Ex-Nintendo Exec Perrin Kaplan: Bad Parents Should be Banned from Having Sex
Ex-Nintendo Exec Perrin Kaplan: Bad Parents Should be Banned from Having Sex
September 1, 2008
We've missed Perrin Kaplan ever since she left Nintendo last year.
But she's back, apparently, and made a bit of a splash at the just-completed PAX by remarking that:
Parents who use video games as a babysitter shouldn't have sex to begin with.
Perrin's comments came during a panel session on sex and violence in games. Her new company, Zebra Partners will ramp up later this year when her non-compete agreement expires with Nintendo.
Via: Spong
Comments
Bloody well said. But now the ars*holes and trailer trash who believe it is their 'human right' to do so will complain that they are being victimised.
I have for a long time held the belief that if you need a license to drive a car, own a gun, or vote republica, you should need one to breed as well. Do you think that would appease the trash?
They bloody well should require one.
How the hell are you going to enforce that anyway?
And therein lies the rub.
This is the worst idea I hear most frequently.
Its not that its a bad idea. Its just an idea that everyone wishes would happen! Everyone knows it never will... but whos to say that dreaming is wrong?
Yeah with nature giving them an urge to reproduce (or at least have sex) why would they think they should be allowed to follow that urge.
I think the implication that she said bad parents should be banned from having sex is bad journalism. I'd rather not see this story on the front page at all rather than have it here with a clearly deceptive title.
PS: I'm not blaming you for that by the way, I suppose what I'm trying to say is don't take another publication's spin on an article and copy it over to your site. I'd rather see the evidence presented truthfully.
How is that a deceptive title? Parents who use video games as a babysitter aren't bad parents?
I think he meant the implication that she wanted to "ban sex" when she never used those words
If we take that notion to its logical conclusion, parents who use a babysitter as a babysitter are bad parents. But the fact is, not everyone has a good enough job that they can either afford a babysitter or have one parent stay home all day, and many less affluent parents are too tired after both parents have worked 8 hours or more putting food on the family table to spend the rest of their day fawning over their offspring like the idle rich can. At a certain point, folks like Perrin Kaplan need to realise that in the real world, folks working from paycheck to paycheck don't have the luxuries that Ms Kaplan enjoys. Not to mention the fact that no study has ever shown that video games are a worse babysitter than the TV that the rest of the developed world uses to babysit its youth.
People - especially game fans - need to stop supporting the anti-game lobbyists and start realising that there is nothing wrong with kids spending their spare time playing games. Kids have been doing it for centuries, and while playing football or soccer may be a more healthy option, video games are no more harmful than the chess club or a Dungeons & Dragons group.
I mean, I thought that GamePolitics.com would be full of game ADVOCATES, not people who see games as a sort of embarrassment that they (shame-facedly) enjoy, but that they want to keep their kids away from.
The elitism and hypocrisy of some of you folks is unbelievable.
I don't know the original context of the quote, but I can guess, and I think you're jumping to conclusions here. Most likely the quote was about people who let their kids play video games without any supervision whatsoever, and yet blame these same games for how fucked up their kid might become due to an improper education which has nothing to do with the games and everything with the parents.
"My child found pornography in this hentai game I bought him!!! It's rated AO but he said he wanted it, so I bought it for him!"
Something like that, perhaps.
Unless of course you mean an education of any kind is a luxury good.
What you've said about the less affluent amongst us supports her remarks though - if you are unable or unwilling to provide adequate attention to your children then perhaps, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, you should not be allowed to have them. Obviously this is a scoche harsh but it applies to all families be they lower class or the bourgeoisie you assume all upper class households belong to.
However I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with letting kids play games in their spare time, unfortunately any sedentary activity that isn't schoolwork is bound to come under fire at some point. Letting games or TV be a babysitter when there are other options available that would involve parents interacting with their kids is tatamount to abandoment - I think that's what really is under attack here and not neccessarily games being played when the child has some free time...
