Gamers Can "Play" as Taliban

[aage]

This woman should shut the f*ck up. "World War 2 is far removed, and the, erm, families.... and it's not based on real people". I seriously stopped watching the video after I fully had interpreted that sentence. Real people died in World War 2 for fucking better reasons than your son in Afghanistan, but people still get to be the Germans and kill the Allied troops? I mean, you fucking hypocrit, what are you thinking, if you are at all?

Apperently the woman said that the game was disrespectful to the soldiers and the families. However I'm under the impression that this woman's defenition of "disrespect" only has to do with herself, and therefore, she cannot be taken seriously.

[nesterdude]

My favourite video game is called 'predator drone.' Basically you hide out in a mountain in colorado, and they give you a playstation controller, and you try and bomb the shit out of as many afghan wedding parties as possible. It's wicked awesome.

Dude that would rock. Do you get to kill iraqi too?

[saxitoxin]

You know, in gorilla troops some males develop castes of blackback "warriors" and blackback "domestics." When a competing troop is moving through the native troops territory, the "warriors" may leave their troop for days or more to chase away the competing troop. During this time the "domestics" often attempt to suit with the females. Invariably the blackback "warriors" slaughter the "domestics" when they return from the field.

As I say, at the end of the day this is about fat and mentally immature American adultolescents expressing suppressed feelings of inferiority at their more physically and mentally fit peers. The American adultolescent, whose grand adventuring is in shopping malls and such, feels a primal and subconscious physical and sexual threat by the raw fist of power available to a minority of their peers. At an innate level they know - in the absence of that thin and fragile imagined thing called "the state" and "the law" - they would be trodden like blackback domestics of their genetically close relatives among the gorilla species.

I'm not commenting on the justification of American foreign military deployments, I've already made myself clear on that point. I'm just noting there's an interesting equation here at work.

[White Moose]

I don't know what you've been talking about this last 13 pages.. My post goes on to the OP and the link that was given.

It's a game! What happens in the game isn't real! It's set in a authentic environment, with authentic settings and what-not.
It's still just a game!

If you can't handle what happens in a game, you shouldn't be playing, watch it, or anything with it. It's that simple.

It's so funny how a thing like this can cause so much discussion when it's already happend lots of times in previous games. Where you could play as Russians, Japaneese or Germans, just to mention a few.

I personally think this kind of games are awesome. I appriciate these kinds of games even more after done my military service, as i now know a lot more about guns and what they can cause.

[b.k. barunt]

I have finally gotten around to watch the clip. The woman hasn't actually got much to say, she makes no coherent argument, her only discernible point is that "it's disrespectful". Well, so what? We knew that already. I'm sorry for her loss and everything, but other than to evoke emotions in the viewer I don't see why she was even on the show.

At the end she made the point that the war is not a game to the people that are suffering. I have to agree with her (even as I'm sure the game is quite fun). I would have a hard time believing that if vid games were around in WWII we'd be doing this. I think too many Americans are clearly too comfortable and cannot respect the fact that people are dying every day in this war.

News flash for you genius - people are dying all over the world from the horror that is war and here you are playing an online war game. Shame on you.


Shocked and Outraged Honibaz

[Juan_Bottom]

"World War 2 is far removed, and the, erm, families.... and it's not based on real people". I seriously stopped watching the video after I fully had interpreted that sentence.

OK, So she's not colloquial.... "not based on real people" was definitely a pointless statement and I don't think she was really prepared for the interview with a professional button-pusher. She was clearly in an emotional state talking there.

World War II is far removed, just as she said. Calling someone "Hitler"or "Nazi" today isn't exactly a stinging insult to be settled with knives anymore. If you're a member of the Nazi Party you are free to live here, but if you try to join al-qaeda.... I'll never see you again and my phone will be bugged.

It's a game! What happens in the game isn't real! It's set in a authentic environment, with authentic settings and what-not.
It's still just a game!

Where you can act-out true-to-life fantasies of killing American soldiers, exactly like her son, in the same way that he was killed. And he was killed very recently.

If you can't handle what happens in a game, you shouldn't be playing, watch it, or anything with it. It's that simple.

That's not exactly fair, because I can say that same thing about a lot of stuff. Like, American Politics. This woman sees an issue, and she's making her voice heard and I don't see a problem with it in this particular case.

It's so funny how a thing like this can cause so much discussion when it's already happend lots of times in previous games. Where you could play as Russians, Japanese or Germans, just to mention a few.

This is something different. The closest thing we have seen so far is Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare, and that is set in a fictional universe. In this game, you actually play the current enemy of the American Military and gun down soldiers just like what's actually happening IRL.

