easymo, kindly read (not a flame)

[ispar]

Originally posted by indian:
Just a thought: If against war why play a game base on war and killing?  

Because it isn't war and killing. I am very aware that it is not real life. There are no consequences, other than jumping back to the tower when you "die." It has none of what comes with war - it's very clean. There are no complicated politics, no socioeconomic inequalities, none of that stuff.

I enjoy games. Something about violence is thrilling to the human psyche. It hold far less appeal in real life, since death is part of the package in real life, but it is entertaining in a game.

Finally, I am fascinated by military history. In no way is there something that precludes me from this. It is interesting to me.

Oh yeah, and I love all aircraft, including WWII aircraft especially :-D.

[1776]

Bishops are best


There's the politics

$15/mo there's the ecnomics

Real life is just a model of AH and real life is overmodeled

[Toad]

Be interesting to put that "war game" question before a Meeting for Business, wouldn't it? I'd be interested in hearing what the resulting minute from the Clerk would be.

Perhaps make an agenda item to discern if it's considered to be a good thing to play a computer game where the aim is to "virtually kill" another human being (or beings) who is on another computer using simulated weapons of war. Might add that "score" is kept and those that "kill" the most tend to be praised and awarded points so that they can get even better killing machines.

BTW, just curious. Do Quaker families generally give the young males play guns and toy soldiers for entertainment?

[ispar]

Originally posted by Toad:
Be interesting to put that "war game" question before a Meeting for Business, wouldn't it? I'd be interested in hearing what the resulting minute from the Clerk would be.

Perhaps make an agenda item to discern if it's considered to be a good thing to play a computer game where the aim is to "virtually kill" another human being (or beings) who is on another computer using simulated weapons of war. Might add that "score" is kept and those that "kill" the most tend to be praised and awarded points so that they can get even better killing machines.

BTW, just curious. Do Quaker families generally give the young males play guns and toy soldiers for entertainment?

Toad, it's very much a matter of personal choice, morals, views, and ideas. The resulting minute would not come from the Clerk, it would come from a consensus by all the members of the Business Meeting. I don't know what that consensus would be. I do know that I don't think I would be judged very harshly for my feelings on violence in media.

I actually do think that there is a definite line to be drawn. Games like SoF take things too far for my tastes. Hopefully there will always be less visceral choices. Violence in the media is also a sensitive issue. The way I see it, there is a little too much glorification of violence, and maybe a little too much in general. However, I think that violence can be part of a presentation and, indeed, should be kept in the media. Especially in productions such as SPR, Amistad, etc, where it is an important part of what's happening and really communicates the truth of it.

Of course, I feel that young children and other impressionable people should not be exposed to violence, either glorified or more visceral, true to life, or just plain gory. When someone is mature, it becomes a matter of what they feel is acceptable, and what their parents feel is acceptable.

Toad, no, Quaker parents generally don't give toy soldiers and guns to young boys. I wouldn't even if I weren't. However, violence and other such things are going to come up. There are plenty of little kids who in meeting are more concerned with pretending to blow the elders away with a bazooka than sitting in silence. However, they are little kids, and that's important to remember. Most do tend to grow into the faith and into an understanding of the reality of violence.

Does all this make sense?

[Toad]

Well, why don't you make an agenda item to that effect in a few weeks. I'd like to come sit silently and watch that process. The Clerk writes the minute, correct?

"But perhaps the greatest test of a clerk's ability to read the collective mind of the meeting lies in the ability to draw up, at an appropriate time, the minute which will express the sense of the meeting to those present and to others beyond the meeting."

[Gadfly]

Toad, I am not a Quaker or a Liberal, and I do not give my kids (toy)guns to play with.  They know what guns are, and what they are for, and the reason why you don't play with them, just like they do not play with my chainsaw or matches.

As a kid, of course, I had toy guns, bb guns and real guns.  Different times.

[Toad]

...and so?

I asked that so I could come to a sense of how Quakers might view violent computer games. If they gave their kids war toys, then I guess a computer war game would be in the same vein, IE: np.

Good for you and yours.

My kids had toy guns. They had GI Joe "action figures".

They also have been instructed in the proper use of real guns. They hunt with our dogs.

They had toy airplanes too. I taught them how to fly real ones. They could tell the difference at an early age.

etc, etc, etc...

..and so?

[Hangtime]

A quaker fighter pilot.

I am awed and amazed.

and a lil confused.

Which is, in and of itself and considering the circumstances; not the least bit surprising.  

Chinese curse:   "May you live in intresting times."

[ispar]

Originally posted by Toad:
...and so?

I asked that so I could come to a sense of how Quakers might view violent computer games. If they gave their kids war toys, then I guess a computer war game would be in the same vein, IE: np.

Good for you and yours.

My kids had toy guns. They had GI Joe "action figures".

They also have been instructed in the proper use of real guns. They hunt with our dogs.

They had toy airplanes too. I taught them how to fly real ones. They could tell the difference at an early age.

etc, etc, etc...

..and so?

I was actually kept away from violent media for quite some time. When I became old enough and responsible enough to understand violence in the real world is not appropriate, it was acceptable for me to entertain myself as I desired. Within certain limits, of course - there are lines that I do not cross. I do not have fun because I'm killing things in these games. What I enjoy is the thrill of competing against someone else and coming out on top. I enjoy the thrill of getting through a game despite the effort it takes. It's more of the thinking and action that I enjoy. There is imply no comparison between violence in a game and in real life.

Why do you keep trying to poke holes here? I have given you an answer. I am interested by military history, I love airplanes, and I think weapons are interesting. That doesn't mean I want to use them against someone. Not at all.

