IVSoftware are now War Criminals

Status
Not open for further replies.
FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,601
The blokes over at IVSoftware have joined a hallowed list of the most hated people in the world...because of their game, Prison Architect. The game devs have actually been notified by the British Red Cross that it has broken the Geneva Convention. (Video below.)

This is not the first time this has come up. TechDirt reported on this back in 2013. Full of lulz.
 
Last edited:
I understand the position of preventing the misuse of the Red Cross for maliciousness especially during times of conflict, but these are video games FFS. I may be speaking for myself, but I think most people know the difference between reality and fantasy.

As far as prosecuting developers for allowing players to commit what would be war crimes in their game: fuck that noise so much. Again, fantasy vs. reality.
 
They also got investigated by the government when they were developing uplink. The UK Government were worried that they were training an army of hackers, upon inspection of the game the government found that non of the technology featured in the game actually exists
 
Absolutely ridiculous.

I understand why this law exists, to try to prevent real world abuses so that warring factions no longer trust relief workers emblazoned with the red Cross.

This is very important.

Going after its use in fiction - however - is completely insane.

What next? Going after a film in which red Cross workers appear? Going after an author that describes a red Cross in a book?

Are these people on crack? This should be enforced in physical form in the real world only, not in overt fiction.
 
Armenius said:
I understand the position of preventing the misuse of the Red Cross for maliciousness especially during times of conflict, but these are video games FFS. I may be speaking for myself, but I think most people know the difference between reality and fantasy.

As far as prosecuting developers for allowing players to commit what would be war crimes in their game: fuck that noise so much. Again, fantasy vs. reality.
Click to expand...
Might as well prosecute game devs for defying the laws of physics, or any number of other stupid things.
What's next?, prosecuting gamers for murder, speeding, what have you? smh
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Absolutely ridiculous.

I understand why this law exists, to try to prevent real world abuses so that warring factions no longer trust relief workers emblazoned with the red Cross.

This is very important.

Going after its use in fiction - however - is completely insane.

What next? Going after a film in which red Cross workers appear? Going after an author that describes a red Cross in a book?

Are these people on crack? This should be enforced in physical form in the real world only, not in overt fiction.
Click to expand...

It has already been determined that fictional representations of pedophilia do not break any law, to use an extreme and touchy example. So should be the case here.
 
So the Red Cross sent out a C&D for use of a protected logo and the developers changed it to green. Let me get out my pen and put this on the cover of Big Whoop magazine. Not the first time it has been done and certainly won't be the last.

225px-Mr_Panucci.jpg
 
amddragonpc said:
It's just a matter of time before the government comes into our homes and burns all our video and computer games (like in the movie Equillibrium).
Click to expand...

I'll be one of the guys that they come in and kill for hording a collection of video games in a little room somewhere. :D I'll be the one in the corner playing Quake.
 
They cant switch to a green cross unless they want Darth Vader coming after them.

OMG... "That's why, upon getting the email, they were quick to comply. Boot up Prison Architect and call in some paramedics, and you'll no longer see that red cross. Now it's green."
 
Last edited:
People still think war crimes are a thing. It's war there are no rules unless you want to lose. Stop acting all holy when you gut your enemy and leave their family without them. Like ISIS or the Nazis follow a fucking law while they kill our families. Grow up.
 
HAHA. So I watched the video and finally had to come read the comments to see WTF was wrong.

War criminals might be a bit of a stretch...
 
JosiahBradley said:
People still think war crimes are a thing. It's war there are no rules unless you want to lose. Stop acting all holy when you gut your enemy and leave their family without them. Like ISIS or the Nazis follow a fucking law while they kill our families. Grow up.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode A Taste of Armageddon and a quote from Captain Kirk, "Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided..." No one wants to think about it in real terms because they would rather spend their time bickering over a work of fiction depicting something real in a negative context.
 
The red cross being protected IN WAR is to create a potential special punishment for commanders or leaders that use the guise of aid convoys to move troops or outright attack populations.

