Well, the kid in question decided that he didn't want to play the game in the end anyways. Is that not his prerogative? I don't see how this is a "ridiculous, indulgent and dangerous social experiment". This doesn't mean his life is an endless slog of gloom, just that he doesn't want to play war shooters anymore now that he's been exposed to a war zone.ADDLibrarian said:I agree that people shouldn't be sheltered- I just think there are better reasons and times to teach them about the harshness of reality, not because they want to play a video game. The lesson is a good one, but the reason for it was ridiculous. They weren't questioning the news, studying war in class, or being disrespectful to a fellow student of another nationality- they probably just wanted to play the game because their friends did. It's almost as if he went way to far just to discourage them from playing a game.lacktheknack said:What's wrong with being exposed to human suffering? It's more visceral and it gets the point across. Do you think it's unhealthy? I think that remaining sheltered your whole life against reality is way less healthy.
Being exposed to human suffering CAN be unhealthy, but only in the sense of being over saturated with information. I have known people, myself included, who get "bad news burnout" when there's constantly horrible things being addressed over and over and you can get very stressed/distraught. I'm not saying that people should ignore bad news, but take it in small doses so it can be handled properly. Take a "media break". Have a balance of ENJOYING life as well as helping to improve the world.
The kid is better off in the end having been there, regardless of what triggered the trip.