- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Probably used a red cross somewhere
Wow. The Australian Red Cross has an entire page about it.
I like how they simply suggest a white cross on a green background as a generic symbol for medical aid.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/413150/discussions/0/3104564981118123491/ Yep, you are right.
In that thread: people who have no fucking clue about the difference between copyright and trademarks.
(I blame people who use the loaded language phrase “intellectual property[sic]”.)
The double edged sword of not understanding the difference between copyright and trademark, and not knowing what the Red Cross actually does. I’ve seen people argue that it’s a good thing when games use the red cross to denote healing, because it trains people to recognize it as a healthcare symbol. The Red Cross does much, much more than provide healthcare…
It seems that neither “copyright” nor “trademark” are necessary for this conversation.
At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protective_sign I found these sources:It seems that https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ366/PLAW-109publ366.pdf is what is referenced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#cite_note-1
Any person subject to this chapter who, after inviting the confidence or belief of one or more persons that they were entitled to, or obliged to accord, protection under the law of war, intentionally makes use of that confidence or belief in killing, injuring, or capturing such person or persons shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.
I assume that a country that does not enforce international law is more likely to be affected by UN peacekeeping operations, which probably makes enforcing international law vastly preferable: https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D878FE485
Whether it’s copyright or trademark is completely inconsequential. The point of it is to stop people from diluting the meaning of the Red Cross, which literally gets members of it killed in conflicts.
Yeah, the clinic used to have a red cross. The geneva convention made him change it to green
Funky that a chill farm sim can’t use the red cross without the stick up someone’s ass getting shifted around too much.
The green cross seems to be the universal dispensary logo, so it’s sort of a bad alternative in my opinion.
Lewis, you sly dog!
Fixed Geneva Convention violation you say ???
Let’s be honest we breaking every rule in geneva convention while slaying monster right ??? right ???Searching “Geneva Convention animals” shows a lot of people advocating for more protections for animals during warfare, so no, I don’t think it’s likely that killing monsters violates the Geneva Convention unless you’re using monster to refer to humanoid creatures like goblins and believe that the protections would apply to them as well.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/plea-animalizing-international-law-armed-conflict/
