They let players kill civilians, torture captives and wantonly destroy homes and buildings.
They let players kill civilians, torture captives and wantonly destroy homes and buildings. bbc | voiceover says this game is gorgeous!
"War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".
why ban them when it is a great consumer product that needs to be purchased over and over and provides good skills for fighting force training and great visuals for desire of violence and barbarism at the click of a button in your living room?
If you think video games are barbaric and promote violence you ought to read the Bible or Koran some time. As for fighting force training, thats just paranoid man.
man yourself! you don't have to knee jerk to everything you don't see the same way. your counter reactions are fit for a shallow thinking. you cannot generalize everything and grab every conversation and swallow.
are you for violence or not? answer this first, if you must speak..
Perhaps you missed my point, defining war crimes. "...violations of the laws or customs of war". Laws/customs? That's some sort of 18th century 'honorary' nonsense. War is about kill or be killed. Sure, it's great when a society has the morals and ethics to try and minimize civilian casualties, but war is war. I'm all for prosecuting our own soldiers when they go beyond fighting, but to expect some sort of laws & rules by which western countries are going to battle insurgencies and 3rd world countries is ludicrous. Hell, even when battling each other.
And I'd still like to see a study where violent video games cause violent behavior. They've been trying to tie it together for what, 25 years now?
you asked the other guy this: "are you for violence or not?"
will you need some kind of a 'study' to have an observation based idea or opinion for the obvious? you are not a machine. develop your own point of view from emerging data that is not always verified by team of 'experts.'
i think violent video games severely damage people's ability to imagine peaceful world and sometimes normal relationship with the exterior. you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that either.
it is not little kids playing these games anymore, but grown up people, mostly men of course, and they already have indoctrinated in certain ways of seeing 'other' people of the world and that coupled with these 'kill' based animated games etc. can't be all healthy environment for more humanistic solutions to develop.
at an individual level, psychoanalytical breakdown of these, often would lead to problems and baggage almost without a doubt.
even reading your post gives me some clues about how you compartmentalized your groupings, ie: western countries, insurgencies and 3rd world and so on.
but anyway, think whatever you think. at this point, the quality of your thoughts, and not opposing to everything on site, is any value to others.
"but anyway, think whatever you think. at this point, the quality of your thoughts, and not opposing to everything on site, is any value to others."
huh? Not sure what you're saying, and are you speaking to Jack or myself?
The ability of video games to affect one's perception of others is based one age/maturity and responsible parenting (or lack thereof). Do I think that minors should be playing realistic, violent, derogatory video games? Of course not. But they do because mom or someone lets them have the $60+ dollars to play these, and unfettered computer/console access. Classic lack of responsible parenting, which is certainly accompanied by many other gaps in oversight of their child's activities.
But video games, violent or not, are a competitive outlet to, exactly as you say, older, primarily male audience that enjoys competition, especially with other live beings (online gaming). Is watching a safety take out a tight-end at high speed in football any better? As it is cheered on by the 70,000 live fans? How about soccer world wide? An extremely violent venture, mostly on the part of the fans. 1000's more have died because of soccer than at the hands of some teenage boy that enjoys pretending he's some 'special forces' op for a few hours each night. I've played since the dawn of the net, yet actual violence still abhors me.
You really want to take a look at the propagation of violence? Start with violent rap/hip-hop. I'm a complete libertarian (if that isn't painfully obvious), and believe that anyone can make whatever music they like. But violent rap sings of realistic violent, sexist, daily lifestyles and is marketed to poor children, where it is gobbled up and mimicked in reality.
the violence in video games and our need/want for such things is simply a manifestation of a heavily restrained society, that instead of nurturing peace has socially been bred around and/or defined by wars and violence and this has been perpetrated by more traditional forms of media (ie. the news)
ban the portrayal of all violence in other media before attacking video games - if anything they are outlet for the repressed anger we've instilled in 3 generations
"It also said that the games were so complex that it was difficult to be confident that its testers had seen all possible violations or, in games in which they found none, that no violations were possible." quoted directly from the article. It sounds like they are desperately searching for the smoking gun and that they thoroughly did not play the games to identify ALL forms of illegal activities.
Moreover, the inherent violence that is demonstrated in 3rd world countries - the dismemberment and beheading in warring African nations, or any country for that matter - the use of small-pox blankets given to Native Americans; existed long before video games.
Video games are not the proprietors of violence, humans are the creators of their violence. Which is why there is a need for a "Big Brother", not to imply the USA, but someone who can step in and declared, "Stop this or we will assassinate you!" before the tyrannical individual massacres 3.5 million people because of their religious practices.
