Random rant

[Apparent Amarant]

Why in the world is playing a board game with a friend or cars with a friend so much less atrocious then playing video games with a friend as a child?

the part where you say "saves them from parenting for awhile" is laughable. there is no more parenting involved in having your child play a board game with a friend then playing a video game.

When I was young I had a certain amount of time I could spend on the TV total. I could use it on video games or watching TV. I think it was an hour. I was also required to read every day, and was as active in sports and outdoor activities as any kid I've ever met. Honestly the original post and all of your responses on the first page made me lol. Just lol sir/lady.

I do not think that your post and reasoning behind these feelings you have are well thought out at all. I think that you are doing really bad critical thinking when you justify your emotions in this situation the way you do.

Also when I was younger we even all played video games as a family at times instead of watching TV or playing board games which we also often did. Just because you let your children play video games does not mean that you aren't an active parent.

Maybe and I could be wrong because I am not a parent, but just maybe there are ways to decided if you are doing a good job as a parent that do not involve whether or not you let your children play video games. Like how much time you spend with them. How much of that is active helping them with developing life skills, and the state of your relationship with them. Or you could just not be an active parent (not saying anything about you because you probably are. I will not take personal shots at your parenting because it's something I know nothing about) and pretend to be by making senseless rules with terrible justification.

 

[Sabriel]

I concur about the above post. Video games requires your brain to think about how to control the character or think up tactics, so in this way it kinda boost up your brainpower. I know you think that it's atrocious, but it's only that when it gets to as point where you have serious problems e.g. sight, so you're just looking at things in one perspective, not all of them. Sheesh.

Fine, I had less exp. than most of the gamers here, but as long as the player is controlled i.e. me, like having a limit which my parents set for me etc., and parents do know best for you, it's fine.

Finally, an extra point: it does NOT rot your brain, as said in my first point. I was still getting good grades and marks.

Please share our views and take into mind our comments as they're from gamers themselves and their real-life exp.

 

[Serah]

I think they got your point man, but the way you worded it sounded like you were attacking parents in general. Everyone can agree that kids don't need to spend all their time playing games, that often times interactivity with other individuals (aside from only friends) is good and healthy as well as exercise a little.

Thank you! This was my point exactly. There is nothing wrong with us letting our kids have a little gaming time, but it's not as though it takes over their lives.

This is why I got so furious with you Flashheart because by the way your posts sound, it sounded like you were just automatically insinuating that all we do is let our kids sit around game while we do nothing about it which is simply not true. It was as if you were judging the way we raise our children. Did you not play on your NES or Sega or Super Nintendo and play a bit of Super Mario Bros here there? I certainly remember doing so when I was young, but it sure as hell didn't take over my life, and games do not take over my son's life either. I spent my days riding and showing horses, working on a farm, playing outside and getting plenty of exercise. Playing video games was always a downtime for me and a way to kick back and relax at the end of the day. It's no different than how a lot of us are with our young children.

When you try to give parenting advice at the younger age you are, when we have quite a bit of mothers on the forum, I doubt people will be that happy with you.

QFT

Why in the world is playing a board game with a friend or cars with a friend so much less atrocious then playing video games with a friend as a child?

the part where you say "saves them from parenting for awhile" is laughable. there is no more parenting involved in having your child play a board game with a friend then playing a video game.

Exactly! How does our parenting make a difference if they're playing a video game, sitting down and quietly reading a book, sitting in their room playing with their toys or playing a board game? Honestly, how is that any different? We can either let them be or we can sit with them and interact with them if they want us to. Some kids like to be left alone at times. You can't constantly smother your child. So your quote about saving us from parenting for awhile is rendered completely ridiculous.

I do not think that your post and reasoning behind these feelings you have are well thought out at all. I think that you are doing really bad critical thinking when you justify your emotions in this situation the way you do.

QFT

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

That's my philosophy. When I have children, I will let them play games, but not at all times. Just because you let your kid play games a bit doesn't make you any less of a good parent, and neither does encouraging your child read, another activity that doesn't directly involve a parent.

In current society, it's true that some, mark the word, some parents do use games as baby sitters. My aunt did, and now my cousins in an insane asylum, or the basic equivalent, so I can see it from both sides. It's more the parent who would let their kid do anything to get rid of them that's the problem. That's how she was, here take this and go away.