Violating the "rules of war" requires a state of war. It's an impressive stretch to think that the rules of real-world war extend into any fantasy world.

This is why unscrupulous countries engaging in illegal combat or invasions don't declare war. You have more leeway with "unlawful combatants" than you do with enemy soldiers.
 
Since when does a prison for criminals in a fictionalized universe have anything to do with war?

Are they really making such a stretch because of the red cross?
 
The Red Cross has been known to do this kind of thing for years. While they've done some great things in a humanitarian sense, they're also known for bureaucracy, litigation, and questionable costs to run the organization that too often get murky along with the occasional political grandstanding. I know I won't donate to them monetarily because they've been caught too many times trying to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to donations. The latest being Haiti where they pocketed $125 million and refused to disclose how it was used aside from 'internally'.
 
More worried about a logo than helping people, makes me wonder what else they worry more about when they get all that donation money.
 
OK everybody, you want to send a proper message? Stop participating in anything the Red Cross benefits from and cite their stupidity of this specific action of theirs loudly. Gaming dominated CES and PCs this year. Use your voice against this stupidity before it becomes accepted practice.
 
I remember after 9/11 the Red Cross threw up all sorts of commercials asking people for donations, etc, and oh boy did Americans throw money at that! Hand over fist, we're going to help our own! Except... not necessarily true, since all donation money goes into a general fund and the Red Cross distributes based on what it considered need. So money most likely went to third world country issues as there really wasn't that much of a need for them after 9/11 compared to disease running rampant in Africa or Warlords committing genocide.
 
vr. said:
OK everybody, you want to send a proper message? Stop participating in anything the Red Cross benefits from and cite their stupidity of this specific action of theirs loudly. Gaming dominated CES and PCs this year. Use your voice against this stupidity before it becomes accepted practice.
Click to expand...

Its been accepted practice since 1864. Your late.
https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/emblem-history.htm
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/emblems

Please remember, there are many various organizations that are called "the Red Cross". There are differences between national societies like the American Red Cross (or British Red Cross) and the International Committee of the Red Cross, who is tasked by the Geneva Conventions with protecting those that need protection the most in war and conflict. Whatever the controversies of various national societies (and the ICRC has its share of shit), both conduct important work throughout the world providing aid and relief to civilians and the ICRC ensures that humanitarian law is respected as much as possible by warring parties (states and non-state actors). In Syria, the ICRC facilitates the evacuation of civilians from battle zones, provides life saving aid like food and medical supplies, and acts as a representative for civilians by being a neutral, impartial actor, able to work with warring parties to provide support.

In contrast, when the United States or Russia provide aid, its much more likely to be bogged down by the geopolitical struggles of the Syrian conflict, or even rejected simply on the basis of the involvement of either power. Whatever your feeling about the BRC sending a message to Introversion, these symbols do mean a lot, and have been used for a long time, and are more important than some commercial trademark and should be looked at in that context.
 
vr. said:
There is similar precedent for flags but you don't see similar stupidity on works of fiction depicting flags.
Click to expand...

Tbh, I'm not sure if I agree with the BRC's message to Introversion, but I should at least try and present the argument the ICRC makes. The link sends you to a free download of a pamphlet the ICRC released regarding the emblems' use. I will quote specific passages but you should read the entire pamphlet.

Misuse of the emblems could jeopardize their protective function during armed conflict because the warring parties and weapon bearers lose trust in what the emblems stand for. By undermining the status of the emblem during armed conflicts or in peacetime, misuse may also hamper or jeopardize the safe access of military medical services and Red Cross or Red Crescent staff and volunteers to people and communities in need during humanitarian crises. Even in countries that are not experiencing any such crisis, it is important to ensure that the emblems are used correctly so that people and communities understand their purpose. If an emergency strikes, including civil unrest or a natural disaster such as an earthquake or a major flood, people need to know that the staff and volunteers that display the emblem while responding to the affected communities’ needs are neutral, independent and impartial – values and principles associated with the red cross and red crescent emblems – and grant them safe access.
Click to expand...