Of course this all loops back around to parents suddenly discovering that they object to something in a product they bought with a bright red warning label telling them what was in it... this way they can at least pretend they care without having to get to know their kids... hence why they shouldn't have them in the first place because they don't want to put the effort in...
Utter bollocks, mate. A human babysitter != a video game. Try again.
Although I do agree with you that parents these days have more time constraints. It just means better time management, but the facts are there - people have to work harder just to enjoy the same QoL as yesteryear.
That "whoosh" was the entire point of her statement going over your head, friend.
Also:
"If we take that notion to its logical conclusion, parents who use a babysitter as a babysitter are bad parents."
...wait, what? That makes no sense.
As Michael Chandra put it:
"Most likely the quote was about people who let their kids play video games without any supervision whatsoever, and yet blame these same games for how fucked up their kid might become due to an improper education which has nothing to do with the games and everything with the parents."
Exactly.
No hypocrisy here. She supports video games, she opposes parents who want to blame video games for all society's ills despite using it as a stand-in when they can't be there and without heeding appropriate content warnings, and we support that standpoint. I'll concede that the way she stated this notion (not the way GP reported it) was perhaps a little provocative.
This is not to say that every parent has to be on call for their children 24/7. That's not realistic. But if you're going to rely on video games to maintain your child's attention when you can't do it yourself, you're damn well responsible for the content you allow them to be exposed to.
She's not saying they should be "banned from sex", I'm pretty sure she was making a play on parents being all outraged over their kids playing games with sex and violence that weren't aimed at their age group and their parents had to have bought for them in the first place.
Nice...
She's right. Having sex, even with precautions, can lead to children. So if you wanna do it, you gotta be prepared for the possibility of kids.
That's a very old fashioned point of view if I may say so. Also taking PROPER precautions would make the chance of pregnancy negligable.
The problem is not sex itself, it is sex without precautions of any sort. If you take sensible precautions you are stating your desire NOT to have children. Preparing for the improbable or impossible that you don't want in the first place strikes me as rather stupid.
And blind faith in contraceptives / birth control techniques is super clever?
At what point does acceptance of scientific research into success rates move from "blind faith" to "acceptable level of implicit trust"? If a contraceptive is generally recognized to be 99.9% effective, and I and my girlfriend decide to trust in it to keep us from getting pregnant, is that "blind faith"?
Well, using your own figures, contraceptives are only effective 99.9% of the time - that means if you have sex (averaged out) twice a week for 5 years it means you could potentially have 5 kids.
The original poster had a good point - it may be an old-fashioned viewpoint, but it is still technically the correct one.
99.9% effective would mean 1/1000 chance of getting pregnant.
Twice a week, 52 weeks in a year, 104 chances to get pregnant.
5 years would be 520 chances. Still barely over a 50/50 split.
How exactly are you figuring 5 kids in 5 years?
Personally, I think 1 kid in five years of sex is pretty conservative.
Edit: I'll also toss out there that using pretty much ANY two methods of contraception in tandem (birth control pills and a vaginal contraceptive filter, for example), drops the chances of pregnancy considerably further.
520 * .01 = 5.2 (rounded down because I'm thinking of the children ;)
Not sure who's approach is better (probably yours), but either way there *is* a chance, however slim. Is it not better to be prepared for a kid (mentally, at least) and not have one, than have one and not be prepared?
I'll accept your edit, but it will never completely reach that magic 100% mark, will it?
99.9% success rate of contraception is .001 chance of getting pregnant, not .01.
And while it will never reach that "magic 100% mark", that's true of a myriad things in the scientific and mathematic worlds. At some point the fraction becomes so low that it's worth accepting as "0".
Ah - maths: my nemesis :)
Logically, no. Practically, yes.
