zombiewizardhawk
Potato del Grande
you are making a lot of assumptions here about treatment. i've answered what you've asked before, but i'll do it one more time. video games in general are not the issue. just like alcohol, in general, is not the problem. the problem is the alcoholic. the problem is the drug addict, the problem is the chinese kid in the internet cafe that doesn't come out for a week. it's not about villifying video games or any other hobby/profession/whatever. it's the behavior of the addict. if someone participates in an activity that is harmful to them on a social/emotional/physical level, then i think we should probably take a look at that.
If the individual is the problem then why does it matter if video games get classified on dsm or not and why should video games be on there but everything else not?
i'm guessing i missed it, but i don't quite understand your specifics of "socialist medicine." are you talking actual medication? i'm a proponent for what works. in some cases that's medication. but not all. if you mean socialist in the sense that we as a society help those who are unable to help themselves? then yes. because we have matured as a species past euthanization. if you mean something beyond that, please clarify.
You said people almost never actually get to you for treatment if insurance doesn't pay for it. Do you think insurance should pay for "video game addiction" treatment? Do you think insurance companies will start providing this treatment option without increase rates across the board (aka everyone who doesn't have video game addiction are the ones paying for the addict to be treated)?
are individuals responsible for the own actions? yes of course they are. does making a poor decision preclude someone from receiving help?
Help should be provided and gotten by the individual who screwed up and needs help, which you already said people were and are able to do currently so I don't see why something needs to change.
my question back to you, why SHOULDN'T video games be added to the DSM? i mean, i understand you don't consider it the same thing and that's fine, but what will be the problem if it is added? what is your concern?
i'm genuinely curious as to your thought process on the matter, i don't want to come across as snarky or whatever so my apologies if that's the case.
Honestly I don't know what the DSM actually impacts or if it has literally any impact on anything whatsoever. What happens if 5 years from now people decide that individuals can't play more than 5 hours of video games per week because it is "dangerous"? My first responses in this thread already pointed out the fact that their studies showed "no negative health impacts" and they took that to mean they needed to use "more broad and open science" in their future studies (sounds an awful lot like they really want to find a way to classify video games as harmful). Also pointed out the fact that most people don't generally refer to addicts or addictions in a positive light but hey, maybe "video game addiction" won't be tried to turn into a negative like sex addiction or gambling addiction or drug addiction and those labels get slapped on individuals by others far more often than they do by the individuals who might have those problems.
edit: If it helps, I don't think anything should be classified as "addictive" unless it is physically addictive which means withdrawal and all that other fun stuff.
Last edited:
- 1