Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Couple Sells Kids To Fund Online Gaming

A Chinese couple who really like to game are under arrest for selling their kids and converting the money into game currency. From the article: "In 2009, Li Lin and Li Juan welcomed their second child, a baby girl, and came up with the idea to sell her for money to fund their online game obsession. They did so, receiving RMB 3,000 (less than $500), which they spent entirely shortly after. The couple then proceeded to sell their first child and got 10 times as much for him -- RMB 30,000, or about $4600. Upon having their third child -- another boy -- the parents followed in their previous footsteps and also got RMB 30,000 for him." I wonder what the "kid seller" achievement looks like?

151 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Gold? by mfh · · Score: 3, Funny

    What exactly would that be in wow gold?

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Gold? by trum4n · · Score: 2

      How about BitCoins?

    2. Re:Gold? by nege · · Score: 1

      Using IGNMAX as a test, roughly 200g per dollar, and market prices change daily.

    3. Re:Gold? by Adriax · · Score: 1

      So almost enough to but the mats for a piece of firelands crafted armor.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  2. Industrious by MischaNix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Three? That's far more children than your average non-Chinese WoW player could produce. Industrious folks, those.

    1. Re:Industrious by ivandavidoff · · Score: 1

      Puts the lie to the obsessed gamer in mom's basement stereotype, don't it.

    2. Re:Industrious by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I see you haven't heard the Canadian/doggy style joke.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Industrious by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      You have now piqued my interest. If this joke is real, I *must* know it..:)

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    4. Re:Industrious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      : Why do Canadians do it doggy style? A: So they can both watch the hockey game.

    5. Re:Industrious by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Now updated:

        Why do Chinese gamers do it doggy-style? So they can have kids to sell while both playing games.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:Industrious by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      The joke being?

      Unless you give me a good way to watch the game upside down and still enjoy it, I cannot see the problem.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Industrious by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1, Informative

      .... China, last I checked, limited the number children parents can have to at least one or two children (twins) and encouraged more women than boys.

      ....anyone caught with more than two kids will go to jail ...

      I suggest you start looking things up before commenting. There's indeed a restriction, but (a) it's a fine, not jail time, and (b) as with most Asian countries, the preference is for boys, not girls. The "induce an abortion" comment seems to just be a troll.

    8. Re:Industrious by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2

      Enh. Many regions have relaxed the law to two children per couple, and the official penalty for violating the law is a fine and withdrawal of state support for education and medical care. Forced abortions are against the law in China, though it sometimes still goes on in the more rural parts.

    9. Re:Industrious by Samalie · · Score: 2

      Why do Canadians do it doggy style? A: So they can both watch the hockey game

      Unless you give me a good way to watch the game upside down and still enjoy it, I cannot see the problem.

      You've never had sex, let alone doggie style, have you?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    10. Re:Industrious by yt8znu35 · · Score: 1

      : Why do Canadians do it doggy style?

      Because they are both men?

    11. Re:Industrious by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      Why all the hate for doggie style? Anal I can see many peeps having issues, but doggie style? Prudes.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    12. Re:Industrious by war4peace · · Score: 2

      I would advise you to look up the meaning of the word "unless".

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    13. Re:Industrious by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      > Three? That's far more children than your average slashdot poster could produce.

      FTFY

    14. Re:Industrious by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What hate? Quite the opposite!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Industrious by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      If you can pay attention to the hockey game at all, then you're doing it wrong...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    16. Re:Industrious by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This is Canada you're talking about! You may rest assured, there is a hockey match running on some channel. At any given time you could think of. Hell, I'd be surprised if they don't have a hockey channel.

      Ok, it might have to share a time slot with the curling channel. But ain't that "sport" like it was made for cuddling and dozing off?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. what the "kid seller" achievement looks? by immakiku · · Score: 1

    I believe that looks like a jail cell.

    1. Re:what the "kid seller" achievement looks? by MischaNix · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, maybe the forced labor camp they're put into will have gold-farming on the schedule, a la this stuff.

    2. Re:what the "kid seller" achievement looks? by Archwyrm · · Score: 1

      The firing squad is more more likely. More appropriate as well.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
    3. Re:what the "kid seller" achievement looks? by jojoba_oil · · Score: 1

      So let me preface by stating: IANAL! I don't even pretend to be. On top of that, the wikipedia article linked seems only to summarize the laws...

      17. Intentionally commits homicide

      Definitely not that.

      18. Intentionally inflicting injury upon another person AND if he/she causes death to the person or, by resorting to especially cruel means, causes severe injury to the person, reducing the person to utter disability

      Not causing physical harm.

      19. Raping a woman or has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 14 in any of the following circumstances:

      (1) the circumstances being flagrant;

      (2) raping a number of women or girls under the age of 14;

      (3) raping a woman before the public in a public place;

      (4) raping a woman with one or more persons in succession; or

      (5) causing serious injury or death to the victim or any other serious consequences.

      None of these, the parents are not raping their children.

      20. Unlawfully detaining another person or unlawfully deprives the personal freedom of another person by any other means AND if he causes injury, disability or death to the victim by violence.

