Support equipment red->white cross

[Ksyr]

I wonder if everyone posting in this thread knows there is a difference between a computer war game and real war. "My computer game is much more important than whatever benefit real helpers get in a real war zone". There are good arguments too, but why insist? If not using the Red Cross in games saves just one life in the real world isn't it worth it?

 

[Dalwin]

I think it more likely that the time and effort (and money since these guys don't work for free) that it took to see this symbol removed from the harmless context of HOI could actually have been used to save a life. I understand that we don't want to confuse legitimate use of that symbol for the appropriate personnel with other uses, but are they really getting confused on the battlefield between are they seeing a medic or are they seeing part of HOI?

 

[adam_grif]

I wonder if everyone posting in this thread knows there is a difference between a computer war game and real war. "My computer game is much more important than whatever benefit real helpers get in a real war zone". There are good arguments too, but why insist? If not using the Red Cross in games saves just one life in the real world isn't it worth it?

How is not using the red cross in videogames going to save a life? I can't see any reasonable path of causality between the two. And no, elaborate slippery slope arguments don't count as reasonable paths of causality. The purpose of not using the red cross in other contexts is so that people running through real war zones will be (possibly) identified by the enemy and that they (possibly) may not choose to shoot them because of it.

"Oh my god I thought you were a support equipment production line in HoI4, I wouldn't have shot you if I realized you were a real medic!"

 

[Surimi]

Especially over zealous considering that in this context it is a cross that was used by medics in combat.

The problem is (certainly today) being a combat medic does not necessarily mean being a non-combatant, which is what the red cross is supposed to signify.

Again, the fact that everyone is assuming the red cross means "medic" is kind of demonstrating the validity of the red cross' position. Medics can be armed enemy soldiers who will shoot at you, they can also be humanitarian workers who are non-combatants and are purely interested in saving lives. Being able to tell the difference is important.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Spoken like a lawyer. "Please define red." How red does it have to be?

Well, Red is 255;0;0 (0xFF000) while White is 255;255:255 (0xFFFFFF).

Somewhat related:

 

[Ksyr]

How is not using the red cross in videogames going to save a life? I can't see any reasonable path of causality between the two. And no, elaborate slippery slope arguments don't count as reasonable paths of causality. The purpose of not using the red cross in other contexts is so that people running through real war zones will be (possibly) identified by the enemy and that they (possibly) may not choose to shoot them because of it.

"Oh my god I thought you were a support equipment production line in HoI4, I wouldn't have shot you if I realized you were a real medic!"

Slippery slope is the exact reason. You ask for 2+2 and demand that 4 is not an acceptable answer.

 

[grandad1982]

Of all the things in all the gaming world to worry about, I think I'll just go 'meh' and move on.

 

[Cardus]

It is all horribly political I'm sad to say. I was in Israel a few years ago interviewing the head of Magen David Adom and he was cheerfully depressed about the inability to get the Star of David added to Red Cross and Red Crescent - for obvious reasons. You would think that saving lives transcended such things but, no, it apparently matters to someone...

K

What about this

 

[Denkt]

One thing Im not sure about is how a white cross can be legal if the red cross is not because for a colorblind person may not be able to distinguish red but can distinguish the geometrical form?

 

[frolix42]

One thing Im not sure about is how a white cross can be legal if the red cross is not because for a colorblind person may not be able to distinguish red but can distinguish the geometrical form?

Because a blind person cannot see a logo, this does not mean that all logos can't be copyrighted.

Again, the fact that everyone is assuming the red cross means "medic" is kind of demonstrating the validity of the red cross' position. Medics can be armed enemy soldiers who will shoot at you, they can also be humanitarian workers who are non-combatants and are purely interested in saving lives. Being able to tell the difference is important.

Wearing a Red Cross while shooting at someone is a war crime. If the Red Cross could stop this from happening, they would.

 

[Surimi]

Wearing a Red Cross while shooting at someone is a war crime.

Which is why combat medics, who are soldiers and who are expected to shoot at people if required, do not wear the red cross. Other medical personnel whose role does not include combat, like ambulance drivers and paramedics, often will.

The red cross indicates that someone is a humanitarian worker and a non-combatant. That's why shooting at someone while wearing one is against the Geneva conventions. It is entirely within the Geneva conventions for a medic (someone with medical training) who does not display the red cross to carry a gun and shoot at people.

Again, the red cross is about displaying whether or not someone is a non-combatant, not whether they are a medic. This wasn't true to the same extent in world war 2, but it has been true since.

 

[Secret Master]

Well, I suppose I should have guessed that a thread about the symbol of the Red Cross would result in someone bringing up war crimes. :sigh:

To be honest, this thread has outlived its usefulness anyway. Thread closed.