems to me like O'Reilly is trying to criticize the super-hardcore group of gamers that actually have no lives and don't do productive work (where studying obviously counts as productive). However, he falls into one of the biggest traps of modern society--trying to comment on something you know jack shit about. Thus, without any knowledge about the gaming base whatsoever, he launches into unreasonable generalizations and makes inflammatory suggestions. It's like the uproar over the dummied out sex scene in that GTA game--people couldn't wait to have their say on the issue even though their opinions were grounded in faulty understandings of how that scene could be accessed.
Haji, ELE = ELectrical Engineering? I swear electrical engineering graduates from the state college I go to (Clemson) average $50000+ starting salary, unless they lied to me in their presentation. I believe your figures are low, good sir. Don't you go to Princeton or something?
The greatest irony here is how none of us have read/heard the full interview/article, and I for one haven't listened to O'Reilly in a year, so what do I know about his views?
On November 23 2006 18:40 WhatisProtoss wrote: Who cares? You know it's true. Whoever thinks that video games are actually good and useful for you? It's just a thing to waste time and help when you're bored.
I mean sure, it doesnt help, but it doesnt "hurt" as badly as O'reiley claims either. Does loitering in the mall after school help? =S
Even if I personally cut my gaming to zero hours, I probably couldnt add more hours to my work schedule without losing my sanity. I need a breather.
good this man is disgustingly ignorant. He must do it on purpose to make himself influential to people who respond to those who talk the loudest.
after watching that video i just cant believe it... How the fuck can france be an enemy? this guy is truly living in his head in a 100 years ago society... i did like the fact he was owned though
I don't have the energy to point out the obvious.... so, stfu noob.
p.s. I can't believe some people are still that ignorant... computers have completely revolutionized the way the world works... and that dude wants to change it back to the old days? Life would suck without computers...
I've heard of O Reilly a lot, but have never seen a picture of him before. When I opened up this thread, I burst out laughing at that funny ass picture of him with "The Idiot" above his face hahahaha.
On November 23 2006 23:10 [jOyO] wrote: wait so hes against bush, against jon stewart, and he hates all politicians. he likes the war in iraq and ????? what is he
On November 23 2006 23:10 [jOyO] wrote: wait so hes against bush, against jon stewart, and he hates all politicians. he likes the war in iraq and ????? what is he
Although O'Reilly is generally a huge conservative and his style is very much so offensive, I agree to a certain extent. iPods, new gaming systems, and the general increase of audio/visual recreational technology means kids at younger and younger ages are spending more time glued to a machine than playing with action figures or doing a sport. I think it isn't nearly as bad as he would say it is now, but it could get as bad as he indicates and the only way to draw attention to such a situation is through talk shows or other media outlets. I spent my childhood playing in the forrest and staying active with sports or action figures. If I played video games or went everywhere with headphones on like I do now, as a child I would not be nearly as developed mentally.
Right you could. I don't think anyone is suggesting you never touch a DVD, iPod or video game player. I think the general consensus is that it is good to decrease or at least pay attention and moderate. Something you are alluding to I believe.
Well this is something he dont understand and that scares him. Thus he attacks it. It's pretty much human nature to do that. Knowledge and education is the only way to get rid of people that acts like him. Now teaching him about gaming seems a bit over the top, but in theory and applied to simmilar reactions it works.
Where does he say anything that is wrong? He is absolutely right about gaming and the level it is progressing towards. Do you honestly think that if someone were to educate him on what iPod's and PS3's do he would change his opinion? Honestly?
Well in the end, trying to view this from a non-gamer point of view, he is right in most things. But the need of rating makes him say the problem is bigger and wider, there is indeed a number of people who take gaming to the point of addiction/detachment of reality etc, but this are extreme cases, as there are extreme cases in sports or dunno origami.
On November 24 2006 00:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Although O'Reilly is generally a huge conservative and his style is very much so offensive, I agree to a certain extent. iPods, new gaming systems, and the general increase of audio/visual recreational technology means kids at younger and younger ages are spending more time glued to a machine than playing with action figures or doing a sport. I think it isn't nearly as bad as he would say it is now, but it could get as bad as he indicates and the only way to draw attention to such a situation is through talk shows or other media outlets. I spent my childhood playing in the forrest and staying active with sports or action figures. If I played video games or went everywhere with headphones on like I do now, as a child I would not be nearly as developed mentally.
well all that sport didnt help much cuz ur actually fat, and could you care to ellaborate why you would have depeloped mentally less with electronics?