Parents who can't or don't take care of their kids ought to not have sex. These parents that don't understand that violent games aren't for their little seven-year-old are in the same boat. Granted she said it straight out, point blank, and got a bit of a shock, I would expect.. but at least there is one more person that I've heard about that UNDERSTANDS how this stuff works.
---- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians. http://www.goteamretard.com
She's right, it's as simple as that, if they weren't using Video Games as a babysitter, they'd be using the TV etc, it's not the nature of the medium that is the problem, it's the nature of the parent.
I wholeheartedly agree. If you can't be bothered to raise your kids, don't have them.
/b
So, if people can't afford to have one parent stay home all day, perhaps they shouldn't have kids either. At what point do you start advocating the forced sterilization of poor people?
My parents were immigrants from Mexico, so we were low-class when I came to be born.
But even so, my parents always had time for me, and they even saved up to buy my first NES.
I think that people are reffering that most parents that neglect their children MOSTLY ARE low-class, which is truly a bit of a stereotype (just a bit).
But I can see the underlaying theme of this article....,
If you are going to have a child, you must be dedicated to spend time with him/her, or risk view those damn child-kills-inspired-by-the-damned-newest-form-of-popular-media-that-had-little-or-nothing-to-with-it news prompts.
Now if you would excuse me, I am going to go play GTA on my PS3. (Bitchin')
Well said, mate - my parents were not very wealthy, yet I was never neglected and I got all the stuff I needed (although I did need to learn the difference between need and want).
At the end of the day, though, people are just carelessly popping out sprogs that they have no interest in raising, which eventually becomes a global problem - do we do something now, when we have a good chance of phasing in changes, or do we just wait for the overpopulation to pressure us into WW3?
Yeah, gotta go with the she's right about that crowd. People should start to raise their kids. Video games should be a hobby, not a parent.
Fantastic!
What Sigvatr said - except I am blaming the author. The title of this story is terribly misleading.
On the contrary, I'd say this article is a more accurate interpretation of her sentiments than her actual words. I think we've established that allowing children to play video games as a means of occupying some portion of their time/attention is acceptable as long as the parents monitor the content of the games being played.
What isn't okay is just assuming that all games are for kids, that leaving children to their own devices is fine because they're just playing with "toys", and then bitching and moaning when their child does something wrong and blaming it on "those evil games" that THEY allowed into their home and their children's hands. THAT is...being a bad parent.
I agree with her sentiments.
Concur, 100%.
We've often long said that certain people shouldn't breed; that those who are irresposnible parents shouldn't even be having kids in the first place. Of course, we say it privately to ourselves or to our friends when no one else in in earshot, out of fear we'll be called rude or "politically incorrect." But still, it's the truth and it does need to be said. And it's refreshing to finally hear someone in a business position, especially someone from the video game industry, who has the balls to come out and say it and put irresponsible parents - who try to shift the blame from themselves to society and whine to politicians and lawyers from Miami - in their place. Personally, I'm all in favor of involuntary sterilization.
@ Cyberskull
It's my personal belief that sex is for pleasure and that babies just happen to result from it. An unfortunate side-effect if you will. However, if you are well-informed and responsible and use one or more of the birth control devices and procedures available (Which unfortunately most teenager's aren't. Thank you, Bush administration, for cutting Sex Education!) unwanted pregnancy can be avoided. Just don't feed me any of that abstinence bullshit. Sex is a basic human drive, just like eating or sleeping, and it's wrong to try to suppress it. People will have sex whether we like it or not.
It's my personal belief that sex is for pleasure and that babies just happen to result from it. An unfortunate side-effect if you will.
An unfortunate side effect? That it makes babies is half the purpose of sex. You say it yourself, it's a basic human drive - namely the reproductive one.
-Gray17
I think I ought to have taken the word "unfortunate" out in hindsight. I still stand by what I said, however, in that it just so happens to be a reproductive function as well, like you said. The thing is, though, there are people out there who will insist that sex is intended for procreation only and don't believe it can be for recreational purposes as well, and those tend to be the Bible-thumpers and anti-porn crusaders. And I had them in mind as I was writing as a dig at them.
