China limits teenage Internet gaming [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

xDarkDrifterx

18-07-2007, 06:38 PM

Hopefully this will dip into the Gold Sellers Profits - by causing them to hire more people to fill in the time gaps.

I'm just sick of these useless pointless bashes towards a lifestlye.
/agree

though generally ppl that use it - will debate you till the end of time about it's use . .they don't seem to realize that it's negative . . . period . . . they also use strange forms of the "N" word even though they're white bread middle class kids from some small town in Maine or something. lol

It's used sooo much in this game that it's starting to rub off on me, and I said it the other day to myself during a BG . . . and then thought . . jesus these kids have got ME saying it now!!! . . . I never would use it that way before. Now I have to stop myself - ughhhh . . . :undecided:

dancingstarr

18-07-2007, 06:38 PM

Freedom speaks for its self. :thumbsup:

QFT.

They are my kids. I want the right to tell them when they've had enough computer, even if it does make them think I'm the meany for doing so.

I guess what concerns me about this article is that the US seems to be trending in that direction -- people don't want to be responsible for disciplining their children, setting limits, and generally guiding them down the path to developing into responsible adults. I know there are exceptions to that (I am one of them), but for every one of us there are six or seven who let their kids do whatever they want & provide no guidance or structure whatsoever...and then blame the government for not making a law that would have prevented X bad thing that their child did from happening.

I can almost guarantee there are many people who will read that article and say, "Wow! What a great idea! We should have that here!"

/shudder

Janfader

18-07-2007, 06:55 PM

QFT.

They are my kids. I want the right to tell them when they've had enough computer, even if it does make them think I'm the meany for doing so.

I guess what concerns me about this article is that the US seems to be trending in that direction -- people don't want to be responsible for disciplining their children, setting limits, and generally guiding them down the path to developing into responsible adults. I know there are exceptions to that (I am one of them), but for every one of us there are six or seven who let their kids do whatever they want & provide no guidance or structure whatsoever...and then blame the government for not making a law that would have prevented X bad thing that their child did from happening.

I can almost guarantee there are many people who will read that article and say, "Wow! What a great idea! We should have that here!"

/shudder

Oh for sure, some will agree and some will not. That's our world as we know it! But passng a law... I dunno about that. More serious things going on right now. :idea:

Thargos

18-07-2007, 07:02 PM

Your reference to gay:

Think man. :thumbsup: If you mean Homosexual, then your way off as well. :wave:

Yes, I'm be politicially correct. [Bites down on arm] I'm just sick of these useless pointless bashes towards a lifestlye.

Why do you keep bashing me? I know you know what I meant when I said "that's gay". Are you done on the discord forums too?!?!?! :(

SirBazturd

18-07-2007, 07:02 PM

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8QEL6B81.htm

Heard about this on the radio this morning. My sons and I had a pretty interesting debate about it. My older son actually said it is a good idea, but he's got enough self-motivation to step away from the computer that a law like that wouldn't affect him. His attitude surprised me, though, considering I raised him and all.

GJ on raising a decent kid.

Yes, I'm be politicially correct. [Bites down on arm] I'm just sick of these useless pointless bashes towards a lifestlye.

I agree, it pisses me off when people drop these terms right and left. Guess what, even if you don't think you do, you have homosexual people in your guild.

Janfader

18-07-2007, 07:23 PM

Why do you keep bashing me? I know you know what I meant when I said "that's gay". Are you done on the discord forums too?!?!?! :(

Thargos, you make valid and great points on comments and I thank you for it! :grin: It's someone like you that many appreciate for the time and effort you put into something.

but

I'm not the only one who has flagged a very immature comment/referal. Maybe it was bad timing on part to hit you with it. Many have made harsh remarks in many threads.

I've edited this comment so many times... Your making ME feel bad! lol

You know what were trying to say. :smiley:

Thargos

18-07-2007, 07:27 PM

sorry?

accepted.