Now, making statements about parents in general is going to make people mad at you. Parents are defensive beings, especially the good ones. Insulting all parents because a few abuse video games isn't a good habit to be getting into. Of course, I can see your point without getting angry because I'm not a parent. But I can understand why they are mad, too.

Video games don't kill people or make them fat either. Humans do both of those things to themselves. Saying anything else is just a sad excuse.

P.S: My parents let me play games as a child, and I'm just fine. They're great parents, too.

 

[Dragon Mage]

Your logic is flawed, for the simple reason that you seem to assume life without videogames leads to a very small avenue of entertainment.

Next time read my post completely. I already said forcing your kid to read every day will get it to detest reading. Then again, I never said reading is the only alternative for videogames.

Ah, quoting Star Trek now, are we?

No, I never intended to come off as saying that video games provide ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF ENTERTAINMENT!!! Not at all. But they do provide a considerable amount. They also open doorways that books cannot -- i.e. people with dyslexia or other reading disabilities (and trust me, there's quite a significant number there) can use video games as an alternative creative outlet.

Video games also take advantage of a thoroughly visual medium, which can change the perspective on things in great ways, if it done so well. (But that is not always the case, mind you.) Video games and books essentially do the same things in different ways, for different people.

I do believe an equilibrium should be achieved between the two, however.

You keep saying there are better alternatives, but I have yet to hear an alternative that has the same problem-solving qualities and mental engagement that video games provide.

And I did read your post. Thank you. Very well spoken of you.

Thanks for the links, but unfortunately the .pdf link doesn't work.

This means I can't give a proper reply because it doesn't say in the text weither the tests were made with little kids or with teenagers. And I'm only advocating against the use of videogames before they reach puberty.

About Johnson's quote, I have yet to encounter a boardgame that doesn't give the same results. When playing monopoly, stratego and chess (just to name a few) you also have to make decissions, analyze situations, consult your long-term goals etc. AND, unlike videogames, boardgames are 95% of the time played with 2 or more people.

He has a point, but it's not good enough to convince me.

You're welcome.

Excuse me, but even you must admit that a boardgame's depth of engagement is very limited. I believe some comedian nailed it on the head about Monopoly when he said "Fuck it. *smashes board* It's 3 in the morning grandma, YOU WIN!"

*ahem*

Board games are great. You have no complaint from me. But they are 1) more difficult to engage in and, 2) difficult to make a habit of playing when faced with such starting difficulties, and 3) the analyzing and whatnot that you listed is indeed all there, but in such a way that it certainly wouldn't be enough to keep the attention of children 8 and under.

Expecting an 8 year old to play chess while making mathematical strategies and manipulation of their opponent is nothing short of ridiculous. A child of such age needs something much more engaging in a mentally intriguing and active way.

Also, consider this: People are working more and more hours every day. The Americans average about 1,300 hours a year, 200 more than the Germans and a little more than the Japanese. The fact is, not everyone has the time to sit down and get into a long and involved game with a kid. It is impractical to expect parents, and many families have two working parents these days, to dedicate themselves to such a time-consuming occupation.

And your logic is flawed for the simple reason that you assume that all video games are single-player. I cannot express how utterly wrong that assumption is. More than ever, video games are being focused more and more and more on multiplayer.

And if Johnson has a point, and you conceed that, then why not simply agree? What will it take to convince you that your rigid belief is, in fact, not as immutable as first thought?

Remember that my goal here is to create a compromise between our two clashing viewpoints. I do not expect you to completely adopt my opinion nor should you expect me to adopt yours. All I'm striving for here is to make a compromise, or at the very least a mutual understanding and respect. But to do that, you must first admit that there are points in your argument that are not so perfect as to be above all flaw. I've already acknowledged that video games should not be the sole entertainment for a child, nor would I ever recommend such a thing.

Perhaps you should try some other books. I find many books that don't limit themselves to only conjuring imagination but also provoking a thought process.

That is not exactly the kind of thought process being referred to. The ones you are talking about are something like satires, or action-meaning stories (as defined by Wayne Booth in his essay "Why Ethical Criticism Is Never Simple"). Or the unnamed class of book that provides a deep theme (moral meaning typically) with realistic and engaging characters and a powerful overarching story that sweeps the readers off their feet and deposits them at the end on shores of clearer perspective.