You miss my point. Making babies isn't a "side-effect" of sex. It's half the purpose. Saying that it's a side effect is like saying that getting nourishment is a side effect of eating.
-Gray17
Again, maybe I should make myself more clearer next time. I was just being sardonic. I've noticed that doesn't come across well in text, so I apologize for my failed attempt at sardonic humor.
I got it as intended, black manta ;)
In favor of involuntary sterilization.
So you are against the regulation of entertainment products and you are for the involuntary sterilization of American Citizens? Am I getting that down right? So you basically want to take away a basic human birthright and at the same time protect something is based around entertainment? What?
Now I believe irresponsible parents are to blame for all the flak the game industry receives. But prohibiting people from having children? That is on the level of legalizing slavery or reinstating segregation. Yes, thats how terrible the idea is. Its on that level. You've just sank that low. Great job.
Oh jeez, man, can't you take a joke, or sarcasm, when you hear it? I guess maybe I should have used the "[SARCASM], [/SARCASM]" tags to make it more clear. The truth is, some people really are that stupid and just keep popping out baby after baby. Case in point, while I was in a CVS one time I saw a white trash couple with a brood of about three kids. Both of them were real class acts, let me tell you; either yelling at their kids or ignoring them no matter how much they begged for attention. The wife was a real mouth-breather, too, and at the time I was thinking something along the lines of if she closed both the holes in the top and the bottom, maybe they wouldn't have had to deal with as many kids as they had. Those are the kinds of people where maybe something like that would apply.
Ever hear of the movie Idiocracy? It's based on the theory that stupid people breed faster than smarter ones. A casual glance at society in general seems to bear this out. If that's the case, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to institute some compulsory measures. Ender's Game showed a future society where married couples weren't allowed to have more than two kids (China already has a similar law in effect, I hear).
Anyway, all I'm saying is that it wouldn't be such a bad idea if there was a at least a test or something to see if couples were fit to be parents, just like driving a car. If they fail, then they'll be put on birth control. I'm not saying they couldn't have sex. They'd be free to fuck all they want, they just won't multiply like rabbits, that's all.
I fully agree.
Who issues the test and who decides what a "fit parent" is? Now with that in mind, which line do you think you'll end up being tossed into? The rich and politically powerful breeders, or the sterylized poor people?
-Entertainment isn't the reason the world sucks. It's the reason we know the world sucks. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson
"Who issues the test and who decides what a "fit parent" is? Now with that in mind, which line do you think you'll end up being tossed into? The rich and politically powerful breeders, or the sterylized poor people?"
Well said.
Who deems that we are bad drivers, or that we aren't tall enough for roller coasters, or that someone identified as having a low IQ?
Society, that's what. I would LOVE to not have children. I have taken parenting classes, and have fully prepared my mentality that children are small annoyances, with a very large chance of just wasting space instead of doing something productive, or at least going to college.
But no matter how many people try to think that we are going to "sterilize" the poor, think about this- this so called "test" (for lack of a better term) would be based on intelligence. And yes, that is discriminating against those who don't have an education (or at least common sense). Also think about this- Would it be cruel to prevent the mentally challenged from reproducing? Some say "They have the right" but most don't know it. On the long term, it would benifit the gene pool greatly, considering that some mental retardation disorders are, indeed, genetic.
I'm not agreeing with making everyone stop having kids (that'd be great, but I know society wouldn't allow it), but I am agreeing that we need to take control over our genes and spread the good ones, not the bad. Do as nature intended- survival of the fitest. We, as humans who have gained the ability of consciousness, need to put forth an effort to stop all the bad genes (AKA, behavoral, intelligence, etc) from spreading all over the world.
