When I spoke of military training, I was not indicating running around like a crazed redneck with firearms. I was speaking of the need to be completely numb to any emotion of regret, remorse, et cetera, which is stated explicitly in the Sniper Feild Manual distributed by the US Army. While this is all fine and dandy, parents who support military academies complain endlessly about how television and video games de-sensitize their children to violence. A very popular argument is that if the columbine shooters were more humane and more hadn't seen so much gore in their lives, none of the bad stuff would have happened.
Coincidentally, the US military policy has a tradition of aiming more towards civilian targets than military installations. Remember that pharmacuetical plant they bombed in Africa? Well, it happened to be the only one around for several hundred miles. How can the US and its mindless hordes condone the annihilation of the only source for antibiotics in a place where the leading causes of infant mortality are all preventable, gastro-intestinal virii, but condemn *games*? In fact, I am quite sure that you know that the US policy in the event of a nuclear war is "Mutually Assured Destruction" (blow everyone, especially civilians, in the country that fires nukes at the US to hell), while the Soviet's was strictly to aim only at military targets.
Whose blood is on whose hands again?
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
Whilst reading this article, I came across a very strange paradox.
Coming from Atlanta, GA, there is a great deal of opposition towards the sale of violent video games, i.e., WalMart won't even touch them down here (but has rows of sniper rifles, shotguns, semi-automatics, and pistols in the "hunting" section). The general consensus is that violence in the media and violence in games is corrupting today's youth.
However, on the same note, these lobbyists are the same that glorify war as a means to "unify" the populace. I wonder, which is more damaging... Cartoon violence in corridor shooters, or the ROTC programs that educate children on the use and aquisition of firearms and other means of combat? Capture the Flag in Quake or UT, or the military training exercises that kill several hundred participants a year?
To be blunt, how does one oppose the exaggerated gore in games and yet support the utterly senseless brutality of true military conflict?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry this reply is a tad bit late in coming.
When I spoke of military training, I was not indicating running around like a crazed redneck with firearms. I was speaking of the need to be completely numb to any emotion of regret, remorse, et cetera, which is stated explicitly in the Sniper Feild Manual distributed by the US Army. While this is all fine and dandy, parents who support military academies complain endlessly about how television and video games de-sensitize their children to violence. A very popular argument is that if the columbine shooters were more humane and more hadn't seen so much gore in their lives, none of the bad stuff would have happened.
Coincidentally, the US military policy has a tradition of aiming more towards civilian targets than military installations. Remember that pharmacuetical plant they bombed in Africa? Well, it happened to be the only one around for several hundred miles. How can the US and its mindless hordes condone the annihilation of the only source for antibiotics in a place where the leading causes of infant mortality are all preventable, gastro-intestinal virii, but condemn *games*? In fact, I am quite sure that you know that the US policy in the event of a nuclear war is "Mutually Assured Destruction" (blow everyone, especially civilians, in the country that fires nukes at the US to hell), while the Soviet's was strictly to aim only at military targets.
Whose blood is on whose hands again?
Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
Whilst reading this article, I came across a very strange paradox.
Coming from Atlanta, GA, there is a great deal of opposition towards the sale of violent video games, i.e., WalMart won't even touch them down here (but has rows of sniper rifles, shotguns, semi-automatics, and pistols in the "hunting" section). The general consensus is that violence in the media and violence in games is corrupting today's youth.
However, on the same note, these lobbyists are the same that glorify war as a means to "unify" the populace. I wonder, which is more damaging... Cartoon violence in corridor shooters, or the ROTC programs that educate children on the use and aquisition of firearms and other means of combat? Capture the Flag in Quake or UT, or the military training exercises that kill several hundred participants a year?
To be blunt, how does one oppose the exaggerated gore in games and yet support the utterly senseless brutality of true military conflict?
Soylent pink is made from easter bunnies.
-Matt