Those are all very important. I myself am writing such a book. But video games address an entirely different way of thinking.

Simply put, books address deep thought on an internal level -- approaching the conflicts within the characters and the choices they must make, the way evil wears the many masks of innocence, political corruption, pride, vanity, and so on. All very important lessons, but philosophical in essence. These very philosophical teachings can help guide one in the choices to be made in life.

But do you really expect a child of 8 years and under to read and understand such books? I hardly think the Aeneid or Gulliver's Travels is appropriate reading material for such young ages.

In any case, video games approach a more problem-solving method of thinking. Unlike the more philosophical teachings of literature, video games take a more business-like take on things. If the player chooses to help the guards hold the gate against the invading army, the magical dome protecting the city may fall and let the dragons raze the city. If the player chooses to save the mages holding up said magical dome, they risk the guards being overrun at the gate and having to try and push the invading army back later.

There is no moral implication in that situation. The goal is to save the city. But how to prioritize going about that Herculean task? This is the kind of thought process that video games address.

Now, wouldn't you agree that you would need a veritable equilibrium between the philosophical and the economical processes to achieve a more experienced and well-rounded individual?

Yes, when they are at a certain age they'll get a new option. Videogames. Just like they'll get a new option at 14-15: going out (to parties, not going for a swim).

Of course, it all depends on their mentality.

I can understand that, and I agree with it in fact, but only partially. I wouldn't want my children playing something like Doom 3 at the age of 8. But I ask you to reconsider -- surely there are certain games that would be allowable and you could buy them to ensure exactly what your children are being exposed to.

For example, select very simple games, like Tetris, or cheesy fantasy games that focus on strategy and collecting butterflies (Legend of Zelda perhaps?) and the like that would give your children an interesting a new medium to explore while still developing organizational and prioritizing skills they'll need without even knowing it. All you have to do is screen the content first before allowing it to pass.

Or consider these other games that would pass assuredly your parent-approval sense: Try Dance Dance Revolution, which is anything but inactive, or LittleBigPlanet, where one makes a little sack-doll (fully customizable to look however you wish) and allows one to make mazes and castles or full Indiana Jones-style dungeons to explore. It's creative, hosts a rich multiplayer environment, and is practically a digital sandbox to play in. Even games like Guitar Hero (not my favorite because my music is heavy in classical) would improve reflexes while having fun and jamming to some good tunes at the same time.

I hardly believe that these games would cause any child to become an extreme introvert and shun the outside world and their friends. Yet, I repeat, it is up to you, the responsible parent, to ensure that only similar and carefully selected games reached the hands of your pre-pubescent younglings.

My main argument here is not that you throw wide the doors of gaming all at once, but open it just a crack, and gradually build up to the bigger stuff as they get older. To put a padlock on that door would arouse interest and curiosity, as it did with my brother and I, and they will eventually dive head-first through that door when you aren't looking. Then you'll have lost all control of the matter and be utterly helpless. But a controlled exposure is very possible and ultimately best, to all pillars of logic.

The hostility was merely to make a point. It was a random rant in the Spam Coliseum, not a serious discussion provoking thread. So please forgive me for using strong language.

I understand. But now that area has moved, just be sure to make the appropriate adjustments. That way, such little quirks in the conversation stay to a minimum. : )

Why do you have to hear about your experience?
Anyway, what has changed my mind is my little brother. Every day I see him playing videogames and it bloody annoys me. That started in the time my mom was a single mom for a few years and seeing as we had a big family it was very energy consuming for her to be busy with all her kids so she just said "play a videogame" out of lazyness. (Yes, I know, stupid excuses and that's what I told her)
We're 3 years later and except for football practice and school, my little brother never leaves the house to play with little friends.

Do I believe videogames caused this? Yes.
Do I want this to happen to my kids? No.

My experience? Er, I believe you misread that. I was merely providing contrast.

Hmmm. Your experience is surely a powerful one, and one I can certainly relate to. The same happened to my older brother.

Can I ask what you were doing at that time? When you saw your little brother playing games with increasing fervor, why didn't you intervene? Invite him to toss a ball or play some D&D? Or, heck, why not ask to join him so you two could make it a social thing and thus have him requesting you play next time?

I do not believe that video games alone did this to your brother or mine. Yes, they were part of the problem, but the real issue lie in that your brother (and mine!) turned toward video games more and more because he could not find any other interactive stimulus in the household -- namely, that of social interaction. The solution? Video games.

