Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

    I read this article this morning. Once again, I hate the emphasis on "video games" rather than "irresponsible parent".

    A Uniontown, PA woman has lost custody of her six young children after investigators found the kids living in a filthy house littered with "animal waste." Why the deplorable conditions? The mother is "addicted" to online computer games.
    Read the full article over at Kotaku
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

  • #2
    Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

    I'd like to know what game(s) she was supposedly "addicted" to, I doubt it was GTA that was mentioned. A lousy parent is a lousy parent, those children (kids are baby goats) would be no better off if video games didn't even exist.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

      Its never anyones fault these days. Its always the games, or the music. I bet all she has to do is say "I have an addiction and I need help" and all she will get is a slap on the wrist. People like this make me sick.

      "But, I have an addiction."

      News flash lady, the only addiction you have is you are addicted to being stupid. I say put her in jail until they make a new E.T game

      [unit][squadl][command2]

      KnyghtMare ~You could always tell the person holding the gun to your head you would like to play on a different server...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

        Reminds me of the old EQ1/UO days, and the definition and where we got the words "catassing". Basically, back in the EQ1 days, when grinding and timing mobs and raids was the utmost importance because people needed to camp a mob spawn for 1-2 or more hours before it could spawn so they could whack at it and get a drop, people used to basically live by the computer, ignoring pets, jobs (people would just not show up to work) and their own health. The "cat-ass" as because their house would smell like a cat's ass because they would neglect basic things like cleaning the litterbox. There used to be a great article on it years ago on Lum the Mad's MMORPG site.


        Found it:What happens when living an online fantasy life becomes an obsession? Strange things.

        As the old Guide Lum said:
        The answer is simple: YOU'RE ALL CRACK ADDICTS. As the Patron Saint of ORPGs, Raph Koster, put it the other day, "I am troubled by how addictive the experiences we're making are (like, seriously addictive, ruin-your-life addictive)". What we at LumCorp have taken to calling the "My House Smells Like Cat Ass Effect". Reading the EQ forums, I definitely detect the whiff of cat ass. I mean, just to get to level 50 without being twinked or powerlevelled usually takes 2 to 3 months of ingame time. Not of average 2-3 hours a night play mind you. 2 to 3 months SPENT IN THE GODDAM GAME. The "120 days played" referred to above isn't necessarily 4 months of the calendar... although in some truly scary instances, they come close to meeting.

        <04:11:24> *** You are now talking in channel: "TFP - Task Force Proteus"
        <04:16:25> "|TG-XV| Tralic": this channel is so gay
        DICE needs to make a comical boxing glove attached to a spring punch the player in the face 40% of the time they get into a helicopter or jet.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

          I keep thinking we need more mandatory sterilizations.
          Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

          snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

          Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

            This is why i stopped playing MMORPG after about two weeks experience with Asherons Call or what ever that game was called.
            sigpic


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

              Originally posted by Harlequin View Post
              I'd like to know what game(s) she was supposedly "addicted" to, I doubt it was GTA that was mentioned. A lousy parent is a lousy parent, those children (kids are baby goats) would be no better off if video games didn't even exist.
              Lets face it; if you have something about videogames and you want to make it automatically jarring to parents, you put GTA in there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

                Originally posted by PL_OSTRY View Post
                This is why i stopped playing MMORPG after about two weeks experience with Asherons Call or what ever that game was called.
                I play a bit of WoW every now and then. Despite the stereotype I have not gotten addicted. I play about 3-4 hours on the weekend maybe 2-3 on a weekday. I don't play every day. I've never committed murder or even assaulted anyone.

                The claim that video games are the problem is a tired excuse. Whose to say these tragedies and such wouldn't still happen with the absence of video games? Bad parenting is just that bad parenting.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

                  It's just a headline to attract readers, guys. "Mother loses 6 kids over meth addiction" just isn't catchy anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

                    I'm not sure why you guys think that anyone is claiming that video games are at fault and not the mother. Who's claiming that? Can anyone point me to a passage in the article or anything anyone important has said which makes this claim? Reading comprehension! Sounds like you guys are overreacting to some imaginary threat. Maybe there are some groups who want to attack video games. But I'm dubious as to whether they make the claim that nobody's at fault and it's 100% the game's fault. By attacking the absurdity of that claim in response to these groups, you merely weaken your own position by attacking a strawman.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

                      Originally posted by sordavie View Post
                      I'm not sure why you guys think that anyone is claiming that video games are at fault and not the mother. Who's claiming that?
                      "Police said their mother was addicted to online computer games, so she neglected her children and didnít clean the house for years."