      21. Unlawfully detaining or confines another person in order to get payment of a debt does the same in (20)

      22. Where a functionary of a State organ commits any of the crimes mentioned in (20).

      The parents aren't detaining their children. The buyer may be though...

      23. Kidnapping another person for the purpose of extorting money or property or kidnaps another person as a hostage AND Whoever kidnaps another person for the purpose of extorting money or property or kidnaps another person as a hostage.

      Parents aren't really kidnapping their own child...

      24. Abducting and trafficking in a woman or child AND if the circumstances are especially serious beyond the following:

      Ok. Here's where it might be tricky. According to the wikipedia article you linked, abducting AND trafficking. Parents are only trafficking their own child.

      (1) being a ringleader of a gang engaged in abducting and trafficking in women and children;

      Systematic conception and sale of children doesn't really seem like a gang; maybe I'm wrong.

      (2) abducting and trafficking in three or more women and/or children;

      Again with the word abducting. Without that, I think they could get pegged on this one...

      (3) raping the woman who is abducted and trafficked in;

      Nope. They don't do any raping as far as the news has reported.

      (4) enticing or forcing the woman who is abducted and trafficked in to engage in prostitution, or selling such woman to any other person who would force her to engage in prostitution;

      Gender specific to female, and again with the word abducted.

      (5) kidnapping a woman or child by means of violence, coercion or anaesthesia for the purpose of selling the victim;

      Parents didn't kidnap their own children

      (6) stealing a baby or an infant for the purpose of selling the victim;

      Again, not stealing...

      (7) causing serious injury or death to the woman or child who is abducted and trafficked in or to her or his relatives or any other serious consequences; or

      Doesn't apply

      (8) selling a woman or a child out of the territory of China.

      This may apply, but no specifics have been given about where the children are, where they were sold to, etc...

      I feel like a broken record, but none of the items in the list seem to fit very well. Sure, you can wish the firing squad on them, but that doesn't bend the law to include them for it. (This assuming that CCP doesn't dictate their execution.) Again, IANAL and I could be wrong. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever learn much more about this case...

    4. Re:what the "kid seller" achievement looks? by jojoba_oil · · Score: 1

      That's part of the fun of saying it :)

  4. Good for the kids by Manfre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The couple clearly should not have any kids. It's good that other, hopefully more capable, people will properly care and provide for them.

    1. Re:Good for the kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who buy other people's kids frequently don't have their best interests in mind.

    2. Re:Good for the kids by ji777 · · Score: 1

      I imagine they actually ended up in the human trafficking market. Not a good outcome at all.

    3. Re:Good for the kids by AikonMGB · · Score: 1

      While that sounds right in principle, do you think the kids are any better off with someone that purchased them with money, as if they were goods to be owned, or services to be rendered (both of which are scary thoughts).

      Aikon-

    4. Re:Good for the kids by darjen · · Score: 1

      If a couple really wants kids but cannot afford to have them, then why not? It's not saying they are goods to be owned. It's saying that someone will pay for the privilege of raising them in a real family instead of people who are addicted to online gaming. Turning it into a black market makes it much more difficult to ensure they would go to a good home. And much easier for less scrupulous dealers to get in. Perhaps if it was legal and regulated, it would be a much easier alternative to adoption for families who really want children.

      Anyway, it was illegal and people still sold them anyway. So I guess it really didn't save those kids, did it?

    5. Re:Good for the kids by v1 · · Score: 2

      People who buy other people's kids frequently don't have their best interests in mind.

      And lets not completely forget the so much less likely "infertility" angle of adoption...

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    6. Re:Good for the kids by vikisonline · · Score: 1

      You must live in a box to know know about the Asian slave/sex slave market. I'd rather not think about it but I would not think of it as some loving family adopting them.

    7. Re:Good for the kids by vikisonline · · Score: 1

      To not know, not know know. Where is my edit button?

    8. Re:Good for the kids by magarity · · Score: 1

      The couple clearly should not have any kids. It's good that other, hopefully more capable, people will properly care and provide for them.

      China is highly patriarchal so the little boys who sold for big bucks will be raised with no idea they were bought elsewhere and treated as well as possible as sons of the new family. The little girl who sold for 1/10 of the boys' prices will end up in a situation like Cosette with the Thenardiers.

    9. Re:Good for the kids by jrroche · · Score: 2

      There's the possibility that some lovely foreign gay couple purchased all three of them because their local adoption agency wouldn't approve them just because they're gay, but gosh darnit, they'll love those kids and give them a wonderful environment and keep all the brothers and sisters together and it'll just be great. There's also the much likelier possibility that they were sold into some kind of slavery, sexual or otherwise, because such a practice is still quite prevalent in various developing countries, China included. I can assure that even if buying children for the purposes of adoption were legal and regulated, a black market for human trafficking would still exist.

    10. Re:Good for the kids by Manfre · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but children are property until they reach a "legal age". If a 13 year old runs away from home, they will be brought back to the parents (property owners) the same as a dog, car or other item that can be identified as belonging to parents. Children also cannot enter in to binding contracts without parent consent.

      Many caring people adopt (a.k.a. purchase) children from other countries, which would certainly lead to a better life for the purchased child. The story doesn't mention if the sellers had any sort of selection criteria or if they just passed them off to other human traffickers.