I can't edit that post..wtf is up with these forums, I can't even edit all my posts..

JFoobar

18-07-2007, 07:31 PM

I guess what concerns me about this article is that the US seems to be trending in that direction -- people don't want to be responsible for disciplining their children, setting limits, and generally guiding them down the path to developing into responsible adults. I know there are exceptions to that (I am one of them), but for every one of us there are six or seven who let their kids do whatever they want & provide no guidance or structure whatsoever...and then blame the government for not making a law that would have prevented X bad thing that their child did from happening.

What you wrote is correct, but also self-contradictory to an extent. Ineffective (and in many cases bad) parents are a reality. We cannot wish them away. Social changes over the past many decades have made this problem worse, not better, with the increase of single-parent homes and homes where both parents work and the fact that "family" increasingly takes a backseat to both career and materialism.

OTOH, not only can we not wish bad parents away, we cannot legislate them away either. However, given the choice of having nothing to prevent children from spending too much time gaming and having a law that tries to do it, many people will opt for the law.

I consider myself a libertarian (note the lowercase "l"), but even I pause when I read something like this and think that it has some merit. Excessive gaming by children is a huge, huge problem whether some of us choose to admit it or not. More generally, excessive time spent in any electronic activity is very harmful.

One way I rationalize what seems to be a personal contradiction is with the strong personal belief that the only way to logically balance personal liberty and common sense social policy is to not consider children as full citizens who enjoy complete protection of their civil liberties.

Janfader

18-07-2007, 07:32 PM

sorry?

accepted.

I can't edit that post..wtf is up with these forums, I can't even edit all my posts..

I've used up all the editing memory! :wink:

Very mature of you Thargos. It takes a lot for an apology, especially made publically. Hats off to you :thumbsup:

dancingstarr

18-07-2007, 07:54 PM

One way I rationalize what seems to be a personal contradiction is with the strong personal belief that the only way to logically balance personal liberty and common sense social policy is to not consider children as full citizens who enjoy complete protection of their civil liberties.

I agree with you on all points, for the most part. I also am a libertarian. It is tough to find balance between personal liberty and social policy. A major issue I have with the new law in China is that all users have to enter an ID, not just children. So, while the government may be encouraging children to get up and go, they are also monitoring how much time I am playing and what I am playing.

Let's take that idea a step further. Suppose that after a long string of violent crimes committed by people who play WoW more than three hours a day, there is a policy decision that all people playing for that period of time are suspect in all future crimes. Kind of like how the government monitors library records. While it seems a silly idea (and my imagination is running away with me), it could happen.

Sure. I still have choice -- to play and provide details of what I am doing with my free time, or to not play and retain my privacy.

Laws like these, that permit the government to become involved somewhere I believe it ought not be, are a slippery slope. Once you give up a freedom, it is difficult, at best, to get it back. I suppose I would just rather the government not get involved in social policy at all, and leave it to the people to sort things and and deal with the consequences, good or bad. It's all about personal responsibility as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, this monitoring thing might be useful if I ever needed an alibi. :azn:

Janfader

18-07-2007, 08:08 PM

I agree with you on all points, for the most part. I also am a libertarian. It is tough to find balance between personal liberty and social policy. A major issue I have with the new law in China is that all users have to enter an ID, not just children. So, while the government may be encouraging children to get up and go, they are also monitoring how much time I am playing and what I am playing.

Let's take that idea a step further. Suppose that after a long string of violent crimes committed by people who play WoW more than three hours a day, there is a policy decision that all people playing for that period of time are suspect in all future crimes. Kind of like how the government monitors library records. While it seems a silly idea (and my imagination is running away with me), it could happen.

Sure. I still have choice -- to play and provide details of what I am doing with my free time, or to not play and retain my privacy.