Toad, once again I can't tell you what the consensus would be. Yes, the clerk writes the minute. However, once they have written the minute, they submit it to the meeting for approval. Changes are suggested and made until all are satisfied with the minute. I do think that in these days, many have the same understanding that I do. Most of the people I know that are my age concur with me. Even if we are in a minority, we would not be held to be "wrong" by others in the meeting. As long as I remain true to the basic precepts of the faith (and I do), my exact methods and idiosyncrasies are unimportant.

[Toad]

Poking holes?

Nope. Just don't understand it. At all.

I really would like to see this discussed in a business meeting. I've got vacation end of October.... how long does it take to put an item on the agenda?

That this "playing at war" seems out of place with the beliefs of the religion?

Sort of like saying that a religion that opposes engaging in adultery and or participating in prostitution says it's OK to spend a lot of time cruising internet porn sites because one is interested in the history of sex, loves women and thinks instant intimate relationships with people you've never met before are interesting.

Hard for me to understand... it just doesn't go together. Anti-war and war games.

As I said, if you can get this on the agenda for a Business Meeting, I'll make every effort to attend. Consider it as broadening the education of an infidel.

[ispar]

Originally posted by Toad:
Poking holes?

Nope. Just don't understand it. At all.

I really would like to see this discussed in a business meeting. I've got vacation end of October.... how long does it take to put an item on the agenda?

That this "playing at war" seems out of place with the beliefs of the religion?

Sort of like saying that a religion that opposes engaging in adultery and or participating in prostitution says it's OK to spend a lot of time cruising internet porn sites because one is interested in the history of sex, loves women and thinks instant intimate relationships with people you've never met before are interesting.

Hard for me to understand... it just doesn't go together. Anti-war and war games.

As I said, if you can get this on the agenda for a Business Meeting, I'll make every effort to attend. Consider it as broadening the education of an infidel.

If you're willing to make a trip up to Jaffrey, NH perhaps... but no. It won't enlighten you on the subject at all. What other Quakers think about war games is irrelevant to me, because they do not have any effect on my view of things. They are fun, but I know that war and violence and suffering in the real world is not. I oppose it. For most of them, that's what matters.

If you don't understand it, fine. You aren't required to. Your comparison is ridiculous in any case. I'll just stick with my liberal, hypocritical views on this subject. After all, the concept is so hard to grasp...
 

Let me put it this way: do you believe war is good? I know how you feel about war in this case - that it is a necessity (sorry if I'm oversimplifying). But, in general, is war to be encouraged? If you don't think so, why do you play this game?

Toad, I don't consider you an infidel, nor do I think you are ignorant. I do think that you have some different views on this, which I happen to disagree with. That's life, isn't it? As you've said yourself, fly what you like, like what you fly.

[Gadfly]

Toad, nm only point was that it is risky for kids to play with toy guns today, mainly because so many people freak out about them.  Two incidents come to mind, both local, where small children were killed by accident while playing with toy guns.

In one, a father shot his daughter, thinking she was an intruder, in the other, the young(9) punk was shot for waving a toy gun in the general direction of an officer.

It is just not important enough for me to risk it.  When they are a little older, I will teach them to shoot real guns; they already know how to shoot bb guns(my lil girls are 5 and 9).

It is, in my opinion, more important that they know that guns are tools and have a specific use, rather than entertainment.

[buhdman]

ispar,

Being Buhddist, I can empathize with you.  I have been asked the same question by people I know:  How can you play a game whose intent is to kill others?

My response is that I consider the game like a game of tag, only I have to learn the basics of flying in order to participate.  We use words like "kill" and "shoot down" and "destroy", but they are just words.  

There's nothing in the Precepts of Buhddism against doing that.  At least, not to my knowledge or interpretation.

Now should we have to start lining up at the disintegrator when we get "killed", then I will either have to stop playing the game or learn to fly better.  

Hang in there!

Buhdman, out

[Toad]

"What other Quakers think about war games is irrelevant to me, because they do not have any effect on my view of things."

Gotta love that, huh? Subjective religion!

Now THAT I can understand. You make your own rules according to how YOU feel.

EX-CELL-ENT!

I sorta have the same system. Guess you and I are closer than you thought. Only I don't call myself by any name. Bout the time I was 21, I realized me and the Pope were never going to see eye to eye on several different religious matters.

Hmm... "Toadism". Could work.. I'll think on it some.

BTW, I think it was an pretty apt comparison. But I can see why you don't like it.  

[ispar]

Originally posted by Toad:
"What other Quakers think about war games is irrelevant to me, because they do not have any effect on my view of things."

Gotta love that, huh? Subjective religion!

Now THAT I can understand. You make your own rules according to how YOU feel.

EX-CELL-ENT!

I sorta have the same system. Guess you and I are closer than you thought. Only I don't call myself by any name. Bout the time I was 21, I realized me and the Pope were never going to see eye to eye on several different religious matters.

Hmm... "Toadism". Could work.. I'll think on it some.

BTW, I think it was an pretty apt comparison. But I can see why you don't like it.  

That didn't come out right...

The point is that Quakerism is a very open religion. The only real "rules" are that you understand the process and do your best to follow the testimonies (Peace, Simplicity, Equality, Truth) in your life.
But when it comes down to niceties like worship and other specificalities, it's an individual thing. In Quakerism the emphasis is on the relationship with God and the individual. To try and tell others what their relationship should be is not at all what we do. There are even atheist Quakers!

My point is that on issues like this, it's very much an individual thing. Some, likely many, feel that for them to play those games is wrong. For me it is not. I think Buhdman (thanks dude!  ) put it nicely. It's like a game of tag. If you are bothered by this, well, it's not my problem. Think what you will, I know myself. Playing these games in no way undermines my faith and conviction. And that is what's important.