      Which is worse?
      1. Child is sold and lives a life of being exploited (sweatshop labor, sexually abused, etc.)
      2. Child dies from neglect because parents were too busy playing video games? Wouldn't be the first time.
          http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news200605wowbaby
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/05/korean-girl-starved-online-game

    11. Re:Good for the kids by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      It isn't just difficult to ensure they go to a good home, it makes it insanely improbable. There are legitimate adoption routes, one who doesn't go through them is most likely one who has reason to not go through them. Especially since if I recall at least one of them was a girl (In general in china if I recall daughters are not wanted, and if someone is spending money to have one it is likely an investment that they expect her to have worked and paid the cost of her purchase by the age of 13)

    12. Re:Good for the kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or a catholic priest ;).

    13. Re:Good for the kids by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Or just eaten.
      There is actually a market for this in China.

    14. Re:Good for the kids by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      People who buy other people's kids frequently don't have their best interests in mind.

      You would then prefer the kids stay with their parents who don't have their best interests in mind either?

    15. Re:Good for the kids by he-sk · · Score: 1

      Yes, human traffickers are known to care about their "product."

      There is no guarantee at all that the children ended up in a loving family. It is much more likely that they are being exploited (or even dead).

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    16. Re:Good for the kids by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Informative

      In most developed countries if a child runs away from home and shows signs of abuse or neglect, not only will they not be sent back home immediately, but the family will be investigated: possibly losing all their kids and/or going to jail. A friend of mine laid down to take a nap with her 1 and 3 year olds. She was awakened around 35 minutes later by a knock on the door. It was the police, with her 3 year old. He'd apparently decided that he wasn't sleepy, and wanted to walk to gramma's house. He'd created a stool from some books to reach the front doorknob and had walked about three blocks before a neighbor saw him and called the cops.

      Since the kids was obviously cared for and not abused, the cops brought him home; but child services was by the next day to talk about it and continued to check in for a few months. This was for an obviously well dressed, well fed, kid with no bruises or signs of abuse, who had clearly "escaped" at nap time. You can bet things wouldn't have been nearly as polite if there were any signs of abuse or neglect. Now I thought child services was being ridiculously over cautious, but then again I know my friends and I know they take care of their kids. From an outsider's perspective I suppose they were just being prudent.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    17. Re:Good for the kids by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      It's always a good idea to check Snopes.com before making any potentially racist statements, pal...

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    18. Re:Good for the kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      My wife can't have kids. We are in the process of adoption. Going thru the standard channels (that what we do), adoption in china is about 17.000-23.000$ where we live. The relatively big part of that is for the 1 month travel there where you receive some courses on the chinese culture and some endoctrination, the second big part is to put some grease in the channel else your dossier will be stuck, and then all the little costs to do documents translations, organisation costs and so on....

      500$ with all the paper in due form, I take it now !

    19. Re:Good for the kids by loufoque · · Score: 1

      It's illegal, so of course this happening as described in your link is fake.
      But there is really a black market for this.

    20. Re:Good for the kids by HappyEngineer · · Score: 2

      Define "frequently". It's my understanding that adoption is incredibly expensive and actually adopting a newborn baby is very difficult to do. People who don't have $30k to burn may well turn to this avenue with nothing but good intentions. I would be astounded if more than a tiny percentage of baby buyers were intending anything other than raising a child that they couldn't have themselves.

    21. Re:Good for the kids by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Cite a credible source then.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    22. Re:Good for the kids by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Sure, do you want my contact info to get into the firearms black market as well?

    23. Re:Good for the kids by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      If you were buying children on ebay, I don't think that infertility is likely to be the reason.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    24. Re:Good for the kids by kokojie · · Score: 1

      formal channel cost 50X more money

    25. Re:Good for the kids by tepples · · Score: 1

      If God doesn't mind, why should you?

      Paul wrote in Romans 13 (NIV; NKJV; NWT) that people should "be subject to the governing authorities". This follows from Jesus's command to "pay Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21).

    26. Re:Good for the kids by Plekto · · Score: 1

      Well, the good part about this is that they don't have any kids any more. Let's hope they went to responsible people instead.

    27. Re:Good for the kids by boyfaceddog · · Score: 1

      Wow. You really believe that, don't you? You honestly think people who buy children want to take the kids to Disneyland and buy them a pink pony. Could you send me $2000 so I can buy a child of my own? Honestly, I'm not lying.

      --
      Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
    28. Re:Good for the kids by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      +1 one on the reference. Six of us understood.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    29. Re:Good for the kids by anagama · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you can just point us to a seller of Saddam Husein's WMDs.

      As a side note, a lack of evidence for something is usually not considered evidence for it, unless you're a neo-con looking for secret soviet weapons (those pesky Soviets were so good at hiding them, lack of evidence was used as proof of existence -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B ).

      Anyway, you could have a good career in politics if you so choose.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    30. Re:Good for the kids by v1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've regretted the decision my entire life.

      By making that decision, you probably gave your daughter a much better start in life than she would have had otherwise. She may not recognize that just yet, but she probably will, given time.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    31. Re:Good for the kids by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      If someone buys a gun anonymously...

