President Obama Links Videogames to Unhealthy Kids
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
very true if it wasn't for my job keeping me active I'd be obese, but whatever were living longer than ever so it can't be all bad. Well just be a bunch of fat 70 year olds as opposed to thin dead 60 year olds.
I can't believe America voted this guy in.
He is such an idiot. He is like Jack Thompson only he is half black and a Muslim.
He is such an idiot. He is like Jack Thompson only he is half black and a Muslim.
It's a no brainer that sitting in a chair means you're not going to be as healthy as a more active kid. HOWEVER, it is up to the parents to instill in the kids the knowledge of what can happen, and the consequences. That being said, it is then the child's choice to do what they want. Forcing people to exercise is tyranny.
I am 25 pounds underweight get good grades and video games have been keeping me away from drugs and all that shit. That is a model person except for you know the underweight thing but I don't care and I am considered a hardcore gamer. I see no problem here I still get out bike around 3 miles saturday and sunday all the time and go outside.
As much as I love gaming, he has a great point. Should I have kids, they will get some exercise in. If my kids do something wrong, they'll be doing push ups, running, or whatever other exercise used to 'beat' us in boot camp I can think of. In addition, they'd be allowed a certain amount of gaming, say about two or three hours. If they want something else to do, they can go outside.
True that. True that...thewolfhunter said:
Yeah, everything I was gonna say here has been said by everyone else so...cool.
in other words
"my fellow americans, i r fail lololololol"
he fails to realise that games ARE a good thing for the youth, they improve reaction times, creative thinking, problem solving, etc
all skills that help people in real life situations, so if a small minority of game addicts get fat playing them everyone else is at fault? i dont think so
almost as bad as when he said hes been to 58 states, and had 2 more to visit, as i recall there are 50 or so states?
"my fellow americans, i r fail lololololol"
he fails to realise that games ARE a good thing for the youth, they improve reaction times, creative thinking, problem solving, etc
all skills that help people in real life situations, so if a small minority of game addicts get fat playing them everyone else is at fault? i dont think so
almost as bad as when he said hes been to 58 states, and had 2 more to visit, as i recall there are 50 or so states?
What is interesting is over here in the UK I personally know more overweight people who do not play computer games than I know overweight people who do. I myself am very slim and most of my friends are too, we all play a lot of games. So I'm gonna put it down to diet cause I also know that I and my other trim friends have good diets and non of us are particularly active, maybe a spot of table tennis or swimming sometimes.
NOW WITH EXTRA SCOTCH!SirSchmoopy said:
True though. The outside isn't so create either, what with the sun burn directly leding to skin cancer and so forth. I do get what Obama means, but he fails to understand that the reason they avoid the gym in the first place is thats where the arsehole-bastard jocks are that we're trying to avoid in the first place.
True. I've seen alot of fat people around who, unless they reaaaaaally are bucking a stereotype, certainly aren't videogamers. Greasy food and a lack of exercise is pretty much the cause of it all. Mind you, Scotland and the north of England take the cake with the deep fried Mars bar/Pizza/slab of lard.Kif said:
Isn't it just because kids have so many things to entertain themselves, that they choose the medium which brings the quickest gratification? Nowadays that medium is games. Before, it was television. Before that, it was playing doctor with other kids outside.
Also, we have the parents to blame. If their children are obese, they should be encouraged by their parents to take up a sport, or at least get their sorry ass moving somehow. If they refuse, a good spanking is in order, if they won't burn calories.....
Also, we have the parents to blame. If their children are obese, they should be encouraged by their parents to take up a sport, or at least get their sorry ass moving somehow. If they refuse, a good spanking is in order, if they won't burn calories.....
Lol, you think this is bad, over here in Aussie Kevin Rudd has made speeches both when that woman was arrested for stealing a barmat overseas and then that little incident with The Chaser.Knonsense said:
Well one of the problems with a highly advanced society is that we need to work less. The Romans got fat, lazy, and decadent when they became so highly advanced for their time.
People like to nail Americans for being "obese and lazy" and compare us to poorer countries with leaner, harder working people. But honestly we are like this because of our success to an extent. For example we don't need to run or peddle a bike everywhere because as a society we are able to provide a car for pretty much everyone. What's more you'll find that most of what needs to be done today is pretty sedimentary, so of course that contributes as well, as does the fact that what physical work we do involves the use of tools that makes it comparitively easier. This is what society had been working for from the beginning, we simply got there.
Honestly though the world loves to pick on America, and we love to oblige them by going "your not only right about how bad we are, we're even worse, har-har", yet apparently most first world nations have noticed similar problems. It's just that their internal media/press is differant from ours and they don't spam it out there constantly.
That said I was on various forums making it clear that Obama was anti-video gaming, and a huge supporter of censorship. Right now he doesn't take the "moral" opposition because he has Hillary Clinton in his cabinet for that (and she lead the charge on the "Hot Coffee" thing).