I have finally gotten around to watch the clip. The woman hasn't actually got much to say, she makes no coherent argument, her only discernible point is that "it's disrespectful".

I completely agree. I don't think she understood what she was getting into, and I also think Fox had to cut her out a little early.

they must be ready to charge and to fight at his command, period.

Well, unless the order violates their conscience.

and I would shit my pants if anyone ever shot a gun at me

Well, it's not as bad as you would imagine. With me, it was instantly like the matrix with how aware I became.

[b.k. barunt]

and I would shit my pants if anyone ever shot a gun at me

Well, it's not as bad as you would imagine. With me, it was instantly like the matrix with how aware I became.

Well that depends. If you ever have a .50 caliber tracer buzz by within inches of your head i bet you'll change your opinion.


Honibaz

[DirtyDishSoap]

Or having a few 61's land near you. Or hit by an IED. Or have some f*ck nut throw a grernade at you while you're driving through a small village.

Not bad at all.

[Juan_Bottom]

Well sh*t guys, it's not that I wasn't scared, it's just that I didn't have time to think about it. I heard the shot, and at the same time a small tree behind me (about the size of a man's bicep) shredded at about my shoulder's height, and I reacted. I didn't really thing about it.... but everything felt like it was happening slowly. I could hear him chamber the next round, even though I couldn't see him.
Of course, I was also standing in the open, so I had that sense that I was already dead. But all in all, it wasn't that terrifying.

[Georgerx7di]

omg, people can play as the taliban?!!! It wasn't so bad with the WWII games because the Germans were white, but letting your children play as some from central asia, omg!!! This is awful.

[Juan_Bottom]

Why is anyone playing the race card? I don't see the comparison.

[b.k. barunt]

Ummm, i think that was a rather weak attempt at sarcastic humor.


Honibaz

[Commander62890]

I think it's important to note that you can only gun down U.S. soldiers in Multiplayer mode. The only difference between this and the current Call of Duty series is the name of the organization you are playing as. (Fictional) U.S. soldiers are being killed in the exact same cicumstances in CoD and I haven't heard a peep about it.



Man, VOL got absolutely shredded by Woodruff here.

I've got to give Woody some props; he made a valiant effort in trying to make VOL understand, but in the end, VOL just didn't respond to most of what was posted. It's impossible to debate with him because he simply states his skewed version over and over while disregarding any new arguments.

Woodruff kept asking him to go back and bring him a quote. It wouldn't have been too difficult - there were only about 5 pages of posts at that point. But he never did it. He just kept posting his twisted version... Woodruff has called it "lying." It may be that, or it may be the product of a 3rd grade reading level... either way, VOL has demonstrated some serious issues in this thread.

I would say it was enjoyable to see VOL making such a fool of himself, but that wouldn't be entirely accurate. It was actually rather painful to see him post the same drivel over and over again. How could he have concocted such absurd notions of what was said?

Woodruff, I thank you for putting up with him, and I will say it again - you have made a valiant effort in this thread.

Check pages 5 and 6 again for your own entertainment, everyone.

[patrickaa317]

Man, VOL got absolutely shredded by Woodruff here.

I've got to give Woody some props; he made a valiant effort in trying to make VOL understand, but in the end, VOL just didn't respond to most of what was posted. It's impossible to debate with him because he simply states his skewed version over and over while disregarding any new arguments.

Woodruff kept asking him to go back and bring him a quote. It wouldn't have been too difficult - there were only about 5 pages of posts at that point. But he never did it. He just kept posting his twisted version... Woodruff has called it "lying." It may be that, or it may be the product of a 3rd grade reading level... either way, VOL has demonstrated some serious issues in this thread.

I would say it was enjoyable to see VOL making such a fool of himself, but that wouldn't be entirely accurate. It was actually rather painful to see him post the same drivel over and over again. How could he have concocted such absurd notions of what was said?

Woodruff, I thank you for putting up with him, and I will say it again - you have made a valiant effort in this thread.

Check pages 5 and 6 again for your own entertainment, everyone.

I read it. My opinion is that Woodruff using all the curse words he did made any argument invalid in my book. I swear just as much as anyone else but when used in debate, it makes you sound a lot less intelligent in my opinion. Anyone can call someone a name and use a curse word. I think VOL did the right thing by not calling him names back. In my book that's a win.

As far as the troops go, we all can sit here and talk about what we want because they are over their risking their lives so we can have this argument. God bless them and their families.