Laws like these, that permit the government to become involved somewhere I believe it ought not be, are a slippery slope. Once you give up a freedom, it is difficult, at best, to get it back. I suppose I would just rather the government not get involved in social policy at all, and leave it to the people to sort things and and deal with the consequences, good or bad. It's all about personal responsibility as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, this monitoring thing might be useful if I ever needed an alibi. :azn:

Well said! That was a point I was trying to make, however glad you wrote it out! How much freedom do we really have? Taking more of that away from us every day as it seems, is starting to get a little out of hand. I wonder what the $ figures are backing this up. Only reason for the government to get involved is they must be seeing a nice $ figure.

SirBazturd

18-07-2007, 08:11 PM

If I remember correctly (big "if" there)..

didn't a guy die in China b/c he sat at a terminal for a day and a half at an internet cafe?

Valas Azuviir

18-07-2007, 08:20 PM

sorry?

accepted.

I can't edit that post..wtf is up with these forums, I can't even edit all my posts..

You can only edit your posts up to an hour after making them, unless you become a Pal, think it was silver who get the ability to edit their posts, not quite sure, since I have little dealings with that area.

Having said that, us folks in green take a very very dim view of using the term gay in a pejorative fashion. Please refrain from doing so again, if you won't, then we'll be forced to take sterner measures.

We do have a number of posters/readers who belong to the GLBT community, so using that term in a negative fashion is considered trolling, and see Commandment 1.

:annoyed:

Karkas

19-07-2007, 07:59 AM

If I remember correctly (big "if" there)..

didn't a guy die in China b/c he sat at a terminal for a day and a half at an internet cafe?

Yes, he did and this is one of the reasons the Chinese goverment made these laws (WoW time was already limited in August 2005 by the way).

I think in essence there is not much wrong with a nation trying to protect their youth from potentionally hazardous activities. That is why many countries ban the use of alcohol under a certain age.

The reality is that not all kids (or grownups) are able to judge what is best for them, so we make laws to protect them from themselves. While I agree the goverment should not be involved everywhere I am quite happy to give up the freedom not to wear a seatbelt in my car because my goverment has decided that it is better.

And the only $ I can see here is the economic loss caused by students not studying but playing WoW and the cost of addiction treatment to the society. I can understand why a goverment would like to avoid that.

On a side note: American democracy recently totally banned Internet gambling: is there a big difference?

det

19-07-2007, 11:34 AM

Yeah, what a country! Protect the poor souls from sitting to long in front of a PC, protect the poor souls from looking a bad, ugly undead, protect the poor souls from pr0n on the internet (and hey, come to think of it from getting ideas about democracy in other countries) - but on the other hand, let us look away when you kill your baby because it was born as a girl.

That's also China for you..and not least...who else works for 50 cent an hour making our shiny toys and fancy clothes. Let us not critique them ^^

On a side note: American democracy recently totally banned Internet gambling: is there a big difference?

Probably the Las Vegas etc gambling lobby behind that, losing money. "Protecting" the youth it just a pretense, I bet. To many people gambling from home, not bothering to leave the money in the big gambling cities.

Like the governments wants you to to take only taxed drugs: Alcohol, cigarettes and pharmazeutics. Can't have a nation be high and happy on marihuana and not pay taxes for it, can't we.

Remember..just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after me...

Karkas

19-07-2007, 12:01 PM

While I agree there are a lot of things wrong in China in general this topic is not really about that... Let's stick to the specifice issue.

A lot of goverment paranoia here. Call me naive but I really believe that most goverments actually pass laws now and then to protect their citizens. And aside from the somewhat strange way of executing this law (logging all online time of all internet users) I don't really see an evil conspiracy behind it.

Video game addiction is a real problem, why not try and find a solution? This law will probably be more effective than making WoW a taxed drug and making all the players pay an extra monthly fee.

BTW: I wish I could play WoW 3 hours a day :grin:

Aerath

19-07-2007, 12:34 PM

Probably the Las Vegas etc gambling lobby behind that, losing money. "

No, not quite right. It's the government getting upset because they can't tax it.