Nov 30, 09 12:23 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
10 Comments
Yeah! Let's ban video games!
What's a war crime anyway?
why ban them when it is a great consumer product that needs to be purchased over and over and provides good skills for fighting force training and great visuals for desire of violence and barbarism at the click of a button in your living room?
If you think video games are barbaric and promote violence you ought to read the Bible or Koran some time. As for fighting force training, thats just paranoid man.
man yourself! you don't have to knee jerk to everything you don't see the same way. your counter reactions are fit for a shallow thinking. you cannot generalize everything and grab every conversation and swallow.
are you for violence or not? answer this first, if you must speak..
Perhaps you missed my point, defining war crimes. "...violations of the laws or customs of war". Laws/customs? That's some sort of 18th century 'honorary' nonsense. War is about kill or be killed. Sure, it's great when a society has the morals and ethics to try and minimize civilian casualties, but war is war. I'm all for prosecuting our own soldiers when they go beyond fighting, but to expect some sort of laws & rules by which western countries are going to battle insurgencies and 3rd world countries is ludicrous. Hell, even when battling each other.
And I'd still like to see a study where violent video games cause violent behavior. They've been trying to tie it together for what, 25 years now?
you asked the other guy this: "are you for violence or not?"
my answer: there's a time a place for everything.
will you need some kind of a 'study' to have an observation based idea or opinion for the obvious? you are not a machine. develop your own point of view from emerging data that is not always verified by team of 'experts.'
i think violent video games severely damage people's ability to imagine peaceful world and sometimes normal relationship with the exterior. you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that either.
it is not little kids playing these games anymore, but grown up people, mostly men of course, and they already have indoctrinated in certain ways of seeing 'other' people of the world and that coupled with these 'kill' based animated games etc. can't be all healthy environment for more humanistic solutions to develop.
at an individual level, psychoanalytical breakdown of these, often would lead to problems and baggage almost without a doubt.
even reading your post gives me some clues about how you compartmentalized your groupings, ie: western countries, insurgencies and 3rd world and so on.
but anyway, think whatever you think. at this point, the quality of your thoughts, and not opposing to everything on site, is any value to others.
"but anyway, think whatever you think. at this point, the quality of your thoughts, and not opposing to everything on site, is any value to others."
huh? Not sure what you're saying, and are you speaking to Jack or myself?
The ability of video games to affect one's perception of others is based one age/maturity and responsible parenting (or lack thereof). Do I think that minors should be playing realistic, violent, derogatory video games? Of course not. But they do because mom or someone lets them have the $60+ dollars to play these, and unfettered computer/console access. Classic lack of responsible parenting, which is certainly accompanied by many other gaps in oversight of their child's activities.
But video games, violent or not, are a competitive outlet to, exactly as you say, older, primarily male audience that enjoys competition, especially with other live beings (online gaming). Is watching a safety take out a tight-end at high speed in football any better? As it is cheered on by the 70,000 live fans? How about soccer world wide? An extremely violent venture, mostly on the part of the fans. 1000's more have died because of soccer than at the hands of some teenage boy that enjoys pretending he's some 'special forces' op for a few hours each night. I've played since the dawn of the net, yet actual violence still abhors me.
You really want to take a look at the propagation of violence? Start with violent rap/hip-hop. I'm a complete libertarian (if that isn't painfully obvious), and believe that anyone can make whatever music they like. But violent rap sings of realistic violent, sexist, daily lifestyles and is marketed to poor children, where it is gobbled up and mimicked in reality.
the violence in video games and our need/want for such things is simply a manifestation of a heavily restrained society, that instead of nurturing peace has socially been bred around and/or defined by wars and violence and this has been perpetrated by more traditional forms of media (ie. the news)
ban the portrayal of all violence in other media before attacking video games - if anything they are outlet for the repressed anger we've instilled in 3 generations
"It also said that the games were so complex that it was difficult to be confident that its testers had seen all possible violations or, in games in which they found none, that no violations were possible." quoted directly from the article. It sounds like they are desperately searching for the smoking gun and that they thoroughly did not play the games to identify ALL forms of illegal activities.
Moreover, the inherent violence that is demonstrated in 3rd world countries - the dismemberment and beheading in warring African nations, or any country for that matter - the use of small-pox blankets given to Native Americans; existed long before video games.
Video games are not the proprietors of violence, humans are the creators of their violence. Which is why there is a need for a "Big Brother", not to imply the USA, but someone who can step in and declared, "Stop this or we will assassinate you!" before the tyrannical individual massacres 3.5 million people because of their religious practices.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.