"Anyway, all I'm saying is that it wouldn't be such a bad idea if there was a at least a test or something to see if couples were fit to be parents, just like driving a car. If they fail, then they'll be put on birth control. I'm not saying they couldn't have sex. They'd be free to fuck all they want, they just won't multiply like rabbits, that's all."
That would be a TERRIBLE idea. Anyone who really thinks it's a good idea hsn't thought this through. First off who defines what a 'fit parent' is eh? It sounds like something that would be impossible to tell from just a couple interviews. Second having children should be a right not a privilege. Don't 'unift' parents have rights too? If they become REAL bad we have child services (which has had cases of abusing power anyway en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Wade). Oh and if we're going to go by your car analogy the best way to learn how to drive a car is to actually drive one. Sometimes you learn as you go. Third people who are determined enough will get a child, whether it be through adoption or finding some way around the birth control (and I would help them find a way around it too if such an insane law was actually passed). Fourth are you REALLY willing to trust the government with the power to decide who gets to have children? The same government that politicizes the justice department? That just leaves the door open for all kinds of governmental abuse.
All in all it's an absolutely terrible idea, and what will we get out of it anyway?
Before you give me the argument of overpopulation there are many ways to help reduce overpopulation that don't involve trampling on people's rights.
In India for example one section of it encourages women to get sterelised after two kids. They don't get punished if they don't but those who do get a bunch of stuff like qualifying for certain loans, and it's worked really well. And if welfare doesn't rub you the right way there are other means too.
Oh and stupidity is not Aids, it does not necessarily transfer to children. I can point out all the numerous cases where kids prove to be smarter than either parent
If my government ever got so powerful that it could decide whether or not I have kids, (even if I didn't have some infectious disease) I would try to overthrow it.
Best. Proposal. EVAR.
Stupidest, Most Draconian Idea Ever
I have to agree. As much as any gamer would enjoy a whole day of playing games, they shouldn't be used to baby sit 5 year old little Johnny. xD
I like it. Create a parenting liscense that you have to earn the right to have kids.
Someone I know from another forum said the same thing.
Hearing it come from a former Nintendo executive makes it all the more awesome.
Shnitzel: "OHHHHHH!!" *muches popcorn*
This... this is... holy crap, I've believed this for the past eight years, and to hear someone just come out and say it renews a great deal of my faith in the human race.
The parents of JT shouldn't of ever f*#!ed in the first place to begin with, this site would have never existed perhaps. You know what ex-exec is wearing her ovaries on the outside, now ain't she?
Jesus Jack Jones Thompson told me to do it!
It makes sense since parents want to find everything and anything to blame for their kids' behaviour, instead of blaming themselves for their shitty parenting.
*blinks* She's got more balls than any male exec I've seen so far.
If you've ever seen neglected foster children (what got them in the foster home, not the condition they are currently in) then you'd know just how right this statement is.
Aren't a lot of foster homes shitholes too?
Does this post make my butt look big?
A good number of them are overcrowded yes, but that's not necesarily the fault of those in charge of the foster homes. A lot of juggling has to be done due to the sheer amount of cases social service workers have to deal with, and just not enough space to put them all. My girlfriends aunt is a foster mother and takes care of four children in addition to the two she had from marriage. They live in good conditions in a good neighborhood and are given everything they need. Good foster homes are out there. :p
it was a stupid comment that just garnered some laughs. i was in the panel myself. what shes trying to tell me she has never used anything like a book? or elmo toy? or spongebob tv show? to keep her kids attention for a few moments while she gets some personal time. bull!@#$.
Exactly! People who are supposedly video game fans should not be arguing against video games. There's nothing wrong with video games as an entertainment medium for kids. It's about time that video game advocates stopped agreeing with the anti-video game arguments and realised that video games are no worse than books or any other entertainment medium.
Again, people are missing the point. This was not an anti-video game statement. She was speaking against parents who blindly assume all games are for children, and so allow their children to play games with age-inappropriate content, and then blame video games for any trouble with their children down the line, when in fact the root of the problem is neglectful parenting.