Nothing more to it.

dancingstarr

19-07-2007, 01:51 PM

Video game addiction is a real problem, why not try and find a solution?

I don't buy it. Video game addiction is an excuse for lack of self-control/ineffective prioritizing of one's life/lack of parental guidance/*insert random excuse here*. Or, video game addiction is an escape mechanism. Not that I am the foremost authority on the subject. I'm not saying that people don't have addiction issues...I'm just saying that certain members of the psychology community have latched on to one more thing they can bill insurance companies for.

Solution: Step away from the computer. Tell your kids to step away from the computer. 'Nuff said.

I don't like nanny laws. I agree with what others have said about the government passing laws in an attempt to increase its own cash flow (and to businesses who hire lobbyists to protect their cash flow).

Aside from that, say our government passed a law like this. At various times, I have used earning computer time as a reward for my boys. They got to bank it and choose how and when to use it. So if they played a 1/2 hour a night, fine. If they didn't play for a week and then decided to play for 4 hours on the weekend, that was fine too. (I typically limit their computer time to an hour or so a day.) With a law like this in place, the government is encroaching on my right to parent my children as I determine is appropriate. Why should my parenting options be limited because there are people out there who elect not to parent their children effectively? I'm a great mom. A law like that would punish me and my children (and all of the other wonderful, effective parents out there) for what others have screwed up in their own lives. That somehow doesn't seem fair to me.

You can apply that idea to just about every other facet of life the government has its hands in -- drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography, seatbelt/helmet laws, safety labeling, etc. The more government attempts to legislate common sense, the less people will try to use common sense on their own. It makes it all too easy for people to just throw up their hands and say, "I'll let the government take care of it, and sue somebody if they don't." That is a dangerous path that leads to us ending up like China.

I'm not paranoid. Really. I just try to keep the big picture in mind when looking at tiny pieces of legislation that encroach on my civil liberties. It starts small -- with a law like this one -- but before you know it, you find yourself entering your social security number to access the Internet and wondering how you got there.

Janfader

19-07-2007, 02:53 PM

I don't buy it. Video game addiction is an excuse for lack of self-control/ineffective prioritizing of one's life/lack of parental guidance/*insert random excuse here*. Or, video game addiction is an escape mechanism. Not that I am the foremost authority on the subject. I'm not saying that people don't have addiction issues...I'm just saying that certain members of the psychology community have latched on to one more thing they can bill insurance companies for.

Solution: Step away from the computer. Tell your kids to step away from the computer. 'Nuff said.

I don't like nanny laws. I agree with what others have said about the government passing laws in an attempt to increase its own cash flow (and to businesses who hire lobbyists to protect their cash flow).

Aside from that, say our government passed a law like this. At various times, I have used earning computer time as a reward for my boys. They got to bank it and choose how and when to use it. So if they played a 1/2 hour a night, fine. If they didn't play for a week and then decided to play for 4 hours on the weekend, that was fine too. (I typically limit their computer time to an hour or so a day.) With a law like this in place, the government is encroaching on my right to parent my children as I determine is appropriate. Why should my parenting options be limited because there are people out there who elect not to parent their children effectively? I'm a great mom. A law like that would punish me and my children (and all of the other wonderful, effective parents out there) for what others have screwed up in their own lives. That somehow doesn't seem fair to me.

You can apply that idea to just about every other facet of life the government has its hands in -- drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography, seatbelt/helmet laws, safety labeling, etc. The more government attempts to legislate common sense, the less people will try to use common sense on their own. It makes it all too easy for people to just throw up their hands and say, "I'll let the government take care of it, and sue somebody if they don't." That is a dangerous path that leads to us ending up like China.

I'm not paranoid. Really. I just try to keep the big picture in mind when looking at tiny pieces of legislation that encroach on my civil liberties. It starts small -- with a law like this one -- but before you know it, you find yourself entering your social security number to access the Internet and wondering how you got there.