[Timminz]

Haha. Yeah. While Woody may have been entirely right, and Viper entirely wrong, the fact that Woody swears makes the opposite true.

[mandalorian2298]

"My son didn't get to start over when he was killed."

He shouldn't have went overseas then.

Don't be so superficial mviola. Every GI's death is a a tragedy, while every GI's kill is a step forward in fighting terrorism. You are mixing apples and other apples.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Haha. Yeah. While Woody may have been entirely right, and Viper entirely wrong, the fact that Woody swears makes the opposite true.

An online debate and one in person is entirely different too.

I'd have cursed his head off till he got it through his thick fuckin head.

[patrickaa317]

Haha. Yeah. While Woody may have been entirely right, and Viper entirely wrong, the fact that Woody swears makes the opposite true.

I wouldn't jump to saying anyone person was right and anyone was wrong. The both had their own opinions.

You could say one showed respect while the other didn't though, I won't say who did which but it was quite obvious where the name calling was coming from.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha. Yeah. While Woody may have been entirely right, and Viper entirely wrong, the fact that Woody swears makes the opposite true.

An online debate and one in person is entirely different too.

I'd have cursed his head off till he got it through his thick fuckin head.

Hell yeah! Take no guff from these swine.

[Timminz]

Haha. Yeah. While Woody may have been entirely right, and Viper entirely wrong, the fact that Woody swears makes the opposite true.

I wouldn't jump to saying anyone person was right and anyone was wrong. The both had their own opinions.

It was obvious to anyone with the ability to read, and comprehend English, that VoL made wild, unfounded claims, and when called out on it, and asked to provide any evidence at all, he could not.

In the sentence, "You sweared when you showed how wrong I was", the "you sweared" part does not negate the "you showed how wrong I was" part.

[Woodruff]

I read it. My opinion is that Woodruff using all the curse words he did made any argument invalid in my book.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll be the first to admit that I went overboard in my use of colorful language in this thread. I fully expected to get a vacation (and I did).

But the fact that I went overboard in that way doesn't change the accuracy of what I was saying in any way. To invalidate an argument solely for that reason leads me to believe that you were predisposed to agree with ViperOverLord anyway (which is fine if that's the case...just be honest about it). I do stand by everything I said as being valid. Including the colorful language.

I swear just as much as anyone else but when used in debate, it makes you sound a lot less intelligent in my opinion.

I agree with this, actually. By the same token, by that point in the "debate" (if you want to call it that), it was pretty clear where the ownership of intelligence lay.

I think VOL did the right thing by not calling him names back. In my book that's a win.

In your world then, KLOBBER would be the greatest debater (a "master debater", even...). He never called names. He also never bothered to acknowledge any dissenting voice, but apparently that's not particularly important.

As far as the troops go, we all can sit here and talk about what we want because they are over their risking their lives so we can have this argument. God bless them and their families.

Amen.

You could say one showed respect while the other didn't though, I won't say who did which but it was quite obvious where the name calling was coming from.

It was quite obvious to anyone paying attention that neither of us was showing much respect at all. I simply showed my disrespect in bad words, rather than in outright lies.

[patrickaa317]

I read it. My opinion is that Woodruff using all the curse words he did made any argument invalid in my book.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll be the first to admit that I went overboard in my use of colorful language in this thread. I fully expected to get a vacation (and I did).

But the fact that I went overboard in that way doesn't change the accuracy of what I was saying in any way. To invalidate an argument solely for that reason leads me to believe that you were predisposed to agree with ViperOverLord anyway (which is fine if that's the case...just be honest about it). I do stand by everything I said as being valid. Including the colorful language.

I swear just as much as anyone else but when used in debate, it makes you sound a lot less intelligent in my opinion.

I agree with this, actually. By the same token, by that point in the "debate" (if you want to call it that), it was pretty clear where the ownership of intelligence lay.

I think VOL did the right thing by not calling him names back. In my book that's a win.

In your world then, KLOBBER would be the greatest debater (a "master debater", even...). He never called names. He also never bothered to acknowledge any dissenting voice, but apparently that's not particularly important.

As far as the troops go, we all can sit here and talk about what we want because they are over their risking their lives so we can have this argument. God bless them and their families.

Amen.

You could say one showed respect while the other didn't though, I won't say who did which but it was quite obvious where the name calling was coming from.

It was quite obvious to anyone paying attention that neither of us was showing much respect at all. I simply showed my disrespect in bad words, rather than in outright lies.

