Tin and yarn are of little recompense for human life. Killing for the sake of being "honored" in the name of parades, medals, and "honour" would be no different than killing in the name of "high score" on a video game. Do not seek reward amongst men.
Is that so in the military and the police? I dont think so. So you don't think there is "reward and pleasure" in avenging the death of a comrade?
The basic difference with FPS videogames is that one associates killing with reward and pleasure, without any disciplinary and larger context
How do you know? What about the college student that uses video games as stress release to give his mind something unimportant to focus on for a set period of time so he can get back studying. Would this not be "discipline?" What about FPS games/scenarios used by the military that show cause/effect on actions in different scenarios?
Where do I fit into your equation? If something like a First Person Shooter GAME will make someone kill, wouldnt First Person Shooting REALITY make them all the more worse?
Thats a fascinating question.
And one that appears to have not been asked prior to Grossman's [and your acceptance] determination that video games should be banned. So how far down the rabbit hole shall we go? How many must lose their liberties before those questions are asked? If you can ban the video game because of what it may do, then certainly you could ban me for what I've already shown I can and will do? Why does it matter the circumstances of military, police, self-defense?
It didn't matter for the gamer that had done nothing more than play a video game. Your logic should hold true for the actual killer. If a video game corrupts one to kill, then it isn't that hard to believe killing will corrupt one to kill more. So, who is going to be responsible for making the determination of what/who should be banned next?
Beyond that is determining who the unfortunate soul that will be sent to "ban" me.......after all, I've already proven myself capability of killing for real.
“Tin and yarn are of little recompense for human life. Killing for the sake of being “honored” in the name of parades, medals, and “honour” would be no different than killing in the name of “high score” on a video game. Do not seek reward amongst men.”
I gotcha. Hounours and parades and medals are of secondary importance in contrast to the protection of country. My point was that a military knows why he’s killing during war: to protect God and country. The honours are part of a rituals aimed at reintegrating the warriors within civil society: to thank them, to reiterate that they did GOOD, even though they killed. Grossman says this part is very important, so that the warriors don’t feel guilty or bad about having killed.
Regarding the “ ‘reward and pleasure’ in avenging the death of a comrade.” Is it not secondary? Isn’t the application of Justice the primary force in play here? I don’t know, I’m asking.
“If a video game corrupts one to kill, then it isn’t that hard to believe killing will corrupt one to kill more.”
Again, it’s about the lack of responsibility, of dealing with the consequences. When someone murders in real life (ain’t the same as killing, as you know), there are potentially very grave consequences in real life. Not so in the FPS videogames, quite the opposite in fact; there are rewards.