Your point is well worded and very true. I agree with it 100%.

Another point: Lazy parents that don't want to deal with their childern i.e. Tantrums, obnoxious behaviour, and so on, will let them do as they please as it's an easy wash of the hands routine. Less stress for the parent - as the kid is playing ever so quitely on their computer now... Let's face it, the past generation or two I find kids have WAY TOO MUCH freedom as parents have many issues now disciplining their own kids. A reason why the wife and I don't have any - government has made raising kids a very stressfull part of life now.

But anyways... The main issue, is still about freedom here. As mentioned many times in this thread, you can't take away that.

Karkas

19-07-2007, 03:27 PM

Indeed well worded, thank you. However, I don't agree with a few points:

I don't buy it. Video game addiction is an excuse for lack of self-control/ineffective prioritizing of one's life/lack of parental guidance/*insert random excuse here*.

In the same way any non chemical addiction can be classified as lack of self control. Gambling has been proven to be addictive and although I don't have any data on gaming I believe addiction is also possible. Calling any addiction a lack of self control or caused by the parents is a slap in the face of families struggling with it.

I agree with what others have said about the government passing laws in an attempt to increase its own cash flow (and to businesses who hire lobbyists to protect their cash flow).

Besides the point. Yes, I agree with you, however I can't and still do not see the big financial gain for the Chinese goverment here. What is it please?

I'm not paranoid. Really. I just try to keep the big picture in mind when looking at tiny pieces of legislation that encroach on my civil liberties. It starts small -- with a law like this one -- but before you know it, you find yourself entering your social security number to access the Internet and wondering how you got there.

I really believe you are a good parent and can understand why you feel the goverment prying and telling you how to raise you kids must be frustrating. However try to think of children that are not so lucky to have a Mum like you. Kids that are never told to moderate or step away from the computer for a while. Some family situations are so bad for the kid themselves that somebody has to step in and you can't do that without any legal backup. Some laws have to exist to protect kids from themselves if the parents won't/can't do it for some reason.

I know you are a good mum and will not send your kid to an internet cafe for hours (even days) on end. Some parents however don't care about that. I know it happens often in China (yes, I've seen it). Not much can be done about it, no laws are broken. But you will agree that it isn't very good for the kids. Personally I am willing to sacrifice a few of my liberties to make sure other people are protected.

dancingstarr

19-07-2007, 07:30 PM

In the same way any non chemical addiction can be classified as lack of self control. Gambling has been proven to be addictive and although I don't have any data on gaming I believe addiction is also possible. Calling any addiction a lack of self control or caused by the parents is a slap in the face of families struggling with it.

I knew someone was going to spank me for saying that I didn't buy the gaming addiction theory. Thank you for being so nice about it. =) I don't mean to malign those who truly believe they are struggling with an addiction issue. That is a very personal thing and if someone believes they have an addiction, that is what will manifest. Perhaps it is a way of giving up responsibility for what is taking place in their lives to this thing called "addiction" that has taken them over. It is sad and unfortunate. I am sympathetic to a degree, but I really believe that we are responsible for our own actions and the consequences that spring therefrom.

Besides the point. Yes, I agree with you, however I can't and still do not see the big financial gain for the Chinese goverment here. What is it please?

I was referring the types of laws our government might pass. The Chinese political structure is radically different from our own, and I wasn't suggesting that profit to the Chinese government was the motivation for passing this law.

I know you are a good mum and will not send your kid to an internet cafe for hours (even days) on end. Some parents however don't care about that. I know it happens often in China (yes, I've seen it). Not much can be done about it, no laws are broken. But you will agree that it isn't very good for the kids. Personally I am willing to sacrifice a few of my liberties to make sure other people are protected.

