LogFAQs > #957751963

adjl posted...

I "think" you said this:

Of course, to make sense of that, we need to modify the quote a bit to insert the actual subjects/objects and eliminate some of the ambiguity that pronouns suffer without context, so let's do that:

Obviously, I'm taking the liberty of presuming that you're using the misinterpreted version of the "yes response," given that that's what you were replying to, but the bottom line is that you're suggesting that people think 3 hours/week isn't too extreme a limit either because they recognize that they played too much themselves (though there's ample middle ground between "played too much" and 3 hours/week, so that's not much of a justification), or because they already followed such a limit themselves (which you have characterized as "playing responsibly").

Sure, that might not be what you meant, but it is what you said. If it's not what you meant, you should perhaps try to communicate more effectively.

You're pigeonholing and reaching there. The overarching criticism is that asking kids to play responsibly is bad if their parents didn't play responsibly, which is just fucking stupid. As for the amount of time, anything is ultimately arbitrary. Considering all of the other hobbies kids can have, a 3-hour limit on games doesn't seem insane. At a certain point, you're really just splitting hairs.

Also, even if you decided to interpret my post literally, keep in mind that the "yes" was the too extreme option.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.