                      Maybe you could explain to a lay person such as myself how this isn't someone claiming video games are at fault? I know what a strawman is, I took a philosophy course in college on critical thinking(it didn't take BTW :)), and "strawman " has also appeared in now 97 posts in 58 threads on these boards.

                      My problem is that I would estimate 99% of the population (even those who were taught it in school at some point) doesn't know what an informal fallacy is, nor would they care if you explained it to them.

                      What percent of the population do you think would look at that article, and NOT think video games are being blamed, fallacy or no?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

                        Okay let's take that sentence. The sentence contains the term 'so' in a context indicating that it presents some sort of causal explanation for why the mother neglected her children and didn't clean the house for years. Here are some potential causal relata that we might interpret the sentence expressing an explanation between: (i) the mother; (ii) online computer games; and (iii) the addiction of the mother to online computer games.

                        It's clear that (i) and (ii) are different things. Are (ii) and (iii) different things? Yes. Online computer games are pieces of entertainment software which allow people to interact with others on the internet. Addictions to online computer games are psychological compulsions of a subject to engage in playing online computer games despite harmful consequences to the subject's health, mental state, and social and home life.

                        To me it's fairly clear that the sentence construction is such that the causal explanation expressed is between the addiction to online computer games and the mother neglecting her children and such. If any blame can be inferred from this sentence interpreted that way, it has to be on the addiction, which is a psychological condition of the mother.

                        But maybe it's not clear to you. So let's look at some very similar sentence constructions expressing a causal explanation with a couple of potential interpretations for the causal relata, including some psychological mental states about some object:

                        (A) Sordavie believed it was snowing, so he put on a pair of snowboots before heading out the door.
                        (B) Harlequin was so angry about the article that he kicked and broke his computer.
                        (C) Ashe cares about his kid so he took her for regular doctor's checkups.

                        In (A), does it seem to you that the sentence expresses the claim that (i) Sordavie, (ii) the snow falling, or (iii) Sordavie's believing that snow was falling is what caused Sordavie to put his boots on?
                        Well it's clear that it's not (i). It's very strange to think that any normal person writing this sentence would be trying to express (ii) since that's pretty absurd. Mere snow falling is no immediate cause for anyone's behavior. For instance, whether it's snowing or not, if Sordavie didn't have the belief that snow was falling, he wouldn't have done what he did. So snow's falling isn't a sufficient condition for Sordavie's behavior. A good reason to think it's not what causes Sordavie to do so. So the most natural way to read this sentence, interpreting it charitably to the writer is to read it as (iii). Sordavie's belief is what causes him to put on boots. (Now it may be true that snow falling and Sordavie's looking out the window causes Sordavie to have the belief that snow is falling. But that is not relevant to what this sentence expresses.

                        In (B), we have the same choices. Does the sentence express that Harlequin was the cause of Harlequin kicking the computer and breaking it? Or does it say that the article was the cause of Harlequin kicking the computer and breaking it? Or does it say that Harlequin's anger over the article caused Harlequin to kick the computer and break it? For the same reasons as above, it seems to me the most natural way to read the sentence is as expressing the third option.

                        Same with (C).

                        All of these are analogous to the sentence you quoted. The writer appears to be saying that the addiction of the mother is what caused her to neglect her children and the house. It doesn't say anything explicit about blame or fault. We might try to infer where the author thinks any blame or fault lies. I don't think we should given a single sentence. But if anywhere, it would seem that the addiction is most directly at fault.

                        But Sordavie, in claiming that the addiction is at fault, aren't we claiming that the object of the addiction is what's a fault? No. Addictions arise due to a number of complex factors, including the nature of the object as well as the physiological and psychological nature of the subject and the context and environment in which the subject and object interact. No one of those things is 100% at fault for the addiction.