I didn't say I was a good mom to prove that point...I was using that to make the point that good parents (as subjective of an idea as that is) should not be stripped of their civil liberties because there are bad parents (yet another subjective idea).

It is tragic that some parents don't feel any particular need to ensure the safety, happiness, and education of their children. Not just ensure it, but make it their highest priority. I feel badly for children who are suffering at the hands of their parents' neglect. Down the road, they are going to be the adults and that is a very scary proposition.

But the bottom line is: I am not their parent. I am not responsible for them. I am responsible for myself and my children, and that is my priority. The idea of sacrificing my rights to rectify a situation I played no part in creating just doesn't sit well with me. And on this point, Karkas, I will concede that we will likely not see eye-to-eye.

Personal responsibility, baby. That's where it's at. :wink:

Gizank

19-07-2007, 08:52 PM

The idea of sacrificing my rights to rectify a situation I played no part in creating just doesn't sit well with me.

More than that, it flat-out enrages me. To make the many suffer--to legislate away civil liberties and personal responsibility--in response to the few who shirk responsibility for whatever position they have gotten themselves into is unconscionable.

Yes, it is a "few" and probably fewer than you realize, when compared to the number of perfectly well-adjusted people who play games. The people who stand out become news, and therefore get attention. Should governments really be basing their legislation on the irresponsible behavior of a statistical monority--especially a tiny one?

The worst thing, IMO, is that it's not even the people with problems who raise these issues, it's the people with nothing better to do than tell other people what's right for them that start leaning on politicians to enact such legislature. Well, it's them and people looking for yet another way to squeeze out a dime, like the Psychology community and insurance companies. (I fully intend to become a therapist, and have nothing against the Psychology community at large.)

I'd rather not get into my feelings about ideas like "game addiction." It won't add to the conversation and will probably offend someone. I will say I think it is a farce.

I understand there are people suffering for the behavior of their loved ones, but that should in no way lead to this sort of legislation. Yes, we have to face the reality that there are bad parents, but do we really have to bail them and their progeny out of the holes they dig? Shouldn't we at least have the choice whether or not to help them, and not have to live in a padded world to protect them from themselves? (Yes, I know, two different points here, and one off-topic.)

Personal responsibility, baby. That's where it's at. :wink:

Amen!

Dragonmaster

21-07-2007, 12:16 AM

No, not quite right. It's the government getting upset because they can't tax it.

Nothing more to it.

Indeed. Pokerstars how do I love thee...

As for what the government should and should not be able to do, a big point that stands out in my mind when I hear "it's okay for a government to make laws to stop people from doing bad things" is who is deciding what is bad? It might be very clear cut in a lot of cases as to whether something is bad for you, but hardly always.

Karkas

21-07-2007, 02:52 PM

The idea of sacrificing my rights to rectify a situation I played no part in creating just doesn't sit well with me. And on this point, Karkas, I will concede that we will likely not see eye-to-eye.

Nope, we won't. However, although I do not agree with you, I understand your point. Thanks for making it clear. I think I made my case also quite clear so shall not post more. That will only turn this thread in a liberal ideas vs socialist ideas debate. (Forgive me for the rather black and white way of putting it :grin:)

/runs and hides from dancingstarr's rolling pin

noonesnose

22-07-2007, 10:05 PM

I am always interested in reading the discussions about China, coz i am a Chinese.I found that u ppl reviewed a very strang China to me, seems like i am living in a country that i have to report to goverment everything i do everyday(not in your post anyway). it is really ridiculous and sometimes made me laugh.

i myself am very interested to find out the answers to what is evil and justice, like the hatred between the alliance and the horde. Do they have to kill each other? For what? Kinda like the question: why the chinese and the americans point their missiles to each other? Does your ways of democracy is the only way that stands for justice or the right?

i am not a communist and i know that those communists are only living in north korea now. China has changed a long way from been a communist country, though be called so.

