Akvod said:
Derek said:
Akvod said:
Derek said:
Akvod said:
Derek said:
Anyone who equates a war (specifically WWII) to a terrorist attack is a moron. I'm sorry, but read a book or watch the History channel and learn something, PLEASE. |
In what aspect? They both involve tragedy, the taking of lives (both soldiers and civilians). The only difference I see is "legitimacy" (an official war vs. a terrorist attack), the scale and quantity (a life taken is a life taken though), and such...
|
Honestly, besides people getting killed, I don't see how they are similar.
War = typically soldiers vs. soldiers, and the fighting is typically "justified" from all sides
Terrorism = civilians or soldiers vs. "innocent" civilians - there is typically no "fighting," and it is not seen as "justified" from all sides
|
But that exactly is my point, both are about people being killed, and to say that one game is bad because it trivializes the deaths of real people, and to get excited about a game that triviliazes a ficitional account of a real life account of death is hypocritical.
And you yourself used quotation marks over justification like I used legitimacy. Murder if murder. I'm not saying murder isn't necessary or shouldn't be used (for e.g. self defense) is naive, but to say that the murder was some how "alright" is trivilizing it. The loss of life is always a tragedy, and to celebrate or glorify it is blood lust.
And like I said before wars include civilians. If you're naive enough (and I don't think you are) to believe that wars are like Call of Duty, where there's only enemy soldiers on the battlefield, then video games are indeed trivilizing the reality and gravity of the situation. Wars don't always take place in conveniently placed grassy fields. They take place in dense cities, towns, and homes of people. Whether or not terrorism involves a short bomb explosion, or war requires a long battle doesn't matter, they both achieve the same thing, and war usually achieves it in a bigger scale.
To say that the loss of life, home, and hapiness is "legitimate" in war, is a sad and dangerous mentality, that inevitably continues the cycle of war and violence.
The only reason why I don't say "lets ban video games" is because it is our individual responsibility to not take video games seriously, as if they were propaganda glorifying violence, but what it is, a toy.
|
Akvod: I'm sorry, but I'm never going to equate war with terrorist attacks. I knew 23 people that died on 9/11. Context is everything, I suppose.
|
Errr... I'm fortunate enough to not know anyone who died in Iraq, or for my grand parents who fought for Japan in WWII to live a full life, but again you're following the logic of "As long as nobody who remembers it was alive" or "After X ammount of years, it's ok". Things don't magically become ok after a few years. And the after effects of WWII, Vietnam, etc are still present (for e.g. "comfort women" who are still alive in Korea, the veterans who lost limbs which will NEVER comeback in the US, the mothers who have lived decades without a son, the loss of men in Iran after the Iraq-Iran war, etc).
And again it's not the fact that it was real, fictional, terrorist, war, etc that matters. What is important is that video games do in fact trivialize the CONCEPT of DEATH. The only reason why I'm not going to go anti-video game is because it is our personal responsibilities as gamers to take the video games as what it is.
|