Misuse of the emblems can have many serious consequences, primarily for the people who are most in need of help during emergencies. In the worst-case scenario, lives can be put at risk if the emblems are displayed by those not authorized to do so. Consider the following examples: An armed conflict is raging in your country. Massive shelling takes place in populated areas. Men, women and children are wounded and houses destroyed. Health workers displaying the red crescent arrive to care for the wounded but are stopped at a checkpoint and not permitted to enter the area. The reason for this is that, before the conflict broke out, the emblems had been freely displayed by the medical community and used by private companies for commercial gain. Then, during the armed conflict, some fighters had also been unlawfully transporting weapons and ammunition in ambulances marked with the red cross or red crescent emblem. As no one understands or trusts the emblems, the medical workers are not allowed to provide help. Countless lives are lost. A major typhoon strikes your village. Your home is destroyed. Your family is injured and needs help quickly. Red Cross first-aiders come to your village to provide life-saving assistance but they are blocked from entering. Local officials are suspicious that the emblems are associated with a political agenda, as a symbol closely resembling the red cross had been displayed by one party during the recent electoral campaign. They don’t understand that the care being offered by the Red Cross is neutral and impartial. This results in your family not getting the care they need and many in your community dying. Here, too, countless lives are lost.
Click to expand...

The BRC probably knows what laws and common principles apply in Britain best regarding the use of the emblem, and so here is their webpage on the emblem matter. I will quote a few passages, but you should read it wholly.

The British Red Cross is authorised by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence to use the emblem within specified limits. In return for this permission, we help monitor unauthorised use or misuse (whether deliberate or inadvertent) of the red cross emblem and similar symbols throughout the UK.

Many people are unaware of the true meaning of the emblem and its importance. It is first and foremost a symbol of neutral protection in wartime. To be effective, it must be understood and completely trusted.
Click to expand...

Both emblems have two purposes:
  1. to protect sick and wounded victims of war, and those authorised to care for them
  2. to indicate that the person or object on which the emblem is displayed is connected with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
To fulfil these purposes, the emblems must be trusted absolutely to signify neutrality and protection. That is why their unauthorised use is forbidden in international and national law. The names “Red Cross” and “Red Crescent” have the same legal protection.
Click to expand...

Each country is required to regulate the use of all the protective emblems and names. In the UK, the British Red Cross is the only civilian organisation authorised by the government to use the red cross emblem and name. Their unauthorised use may be a criminal offence under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (as amended).

For further information, please contact Michael Meyer, head of international law at the British Red Cross, at [email protected].
Click to expand...

So it seems, by legal standards at least from the BRC's point of view, only the BRC is allowed to use the emblem in the United Kingdom, and is tasked with regulating its use. Here is the act passed regarding its use in the UK. Therefore, Introversion's use seems to be illegal without the permission of the British Government or the BRC.

Aside from the legality of laws that make it illegal, I guess I'll take a stab at answering why video games should not use these symbols. Like the paragraphs above point out, its use is regulated for these express purposes, and is intended only for that. The PCGamer article on the matter mentions the health packs, and its use in Prison Architect, but those purposes are illegal in real-life as well, your not actually supposed to use it according to this paragraph in the article from the email sent from the BRC to Introversion:

"If the red cross emblem or similar signs are used for other purposes, no matter how beneficial or inconsequential they may seem, the special significance of the emblem will be diminished," the email reads. "The red cross emblem or similar designs are not general signs of ambulances, health care, first aid, the nursing or medical profession, or similar matters. Moreover, they are not signs to be used for commercial purposes, such as for advertising campaigns or on products."
Click to expand...