On November 24 2006 00:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Although O'Reilly is generally a huge conservative and his style is very much so offensive, I agree to a certain extent. iPods, new gaming systems, and the general increase of audio/visual recreational technology means kids at younger and younger ages are spending more time glued to a machine than playing with action figures or doing a sport. I think it isn't nearly as bad as he would say it is now, but it could get as bad as he indicates and the only way to draw attention to such a situation is through talk shows or other media outlets. I spent my childhood playing in the forrest and staying active with sports or action figures. If I played video games or went everywhere with headphones on like I do now, as a child I would not be nearly as developed mentally.
well all that sport didnt help much cuz ur actually fat, and could you care to ellaborate why you would have depeloped mentally less with electronics?
Because Tree and footballs make your brain bigger, duh
I don't really get it, experiencing "True" "reality" is suppose to make you smarter? It sounds almost as rediculous as an anti-pot smoking commerical.
"I sat on Teds couch for 11 hours" (That must have been good smoke) "I didn't get addict to heroin." (Thats nice?) "The Real world is more dangerous" (Uh...) "I think I'll take my chances out there" (WTF?)
On November 24 2006 00:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Although O'Reilly is generally a huge conservative and his style is very much so offensive, I agree to a certain extent. iPods, new gaming systems, and the general increase of audio/visual recreational technology means kids at younger and younger ages are spending more time glued to a machine than playing with action figures or doing a sport. I think it isn't nearly as bad as he would say it is now, but it could get as bad as he indicates and the only way to draw attention to such a situation is through talk shows or other media outlets. I spent my childhood playing in the forrest and staying active with sports or action figures. If I played video games or went everywhere with headphones on like I do now, as a child I would not be nearly as developed mentally.
well all that sport didnt help much cuz ur actually fat, and could you care to ellaborate why you would have depeloped mentally less with electronics?
Your first comment is high class baal. You call me fat, great. You can call me fat, I dont see any point in verifying my weight status and muscle distribution to you anymore. If calling me fat on a forum makes you feel any less like the resident dumbass then by all means, please, continue to be the resident dumbass. Your second comment, do you really need an explanation? How much development do you think kids would do if they could use their imagination and create dioalogue, story, characters and theme with action figures versus a video game that does ALL that for them? Which do you think garners more potential brain power. Now is that to say every child benefits MORE from non electronic activities? Certainly not. But I would contend that when trends move heavily in favor (near the point of saturation) this is a detriment and surely open to discussion.
On November 24 2006 01:45 OverTheUnder wrote: the problem inc, is that O reilly didn't say it at all like you just did;/
If O Reily said it like Geoff said then people would not react to it like you guys have, and he probably wouldn't be so popular. The whole point of his radical offensive slander speaking is so you guys (Physician fell for this almost as much as the pathetic 'blogger') pay attention to his garbage and you react in such a way that actually makes him feel good about what he's saying, because deep down he's getting his point across to you guys. Regardless of how positive or negative you feel about it you have this vision of O Reilly but you don't actually know what he is (He's Conservative, clearly, you just need to note he's on FOX news).
Bloggers are the biggest problem because you give him this outlet for criticism and people have even higher levels of retardation than you do. O Reilly is a good politician, if he was to get involved in politics trust me he'd be good, however I don't think he is trying to do that. Being a pundit is easier for him so he's going to go ahead with that and bust balls. It's easier for people sitting in front of a camera to reflect their views and opinions to the public without having to sugar coat anything, and you guys miss the point sometimes. Would anybody vote for him now? Probably only Right Winged voters, but he's not going to run because he's already put his views flat out on the table. He's a political activist, like a liberal that goes around and protests, but instead he has a TV show. If you don't like him, don't watch him and definately don't blog about him.
On November 24 2006 00:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Although O'Reilly is generally a huge conservative and his style is very much so offensive, I agree to a certain extent. iPods, new gaming systems, and the general increase of audio/visual recreational technology means kids at younger and younger ages are spending more time glued to a machine than playing with action figures or doing a sport. I think it isn't nearly as bad as he would say it is now, but it could get as bad as he indicates and the only way to draw attention to such a situation is through talk shows or other media outlets. I spent my childhood playing in the forrest and staying active with sports or action figures. If I played video games or went everywhere with headphones on like I do now, as a child I would not be nearly as developed mentally.
well all that sport didnt help much cuz ur actually fat, and could you care to ellaborate why you would have depeloped mentally less with electronics?