However, as with all things, my brother got over his video game craze. I believe he was so deeply interested in it because novelty things tend to have an appeal so great it borders obsession. If he had been allowed to explore these games when he was younger, would it still have happened? I believe the answer is 'no' but no one will be able to truly tell, will they?

Do not be so quick to dismiss a cause for its personal nature in favor of an easy target already made public enemy. Do not be so quick to judge and condemn.

If I learned nothing else from literature, I at least learned that.

Your succes is absolutely irrelevant in this case, so I was under the assumption you said it to boast and to give more credibility to your arguments. I still feel the same.

Ah, no actually, it isn't irrelevant. It was meant to show that the stereotypical rule of 'Video games make you stupid' is a fallacy. I certainly did not turn out stupid, as evidenced by the mere language I've been employing throughout this thread. A type of first-hand example, if you will.

Age limit isn't that important. Initially I spoke about puberty, but it's easier to typ 12. As I replied to another quote of yours, it's more their mentality that's important.

I just want them to entertain themselves without videogames until a certain age. When they reach that certain age, playing with dolls and soldiers isn't that appealing anymore so we need an alternative and one of those can be videogames.



Nope, no bullshit. Just mud.

Okay! I appreciate your argument, and I am sympathetic to it, but I still remain skeptic on your ultimatum and reasoning. As you've said, toys are outgrown, and its time to move on. No complaint from me! I wholly agree. And yes, mentality is a factor to consider. I asked only about the particular age limit because I thought you might have some reason relating to brain development or some such thing.

One little suggestion here? I agree with your reasoning here -- outgrowing toys and whatnot. But seeing as our society is becoming increasingly technology oriented, I still ask that you consider carefully screened exposure. There are a number of games geared for children that you can employ so they become more comfortable with virtual interfaces and workings when young.

A perfect game that I can think of is a puzzle game -- literally jigsaw puzzles on the computer. Now, I'm not saying to do away with regular puzzles, but it would allow them to be familiar with the computer, provide entertainment, but is still no more or less engaging than an actual jigsaw puzzle. And, as a bonus, it keeps all the pieces together. : ) It's a very simple compromise between the two. Or, I refer you to the previously mentioned video games above. Those are all creative, interesting, have their benefits, and are fun for everyone, not just the gamer.

Remember, absolutes do more harm than good.

I've mentioned half a dozen in the last few pages, I'm no parental advisor so if you're really interested I suggest you read a book that breaches this topic.

Your example is a bit flawed, because I assume EVERY parent prefers their kids to be safely inside (ironic though, as if it's actually safer inside) than to do stuff without their parents knowledge and consent. If my kid comes up to me and says "Can I go treeclimbing or play a videogame?" I'll always reply: "go treeclimbing son, but be careful and be home at x".

Very well. Then could you please compilation all of them (without repeating any) here so that everyone viewing this thread can be reminded of them? It seems they've been lost a little ways back. Thank you.

I do request some solid, scientifically conducted evidence if you could please provide it. As of yet, all your reasons rest on personal experience and opinion.

As for the bit about treeclimbing, I think you just pissed off every parent viewing this thread. Are you serious? Letting your young child go climbing a tree unsupervised? And your only rules are to 'be careful' and 'come home at x'?

I'd never believed I would hear such irresponsibility spoken with such conviction and sincerity. When a kid goes out to play, they intend to have fun, not to 'be safe.' And it wouldn't do much good to set up a time they should be back when they could have cracked their skull and are unconscious beneath a tree.

If I'm too urgently busy to accompany them as they go tree-climbing for a half hour then I'd rather they play a game for the time being until I'm done or at least take a rain-check on it.

Why do you think forbidding a kid to play videogames is taking away all his options of non-physical entertainment?

Because, whether we like it or not, video games are the leading force in what is becoming an increasingly technology-dependent society. In case you haven't noticed, more books are becoming online accessible. If you limit a child from video games merely because of the medium, where will you stop when so many avenues are making that very transition?

And I didn't say it took away all their options. But in exclusion to the ones you've already listed (and have been addressed) there's virtually little variation in the rest (word puzzles and the like) aside from video games. So you are, in essence, taking away all other varied options of non-physical entertainment.

Does mister Johnson say those merits can only be obtained before they hit puberty and if so that there are no alternatives at all?