So, aside from the fact that its use in real life is illegal, I would add that video games these days are much greater and popularized and therefore something that people take information in from a lot, right or wrong, in the same way that movies keep showing unrealistic guns and its use, it does impact the audience. The sound of a M1 Garand, a P90, or a AK-47 is something I would recognize anywhere and I'm sure a lot of people who play video games feel the same way. If in video games, people take a impression that these emblems mean nothing more than medical associated stuff, then that fails the reason why the laws were passed in the first place, to foster an understanding of these emblems as what they are meant for. (taken from this pamphlet):

The red cross and red crescent emblems are a universal sign of hope for people in humanitarian crises. For communities enduring the trauma of armed conflict and other situations of violence or the hardships of natural disaster, the emblems signal that help is on its way. Whether displayed on the badge of a doctor working in a field hospital, the side of a vehicle transporting wounded people in war, or a plane delivering relief supplies, these emblems symbolize impartial, neutral and independent humanitarian action to people around the world. But they are also about much more. In times of armed conflict, the red cross and the red crescent together with the red crystal, are internationally recognized symbols of the protection that is due to the armed forces’ medical personnel, facilities and vehicles and to authorized civilian medical services. This includes the medical services of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (National Societies) when acting as auxiliaries to armed forces’ medical services or when duly authorized by the authorities in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The emblems are free of any religious, political or cultural association. They may be put to two different uses: > A sign of protection, which informs the parties to an armed conflict that the people, vehicles or facilities displaying these emblems must be protected at all times and may never be targeted or attacked. This is known as the protective use of the emblems. > To indicate the affiliation of a person, vehicle or facility with the organizations that make up the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. This is known as the indicative use of the emblems
Click to expand...

Now, I've seen people saying that these emblems have been used in video games, and some people stating that they mean medical things, why enforce it now? Well, I would say this illustrates exactly why video games need to change in accordance to the law, because people are indeed taking away the wrong message, that these symbols mean nothing more than some medical use or person when in fact they are meant to mean specific important recognition of international law and humanitarian efforts. As the TechDirt article linked in the first post states, in 2011 the Red Cross wanted game developers to start considering including ways to inform people about international humanitarian law in video games in order to educate the population playing them about what is proper in wartime and conflict.

The failure to educate people on the emblem is leading to its lessened status, and the failure to educate people on international law (in video games like COD, which are realistic real-world settings of conflicts, and where international law does apply!) is impacting the ability of the ICRC and national societies to offer the assistance they were created to do. Now, we all have heard of stories where trademarks lose status and become incorporated into general usage or broad categories, but the emblems of the Red Cross come from status much higher than commercial purpose as seen in the creation and history of international law and the ICRC which is linked closely. As seen in the legal statuses of laws and in the last 50 years of conflict around the world, these emblems are respected, the ICRC is respected and influential (as much as a neutral, impartial actor can be) and does its best to fulfill the mission of its creation, and enforcement of the emblems' position in international law contributes greatly to that goal.

syria-crisis.jpg


0112_syria-starvation-1000x670.jpg

1454352290826

These images, from the Syrian conflict illustrate the need for these symbols to exist and to be as much as possible free from being muddled. Those convoys, those cars in Syria represent aid and neutrality in a country embroiled in conflict since 2011, where hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions displaced, and an entire country where among the ruins and fighting factions are civilians caught in a war and whom are suffering and dying. These convoys, the personnel inside them, move between the battle lines, the sieges of cities like Aleppo and Homs, between warring groups, to provide aid and relief, lead evacuations and as much as possible transfer information about their suffering to the outside world. They aren't protected by soldiers, and in a conflict where videos like these are basically a timeline of the Syrian conflict, only the emblems on the trucks, cars, flags and what they represent protect those inside. Warring parties understand that the people inside those convoys are neutral, not soldiers or fighters or spies, the trucks' cargo is not weapons or ammo, but aid like food and water meant for civilians. The simple reality of war means that however, they will always run the risk of being killed in the course of their duty and indeed, aid workers are suffering increasing numbers of attacks, including in Syria. 54 members and volunteers of the Syrian Red Cross have been killed since the start of the conflict.