I hate people who think they know what people should and shouldn't be doing even though they never met them. Reminds me of this one person who said people shouldn't be allowed to get married till their late 20s or something like that because they wouldn't be ready before hand. It's as if you can figure out when ANYONE will be ready based off a stupid formula. What a joke.
Oh and Dennis you should change the title to
"Ex-Nintendo Exec Perrin Kaplan: Bad Parents Should Not be Having Sex." There's a HUGE difference between that and saying you should ban it.
I believe that normal healthy people should not smoke marijuana but I am firmly in favor of legalization.
"It's as if you can figure out when ANYONE will be ready based off a stupid formula."
Actually... you can, but it has much less to do about WHEN they marry and has more to do with HOW they marry. If you take educational classes with your partner that prepare you for marriage (and they are out there, just hard to find sometimes) that teach you how to manage money as a team, conflict resolution, how to compromise, and how to communicate, then you are much less likely to get divorced than those who take no such classes. It's much better to find out before you get married that your partner can't balance a checkbook or do laundry without ruining the wash and trying to correct it than after the fact.
I do, however, agree with your statement overall. We need more good parents having sex. More sex for smart and responsible people! Pop them youngun's out!
But to artificially pull a number out of thin air and say 'this will be the age where everyone is guaranteed to be ready, everyone else, tough luck'.
Or and smart parents don't necessarily mean a smart baby, I can name any number of genetic defects that occur at birth which cannot be controlled by the parents. Oh and of course dumb parents don't always produce dumb children.
But even if we have this thing called 'public education' which can help the slower kids immensely.
"But to artificially pull a number out of thin air and say 'this will be the age where everyone is guaranteed to be ready, everyone else, tough luck'."
I already stated I agreed with you on this point. You ARE correct that it's ridiculous.
"Or and smart parents don't necessarily mean a smart baby, I can name any number of genetic defects that occur at birth which cannot be controlled by the parents. Oh and of course dumb parents don't always produce dumb children"
Yes, but genetics favors creating a child like the parents, but it looks like you already understand that.
Now hang on here - you've got "smart" and "good" mixed up. The point is not that your kid turns out a certain way, but that the parents put sufficient time and effort into raising them.
Nefario, its not so much as not keeping your children occupied with that elmo game for the 360, or with some toy or TV show, that is ok. Just don't do it a whole lot, you need to spend time with your kids so you can raise them to be happy and productive and successful.
Banning sex? Not even the Iranians have done that yet.. I think.
~You Could Be Mine, But You're Way Out Of Line..~
If you replace the word sex with children then I'll agree. I don't the only purpose for sex is to create life. Why couldn't they have sex with the use of condom or birth control?
Important to note that it is not and never will be acceptable to prohibit anyone from having children. Prohibiting the birth of children is a terrible idea that goes against the existence of a free society. You should be able to choose when you have sex and when you want to have sex to procreate. If you want to start issuing licenses for such things then you are just as bad as the people who want the government to regulate the sale of entertainment and art. Infact, I'd call you a bigger enemy of liberty because having children is a basic human birthright. So you don't think that if the government began regulating who gives birth we wouldn't see racism, elitism and even Nazi-like motives arise? This is one idea you've got to put in the dirt immediately upon hearing it. No appologies and no beating around the bush. It is absolutely one of the worst ideas you can possibly express if you wish to live in a free society. Its just asking more problems that will cause violent reactions and punishment of innocent people that are doing what humans are supposed to do. I'm honestly surprised I've heard it here numerous times. Something is wrong with your brain if you think the regulation of games is wrong any the regulation of the right to have children is right. (No, I'm not sorryo for putting it that way. Terrible idea).
Yeah when people propose the idea I think they must be joking or that they only gave the idea a split second's worth of thought. Because I couldn't make sense of the world otherwise.