      You say this as if it is difficult to do, or illegal...at least in the US?

      It is simple, just buy a gun from cash from a private individual, no record of the transaction at all.

      I've bought most of my pistols in this manner...from friends, relatives or strangers at gun shows. No state has had a record of the transaction, no waiting times...no registration.

      This may vary from state to state, but is perfectly legal in the states I've lived in.

      Now..if you file off the serial numbers and get caught, I think you're in trouble in most all states, but just to buy anonymously, is not illegal in many states, and nothing suspicious about it.

      The govt. has no need to know what arms I own.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:Good for the kids by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      You say this as if it is difficult to do, or illegal...at least in the US? It is simple, just buy a gun from cash from a private individual, no record of the transaction at all.

      In California, private gun sales are illegal, period. A private individual may transfer a firearm to another private individual only through a federally-licensed intermediary, who will hold the gun for the state mandated 10-day waiting period. If it's a handgun, the buyer also has to pass a handgun safety test. All handguns are registered by the state. If you move to California, you have 60 days to report your handgun ownership to the Department of Justice.

      The govt. has no need to know what arms I own.

      No, you apparently have no need for the government to know what arms you own, but the State of California feels otherwise. I guess that means you wouldn't want to live here, but bear in mind, more people live in California than in any other state in the union.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    33. Re:Good for the kids by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Story is probably not true. China Daily runs stories that are obviously not true but carry some important moral just about every single day - http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?gid=2&tid=684280 discusses one classic.

      That said, it's believable:
      1) Foreign adoption for money, with foreign adopters not realizing it's illegal, just think they're paying adoption fees and/or standard kickbacks.
      2) Buying a kid or even a wife is accepted in large parts of China, which let's face it is pretty fucking backwards despite a few Potemkin city centers. 300 million Chinese people live in caves.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    34. Re:Good for the kids by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Look again at the snopes article, and you'll see that it doesn't only refer to one particular hoax. The authors point out that baby-eating is historically one of the most common cultural smears. It is one of the best ways to demonise "the other". Given your French username and your command of English, I'm guessing you're not Chinese. So I'm guessing you're being racist.

      I would also point out that the conservative white press love stories like this -- I remember the fuss made by certain papers when it was claimed that immigrants were killing swans for food -- so if there was any truth in the rumours, the Daily Mail would run a story on it. But they haven't, so I seriously doubt it's anything more than bigoted hearsay.

      HAL.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    35. Re:Good for the kids by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

      Apparently you've never met my friends' kids. He didn't want to "get the Hell out of there" he wanted to visit gramma (of course, gramma living a 3 hour car ride away was a small problem in his clever plan). What could possibly make you think that well taken care of children don't "escape"? Independent and curious kids wander off all the time, they aren't "running away" they're looking for something interesting or wanting to go somewhere that they like to go. It's one of the hardest parts of being the parent of a toddler. My friend of course thought she was "safe" becasue he couldn't reach the doorknob. Full credits for cleverness on the kid's part, if not on his ability to visualize distance.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    36. Re:Good for the kids by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      No, you apparently have no need for the government to know what arms you own, but the State of California feels otherwise. I guess that means you wouldn't want to live here, but bear in mind, more people live in California than in any other state in the union.

      Nope...while I like to visit CA...I do NOT want to live there. They have WAY too stringent laws on what you can and cannot do to your car as far as mods go...apparently too strict gun laws, and not to mention the state is going broke.

      But that's the great thing about being a citizen of your state first and a citizen of the US second...keeps the states independent, and you have the ability to choose which state has laws more in tune with your beliefs and lifestyle.

      CA is a beautiful place...and great people out there, but the laws, taxation and such don't entice me to want to live there nor try to set up a business there.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  5. But which game(s) does she play? by DataDiddler · · Score: 1

    How can we judge whether or not this was a good decision without the requisite information?

    --
    Working...
  6. Who did they sell to? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

    With a billion people in China, and rampant starvation, who the heck would pay that much (relatively) for a child?! Did they sell to a foreign couple or what?

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    1. Re:Who did they sell to? by digitig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, organised crime rings use them for begging. It's not unknown for them to kidnap children and starve them to death (because people tend to be more generous if the child is in a desperate state). Presumably if they paid for these kids there would be more incentive to keep them alive, but I'm undecided about whether that would be better.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:Who did they sell to? by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Rampant starvation? Are you crazy? We're talking about China, not Somalia.

    3. Re:Who did they sell to? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      angelina jolie, or madonna!?!

    4. Re:Who did they sell to? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      With a billion people in China, and rampant starvation, who the heck would pay that much (relatively) for a child?! Did they sell to a foreign couple or what?

      A lot of people from China would pay, actually. Adoptions from China are slowly grinding to a halt now more and more people in China are adopting children themselves. Infertility is no longer considered a curse or punishment, but a curable condition. And if not cured, at least abated.