When a American or Russian is killed, their governments have a range of actions that can be undertaken to ensure that does not happen again, everything from strongly worded letters, increased security, economic sanctions, to punitive military operations that can be done to whomever has killed that nation's personnel. The ICRC has no weapons, no armies, and states this part of their operating measures:

However, the use of armed escorts may affect the image of the entire Movement, now and in the future. It may risk impairing acceptance of the emblem and the future possibility of access and action by other components of the Movement in that area. In other words, armed protection may help to get one aid convoy through but eventually jeopardize the operation as a whole. Armed protection can therefore only very exceptionally be used.
Click to expand...
pg.442


The ICRC is a organization that operates low-key, attempting to quietly lobby governments and non-state actors to adhere to humanitarian law, but since the ICRC has no weapons or troops to force the issue, the ICRC can only rely on public opinion to sway actors. But not in the way like the U.S needs high public opinion to invade Iraq, no, only in a environment where international humanitarian law is respected, known, and regarded as something worth the lives of people, can the ICRC operate. How? To be honest, I'm not too sure I can answer this well, but I will try.

The ICRC needs to foster respect for humanitarian law, foster a world population that regards human suffering as something that can minimized, for probably the most clear reason, funding. You need money to personnel, for supplies, no one will donate if they regard the ICRC as corrupt or unable to conduct its work, and you also need for governments to consider humanitarian law to be important, in order to lobby parties to adhere to IHL and to provide aid and oversight. In the West, where democratic governments reign, that means in some measure, the people need to be able to urge governments to push for respect of law by other state and non-state actors.

While people in the U.S won't suffer a situation like Syria anytime soon, education on IHL, the ICRC, and compassion for relieving human suffering contribute to the long-term viability of the fulfillment of the mission of the ICRC. Having people read a news article or watch tv and not comprehending the emblems or mistaking it for simple medical aid or even conflating the trucks above with the ARC instead of the ICRC contributes to a weakening of IHL and the ICRC. If people don't care about what happens to those suffering, not only is there less money, the ICRC will not be able to point to the world and say to warring parties, "Your behavior is being noted. It violates universal rights, and you can be punished." While the ICRC can't tell people directly about it, it can foster the ground where others can report it, and have the world answer and respond.

The ICRC also uses its position to help others as much as possible, like POWs, monitor their condition and lobby for better conditions and deliver aid to support them. Edit: This sentence does not fit here, but I feel its important to mention.

Edits: For clarity, rewrites, and additional info.
 
Last edited:
SighTurtle said:
Tbh, I'm not sure if I agree with the BRC's message to Introversion, but I should at least try and present the argument the ICRC makes. The link sends you to a free download of a pamphlet the ICRC released regarding the emblems' use. I will quote specific passages but you should read the entire pamphlet.





The BRC probably knows what laws and common principles apply in Britain best regarding the use of the emblem, and so here is their webpage on the emblem matter. I will quote a few passages, but you should read it wholly.







So it seems, by legal standards at least from the BRC's point of view, only the BRC is allowed to use the emblem in the United Kingdom, and is tasked with regulating its use. Here is the act passed regarding its use in the UK. Therefore, Introversion's use seems to be illegal without the permission of the British Government or the BRC.

Aside from the legality of laws that make it illegal, I guess I'll take a stab at answering why video games should not use these symbols. Like the paragraphs above point out, its use is regulated for these express purposes, and is intended only for that. The PCGamer article on the matter mentions the health packs, and its use in Prison Architect, but those purposes are illegal in real-life as well, your not actually supposed to use it according to this paragraph in the article from the email sent from the BRC to Introversion:



So, aside from the fact that its use in real life is illegal, I would add that video games these days are much greater and popularized and therefore something that people take information in from a lot, right or wrong, in the same way that movies keep showing unrealistic guns and its use, it does impact the audience. The sound of a M1 Garand, a P90, or a AK-47 is something I would recognize anywhere and I'm sure a lot of people who play video games feel the same way. If in video games, people take a impression that these emblems mean nothing more than medical associated stuff, then that fails the reason why the laws were passed in the first place, to foster an understanding of these emblems as what they are meant for. (taken from this pamphlet):