Edit: The .pdf file works now and te small letters say: "Subjects were aged between 18-23 years". And as far as I know we are talking about kids aged below 12 (or before they hit puberty).

No, actually. Johnson does not say anything about these merits being obtainable after a certain age. It's quite obvious he was speaking about all ages. All I can say is that you should read the book. It's very intriguing, if nothing else.

And yes, I've read the small print as well. But recall, good sir, that it was a test meant to gauge mental acuity (basically, how sharp and flexible the mind is). So, seeing as this is in exclusion to any kind of serious philosophical development, it doesn't matter how old or young you are. Playing video games, at any age, increases your ability to multi-thread, telescope, and your mental reflexes.

In closing, I would like you to consider this excerpt from Johson's book, Everything Bad Is Good For You:

"The intellectual nourishment of reading books is so deeply ingrained in our assumptions that it's hard to contemplate a different viewpoint. But, as McLuhan famously observed, the problem with judging new cultural systems on their own terms is that the presence of the recent past inevitably colors your vision of the emerging form, highlighting only the flaws and imperfections. Games have historically suffered from this syndrome, largely because they have been contrasted with the older conventions of reading.

To get around these prejudices, try this thought experiment. Imagine an alternate world identical to ours save one techno-historical change: video games were invented and popularized before books. In this parallel universe, kids have been playing games for centuries -- and then these page-bound texts come along and suddenly they're all the rage. What would the teachers, and the parents, and the cultural authorities have to say about this frenzy of reading? I suspect it would sound something like this:

Reading books chronically understimulates the senses. Unlike the longstanding tradition of gameplaying -- which engages the cihld in a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images and musical soundscapes, navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements -- books are simply a barren string of words on the page. Only a small portion of the brain devoted to processing written language is activated during reading, while games engage the full range of the sensory and motor cortices.
Books are also tragically isolating. While games have for many years engaged the young in complex social relationships with their peers, building and exploring worlds together, books force the child to sequester him or herself in a quiet space, shut off from interaction with other children. These new 'libraries' that have arisen in recent years to facilitate the reading activities are a frightening sight: dozens of children, normally so vivacious and socially interactive, sitting alone in cubicles, reading silently, oblivious to their peers.
Many children enjoy reading books, of course, and no doubt some of the flights of fancy conveyed by reading have their escapist merits. But for a sizable percentage of the population, books are downright discriminatory. The reading craze of recent years cruelly taunts the 10 million Americans who suffer from dyslexia -- a condition that didn't even exist as a condition until printed text came along to stigmatize its sufferers.
But perhaps the most dangerous property of these books is the fact they follow a fixed linear path. You can't control their narratives in any fashion -- you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you. For those of us raised on interactive narratives, the property may seem astonishing. Why would anyone want to embark on an adventure utterly choreographed by another person? But today's generation embarks on such adventures millions of times a day. This risks instilling a general passivity in our children, making them feel as though they're powerless to change their circumstances. Reading is not an active, participatory process; it's a submissive one. The book readers of the younger generation are learning to "follow the plot" instead of learning to lead."


I guess when you focus on only the negative qualities, everything sounds pretty bad for you, doesn't it?

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Well, mister Dragon Mage, that's one hell of a reply! I hope you'll forgive me for not taking an hour to provide you with a decent answer.

All I'm striving for here is to make a compromise, or at the very least a mutual understanding and respect.

Mission succesful. Out of respect for the work you've put in your posts in this topic I'll let my children play Tetris an hour every week. How does that sound?

 

[SapphireStar]

Ive been playing computer games since I was 4. I still played outside and had my friends. But when the days got darker we had to stay indoors. Nowadays its not safe. Id rather have my 7 year old godson and younger cousins inside or in their backgarden with their brothers and sisters instead of playing out in the street. Its not a safe place anymore and children can be so easily abducted.

As long as the child is having a good meal, I dont see the harm in them playing computer games.

 

[Serah]

There is no harm in it, SapphireStar. Some people just to tend to think us parents who let our kids game every now and then or actually do something fun with their free time that involves some thinking and strategy and also helps develop their hand-eye coordination is bad parenting.

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

Dear Mr. Flashcart:

I'm surprised you came back. After a long time with no replies from you, I had assumed that you had done the smart thing and left. However, I see that ignorance has no boundaries, seeing as that you're still defending your fragile little opinion.