      The girl could ofcourse be sold into an unpleasant situation (household slave and future sex slave, for one), but a healthy baby girl will be adopted in the cities quite easily and fetches more money there, so the best outcome is actually also the most likely scenario.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    5. Re:Who did they sell to? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Kids sell for a lot on China. In fact there's a huge kidnapping industry in China for children. Child snatching happens a lot outside of the major cities. Especially for boys, sometimes girls. What for? Well I have no idea, people I know there, have no idea. People think it's everything from slave mills to produce goods, to grow them up and harvest their organs, to selling them to americans, europeans and russians.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  7. not neccessarily a "gaming" story by rjejr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People have been selling their kids since, well, people have been having kids. I'll admit this is the first time I've heard of it strictly for gaming purposes, but they didn't trade in their kids for games - they sold them for money - only what they did with the money is different.

    1. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the only reasonable comment I have read on this story. People should study anthropology to understand this issue. Essentially cultures that place very little value on the act of sex will typically place very little value on the results of the low value act. Cultures that place a very high cultural value on the act of sex will place a high value on the results. Asking people to place a low value on an act and a high value on the results of the act creates a contradictory cultural value system which will typically result in social conflict and contradictory activity. Duh.

    2. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by digitig · · Score: 1

      Except that China places a pretty high cultural value on the act of sex.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Please explain the US attitude towards sex and all things sexually and the overbearing "think of the children" policies.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Please explain the US attitude towards sex and all things sexually and the overbearing "think of the children" policies.

      It gets more complicated here.. In the US, there are two general views on the issue:
      1.) Low value on sex, low value on fetus, high value on children (generally liberals)
      2.) High value on sex, high value on fetus, low value on children (generally conservatives)

    5. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by bugs2squash · · Score: 2
      I'm a proud liberal, I support abortion rights; but I was horrified to hear that around a fifth of all pregnancies end in abortion (I should thank a right wing zealot for pointing that out by the way). No-one supports that. I don't happen to support criminalizing women for having abortions, but it does not mean that I consider fetuses to be "low value". I just wish we could concentrate on reducing the abortion rate rather than debating how harshly pregnant women "of the wrong sort" should be treated.

      Quite frankly I've heard nothing constructive from either side of the abortion debate, they just want to drive the wedge deeper to fire up their respective bases. It seems to me at times that politicians on both sides would most profit if the abortion rate went up.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    6. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's quite fair to paint either liberals or conservatives like that (I'm a conservative myself, btw). Most people I know, liberals and conservatives alike, place an extremely high value on both the fetus and child, especially their own. I'd go so far as to argue this is the natural human instinct - to protect and nurture one's progeny. Like any generalization, of course you'll find varying degrees and plenty of outright exceptions and contradictions.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    7. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      We could educate kids about safe sex and provide birth control as a basic service.. But given the current political climate, that will never happen. Conservatives are in power (don't kid yourself, Democrats are mostly conservatives too -- they're just not frothing at the mouth), and given the high value of fetuses, they want as many of them as possible. If they grow up poor and uneducated, all the better, as that makes the rich even richer in comparison.

    8. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by jez9999 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I'm a proud liberal, I support abortion rights; but I was horrified to hear that around a fifth of all pregnancies end in abortion [wikimedia.org] (I should thank a right wing zealot for pointing that out by the way). No-one supports that. I don't happen to support criminalizing women for having abortions, but it does not mean that I consider fetuses to be "low value".

      Honestly, why not? Assuming we're talking about early fetuses, they have - by all intents and purposes - as much sentience as the cells that form my gums. It's an utterly irrational religious tradition that places more value of fetus cells because of their 'potential'. But any set of particles has the 'potential' to become a human being if arranged in exactly the right way. It's ludicrous to place a higher value on them unless they actually have been.

    9. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's quite fair to paint either liberals or conservatives like that (I'm a conservative myself, btw). Most people I know, liberals and conservatives alike, place an extremely high value on both the fetus and child, especially their own. I'd go so far as to argue this is the natural human instinct - to protect and nurture one's progeny. Like any generalization, of course you'll find varying degrees and plenty of outright exceptions and contradictions.

      Warning: generalizations ahead

      Conservatives feel inclined to get involved in the reproductive rights of others. Most are against abortion under any circumstance, and a good deal of Catholics are against birth control. The natural conseqence of them getting their way is that the people most likely to abort pregnancies (women at or near poverty) are forced to have children they can't afford. Now, this might be alright, if and only if those children are cared for adequately. Unfortunately, the same people who want to force these women to have these children also claim that these children are leaches on society and that we shouldn't pay for their education, food, shelter, or anything else that will increase the chances of them becoming productive members of society.

      The typical response is "well why don't they just give them up for adoption?". Well, imagine how cruel it would be to force a woman to carry a fetus for 9 months, only to give it away after birth. Of course, it's hard to understand how cruel that truly is unless you're already a parent.

    10. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      An Australian once summed it up perfectly: "Thank God we got the criminals and not the puritans".

    11. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Conservatives feel inclined to get involved in the human rights of others' children.

      There, FTFY

    12. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      High value on sex [...] (generally conservatives)

      (insert David Vitter joke here)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    13. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Conservatives feel inclined to get involved in the human rights of others' children.

      There, FTFY

      But once they're born, who cares if they get adequate health care or even learn to read, right? Tell you what, when you make the commitment to provide for every poverty-stricken child from cradle to grave, THEN you can get on your high horse about what a woman can do with her uterus.

