Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:03 pm

You essentially assert that there is a (by and large) universally accepted moral standard (with regard to certain things mentioned in the thread - virtual and real nuclear weapons, eating corpses,...). Your personal ethical principles happen to agree with that asserted standard.


No, I do not assert this. I might not agree with the moral standards of somebody else but I can accept that he is offended by some of my action or lifestyle.


Well, it seems to me that you talked yourself between a rock and a hard place. I assume that you don't advocate a non-dualistic philosophy (if you do, passing any sort of judgement about the nuke is meaningless - it is, and that is all there is to say).

In a non-dualistic framework, you logically have to take one and only one of the three following positions: In comparing your moral standards to mine, yours are 1) superior 2) equal/just different/don't know or 3) inferior.

If you take position 3), there is no reason for you to argue with me - you should adopt my view. Since you do argue, I think we can rule 3) out.

If you take position 2), you have no case criticizing Jack beyond a point. If our standards are equal, or we don't know which are better, then we can without a loss of moral high ground exchange one position against another (if you can't, they are not equal). So if I argue that a virtual nuke run on one's own computer is morally acceptable, you cannot reject this and claim that our standards are equal without a contradiction.

So, if you take position 1) (which I believe you do), then I can understand why you argue in this thread. But, in this case, I am offended because you claim my moral standards are inferior to yours, see above. You could easily avoid the offense by not performing the offensive action, i.e. you could adopt position 2) and I would not be offended any more - yet you don't.

It may well be that my assumption is wrong - if so, please tell me, which is your position - 1), 2) or 3)? (Short of non-dualistic philosophy, I don't think there is a 4) - one of two things can be larger, smaller or equal with respect to a quantity, but nothing else).

It needs one side starting a confrontation and a second being confronted. In the nuke case (which belongs into the other topic) the possible options are the ostrich method, reacting on the confrontation or being forced not to feel offended by nukes, concentration camps, whatever.


The thought of talking reason and try to convince rather than to confront did not cross your mind? Jack did not post the nuke with the aim of starting a confrontation. So before going with guns blazing into the thread, trying to understand and to explain would have been an option.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10252
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:52 am

Thorsten wrote:
No, I do not assert this. I might not agree with the moral standards of somebody else but I can accept that he is offended by some of my action or lifestyle.


Well, it seems to me that you talked yourself between a rock and a hard place. I assume that you don't advocate a non-dualistic philosophy (if you do, passing any sort of judgement about the nuke is meaningless - it is, and that is all there is to say).

So, if you take position 1) (which I believe you do), then I can understand why you argue in this thread.


I can not do more than explicitely stating intentions. If it does not fit into your personal philosopher's theory I am afraid.
What I will definitely not do is letting myself down on a level that shifts a discussion in a direction which personally attacks my motivation, moral and ethics by questioning them like you appear to do for a while now (though on a higher level than Jack did 8) 8) ).
Besides being off-topic this is not valid mean to bring the desired discussion results.

Groucho wrote:It needs one side starting a confrontation and a second being confronted. In the nuke case (which belongs into the other topic) the possible options are the ostrich method, reacting on the confrontation or being forced not to feel offended by nukes, concentration camps, whatever.

The thought of talking reason and try to convince rather than to confront did not cross your mind? Jack did not post the nuke with the aim of starting a confrontation. So before going with guns blazing into the thread, trying to understand and to explain would have been an option.

You do not seem to have followed the thread. Multiple facts regarding nukes, offension, etc. have been brought in. Most of them were not denied and can not be denied. The confrontation was escalated by the "I do it anyway" behavior and insisting in the offense.
This btw is the wrong thread to discuss the nuke issue. There is one expllcitely dedicated to this topic.
_____________________________________
Callsign: D-HARP
Flight locations: TNCM, TKPK, EDNY, LOWI
Aircrafts
Helis: EC130, Bo105, UH-1, R22
Twins/Jets: Aerostar, CRJ-200
User avatar
Groucho
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Airborne Lake Constance/Germany
Callsign: D-HARP
Version: GIT
OS: Kubuntu

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:28 am

What I will definitely not do is letting myself down on a level that shifts a discussion in a direction which personally attacks my motivation, moral and ethics by questioning them like you appear to do for a while now (though on a higher level than Jack did ).