My brain is completely stunned.
As mine is with YOUR argument.
I do not believe the sex drive is primarily about passing on ones genes. f you do, more power to you, but if an authority were to be created enforcing the lisencing of children then I woud support it. It would solve many of the problems in the world.
Licensing based on what standards? One frequently hears of the slippery slope effect on this site. Do you think it works differently with breeding? What's to keep the people who issue these liscenses from deciding to ban everyone who didn't perfectly fit their image? It would most likely be the religious zealots like JT who would decide who reproduces, so we'd all be fucked.
-Entertainment isn't the reason the world sucks. It's the reason we know the world sucks. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard researchers Larry Kutner&Cheryl Olson
Name me one problem that allowing a corrupt power-hungry government (that would be most of them) to control who gets to have kids would solve. Oh and back it up with something.
I'd sonner implement A modest Proposal then resort to a licensing system for kids, and I mean that wholeheartedly.
For an example of what a corrupt government would do with that kind of God awful power let us turn to the Bible (you don't have to believe the bible is real for this example to work).
In the Bible the egyptian pharaoh considered the Jews dangerous and ordered all babies thrown in a pit and drown.
Now a government has that same authority to declare that all Jews are unfit parents and should thus be banned from having kids. All jews that do have kids will be punished (and God only knows what happens to the kids).
The problem is sustainable growth on a global scale. We are approaching a population saturation point - this will be when people can no longer grow enough food. At that point, people will either starve, or (more likely) attack other people who have food, or something else entirely.
Having kids *is* a birthright, but being honest about your ability to support and raise the child must be a birthresponsibility. At some point we have to be honest and practical about the problems we all (as a human race) have to face.
Interesting, while she may have a point about bad parents, the thing that's more interesting to me is the reaction here.
You have several people calling for the regulation of a person's right to have children. Now if any of you advocating this are pro-choice then you've just outed yourself as a hypocrite. For the past 30 years or so the pro-choice movement has hammered the point that the woman and only the woman has the right to make this kind of choice. Saying then that the government should step in and regulate it is the height of hypocrisy. It also makes me laugh so thank you for that.
I'm going to leave this thread and pretend i never read it.
Don't leave I need your help debating this proposal.
hmmm, I don't think it's possible to regulate it. That would be a violation of basic human rights.
I kind of like the idea but it won't work and i don't want the government making the choice of whether people have kids or not.
I take back my support for the idea of regulating kids, even though it sounds good.
You don't have to have the government regulate it - they could just disincentivise having kids for certain people (those who can't be arsed to learn anything new - especially about parenting, communication, and marriage). Tax cuts, etc.
Eh, I'm not making a statement either way about the "birth license" thing, but I think your analogy is faulty. Abortion is a debate between the rights of the fetus versus the rights of the mother, and the question of "when does life begin?". It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not we believe the mother should be allowed to contribute to the gene pool.
I like what she's saying. Simply put:
One horny dumbass + another horny dumbass (opposite sex) = Two dumbasses and a child with the potential to be a dumbass.
ALL children have the potential to be dumbasses, all children also have the potential to be something great.
But let's see your scientific evidence that intelligence is passed down through genes (or more specifically a lack of intelligence).
damnit, ive been saying it for years. FORCED STERILIZATION for those who fail to meet a certain criteria on an intelligence test. they MUST NOT PROCREATE.
Remember folks. Them wanting to take your videogames = evil; but them using Nazi ideals of procreation is just fine and dandy.
*sarcasm mode off*
I blame 300 and God of war. If it weren't for these idiots getting the idea that selective breeding of humans garners a society that the breeder wants then maybe they wouldn't support such horrbile legislation.
(For those of you who don't get the reference, whenever a Spartan baby was born government officials inspected it, if it was deemed unfit it was left on a hill to die). (Oh and I don't actually blame the movies).
Just ... no. You go away now.