    14. Re:not neccessarily a "gaming" story by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And I question their motivations on more than one level. If you think of the children all the time, I'd seriously consider calling you a pedo.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. It must be true!! by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No link to original source? And original source is supposedly Chinese state-run media??

    Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

    1. Re:It must be true!! by Panoptes · · Score: 1

      I smell a rat. How does this story square with China's 'one child' law? Looks like an urban myth to me.

    2. Re:It must be true!! by Dyinobal · · Score: 2

      ya this story has been making it's rounds for about a week on the internet and I can't find any real world source for it. It's like the story appeared out of no where and then just proliferated itself.

    3. Re:It must be true!! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Aye, this is setting off my bullshit detector.

      So they had three children in China, and sold them all without the government sticking their nose into their business?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:It must be true!! by space_jake · · Score: 1

      Probably home birth. AFK water breaking.

    5. Re:It must be true!! by Loether · · Score: 2

      The one child rule doesn't apply to all Chinese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

      --
      TODO create witty sig.
    6. Re:It must be true!! by Jeng · · Score: 1

      That rule applies to urban centers, in the article it said they would travel 30km to the internet cafe so I imagine this totally fictitious couple would be in rural China and therefore not restrained by that law.

      Yea, this looks like an urban myth to me also, right up there with the guy who died after playing for 72 hours straight.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    7. Re:It must be true!! by royallthefourth · · Score: 2

      ABC news also reports video surfaced of President Obama engaging in anal intercourse with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

      Don't tease like that and then fail to link!

    8. Re:It must be true!! by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      Water breaking is not the same as home birth. Are you 15? Talk to a girl sometime.

      Water will break at the start of labor, but does not imply that the labor will necessarily complete in the home.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    9. Re:It must be true!! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Did it threaten the rule of the great party? No? Then why bother sticking the nose into it?

      Totalitarian regimes are much more concerned with their own well being than with that of their subjects.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:It must be true!! by cskrat · · Score: 1

      It will if the mother does not leave the home after said water breaks.

      --
      My God! It's full of eval()'s.
    11. Re:It must be true!! by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      ya this story has been making it's rounds for about a week on the internet and I can't find any real world source for it. It's like the story appeared out of no where and then just proliferated itself.

      But, did it sell its offspring to further its gaming habit? If not, it's not really living up to the hype is it?

    12. Re:It must be true!! by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      The nose is stuck, it would seem. If the government hadn't gotten involved they would likely be still playing WoW, and not in jail for selling their kids.

    13. Re:It must be true!! by hackingbear · · Score: 2

      The one-child policy is simply ineffective except to people having government or state-own company jobs. If you are one of those, like a relative of mine, you will lose your government jobs. (Note: that's a good thing -- the public employees should be the first to obey rules they set -- a rare case in China.) Otherwise, private employers don't care. If you violate the rule, you need to pay a fine; but if you are rich, you don't care that fine; if you are poor, nothing can be extracted from you. Most friends of mine in China have more than one children.

    14. Re:It must be true!! by jojoba_oil · · Score: 1

      Right. There are exceptions for people who have a mentally handicapped child, or where both parents are from an ethnic minority, or where both parents are from single-child families. But I have never heard of an exception allowing 3 or more children that are not born together.

      In other words, the only way to legally have 3 Chinese children is to have triplets (or twins if a second child has been allowed).

      Clearly, the couple in this story did not have twins or triplets, and that begs the question of how they managed to avoid stiff punishments for their 2nd/3rd children.

    15. Re:It must be true!! by space_jake · · Score: 1

      Ding ding ding, winner!

    16. Re:It must be true!! by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      No link to original source?

              it must be false!!

      And original source is supposedly Chinese state-run media??

              It must be even falser!!!11!1!!

    17. Re:It must be true!! by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      That was the first thing I thought. Sounds like anti gaming addiction state propaganda to me.

  9. Achievement! by bradorsomething · · Score: 5, Funny

    You have earned the Achievement: "Know When to Hold 'Em, Know When to Gold 'Em!"

  10. Was it worth the cost? by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    Even just birthing a child costs money (hospital bill, excess food bill for the mother, etc.), I don't know the exact figures though, was it really worth it?

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Unlike selling your kidney for an iPad 2 by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    they didn't seem to regret their transaction(s) because they sold three kids (and not all at once). They seem to have gotten better at it as they went along, getting higher and higher prices. (Or maybe the later ones were just cuter/harder working).

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/229318/kid_sells_kidney_for_ipad_2_regrets_transaction.html

    1. Re:Unlike selling your kidney for an iPad 2 by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      The second two children sold were male, and worth more in that society than the young girl.

    2. Re:Unlike selling your kidney for an iPad 2 by jrroche · · Score: 1

      The first was a girl and the second two were boys. They didn't get better at it, the Chinese just don't put a very high value on females children.

  13. Meanwhile... by tunabomber · · Score: 1

    ...a gold farm is shopping for more child slave labor to produce more virtual crap to sell to negligent parents.