Thank you! (I would quite agree that I question your motivation, which is my stated goal almost from the beginning. In this I treat you no better or worse than myself).

So, while it is okay to question my moral standards in this thread, or Jack's, somehow it is not oaky to question yours - you don't want the discussion that way. I perfectly understand why - but are you aware that Jack likewise did not want the discussion questioning his motivation? Or that I did not want mine to be in question? So what is it that grants you the exemption, rather than me?

And why is it not legitimate to discuss that I feel offended by your statements, when it is perfectly legitimate to discuss that you feel offended by Jack?

You see, that is the asymmetry at the core of all of your arguments, that the rules are somehow different for you than for the others who don't agree with you (well, maybe you don't see... it is hard to see oneself, I know from experience...).

You do not seem to have followed the thread. Multiple facts regarding nukes, offension, etc. have been brought in. Most of them were not denied and can not be denied. The confrontation was escalated by the "I do it anyway" behavior and insisting in the offense.


This is an a posteriori argument. Sure, in hindsight it appears as if trying to get across your position in a non-confrontative matter would not have done any good. So in a sense events have justified you.

But a priori, you could not have known, and if I have ever seen a self-fulfilling prophecy, here is one: Starting a confrontation as soon as someone (possibly even accidentially) offends you is almost guaranteed to give you a confrontation - so in hindsight you can always say 'the fact that he did not back off immediately proves that I was right to start arguing'. That doesn't actually make it true though...
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10252
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:04 am

To add a personal note:

Groucho, I sympathize much with your goals and ideals (much more than with Jack's). I think it's great that you can be so passionate about an impotant issue such as nuclear weapons - many people just don't care. I disagree with your way of dealing with other opinions and standards - not with your aims.

The difference between a fundamentalist and an open-minded person is that the fundamentalist is sure - he doesn't need to ask the question what is right and what is wrong, and he refuses to be asked the question to justify why he thinks so - he is convinced that what he knows doesn't need to justified, it is self-evident. The open-minded person isn't really sure about anything, at most fairly sure about a few - so he constantly questions - himself as well as others. He looks for justification all the time, and knows that there are very few things which are truly self-evident.

I don't really want to annoy you or to tease you (although, my character being what it is, I feel unfortunately tempted) - so please just take my points above as an invitation to think about a few things and to allow yourself to question if I might not have a point. I also don't really want to continue arguing, because I have tried to make my point as clearly as possible, and anything beyond probably doesn't lead anywhere. Just... please take some time to think it through and answer my questions for yourself - that's all I ask.

Thanks!
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10252
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby SkyWlf77 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:27 pm

Thorsten wrote:So, while it is okay to question my moral standards in this thread, or Jack's, somehow it is not oaky to question yours - you don't want the discussion that way. I perfectly understand why - but are you aware that Jack likewise did not want the discussion questioning his motivation? Or that I did not want mine to be in question? So what is it that grants you the exemption, rather than me?

And why is it not legitimate to discuss that I feel offended by your statements, when it is perfectly legitimate to discuss that you feel offended by Jack?

You see, that is the asymmetry at the core of all of your arguments, that the rules are somehow different for you than for the others who don't agree with you


+1. This is 100% of my problem with you, Groucho. Your superiority complex gets in the way of any points you may have to make - regardless of how good those points may be.

-Jason
SkyWlf77
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:19 am
Location: Central Illinois
Callsign: SkyWlf77
Version: 2
OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:46 am

Thorsten wrote:So, while it is okay to question my moral standards in this thread, or Jack's, somehow it is not oaky to question yours - you don't want the discussion that way. I perfectly understand why - but are you aware that Jack likewise did not want the discussion questioning his motivation? Or that I did not want mine to be in question? So what is it that grants you the exemption, rather than me?
And why is it not legitimate to discuss that I feel offended by your statements, when it is perfectly legitimate to discuss that you feel offended by Jack?