Your first comment is high class baal. You call me fat, great. You can call me fat, I dont see any point in verifying my weight status and muscle distribution to you anymore. If calling me fat on a forum makes you feel any less like the resident dumbass then by all means, please, continue to be the resident dumbass. Your second comment, do you really need an explanation? How much development do you think kids would do if they could use their imagination and create dioalogue, story, characters and theme with action figures versus a video game that does ALL that for them? Which do you think garners more potential brain power. Now is that to say every child benefits MORE from non electronic activities? Certainly not. But I would contend that when trends move heavily in favor (near the point of saturation) this is a detriment and surely open to discussion.
ACTION FIGURES?! cmon dude, use your fantasy, use a piece of wood or something. we dont need those colourfully painted plastic brainkillers, who actually also spread the word of VIOLENCE.
all of this, in my humble opinion, is solely the parents responsibility anyway. turn off console, open door, kick kid out, tell him/her to be home before dark. problem solved.
u know i think ive just about HAD it with adults who DONT KNOW SHIT about anything and try to run and govern the way young people live.
like "hm the only experience ive had with video games is that when i ask my kid to come down to dinner or do his homework, he hesitates a bit when playing the game and doenst obey my orders pronto, therefore, video games are fucking him up and all the other kids in this country, wow i own and im gona be the next president of the US"
WELL GUESS WHAT DIPSHIT, alcohol, hookers, porn and TV all have those effects ON YOU and well nooooo i dont see any young kids going around talking abt politics or how the country is run CUZ THEY DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT IT and you would probably shun them away cuz they dont know what they are talking abt. guess what, thats how we all feel abt you too.
a fucking idiot adult comes waltzing in spewing out rubbish about video gaming as if its the meltdown of the next generation and the apocalypse of society, WELL GUESS WHAT DOUCHEBAG i bet 90% of the people below 18 play video games, and i dont see anything fucking wrong with the world.
jesus him and jack thompson just have to go do something else. seriously.
and the sad part is that parents who ALSO DONT KNOW SHIT look up to these idiots and take what they say for real.
So he's bitching that he can't talk to young people because they're interested in computer games and he's interested in defending his nation from radical Islam? To communicate you need common interests. Thats pretty basic really. He's angry because no-one talks to him about how evil those Jihadists are these days and he has no friends and he's blaming video games.
You know, he's right. Video games are an escape from reality, a form of entertainment. The world is becoming more and more focused on entertainment, and there are more and more producers of entertainment in the world. There are more video game companies, more TV networks, more radio stations, more movies, etc. I listened to that particular Radio Factor on my drive home and at first I was thinking "what the hell is this man talking about", but his point isn't too far from the truth. Entertainment has become a massive industry, especially in America.
There really are people who spend so much time playing video games and not developing life skills that it becomes detrimental to their survival later in life. In that regard it's no different from heavy use of drugs or alcohol. BUT - what he's not discussing is the social aspect of gaming, just as there is social (or casual) alcohol and drug use. Games can also nurture a person's reaction time and puzzle-solving/critical-thinking ability. O'Reilly's final point about the Jihadists is also inaccurate because - while it's true people play games to escape reality as Jihadists are killing in the name of religion and furthering their cause in the real world - that does not mean that most gamers are oblivious to this fact, and in fact since many gamers also spend a lot of time on the Internet, they get this news faster than anyone else. I don't think gamers are the uninformed, clueless zombie slaves to machines that O'Reilly makes them out to be, although I'm sure there are at least a few who fall under that category.
Why does every old geezer assume that if kids aren't playing videogames they'd be out curing cancer or something instead? Newsflash: they wouldn't be. They'd find something else meaningless to do like light things on fire.
John Stweart has so much class...He is ten times the man Riley is. What Riley fails to recognize is that humour is the reality principal, allowing us to recognize and deal with, in a healthy way, the innanities, and insanities of the world out there. He is almost too involved in his own world, even to the extent that he can no longer laugh, because he is so intoxicated with the sound of his own voice, and pompous opinions. He clearly does not recognize that, like drinkers and pot smokers, only a fraction of users have an actual problem; for the majority of people, video games are a past time. And I think many of us could make the case that they actually have, again like pot and booze, some beneficial effects.
Edit: Wow...who would have figured that the O'Riley Thread would spawn almost nothing but one-sided rants.
On November 24 2006 07:19 Flaccid wrote: Why does every old geezer assume that if kids aren't playing videogames they'd be out curing cancer or something instead? Newsflash: they wouldn't be. They'd find something else meaningless to do like light things on fire.
Everything is fine in moderation.
You are correct. However, it is keeping the video gaming in moderation that should be the point of focus.