The thing is that with political movements and agendas the people involved are smart enough to launch multiple pronged attacks. In the end what they want is to be able to control the entertainment media, which they can use to snowball into controlling other kinds of media, perhaps even without having to result to catspaws (ie private groups). Video games are simply a big step because they are everywhere, and the industry isn't fighting back as vehemently as movie makers have done in the past.
So basically you've got the "OMG, violence, racism, and SEX, video games are bad bad bad" on one hand, and you've got the whole "Video games are responsible for bad health" claim on the other. Forget the fact that if you read books continuously it would be the same. In the end the point is that when they introduce legislation to regulate video games/the media more tightly people will support it because of the various factors. Sure, one guy might support it for a differant reason than another, but in the final equasion it doesn't matter.
As far as the direct censorship/media control power grab goes, well consider that we elected Democrats to power. In the end what they want is as much power for the Federal Goverment as possible. One of the things they would love to be able to do is control the media/entertainment to control the messages people receive. One step at a time. Honestly though this isn't really malevolent per-se it's simply that at the high end the people in the Democratic party believe it's for our own good, and that we need big-brother goverment (lead by them of course) to safeguard our little pea brains, and little pea lives.
... and honestly in the end the Republicans are just as bad, though they focus on the moral front. Though taken to it's extreme MOST Republicans would prefer to resolve issues on a local/state level. You see so many federal morality crusaders in the Republican party because the way things have been turning out that's the only way to get things done. It's hard to regulate something in a town or state if the Federal Goverment can whip out the punkhammer and say "Noes, you can't do that" which has increasingly become the case on a lot of "civil" type issues.
The thing is though that religious leaders seem unusually insane when they try and take a federal platform. It's all a lot more sane seeming when you see it in a "in my backyard" context, but honestly the battles have progressed where they just can't be fought there, and typically we're talking about national politics anyway (ie state and local issues don't get national media attention the way federal ones do).
>>>----Therumancer--->
People like to nail Americans for being "obese and lazy" and compare us to poorer countries with leaner, harder working people. But honestly we are like this because of our success to an extent. For example we don't need to run or peddle a bike everywhere because as a society we are able to provide a car for pretty much everyone. What's more you'll find that most of what needs to be done today is pretty sedimentary, so of course that contributes as well, as does the fact that what physical work we do involves the use of tools that makes it comparitively easier. This is what society had been working for from the beginning, we simply got there.
Honestly though the world loves to pick on America, and we love to oblige them by going "your not only right about how bad we are, we're even worse, har-har", yet apparently most first world nations have noticed similar problems. It's just that their internal media/press is differant from ours and they don't spam it out there constantly.
That said I was on various forums making it clear that Obama was anti-video gaming, and a huge supporter of censorship. Right now he doesn't take the "moral" opposition because he has Hillary Clinton in his cabinet for that (and she lead the charge on the "Hot Coffee" thing).
The thing is that with political movements and agendas the people involved are smart enough to launch multiple pronged attacks. In the end what they want is to be able to control the entertainment media, which they can use to snowball into controlling other kinds of media, perhaps even without having to result to catspaws (ie private groups). Video games are simply a big step because they are everywhere, and the industry isn't fighting back as vehemently as movie makers have done in the past.
So basically you've got the "OMG, violence, racism, and SEX, video games are bad bad bad" on one hand, and you've got the whole "Video games are responsible for bad health" claim on the other. Forget the fact that if you read books continuously it would be the same. In the end the point is that when they introduce legislation to regulate video games/the media more tightly people will support it because of the various factors. Sure, one guy might support it for a differant reason than another, but in the final equasion it doesn't matter.
As far as the direct censorship/media control power grab goes, well consider that we elected Democrats to power. In the end what they want is as much power for the Federal Goverment as possible. One of the things they would love to be able to do is control the media/entertainment to control the messages people receive. One step at a time. Honestly though this isn't really malevolent per-se it's simply that at the high end the people in the Democratic party believe it's for our own good, and that we need big-brother goverment (lead by them of course) to safeguard our little pea brains, and little pea lives.
... and honestly in the end the Republicans are just as bad, though they focus on the moral front. Though taken to it's extreme MOST Republicans would prefer to resolve issues on a local/state level. You see so many federal morality crusaders in the Republican party because the way things have been turning out that's the only way to get things done. It's hard to regulate something in a town or state if the Federal Goverment can whip out the punkhammer and say "Noes, you can't do that" which has increasingly become the case on a lot of "civil" type issues.
The thing is though that religious leaders seem unusually insane when they try and take a federal platform. It's all a lot more sane seeming when you see it in a "in my backyard" context, but honestly the battles have progressed where they just can't be fought there, and typically we're talking about national politics anyway (ie state and local issues don't get national media attention the way federal ones do).
>>>----Therumancer--->