The debate is not about questioning my motivation or Jacks motivation at all. It indeed seems that it was turned that way away from the facts in that direction.
In fact Jacks motivation is not questioned at all as he stated them himself.

The facts were:

[*]The nuke and its trivialization is seriously offensive for the reasons outlined above. Not only for me but for people inside and outside the FG community. This also applies for reenacting all sorts of war crimes
[*]Jacks motivation is to have fun and to be able to reenact such scenarios

There is no questioning the motivation. This would be guessing and (false) interpretation as the motivation is quite clear.

You seem to have read a different thread than I did (which I just did at least half). If you look at the whole debate mostly facts have been weighed against each other and you would also notice that on various occasions I have left much space for discussion by asking questions and putting question marks behind statements. And often pretty good answers have been given as a basis to continue.
Though if stuart had not removed those posts you would have noticed that lots of allegations and insulting has happened from the pro-nuke side.
And it is noticeable that the turn-away from a mostly facts-based on-topic discussion to a theoretical and philosophical debate regarding motivation has been initiated by you and now continued in this thread.

Talking about confrontation and on-topic: FlightGear has been created as a civilian flight simulator. However it is undenied and unquestioned that there is a demand for military add-ons which in general is widely accepted and the necessary freedom has been given. However this fraction has massively grown and is now stressing this freedom. And if this freedom is overstressed by eg. reenacting war crimes they have to live with the fact that they are confronted with serious critisism. This is what happened, it is legitimate and the fact that other critics have backed off due to resignation does not make it a problem of mine only like some have tried to imply.

SkyWlf77 wrote:Your superiority complex

I am somehow disappointed this is only another contribution to the list of almost insulting allegations by you in this debate.
Last edited by Groucho on Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_____________________________________
Callsign: D-HARP
Flight locations: TNCM, TKPK, EDNY, LOWI
Aircrafts
Helis: EC130, Bo105, UH-1, R22
Twins/Jets: Aerostar, CRJ-200
User avatar
Groucho
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Airborne Lake Constance/Germany
Callsign: D-HARP
Version: GIT
OS: Kubuntu

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:37 pm

The debate is not about questioning my motivation or Jacks motivation at all.


You will perhaps grant me that since I started this thread, I have a pretty good idea what the intention for it was :D I think it's rather strange if you accuse me to turn the thread away from a facts based debate to a theoretical and philosophical debate. You'll find the word 'philosophy' in my first post...

The sad truth is, that there are almost no facts without a theoretical and philosophical framework that tells you how to define a fact. And that your framework is very different from Jacks. You may call this philosophical hair-splitting - but the observation shows that Jack and you can't communicate - all you can do is annoy each other and observe that the other is stubborn.

It is as true that a number of people find Jacks nuke offensive as it is true that a number of people find your assertion of moral superiority offensive (they have said so in various threads). That you see the one and fail to see the other doesn't change that. That you call one a fact and the other not is just your personal interpretation of the observation. It is also true that a number of people find what Jack is doing not offensive (they have said so in threads). It is likely that a majority doesn't care either way.

If you would do a poll and had 100 replies, you would start to get some empirical data, allowing to establish you facts within a scientific framework. Until you do, most of what you call a fact is, when seen from an empirial perspective, an unproven claim which you managed to make somewhat plausible. If asked to rigorously prove any of what you say, it would collapse.

And if this freedom is overstressed by eg. reenacting war crimes they have to live with the fact that they are confronted with serious critisism.


Quite true. And if you demand that everyone adopts your personal ethical standards, you have to live with the fact that you are confronted by serious criticism.

Take Torstens post for a contrast: He stated something like: 'I am personally against it, here is why, I feel compelled to make a statement against, but that is all I want to do here.' That is how it can be done, and in my view also how it should be done.

Look, I really don't know how else to show it to you - shall we quit this? You get the last word if you like?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10252
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:03 pm

Thorsten wrote:
The debate is not about questioning my motivation or Jacks motivation at all.

your assertion of moral superiority offensive (they have said so in various threads).