Now I could come back and post a rebuttal for every one of my little comments you picked out; then you could start calling me an f'ing moron or a POS. Then all your cronies could come on, talk about how you schooled me and were a lot more intelligent than me but at the end of the day, that'll get neither of us anywhere. There has never been a time that two people argued over silly little points and had either of them (or any of the readers) ever change their mind. I posted my opinion on how I saw the debate and you came on to obviously sucker me into a conversation where you can call me names as well... But that's not going to happen. Sorry.

The End. Now

[Woodruff]

I read it. My opinion is that Woodruff using all the curse words he did made any argument invalid in my book.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll be the first to admit that I went overboard in my use of colorful language in this thread. I fully expected to get a vacation (and I did).

But the fact that I went overboard in that way doesn't change the accuracy of what I was saying in any way. To invalidate an argument solely for that reason leads me to believe that you were predisposed to agree with ViperOverLord anyway (which is fine if that's the case...just be honest about it). I do stand by everything I said as being valid. Including the colorful language.

I swear just as much as anyone else but when used in debate, it makes you sound a lot less intelligent in my opinion.

I agree with this, actually. By the same token, by that point in the "debate" (if you want to call it that), it was pretty clear where the ownership of intelligence lay.

I think VOL did the right thing by not calling him names back. In my book that's a win.

In your world then, KLOBBER would be the greatest debater (a "master debater", even...). He never called names. He also never bothered to acknowledge any dissenting voice, but apparently that's not particularly important.

As far as the troops go, we all can sit here and talk about what we want because they are over their risking their lives so we can have this argument. God bless them and their families.

Amen.

You could say one showed respect while the other didn't though, I won't say who did which but it was quite obvious where the name calling was coming from.

It was quite obvious to anyone paying attention that neither of us was showing much respect at all. I simply showed my disrespect in bad words, rather than in outright lies.

Now I could come back and post a rebuttal for every one of my little comments you picked out; then you could start calling me an f'ing moron or a POS. Then all your cronies could come on, talk about how you schooled me and were a lot more intelligent than me but at the end of the day, that'll get neither of us anywhere. There has never been a time that two people argued over silly little points and had either of them (or any of the readers) ever change their mind. I posted my opinion on how I saw the debate and you came on to obviously sucker me into a conversation where you can call me names as well... But that's not going to happen. Sorry.
The End. Now

Which part of my responses leads you to believe that was my intent? I'm truly curious. Perhaps the parts where I agreed with you completely?

I believe my responses were quite non-flammatory toward you.

How sad that you're so willing to live your life through presumption and lack of information. You should definitely work on that.

[patrickaa317]

LOL. So you don't succeed in suckering me in the first time so you try again. I'll give you points on persistence. See below.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll be the first to admit that I went overboard in my use of colorful language in this thread. I fully expected to get a vacation (and I did).

But the fact that I went overboard in that way doesn't change the accuracy of what I was saying in any way. To invalidate an argument solely for that reason leads me to believe that you were predisposed to agree with ViperOverLord anyway (which is fine if that's the case...just be honest about it). I do stand by everything I said as being valid. Including the colorful language.

Assuming my predisposition to VOL. Saying my belief in over use of curse words lowers any validity not making sense. In movies, you have to say "Get the F*** Down" to emphasize the importance of the actor needing to get down but the all out cursing assaults you did made it seem the only thing you could do was call the other person a "F-ing coward"

In your world then, KLOBBER would be the greatest debater (a "master debater", even...). He never called names. He also never bothered to acknowledge any dissenting voice, but apparently that's not particularly important.

Seems you like to assume how I think. Rather than saying VOL "won" the debate, I should have said that you "lost" it by name calling and super excessive cursing. Can you imagine what would have happened if Senator McCain would have responded to Obama with one of your quotes:

f*ck you, you sanctimonious ass. I HAVE BEEN THERE. As far as I'm concerned, YOU'RE THE FUCKING COWARD HERE.

You're a disgusting piece of shit.

I'm sure that would have won over just as many voters hearts as what you did on this message board *sarcasm*. Before you assume how I vote too, don't bother. I was using that analogy simply as an example since McCain served his country and Obama didn't.

Which part of my responses leads you to believe that was my intent? I'm truly curious. Perhaps the parts where I agreed with you completely?

I believe my responses were quite non-flammatory toward you.

How sad that you're so willing to live your life through presumption and lack of information. You should definitely work on that.

I suppose the portion I highlighted in red was also non-flammatory (read: "inflammatory") towards me?

You did a good job baiting me into this by attacking things I clearly laid out as my opinions.

[heavycola]

this debate about who won another debate is worthy of debate. I believe woodruff is winning the debate about the debate and if you disagree then f*ck YOU, MISTER.