On November 24 2006 07:25 KOFgokuon wrote: Played video games all my life Still play video games Gonna get a Ph.D. in chemical engineering Guess i'm a waste of life eh?
Sad to think you are going to get a Ph.D in a scientific field and still don't understand the concept of probability. Sure you were able to rise above the inherent negative side effects of sacrificing people time for zone-out time your entire life, but do you think that will work for the majority of the children? Or do you think they could probably use some encouragement to enjoy the activities in moderation?
video games drastically increased the rate at which i learned to read. if i had never played final fantasy 4 or 6, my knowledge of the english language would be middle school at best. street fighter taught me where brazil and USSR are on a map. zelda and metroid taught me how to think critically and solve problems. video games also teach pattern recognition and motor skills.
im not sure how video games and technology can be classified as anti-social. when i was little my friends would always come over to play battletoads and mario kart. telephone and instant messenger allow me to keep in touch with my childhood friends even though some of them live 3000 miles away.
Some of you are forgetting that the only victim in the advent of new technology has been old format television and book reading, and yes old format advertising along with it. I can do both with the "machines" that he is whining, even chose to use old formats within the new technology. I play the same amount of hours today as I did 20 years ago before fiddling about with PC's. I am also far more free now when it comes to content choice and content availability, both in knowledge and entertainment - and what is more it can be instant by choice. I also have more control on how much advertising I can avoid.
O'Reilly's argument is not only hypocritical, since he benefits from the "machines" but it is an age old long, tireless lament, the young have always been hearing from the old: "before it was better." He would be much more congruent and smarter had he started the argument with board games, television and radio, before he engaged consoles, the internet and ipods.
As for the argument for moderation, and it being safer and healthier, mentioned by iNcontrol and others, I agree. Nevertheless in our youth moderation was not always the answer nor what we wanted - this is part of being young and learning; and yes parenting is there to help! We all know such advice applies now as it much as it did in the past and not only to new technology.
O'Reilly did not make that argument though, he preferred to claim he was never going to use an ipod, he implied that jihadists are getting things achieved because they are not wasting time playing computers and he made the forecast that machines will be the downfall of the US younger generations because they will never acquire any skills to survive, because they are gaming all the time.. then how come life goes on as usual? Why is KOFgokuon going to get his Ph.D? Why did I make it? Why do kids still go to school and colleges and universities are still filled?
I tell you what has changed - we watch less advertising, and the poor phuker that works day in, and day out in job that he does do not like to make ends meet, whether it be nuking the burgers at a fast food or sucking the gizzards out of chicken in a food processing line has SOMETHING different to look forward than TV & beer. He can be a warrior on the hills of Ragnarok or he can own the living shit out of his doctor on battle.net. But let us just assume, that he is of similar minds with O'Relly, well hell, he can still sit, watch TV, drink his beer and watch the O'Relly factor & and mute the ads.
On November 24 2006 07:25 KOFgokuon wrote: Played video games all my life Still play video games Gonna get a Ph.D. in chemical engineering Guess i'm a waste of life eh?
Sad to think you are going to get a Ph.D in a scientific field and still don't understand the concept of probability. Sure you were able to rise above the inherent negative side effects of sacrificing people time for zone-out time your entire life, but do you think that will work for the majority of the children? Or do you think they could probably use some encouragement to enjoy the activities in moderation?
Um, wtf does this have to do with probability? If you want to take issue with the idea that his argument is anecdotal, go ahead. But don't be a dumbass and jump to a conclusion that somehow he's innumerate. This is just poor argumentation.
By the way, his anecdotal argument applies to me as well, and to 15-20 other Ph.D. friends of mine. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that the percentage of people age 30-40 who still game features a much higher percentage of advanced degrees than the general population 30-40.
And I hope you aren't relying on Bill O'Reilly to provide encouragement to our kids so that they live healthy lifestyles. This is where parents come in handy. And if a kid's parents can't handle the job, there's no way that these fat-ass Republicans (and yes some Dems, including @&*$^* Hillary too) are going to solve anything by moralizing. Goddamn Luddites.
From the point of view of O'Reilly's argument, video games really are objectively better in all senses than, say, cable television. Both of them are capable of forming addiction and of siphoning off large amounts of time which could otherwise be used on other things. But video games are inherently more interactive than watching the tube, and video games are definitely better in terms of problem solving and in the chance that the user is learning something valuable (this all depends on what channel we're talking about and what type of game...but in general a video game's more likely to teach you something useful than some random show on cable).