Well, so much to say that i have to end up here. My email is E-Mail nuked for privacy reasons. Don't put your e-mail address on an open internet forum, unless you happen to like spam. Ask folks to PM you instead, if you want to hold an off the board discussion. Signed, Valas, i'd like to hear from u and exchange opions from your way of view.

ps: if the chinese had taken over the US, taken everything away from you, forcing entering your economy, would u just comply withem OR be a terrorist carrying a bomb and perish together with those hordies? hehe only a evil and justice question.

Gavriel

22-07-2007, 10:31 PM

Does your ways of democracy is the only way that stands for justice or the right?

This is one thing that has stood out for me in all these posts. People are assuming that their world view is one applicable to all cultures and all societies. They are completely disregarding that what is good for a Western European mindset and society might not be as applicable to a different culture or group of people. Too many live in a glorious delusion about what China is really like.

Karkas

23-07-2007, 06:51 AM

Who is saying the USA and China are pointing missiles at each other? This is hardly the case.

I've visited China many times and I totally agree with the view that China is not communist anymore. It is however still a dictatorship and it is undeniable that this brings a few disadvantages with it. Human rights violations, environmental issues and corruption to name a few. In the same way it allows an emerging economy to grow rapidly because the goverment is able to make snap descisions without endless committee discussion. As long as these descisions are generally well thought out in the end the whole nation will be benefitting from that. But now a large number of people don't. Think of the farmers getting their lands disowned for urban development or the millions of people having to move for the Three Gorges Dam. Both with little or no compensation. In the meantime life in the big cities in the east is generally improving rapidly and the influence of this is already noticable in the country site. Did you know China is the only country in the world actually achieving the millenium goals on poverty?

In the same way Democracy has a lot of problems. The fact that charisma is more important for a politician than actual ideals, the need for politicians to make "popular" instead of "right" descisions, very slow descision process and the illusion that a normal person with hardly any knowledge of politics or the state of the nation can make an informed vote.

From my point of view (which is Western) Democracy however seems the least bad form of goverment. I think however at the moment it wouldn't be very benificial to introduce Democracy in China. It seems to be working relatively nicely now and although a lot of improvement is still needed I actually think they are making more progress than another country going through a similar economic growth period, the biggest democracy in the world: India.

teck21

23-07-2007, 07:52 AM

Karkas, good points, something which a lot of people don't understand when it comes to democracy. One size fits all at any point is fallacy, and a dangerous one.

All of the problems you have pointed that face China today (in large part the lawlessness of some of the local governments put in place to ensure the well-being of their people) will not disappear if wholesale 'democratic' changes are made. In fact, they will be worse, with implications that are not bearable to the world.

India is a true democracy, but at what cost as you have pointed out? All democracy has to start at the local level, and it is at the local level where India fails. The poverty and the general lack of education available to most of the rural population simply means that the democratic systems available to them get abused by a powerful minority who have the means to subvert the system for their own benefit. What has democracy meant to them in any concrete terms?

'The fact that charisma is more important for a politician than actual ideals, the need for politicians to make "popular" instead of "right" descisions'

True, I have always found the Amrican system of electing a president somewhat amusing. In the end, voters get to choose candidate A or candidate B. Out of a population of 300 million, and at the end of it voters get to choose one of 2 persons? Of course one trusts the system in place to ensure that ultimately the most desirable candidates are there to be chosen from.

Notwithstanding, anyone who delves a bit deeper into the different political systems available and applied to all countries in the world will understand that all have loopholes that can, and will be exploited by the unscrupulous for their own ends at the expense of the greater good.

They key is that a system must be in place to offer the the oppresed some measure of recourse to address their concerns. And this is where countries with non-democratic political systems fail.

Ultimately though, I don't believe it is possible to impose any real system of democracy on any other society barring some very exceptional circumstances (like Germany after WW2). Democracy is a form of power, and power cannot be gifted to anyone. Perhaps it no longer comes out of the barrel of a gun, but to no society or country can one go, 'here's democracy for you, enjoy!' and expect things to turn out perfectly. All societies have to find their own way.