Now, I've seen people saying that these emblems have been used in video games, and some people stating that they mean medical things, why enforce it now? Well, I would say this illustrates exactly why video games need to change in accordance to the law, because people are indeed taking away the wrong message, that these symbols mean nothing more than some medical use or person when in fact they are meant to mean specific important recognition of international law and humanitarian efforts. As the TechDirt article linked in the first post states, in 2011 the Red Cross wanted game developers to start considering including ways to inform people about international humanitarian law in video games in order to educate the population playing them about what is proper in wartime and conflict.

The failure to educate people on the emblem is leading to its lessened status, and the failure to educate people on international law (in video games like COD, which are realistic real-world settings of conflicts, and where international law does apply!) is impacting the ability of the ICRC and national societies to offer the assistance they were created to do. Now, we all have heard of stories where trademarks lose status and become incorporated into general usage or broad categories, but the emblems of the Red Cross come from status much higher than commercial purpose as seen in the creation and history of international law and the ICRC which is linked closely. As seen in the legal statuses of laws and in the last 50 years of conflict around the world, these emblems are respected, the ICRC is respected and influential (as much as a neutral, impartial actor can be) and does its best to fulfill the mission of its creation, and enforcement of the emblems' position in international law contributes greatly to that goal.

syria-crisis.jpg


0112_syria-starvation-1000x670.jpg

1454352290826

These images, from the Syrian conflict illustrate the need for these symbols to exist and to be as much as possible free from being muddled. Those convoys, those cars in Syria represent aid and neutrality in a country embroiled in conflict since 2011, where hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions displaced, and an entire country where among the ruins and fighting factions are civilians caught in a war and whom are suffering and dying. These convoys, the personnel inside them, move between the battle lines, the sieges of cities like Aleppo and Homs, between warring groups, to provide aid and relief, lead evacuations and as much as possible transfer information about their suffering to the outside world. They aren't protected by soldiers, and in a conflict where videos like these are basically a timeline of the Syrian conflict, only the emblems on the trucks, cars, flags and what they represent protect those inside. Warring parties understand that the people inside those convoys are neutral, not soldiers or fighters or spies, the trucks' cargo is not weapons or ammo, but aid like food and water meant for civilians. The simple reality of war means that however, they will always run the risk of being killed in the course of their duty and indeed, aid workers are suffering increasing numbers of attacks, including in Syria. 54 members and volunteers of the Syrian Red Cross have been killed since the start of the conflict.

When a American or Russian is killed, their governments have a range of actions that can be undertaken to ensure that does not happen again, everything from strongly worded letters, increased security, economic sanctions, to punitive military operations that can be done to whomever has killed that nation's personnel. The ICRC has no weapons, no armies, and states this part of their operating measures:

pg.442


The ICRC is a organization that operates low-key, attempting to quietly lobby governments and non-state actors to adhere to humanitarian law, but since the ICRC has no weapons or troops to force the issue, the ICRC can only rely on public opinion to sway actors. But not in the way like the U.S needs high public opinion to invade Iraq, no, only in a environment where international humanitarian law is respected, known, and regarded as something worth the lives of people, can the ICRC operate. How? To be honest, I'm not too sure I can answer this well, but I will try.

The ICRC needs to foster respect for humanitarian law, foster a world population that regards human suffering as something that can minimized, for probably the most clear reason, funding. You need money to personnel, for supplies, no one will donate if they regard the ICRC as corrupt or unable to conduct its work, and you also need for governments to consider humanitarian law to be important, in order to lobby parties to adhere to IHL and to provide aid and oversight. In the West, where democratic governments reign, that means in some measure, the people need to be able to urge governments to push for respect of law by other state and non-state actors.