                        ------------------------------
                        It doesn't matter what percentage of the population, which looked at that article and thought that video games are being blamed when it comes to how you look at that article and interpret it. If a large portion of the population is illiterate or otherwise has a terrible reading comprehension and can't understand what that article expresses, does it follow that you can't understand what it expresses?

                        If 99% of the population is dumb, does it mean you should follow and be dumb too? If 99% of the population doesn't know how to reason well, does it follow that there's no such thing as reasoning well?

                        I don't understand what your point is. So what if 99% of the population is stupid. So much the worse for society or civilization but it doesn't change what the sentence expresses or what good reasoning is or what the truths of the matter are.

                        -----------------------------
                        Strawman fallacies appear often on internet forums because posts are fairly short and people don't put much thought in to them, so people tend to oversimplify their opponent's positions.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

                          It is quite common for actions of individuals to be blamed on video games rather than the individual. This is not a new thing, and keeps repeating itself over and over, and over again. There are even individuals that seem to make their career out of blaming video games for the actions of individuals.

                          "Addiction" just seems to be the new scape goat for lack of personal responsibility. I don't see this article as being any different.

                          Originally posted by Sordavie
                          Strawman fallacies appear often on internet forums because posts are fairly short and people don't put much thought in to them, so people tend to oversimplify their opponent's positions.
                          Yup. Because most Internet forums are made up of average individuals that just want to talk about stuff. They're not trying to compete in an academic setting nor are they trying to write a dissertation to get their doctorate. They're just talking and sharing ideas at a lowly level like the rest of us.....
                          Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

                            I don't understand. To admit one has an addiction and needs help is to admit responsibility. What sort of personal responsibility would you have her admit instead? Do you think she should admit to say something premeditation of each and every act of neglect toward her children and household? It's unlikely that that's the case, given what we know about how behavioral addictions work. Or do you have any particular reason to think that she doesn't have an addiction and is claiming that as a false excuse? Or do you not believe in such things as behavioral addictions?

                            Who cares what some idiots say. There are lots of pundits who say really stupid things. They will continue to say them, no matter how you feel or what you do. That's their right. What's important is to keep your own intellectual integrity intact. When you critique what they say, make sure your criticisms are on point and against an accurate or at least charitable position. Otherwise, it turns out you're not better than they are, because, often, that's their exact failing.

                            [edit]
                            I reread the original article here: http://www.wpxi.com/news/26532102/detail.html Perhaps my English comprehension just sucks but nowhere in the article appears to express blame on video games. What is reported is that the police and the husband believe that the immediate cause of the mother's actions were her addiction to online video games, some details about the father's involvement, the situation in the household, and the current state of the case.
                            Last edited by sordavie; 01-22-2011, 01:00 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Mom Loses her 6 kids over video games

                              Originally posted by sordavie View Post
                              I don't understand. To admit one has an addiction and needs help is to admit responsibility. What sort of personal responsibility would you have her admit instead? Do you think she should admit to say something premeditation of each and every act of neglect toward her children and household? It's unlikely that that's the case, given what we know about how behavioral addictions work. Or do you have any particular reason to think that she doesn't have an addiction and is claiming that as a false excuse? Or do you not believe in such things as behavioral addictions?
                              I think far too many people know that anyone can just say "I'm addicted" to avoid responsibility for their actions. I'm not saying that behavioral addictions don't exist, but these days it seems like adults are pulling the equivalent of a 5 year old saying they don't want to eat their dinner because their "tummy hurts".

                              Originally posted by sordavie
                              Who cares what some idiots say. There are lots of pundits who say really stupid things. They will continue to say them, no matter how you feel or what you do. That's their right. What's important is to keep your own intellectual integrity intact. When you critique what they say, make sure your criticisms are on point and against an accurate or at least charitable position. Otherwise, it turns out you're not better than they are, because, often, that's their exact failing.
                              I agree with what you're saying here, but your previous post left me feeling like we were the "idiots" because we were having a fairly light conversation about this particular article and not analyzing it like a professional psycho-person.
                              Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X