>The problem is about losing yourself to a video game for months on end, even having it take over the other parts of your life when you're not playing it.

I could use a script for this, and a variable. Here, let me try:

>The problem is about losing yourself to a job for months on end, even having it take over the other parts of your life when you're not doing it.

> The problem is about losing yourself to military training for months on end, even having it take over the other parts of your life when you're not doing it.

> The problem is about losing yourself to a scientific research project for months on end, even having it take over the other parts of your life when you're not working on it.

> The problem is about losing yourself to [INSERT MANY OTHER PERFECTLY HEALTHY THINGS] for months on end, even having it take over the other parts of your life when you're not [INSERT ACTIVIVTY VERB] it.

The root of the problem is that you single-mindedly see "video games" as something unhealthy to focus on, without any evidence that it even is unhealthy at all!

Where have you heard that video games are unhealthy? Was there any research done? Did you perform long-term experiments? How large was the sample size? What control groups were there?

In short, YOU KNOW NOTHING, and are doing this based entirely on your general impression that video games taking over one's life is more unhealthy than having something else (like school, or work, or surviving in the jungle, or building a tree house) occupy your thoughts.

> without any evidence that it even is unhealthy at all!

I have plenty of evidence. I just haven't felt particularly compelled to spend my precious time conveying it to admittedly skeptical strangers online.

> Where have you heard that video games are unhealthy? Was there any research done? Did you perform long-term experiments? How large was the sample size? What control groups were there?

Contrary to popular belief, not all wisdom is obtained using the scientific method.

> In short, YOU KNOW NOTHING

I'm not sure why you feel you have the context to make such a bold claim, based on a few comments I posted to an internet forum.

But at least this demonstrates to me that your only goal is to talk and not to listen. In which case, this isn't a balanced discussion, and I'm out.

I could show my priors and show the bayesian inference on them as explanation of why I feel I have the context to make the "bold" claim that someone who is likely to do worse than random is not acting on beneficial information. But then that'd be too scientific, wouldn't it?