Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I believe there is a connection - the lower the intelligence the higher the chance that the individual sees no difference between computer sims be it mad driving shoot em ups etc than real life.

And also I believe that many computer games do imply to their buyers their are no consequences to violence.

In this game we expect things of our e soldiers that would be impossible to justify.

cav

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Sorry, but it isn't real. The only people that seem to have an issue separating fiction from reality are pinheads like the ones in the article.

One thing I will agree on, extremely violent video games are not for kids. What we have in that regard is a lack of effective parenting. You don't need some international committee to fix that, you need to teach parents how to be parents, not best friends. The X-Box is NOT a babysitter.

So here is an idea for these people that can't seem to understand the problem (IE the pinheads afore mentioned). Why don't we quit wasting resources regulating something that most governments already regulate, and instead figure out a way to teach parents to actually say no to their kids. The problem isn't a lack of regulation (we have enough of that as is), the problem is that somewhere in the last 2 generations, parents quit being parents.

Just my 2 pennies.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

Due to some scathing commentary from the video games industry and elsewhere, the Red Cross has clarified its position somewhat. From Eurogamer.net:

In a new FAQ post on its website titled "Is there a place for the laws of armed conflict in video games?", it explained its mission is "to promote respect" for international humanitarian law. Seeing as some video games deal with realistic armed conflict, the Red Cross argued that it had every right to take an interest in the medium.

"The ICRC is interested in issues relating to video games of this type, i.e. games simulating warfare where players face choices just like on a real battlefield," read the post.

"In real life, armed forces are subject to the laws of armed conflict. Video games simulating the experience of armed forces therefore have the potential to raise awareness of the rules that those forces must comply with whenever they engage in armed conflict - this is one of the things that interests the ICRC.

"Part of the ICRC's mandate, conferred on it by States, is to promote respect for international humanitarian law - also known as the law of armed conflict - and universal humanitarian principles," it continued.

"Given this mandate and the ICRC's long history and expertise in matters relating to armed conflict, the development of these games is clearly of interest to the organisation."

It went on to agree with the notion the Red Cross should focus its attention on actual war crime violations rather than mere video games, insisting "real-life armed conflict and its humanitarian consequences are in fact its primary concern."

Sounds like BS damage control. There are uncountable groups of idiots who think they can make (pick it) xyz better if only they could influence or control people closely enough.

quote:

Sounds like BS damage control. There are uncountable groups of idiots who think they can make (pick it) xyz better if only they could influence or control people closely enough.

Yes, and of course those idiots really screwed it up with the millions of prisoners of war and refugees that they assisted (saving thousands of lives) in two global conflicts. Not to mention the untold thousands today all over the world who rely on the help and protection that this group provides.

Maybe they blew a little hot air there, but give em a break.....I am gonna cut them a little slack. The rest of you might as think about it as well.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I think the headline of the article was a bit misleading. It didn't sound to me as I read the article that the Red Cross is looking to bring a bunch of 13 year-old kids up on war crimes charges.

Instead it seems that they are encouraging the game developers to include features requiring the player to conform to basic rules of war and avoid virtual "war crimes" as they play their game. In other words, as kids play these games, they should learn that it is not okay to execute prisoners or to intentionally/recklessly kill civilians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Those claims have been made about television violence for a long time. Research has consistently shown the theory to be false, as it has with gaming violence. At any rate it's certainly not a place for someone out there to be micromanaging your life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

You'll be paying for this bureaucrats.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/six-hundred-million-gamers-could-be-war-criminals-red-cross-says/story-e6frfrt9-1226216184190

quote:

THE Red Cross is investigating whether 600 million gamers are violating the Hague and Geneva conventions when they kill and blow stuff up for fun.
Delegates at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Red Crescent raised the concerns over the potential “International Humanitarian Law” violations – which can constitute war crimes - during a workshop in Geneva.
“Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of IHL in video games,” the Red Cross wrote in its daily bulletin.

“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.”

Nutjobs. It'll be a cold day in Hell when I allow some unelected, unimpeachable and underinformed international bureaucrat to tell me what my First Amendment Rights are.

I also love the line, "there is no simple answer, but we all need to take action regardless." Glib technocratic morons at their finest.

ETA: Oh oh. By playing the Japanese exclusively, am I setting myself up for a black helicopter visit in the night and a trip to the Hague?

Babe Ruth good! Yankee dogs great! Up with people!

quote:

ORIGINAL: RHoenig

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Those claims have been made about television violence for a long time. Research has consistently shown the theory to be false, as it has with gaming violence. At any rate it's certainly not a place for someone out there to be micromanaging your life.

This little clip says it pretty well IMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLYUPDc_0Eg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Sorry, but it isn't real. The only people that seem to have an issue separating fiction from reality are pinheads like the ones in the article.

One thing I will agree on, extremely violent video games are not for kids. What we have in that regard is a lack of effective parenting. You don't need some international committee to fix that, you need to teach parents how to be parents, not best friends. The X-Box is NOT a babysitter.

So here is an idea for these people that can't seem to understand the problem (IE the pinheads afore mentioned). Why don't we quit wasting resources regulating something that most governments already regulate, and instead figure out a way to teach parents to actually say no to their kids. The problem isn't a lack of regulation (we have enough of that as is), the problem is that somewhere in the last 2 generations, parents quit being parents.

Just my 2 pennies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

To address one question that was asked but never responded to: no, the Red Cross does not sell blood.  That's an urban legend that's been around for decades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

To address one question that was asked but never responded to: no, the Red Cross does not sell blood.  That's an urban legend that's been around for decades.

Actually that's not true. They do charge for blood. My late cousin was a hemophiliac who frequently needed transfusions. Even though my family set up various blood drives through the firehouse, social clubs and places of employment, the Red Cross charged my uncle for every pint of blood my cousin needed. My family was so mad about it that they vowed never to donate to the Red Cross again and they haven't.