So let me get this straight:
Every time I kill something or somebody in a video-game, even though I inflict no physical harm to another human being, may they even be the ones I have killed in the game, I have equally sinned as I would have killed another human being?
I mean really?
Don't they have poor people to save instead of doing this useless shit.
[QUOTE=Kagrs;33625618]Say good bye to my and 600 million other people's support, Red Cross.[/QUOTE]
Shut up.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;33625900]Don't they have poor people to save instead of doing this useless shit.[/QUOTE]
Those poor people could of got their hands on GENOCIDE VIDEO GAME MATERIAL!?!?! WHY HELP OUT MURDERS, THAT IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD FOR SUGGESTING THAT
[QUOTE=Cone;33625666]The things they want to arrest you guys for are nothing compared to the jobs I pulled in Liberty City.
I'm wanted in twenty-five states.[/QUOTE]
Well I drove a tank around blowing up cars for hours...
And thats just in GTA3... Then theres vice city and san andreas...
Then theres all the other games... Hell, I just slashed, shot and blew a bunch of people on mgs2. Does it matter it was all in VR? Like, virtual reality inside virtual reality? Am I still going to jail for that?
Pixels have feelings too, you guys! lol!!! xd [img]http://forums.thebestgamers.net/Smileys/fantasticsmileys/mfyfZ.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;33625875]Used as an [I]inventive[/I] "torture" device?[/QUOTE]
I'm not shitting here: to (try to) ressurect those who drowned back in Ol' England. Through the anus. Yes.
QI does teach you weird shit.
If you read the article, the ICRC isn't worried about people violating the human rights of pixels, they are worried about people being desensitised to violence.
[QUOTE=Cone;33625815]So, wait, does this mean if I were really good at Halo I could become an Afghani warlord through intimidation alone?
Whoah, the thing that I'm best at suddenly became my most prosporous career choice.[/QUOTE]
And I can be a race car driver, an assassin, a mutant with shapeshifting abilities, an army soldier, a black ops operative, a black guy who only had to follow the train, a cyborg that never asked to be one, a wizard...
And the list goes on.
I have murdered countless innocent civilians for my own pleasure. And I wont stop!
This is idiotic, its like saying every movie or book that shows some kind of war crime should be illegal. If somebody can't tell the difference between a game and real life then they have issues. Just because I can kill people violently in Halo or Battlefield doesnt mean I would do it in real life. Also I'm pretty sure the Geneva convention only applies to real life
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;33625963]If you read the article, the ICRC isn't worried about people violating the human rights of pixels, they are worried about people being desensitised to violence.[/QUOTE]
And acting like its 100% probable chance of happening.
AND, there is a big difference between VR and actual reality. At least to me it is. I could play surgery kind of games, but I trembled at the sight of my aunt's broken leg. Its as if my arms lost their strength.
So, I can bomb people to smithereens in games and cut them up after I already cut them up times and times again, but I pass out if I see someone with an open wound in front of me.
Killer material right?
I remember when they got mad due to the first-aid kits in games used to have that cross on them
Good job equating operations on clouds of 1's and 0's to actual war and bloodshed.
Well, turns out the censorship here had a purpose after all!
You have to read Shakespeare in school, every student is a war criminal.
[QUOTE=DarkCisco;33625991]I remember when they got mad due to the first-aid kits in games used to have that cross on them[/QUOTE]
For good reason. The Red Cross is a protected symbol.
What the ICRC is really worried about here is soldiers being trained to commit war crimes using virtual means, such as shooting wounded enemy combatants in a military training simulator, since training people to violate the IHL is still a war crime.
There's plenty of shit happening irl where the geneva convention is not observed, lets deal with them before we deal with games.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;33626014]For good reason. The Red Cross is a protected symbol.
What the ICRC is really worried about here is soldiers being trained to commit war crimes using virtual means, such as shooting wounded enemy combatants in a military training simulator, since training people to violate the IHL is still a war crime.[/QUOTE]
i doubt that soldiers train on CoD at home though
[editline]8th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Flicker;33626032]There's plenty of shit happening irl where the geneva convention is not observed, lets deal with them before we deal with games.[/QUOTE]
agreed, we should remove any depictions of it not being followed, that is the only way to stop it from happening in reality
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;33626033]i doubt that soldiers train on CoD at home though[/quote]
Training simulators.
[img]http://images.gizmag.com/hero/8224_29100765802.jpg[/img]
Saying the Red Cross thinks every single gamer is a war criminal is sensationalist news at its finest.
So much butthurt in the world...
Well now I can't help but think that, if people actually fall for this and playing vidya gaems becomes a war crime, the next Bond villain is going to be some twelve year old who got five Tactical Nukes in one match on CoD.
I support the things red cross does but this is just stupid. Why can't they shut up and do what they are good at? Calling gamers war criminals does not exactly give you good rep.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;33626014]For good reason. The Red Cross is a protected symbol.
What the ICRC is really worried about here is soldiers being trained to commit war crimes using virtual means, such as shooting wounded enemy combatants in a military training simulator, since training people to violate the IHL is still a war crime.[/QUOTE]
Alright, so why not say that TRAINING people to kill wounded civilians is bad? Because it is. It doesn't need mentioning.
And video games aren't training. The only people who actually think they are would get shot to death in a matter of seconds if they actually pulled anything. It all circles back to that retarded idea of "he just shot a virtual dude so he must be willing to do it irl".
This is [B]not[/B] the Red Cross we all know and love (ICRC), but rather the Red Cross Red Crescent (RCRC) organisation. However, they do associate with each other, but that's as far as it goes.
The ICRC handle peoples well being, donations, charity work, POWs, etc.
The RCRC work in each country it's in, according to that countries local humanitarian laws.
So, to the RCRC, violent games are bad because they don't conform to humanitarian laws. I doubt the ICRC actually give a shit.
[quote]“While National Societies shared their experiences and opinions, there is clearly no simple answer. There is, however, an overall consensus and motivation to take action.”[/quote]
There's an overall consensus among gamers that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Today I saw a guy that almost looked like the engineer playermodel from BF3.
I quickly took out my rifle and shot him. Stupid noob didn't even shoot back.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;33626065]Training simulators.
[img]http://images.gizmag.com/hero/8224_29100765802.jpg[/img]
Saying the Red Cross thinks every single gamer is a war criminal is sensationalist news at its finest.[/QUOTE]
Is there a version of that game on the internet somewhere?
Also, looks pretty dated. Look at the part where that scrap heap meets the sand. It almost looks photoshopped in.
So?
God, if they charged me for everything I did in Saints Row 2, I'd have more charges than Gat....and thats saying something.
[QUOTE=Fort83;33626214]lol what are they gonna do, arrest me for playing a video game? Good luck with that red cross[/QUOTE]It's stupid to even suggest they would. So they won't need luck for something they won't do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