    --

    pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
  14. Not Just in China by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that this does not just happen in China. I can think offhand of human trafficking rings in the United States (Times Square, San Diego, LA, Ohio, Florida, the DC-Maryland Corridor, New Jersey, and many other places), Europe (Germany, Britain, Italy, Albania, Moldova, to name a few), Asia (Russia, China, Korea, Tawain) and more.

    In the United States, for example, several hundred thousand teens are at high risk of being trafficked each year.

    See River of Innocents for a good primer on the subject.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Not Just in China by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I can think offhand of human trafficking rings in the United States (Times Square...

      If you're talking about Times Square in New York City, have you ever actually been to New York? About the only things they're "trafficking" in Times Square these days are Coca-Cola, Bvlgari watches, tickets to Broadway shows, and cheeseburgers at the Hard Rock Cafe.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Not Just in China by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      I can think offhand of human trafficking rings in the United States (Times Square...

      If you're talking about Times Square in New York City, have you ever actually been to New York? About the only things they're "trafficking" in Times Square these days are Coca-Cola, Bvlgari watches, tickets to Broadway shows, and cheeseburgers at the Hard Rock Cafe.

      I have, actually.

      Victor Malarek documents an attempt by law enforcement to crack down on a trafficking ring operating in Times Square. Look him up.

      Just because something isn't obvious to you when you walk through a place doesn't mean that it's not happening.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    3. Re:Not Just in China by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Victor Malarek documents an attempt by law enforcement to crack down on a trafficking ring operating in Times Square. Look him up.

      Just because something isn't obvious to you when you walk through a place doesn't mean that it's not happening.

      And just because an activist claims he's a journalist doesn't mean he's credible.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:Not Just in China by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Dude, look up the Polaris Project. Look up the State Department's Anti-Trafficking Reports. Talk to people working in the field.

      Your skepticism is misplaced--but don't take my word for it. Read the stories. Make an informed judgment. In this case, he was describing an operation that, IIRC, he was personally observing. I did not mention less clear chains of authority to other egregious New York Examples (e.g. there were at least rumors among trafficked women in NY of a house in Brooklyn that the cops were running. One is quoted in a CATW report, but I didn't cite it because it was only a rumor.)

      Good Journalists are, in a sense, also activists. That word isn't pejorative, because there are good activists and bad activists. A good journalist is an activist because they care about documenting abuses. They care about what they're reporting on. If you don't think he's credible, look at his books and check out his research.

      The entire nature of human trafficking, and almost every story you read and every piece of research you do seems unbelievable at first, because it doesn't seem like we live in the same world. But it's real and terrible, and it's far more common than most people realize.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  15. Sell each other by velvetk · · Score: 1

    Eventually, the husband will sell the wife or vice versa.

    1. Re:Sell each other by kakyoin01 · · Score: 1

      Eventually, the husband will sell the wife or vice versa.

      Or they could, I don't know, sell themselves. That seems much more prominent than selling each other, in this day and age.

      --
      The more you know, the more you have to say and the more you should listen.
    2. Re:Sell each other by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I do that every day. Actually, only Monday to Friday.

      Don't you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Sell each other by magarity · · Score: 1

      Eventually, the husband will sell the wife or vice versa.

      Maybe that's why he doesn't mind selling her children.

  16. China Daily and Global Times Links Right Here by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    No link to original source? And original source is supposedly Chinese state-run media??

    Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

    Here is a link from the English China Daily which is state run. And here's a tabloid branch of the People's Daily running the story but usually this paper focuses on global issues.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  17. Disregard children... by kakyoin01 · · Score: 1

    DISREGARD CHILDREN, ACQUIRE CURRENCY.

    Okay not really, but the joke had to be made.

    --
    The more you know, the more you have to say and the more you should listen.
  18. The other way by linear+a · · Score: 1

    Can I run that the other way? I have some game gold I've saved up for a pet.

  19. What do you call people like this? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I know if they were white and living in the US, we'd say "white trash" or "trailer trash." I can think of no such name for these people though. Most asian stereotypes are actually pretty positive. The frequent addiction to gaming/gambling and drugs doesn't get much discussion, but China's history in that regard is extreme and goes back thousands of years.

  20. if it was a boy... by milkmage · · Score: 1

    uh. they do worse things to baby girls because of the "one child" law (you can only have one.. face stiff fines for every extra kid) boys are traditionally "worth more" as evidenced by the selling price(s)

    that baby could have been killed simply for being the "wrong" gender.

    now, sqeezing puppies as source of income is fucked up.. but less fucked up than killing girls.

    1. Re:if it was a boy... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      having a baby girl means you can have another child without any penalties, just to prevent this scenario.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:if it was a boy... by milkmage · · Score: 1

      if you have the income

      else

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1506469.stm
      On the garbage dumps that surround Beijing, scavengers from time to time will find a newborn baby girl amid the stinking refuge.

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281722,00.html
      The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide — the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion
      The selective abortion of female fetuses is most common in areas where cultural norms value male children over female children,[1] especially in parts of People's Republic of China, India, Pakistan, Korea, Taiwan, and the Caucasus.

      signed - cow with keyboard.
      moo.

  21. Gold Farmers? No.. by DeadboltX · · Score: 1

    Child Farmers!