Almost certainly, no government can retain power without the overt or tacit approval of the ruled. Certainly not for long, and not for a country of China's size. What is important is that the system ensures that the country will survive and endure the change when it comes. Certainly in that area, China has not done too well over the past 2000 years, where any change in the system has brought along untold death and suffering for its people.

Perhaps now's the time for them to break that cycle, but only they can decide it for themselves.

As for them imposing public internet gaming restrictions. taken at face value is not something of a bad thing. All governments are to a certain extent, nanny governments. That's sort of why we have governments in the first place. All set their own boundaries. The people to decide what's acceptable and what's not are the people upon whom the rules are imposed.

And people everywhere, will make themselves heard when the need arises.

Gavriel

23-07-2007, 09:10 AM

Think of the farmers getting their lands disowned for urban development or the millions of people having to move for the Three Gorges Dam. Both with little or no compensation.

The converse being the amount of power being generated and what it will do for the nation as a whole. Yes, the individual suffers, but as a nation they grow stronger and can provide a better future for themselves. The same growing pains that Western society went through oh so many years ago - albeit on a larger scale now.

My impression has been that there is more of a cohesion in terms of family, society and the greater good than we see in the Western democracies - democracies where the rights of the individual often trumps their responsibilities for them. Their focus seems to be in generations, their future and providing a strong nation for those that will follow, while in a gross generalization the majority of Western consumerism is driven towards satisfying our own, selfish and temporary needs.

Wintrow

23-07-2007, 10:29 AM

Most economic knowledgeable ppl agree that Communism, if done well, is the best system. The "if done well"-part however needs:
- no corruption from those in power
- Active coöperation from those not in power

These two demands are contrary to human nature (who CAN only care about their own Monkeysphere (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html)). Which makes Democracy and Capitalism the "least bad" solutions.

Leonavice

23-07-2007, 10:57 AM

It gets worse. Not related to gaming but still.....

BTW, I am a Chinese not living in China but in Singapore.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282234,00.html

A 16-year-old boy who was apparently addicted to the Internet stabbed his mother to death in China after she refused to give him money to go to a cyber café, China's state media reported Thursday.

The boy, identified only by his last name Wang, asked his mother for the money on Tuesday in their apartment in Guangzhou, according to The Beijing News.

When she refused, he grabbed a knife from the kitchen, stabbing and fatally wounding her. Her name wasn't released.

The boy's father, identified as Wang Jianjun, rushed home and was stabbed three times in the head by his son. He was reportedly seriously injured but in stable condition at a local hospital.

Wang, who initially fled the scene, was found early Wednesday by local police. He told them he had been planning to kill his parents for more than a month because they were stopping him from realizing his dreams of becoming a politician or an economist, the paper reported.

"Killing them was the only way to free myself," he said.

Wang recently had become "addicted" to the Internet, according to The Beijing News, spending long hours at local establishments that provided Web access

Janfader

23-07-2007, 04:00 PM

PlayThemAll

23-07-2007, 04:22 PM

Personally I think kids (and a lot of adults) spend way to much time playing computer/console games today. :hide: There are a lot of things in the REAL world worth exploring as well.

I do not think there should be a law against it, Its the parents responsibility to make sure their children are well rounded. Unfortunatly a lot of parents use the computer game as a babysitter and don't even have a clue as to what their kids are doing.

On the flip side I'd rather have kids playing games them just hanging around the mall or causing trouble. Too many kids today don't seem to have any constructive activities to do. (Not the fault of the game's)

I guess I can see both sides of the coin. I guess I've just always been more of an outdoors type of person. Yes, I have spent a LOT of time paying games over my lifetime but I've never passed up a chance to go fishing, hunting, atv'ing, hiking, etc. rather then spend time in front of a computer.