While people in the U.S won't suffer a situation like Syria anytime soon, education on IHL, the ICRC, and compassion for relieving human suffering contribute to the long-term viability of the fulfillment of the mission of the ICRC. Having people read a news article or watch tv and not comprehending the emblems or mistaking it for simple medical aid or even conflating the trucks above with the ARC instead of the ICRC contributes to a weakening of IHL and the ICRC. If people don't care about what happens to those suffering, not only is there less money, the ICRC will not be able to point to the world and say to warring parties, "Your behavior is being noted. It violates universal rights, and you can be punished." While the ICRC can't tell people directly about it, it can foster the ground where others can report it, and have the world answer and respond.

The ICRC also uses its position to help others as much as possible, like POWs, monitor their condition and lobby for better conditions and deliver aid to support them. Edit: This sentence does not fit here, but I feel its important to mention.

Edits: For clarity, rewrites, and additional info.
Click to expand...

You sir have delivered.
 
SighTurtle said:
The ICRC also uses its position to help others as much as possible, like POWs, monitor their condition and lobby for better conditions and deliver aid to support them.
Click to expand...

Heh, talk to many veterans to see how they feel about the Red Cross and their "help".

Top effort on your post though
 
Many people are unaware of the true meaning of the emblem and its importance. It is first and foremost a symbol of neutral protection in wartime. To be effective, it must be understood and completely trusted.
Click to expand...
I think maybe the BRC is unaware of the true meaning of the emblem and its importance. I mean, why would an emblem depicting an Empirial Roman torture device (and currently used by ISIS to execute some prisoners) be a symbol of protection in wartime?
 
actually the original doom had to do the same thing. most of the people in here laughing at supporting the red cross mission to help those in need no matter which side of the conflict they are on is the same as laughing at a paramedic for saving a person you don't like.

I am really am thinking some of these gamer dudes should have to spend a couple weeks in a combat zone to better aprisate what the country tries to do for them but they likely would so shell shocker when they got back they would not function in society or would end up spending too much time trying to get people to behave and not enough simply trying to create a positive example. The red cross is protected by the rules of war so that both sides when they are not vendetta (people killing people because they feel like it out side the rules of what is legal) , insurgency (people trying to create a puppet government), guerrilla action (sociopolitica elements that want to buy a replacement government through human lives), or terrorist (people with no home country), they do not attack aid workers wearing the red cross so that people know that if they are hurt there might be some one to help them. War is not about killing people but disabling an enemy so they can no longer attack your country. People who think videogames should be allowed to give them an outlet for all their vices, forget that kids also play through games and get the wrong message. If videogames were not something people just played when the wanted but something you had to go to gaming center which had a psych evalution during and after then sure make a murder simulator but if the evaluation says you are a sociopath then their might just be some issues you want to deal with before you end hurting people.

In the mean time their things that protected because people's stuff does not belong to you because you say all their bases are yours. I playing fps and videogames their is fine line between what is clearly not real and what is an excuse to steal people's stuff because you think you can get away with it if you whine enough.
 
Tsumi said:
It has already been determined that fictional representations of pedophilia do not break any law, to use an extreme and touchy example. So should be the case here.
Click to expand...

This article has a good run down of cases around the world where people were convicted (or at least charged) with child porn because in their mind the art took the place of an actual underage person.

http://www.dailydot.com/parsec/uk-manga-fan-convicted-for-loli-possession/

I'm ok with not exploiting children, but fantasies are fantasies, and art seems like a reasonable outlet to me. I can't stop your thoughts, but I can set hard boundaries.
 
Ranulfo said:
Heh, talk to many veterans to see how they feel about the Red Cross and their "help".

Top effort on your post though
Click to expand...

Thanks!

I'm not aware of criticism regarding veterans and the Red Cross, could you explain more? Unless your referring to the WWII practice of the ARC charging for food and housing for soldiers, in which case Snopes addresses that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top