I've come to the conclusion that you're the typical idiot that just can't admit that he's wrong, regardless of how many members of the forum are against you, and despite how ridiculous you look. In fact, you're so much of an idiot, I believe that you would go bat shit insane like this guy: http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html

However, I would be wrong. You're so stupid, your child wouldn't ever have the chance because you would be too busy sending your kid outside without asking him what he wanted to do.

Because we all know that letting your child make his own damn mind up is a horrible, even terrible concept. We all should know at this point in time that free thought is downright slanderous!

I doubt you were able to get it, but that was sarcasm, and I love it.

You see, while my child would be allowed to stay inside if he wanted to, you're child would practically be forced to go outside against his will. Just so you can feel better about yourself and claim that you're a great parent. Funny... That latter of that sentence sounds more like abuse more than anything else posted here.

I find it amazing that you can be so damned stupid that you clearly can't grasp that concept.

You see, while you can complain that I wouldn't be a good parent because I'm not keeping an eye on my child, wouldn't you essentially be doing the same thing by keeping your kid outside? In fact, I would say that you make you substantially worse. Outside, the child is set out into a world of disease, child rapists, general pervs, ect. While inside, my child would be subject to... A loving family, and... video games? HOW TERRIBLE! (There's that sarcasm again. Silly sarcasm...)

You'll probably tell me that my son will end up with some sort of anti-social personality disorder. Let's look at the irony of that term, shall we?

I, have been described as someone that is anti-social, and have even been diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder. Yet, here I am, engaged in a stimulating conversation among online friends on the internet. How peculiar... I can't seem to have one of these in real life, not because people are scary, because most people I meet in real life are fucking retarded. (Kind of like you.)

I do apologize for the massive amounts of flames you're getting from me. However, I can't see how one person can have their head stuck so far up their own ass that they can't smell the shit spewing out.

I don't see why I even post this. You'll probably reply, apologizing that you can't be bothered to reply, while looking in the dictionary and thesaurus for words that you can use to make yourself seem intelligent. Kind of like you did with Mr. Dragonmage's reply. You're post was about the equivalent to "tl;dr".

As a stated before, you're posts are as about as useful as a 4 cylinder engine in a tank. It takes a true statement of stupidity to post a thread like this anywhere on a forum dedicated to Final Fantasy. (Which is a video game, if you didn't make that out for yourself earlier.)

Once again, you've taken stupidity to new levels, and made me lose just a little more faith in humanity. I hope you're happy with yourself.

Vindictively yours,
Tsukianei

 

[Dragon Mage]

Well, mister Dragon Mage, that's one hell of a reply! I hope you'll forgive me for not taking an hour to provide you with a decent answer.

I happily direct you to observe the gender symbol next to my username. I am a she.

Actually, I can think of no other way to be simultaneously rude and insulting as to toss out a reply like 'tl;dr'. If I took all that time to write that post, then it would only be polite to make some attempt to reply. Blowing it off entirely displays a blatant lack of courtesy. I am disappointed, for I did not expect this from you. If you didn't want to read long posts, you should not have made a topic sure to garner them.

I've treated you with respect and courtesy, unlike Tsukianei here. And you call this fair payment for such prizes? Thank you, but no -- you may keep it.

Mission succesful. Out of respect for the work you've put in your posts in this topic I'll let my children play Tetris an hour every week. How does that sound?

Nor do I appreciate such petty insults. I've employed every scrap of logic granted to me and used every credible source of data and common sense there is to be had and yet you persist in making use of evasions and clinging to sheer bigotry. I've done all I can and so I wash my hands of you. Reasoning only works both ways, and you clearly have no intention of enriching your mental growth and perception by adapting, even a small amount, to new ideas. You have wasted my time and many others here by your narrow-mindedness.

I feel sorry for the children you will raise, on day. Such young and growing minds should not be subjected to such unbending tyranny of blind self-righteousness and ground under the heel of your own ignorance.

Sincerely,

Dragon Mage

 

[Serah]

Alright you know what? This thread is getting absolutely ridiculous. I think we've all acknowledged that Lord Flasheart thinks of us as bad parents if we let our kids play video games and we've established that most everybody thinks he's ridiculous. I'm going to close this thread now because all it's going is provoking flames and arguments.