I don't quite get the issue? If anything it ensures every kid recognises it & associates it with medical treatment
It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
91–100 of 253 posts
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#92To the extent that the symbol is used for regaining health and being treated for injuries in games, I don't think it detracts at all from the Red Cross mission. That being said, if the symbol was being used as the emblem of an evil army or crime syndicate in a game, I could understand them having a problem with it, however.
> I don't think it detracts at all from the Red Cross mission
Part of the point of the symbol is to indicate the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, specifically, which keeps to strict neutrality in wartime. If it starts getting used willy-nilly it puts their members at greater risk because they are no longer clearly delineated from the medical services or army medics of specific countries.
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#93Not to detract from the message here, but > It may just be a game to you but, it means the world to us The placement of that comma really irks me. Isn't "It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us" the grammatically correct form? I'm somewhat surprised to see this in official communication from the Canadian Red Cross group. I feel like I've seen this "post-but" comma more and more recently. I guess pe…
It's correct in German, which otherwise has basically the same grammar as English.
I can't find any evidence of that being true. In this article[1] for example, all the examples either have the comma before the "aber" or none at all. I can't find any example anywhere where a comma after the "aber" would be correct nor can I think of one myself.
I also wouldn't say that German has "otherwise the same grammar as English". (Or in wrong German: "Ich auch würde nicht sagen dass Deutsch hat ansonsten das gleich Grammatik wie Englisch" - even if we're just talking about comma rules, the German version should have a comma before the "that/dass").
[1]: http://www.neue-rechtschreibung.net/2012/04/30/kommasetzung-...
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see how that detracts from the symbol - if anything, it makes it clearer what it represents. If there was a game with Nazis carrying red crosses instead of swastikas or something, this post might make sense, but it just seems unreasonable to me.
The point is to strictly maintain the symbol as indicating members of the internationally neutral Red Cross and Red Crescent, not just "healing". If a war happens and a bunch of people on either side are using the red cross symbol to indicate medics, then members of the actual Red Cross are at risk of being accidentally targeted along with them.
If someone is going to target medics I’m pretty sure their morals are gone to the point where they don’t care if it’s Red Cross or not.
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it. This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people. If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol t…
Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?
Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed? Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-...
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pure rent seeking That's just a categorically false accusation, since the whole point here is that they don't want the symbol to be used at all in certain contexts.
Yes, so they have sole use of the (rather basic!) symbol > more donations Sad, but all too common with modern charities! "categorically false". cmon man
There are plenty of non-Red Cross alternative symbols that can be used to more generically indicate 'healing'. The Red Cross and Red Crescent specifically are meant to be used by members of that organization, who are internationally recognized as being neutral parties in wartime.
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
If video games or art or movies are depicting the appropriate scenarios, such as a scene involving army medics, wouldn't that be a constructive use of the symbol? It would spread awareness and education. A green cross would confuse people.
That's where I'm confused. I see the issue with products appropriating it as a sort of brand hijacking...like the example of a first aid kit with a red cross. But tv, movies, games, etc, just showing an accurate representation of real life, within the media itself seems...normal. I think if they have to, the least confusing thing would be a red square with a white cross inside it. That's what a lot of first aid kits…
I don't think games are very good about doing an accurate representation there. They mostly seem to slap a red cross on anything "healing" related, like not-non-combatant military medics (Starcraft medics and medivacs come to mind, which the game specifically expects you to fire at).
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#98While I completely for the ideals and efforts of the Red Cross organization, I felt their statement in the article is rather ironic:
"The red cross is a powerful symbol of neutrality, impartiality, humanity and hope. Please help us protect it!"
They have redefined the cross, which to Christians, is the symbol of God's love for us, and the hope of healing and salvation, and therefore the driver for the origination of the organization itself - to be the hands and feet of Christ.
They have stripped it of its original meaning (for laudable purposes btw), and now are concerned when others do the same...
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
A green cross would confuse no one. It's already used all over the world. You've probably seen it and the color hasn't even crossed your mind.
It's already associated with weed and pharmacies. The trademark is also already registered in some major countries. Where do you get this confidence that there's no confusion with the green cross?
>Where do you get this confidence that there's no confusion with the green cross?
The continents of Europe, Africa, Australia... I've also seen it used in China but I'm not as familiar with Asia because I haven't lived there.
I'm sorry, but if your only example is the US then you're likely to be wrong about a lot of things.
Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be a reference to geopolitical instability. In modern times (post WW II) the Red Cross is seen as responders to natural disasters. But it seems they feel they’re increasingly responding to man-made disasters (e.g. armed conflicts). That’s at least my interpretation. (Edited to clarify timeframe)
This is entirely backwards. The International Committee of the Red Cross's roots are firmly fixed in a need to respond to armed conflict in 19th century Europe, and early national-level Red Cross groups focused on the same for quite some time. Disaster relief and public health came along much later.
Yeah, and if you believe police officers, nurses, and other first responders are public servants--as I do--then you should see the pay ranges of Red Cross "employees." They are definitely public servants (nearly unpaid compared to other first responders). Easily the best organization I have ever known or worked for.