And I don't know why you assume that playing video games qualifies as "zone-out time". During the day I work as a research scientist and often in the evenings I game (and have been for ~20 years), and there's been plenty of times where the gaming part of my day was more mentally challenging and rewarding than my day job. There's also plenty of times when gaming is more "people-oriented" than my day job. And if you are posting on TeamLiquid, I don't need to tell you that gaming can also create positive social interaction.
There are research scientists and Physicians that can play casually at night. But there are also people that don't have jobs that play video games all afternoon. I see them all the time on Judge Judy and the People's Court. Women complain about their ex-boyfriends playing their playstation all day instead of supporting their children. Then Judge Judy rips into them about growing up and getting a job. Good times
“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.” -Adolf Hitler
The problem with O'Reilly is not that he picks horrible things to express concern. Its his absolutly disgusting use of rhetoric. He chooses something then influences people by being as outraged as possible. The opposite of this would be making a well structured argument with support, facts and examples.
Unfortunatly, mr.hitler is correct. Moderation and reason almost never win against rhetoric.
On November 24 2006 07:19 Flaccid wrote: Why does every old geezer assume that if kids aren't playing videogames they'd be out curing cancer or something instead? Newsflash: they wouldn't be. They'd find something else meaningless to do like light things on fire.
Everything is fine in moderation.
I completely agree.
You can demonize any activity when people do it in excess. The fact that videogames exist isn't a problem. If the kid is playing 10 hours a day and is glued to it, the parents are doing a shit job monitoring the kid and his time.
What about TV? Kids grow up infront of the TV all their life, we should ban TV because it's a slippery slope.
What about reading? Kids will get addicted to books and never communicate with a real person. We should ban books.
My point? Moderation and good parenting are what developes a balanced kid. It just do happens that gaming has become a big part of children's lives and old people hate it because it's foreign to them so douche bags like oreilly play to their insecurities.
It's no different than TV or any other activity that isolates the kid. Parents should start to parent rather than going on a witch hunt.
dude, what's up with the bill o reily and jon stewart thing?
is bill orreilys stupidity like staged? i mean, is he joking, like, literally? because, i get the feeling that bill and jon are puting on some little stage show for everyone because they seem like like really close friends or something, it was really weird. i don't konw, it seems like they've coincidentally both took up roles that perfecticly complimented eachother in a way that would be suitable and funny to watch.
i think that jon stewart is pretty witty though, but i'm not sure how much of it is real.
On November 24 2006 11:23 ManaBlue wrote: If the kid is playing 10 hours a day and is glued to it, the parents are doing a shit job monitoring the kid and his time.
It's no different than TV or any other activity that isolates the kid. Parents should start to parent rather than going on a witch hunt.
Completely agree here Take some responsibility Bad parenting is more of a reason for kids doing badly than video games. Exert some control, STOP THEM FROM PLAYING, don't buy them the systems, make them study, make them do SOMETHING else. Or if they're doing badly in school, make them study instead
On November 24 2006 11:23 ManaBlue wrote: If the kid is playing 10 hours a day and is glued to it, the parents are doing a shit job monitoring the kid and his time.
It's no different than TV or any other activity that isolates the kid. Parents should start to parent rather than going on a witch hunt.
Completely agree here Take some responsibility Bad parenting is more of a reason for kids doing badly than video games. Exert some control, STOP THEM FROM PLAYING, don't buy them the systems, make them study, make them do SOMETHING else. Or if they're doing badly in school, make them study instead
easier said than done. My parents always try to steer me but man I always get away w/ alt f4 when they open the door >_<
On November 24 2006 11:23 ManaBlue wrote: If the kid is playing 10 hours a day and is glued to it, the parents are doing a shit job monitoring the kid and his time.
It's no different than TV or any other activity that isolates the kid. Parents should start to parent rather than going on a witch hunt.
Completely agree here Take some responsibility Bad parenting is more of a reason for kids doing badly than video games. Exert some control, STOP THEM FROM PLAYING, don't buy them the systems, make them study, make them do SOMETHING else. Or if they're doing badly in school, make them study instead
easier said than done. My parents always try to steer me but man I always get away w/ alt f4 when they open the door >_<
not really that hard don't give them access to a computer unless they need it to research something for school move the computer to a common room where it can be monitered hell, you're obviously old enough to know that you should do work, take some responsibility for YOURSELF
EPT
![[image loading]](http://wis.worldcybergames.com/sp/web/news_photo/upload/20061121/oreilly_u_mad.jpg)
. Coming back from the lab at 3am at the earliest = not cool.
.