  22. Fools! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    So short sighted thinking! All they'd have to do is sustain them for about 5 years and show them how to farm gold.

    tststs, people slaughtering the goose that lays the golden eggs...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. Re:Selling Girls not Uncommon by tebixan · · Score: 1

    It looks like there is more of a market for boys. Their girl sold for $500, while their boys sold for $4600 each.

  24. Suspicious by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Whenever I read about these stories from china, I wonder... how much is true? It's sourced from a Chinese paper, which means it could very easily be a government plant. An effort to scare the people away from western MMORPGs and the internet in general, where they may be exposed to non-Chinese culture. It wouldn't be the first case of a government creating a moral panic for political reasons, and when it comes to manipulating media and population China has perhaps more skill than any other government.

    1. Re:Suspicious by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that it's true--at least as far as any news story is true.

      Call me naive, but I tend to doubt the darker conspiracy. You see these sorts of stories from time to time--Parents Sell Children for . Heck, there've been stories of people offering their children for sale on craigslist. People get a laugh/shock out of these stories. They're popular. Thus, when they happen, they get reported.

      While I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, Occam's Razor applies: Newspapers print these stories because people like to read these stories.

  25. I guess that makes them a... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    M-M-M-M-Monster douche!

    --
    I8-D
  26. Re:*sigh* by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    First, derailed trains due to incompetent engineering.

    Yeah, trains only derail in China.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  27. Middle Man by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    Currently there is a min scandal running in China where officials sized “illegal” children and put them in an orphanage. Western couples would then adopt the kids, paying a lawyer to handle the paperwork – because in an opaque legal system like China you can’t do it yourself. And you can’t tell the difference between a legitimate fee and one that is not. The lawyer would kickback a portion of their fees, and the orphanage would kickback funds to the official who sized the ‘illegal” child.

    So the kids tend to wind up in fairly good shape – if you discount the fact they are ripped away from their original families.

  28. Re:A Business Plan by xXvwcXx · · Score: 1

    plus when you lend them out there having to pay for the feed!

  29. Just how do you sell children? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    Seriously, how does this selling of kids even work? Is there a section for that on Chinese eBay? Is this just a payment for the permission to adopt, paid by infertile parents? Do adoption agencies bid on them, hoping to "remarket" them with a profit?

    1. Re:Just how do you sell children? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I heard it was like a consignment shop. You just stick your kid on a shelf until he/she sells. The store takes a cut based on how much salesmanship they need to do, so if you have an ugly kid you might be better selling privately on ChensList or something. I think I read this in the Economist, or I made the whole thing up.

  30. Awesome by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Bloop!
    Achievement Unlocked
    Sold A Child - 50G

  31. Solution for these two fools by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Scissors and needle + thread. Cut his off, sew hers up.
    Done

  32. Re:Color me skeptical... by luther349 · · Score: 1

    i beleve they lifted the 1 child rule in china. what normaly would happon is if the kid was not a male they would up in the river or sold.

  33. Not to many parents here by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

    Pretty horrific if you ask me as a father of two young children. I worry about my kids health and safety all the time and they bring more joy to me than anything else ever has. If you can't take care of the kids, or don't want to, learn to use birth control. One of the reasons there are so many f***ed up people in this world is that they had parents that didn't care about their existence.

  34. Men = 10x more valuable. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I know that's all I got from this story.

    The invisible hand of the market has spoken and proclaimed men 10x better than women!

    1. Re:Men = 10x more valuable. by gottspeed · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, nice one.

  35. So... what? by dbet · · Score: 1

    Why is it wrong to sell your kids. People give them away all the time, and have little say in what happens to them after. What harm is done if they make some money on it?

    I'm not saying, "what harm could ever possibly happen," of course anything is possible. I'm asking what harm is done merely by accepting payment? Most women who plan to give their kid up for adoption while pregnant are often well cared for by the adoptees. That's a form of payment as well, but we allow for it. It's not so different.

  36. Regulation of adoption expenses by tepples · · Score: 2

    Many caring people adopt (a.k.a. purchase) children from other countries, which would certainly lead to a better life for the purchased child.

    Legitimate licensed adoption agencies (a.k.a. child trading organizations) are expected to vet the buyer's ability to take care of the child, and they strictly limit the types of expenses that an agency may include in the price of the child.

  37. Birth before the buses start running again by tepples · · Score: 1

    Water will break at the start of labor, but does not imply that the labor will necessarily complete in the home.

    That depends of course on how far it is to the nearest birthing clinic and what means of transport are available. For example, public transit might not run at a given hour, on a given day of the week, or on a given holiday.

  38. Re:Color me skeptical... by Jeng · · Score: 1

    Not quite lifted, but heavily modified. Per wikipedia the policy is now done on a province level with different rules in different provinces, along with many loopholes and exceptions.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  39. Value of Sex in the USA... by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    Huh?

    The conservative side of the USA places an extremely high value on sex. Remember, virginity is a blessing that should be preserved until marriage. If you're not a virgin when you marry, you shouldn't wear white. It's highly valued here, as a result of our warped morals.

    These are the same people crying 'think of the children.'

    The USA would seem to confirm the GP's point.

  40. Re:*sigh* by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because individuals are totally like the government.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.