You constantly reiterate over this "moral superiority" allegation which you refuse to put evidence on. I have nowhere stated anywhere anything regarding moral superiority. In fact I have explicitely excluded this in one of my last replies to you.
As well as you ignore several relevant parts of my replies. You are giving too much way to your temptations.

If you would do a poll and had 100 replies, you would start to get some empirical data, allowing to establish you facts within a scientific framework. Until you do, most of what you call a fact is, when seen from an empirial perspective, an unproven claim which you managed to make somewhat plausible. If asked to rigorously prove any of what you say, it would collapse.

Sorry, I will not repeat myself what has been written dozens of times just because you either refuse to read or understand in favor of trying to match it with your philosophical theory. If you can contribute to the debate by putting clear evidence on what I, as you say, "managed to make somewhat plausible" (which implies just another offense) it is welcome.
You could have said: "People are not offended of nukes because..." which would open room for more discussions but you refrain from countering it that way by making vague statements and escaping in the gray shades of your own philosophic theories.

And if this freedom is overstressed by eg. reenacting war crimes they have to live with the fact that they are confronted with serious critisism.

Quite true. And if you demand that everyone adopts your personal ethical standards, you have to live with the fact that you are confronted by serious criticism.

True also but your allegations do not gain more truth by repeating them over and over again.

Look, I really don't know how else to show it to you - shall we quit this? You get the last word if you like?

Thorsten, the debate was on a good way and we had some interesting contributions by you which I commented as civilised and gentle as possible. However you left that path at the point where you started interpreting about my motivation and constantly making false allegations. Now instead of dicussing moral aspects of military aviation in this forum or nuclear bombs in the other a personal affront is on the table which you are repeatedly feeding with unbased accusations. As mentioned above: You are giving too much way to your temptations, maybe because you want it that way (which I can not put evidence on, so it is just my personal feeling).

I do not need the last word so feel free to reply- just refrain from false or unbased allegations. This ends somehow disappointing and unfortunate.
_____________________________________
Callsign: D-HARP
Flight locations: TNCM, TKPK, EDNY, LOWI
Aircrafts
Helis: EC130, Bo105, UH-1, R22
Twins/Jets: Aerostar, CRJ-200
User avatar
Groucho
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Airborne Lake Constance/Germany
Callsign: D-HARP
Version: GIT
OS: Kubuntu

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:28 pm

You could have said: "People are not offended of nukes because..." which would open room for more discussions but you refrain from countering it that way by making vague statements and escaping in the gray shades of your own philosophic theories.


My first post:

I don't know of a 'right' solution - clearly, both following John's request and not following it have arguments going for them


Hasn't changed since. I still don't know. Was always grey shades, is still grey shades. Sorry - I tried to make it clear from the beginning that I see no clear-cut issues - please don't hold it against me, it has been the opening theme of the thread.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10252
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Ainlina » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:35 pm

Why has this become a philosophical debate?
Ainlina
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 7:27 am
Location: EGKA
Callsign: Ainlina

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:23 am

Ainlina, please read the thread. From p.7:

This is becoming a philosophical discussion.


No, it was that from the start. 8)
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10252
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Ainlina » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:51 am

Thorsten wrote:Ainlina, please read the thread. From p.7:

This is becoming a philosophical discussion.


No, it was that from the start. 8)

Sorry, my bad.
Ainlina
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 7:27 am
Location: EGKA
Callsign: Ainlina

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby timjschong » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:04 am

From what I understand of this discussion so far, there are two points of view.
1. Nukes are terrible, have caused much suffering and therefore should be banned from FlightGear.
2. To each his own, if you want a nuke, it is freely downloadable. If you don't want a nuke, ignore it.
jackermod wrote:
What part of "If you don't want to see the nuclear bomb then don't download it!" don't you understand?


Mostly, I feel that POV No.2 is a cheap way out. Literally, ignore what I don't like, if I don't like it's not there.


(There is a minor third point of view as well, : This is gonna happen anyway, and we can't really do much about it, so why bother?)

In this case, there are many conflicting points of view, each with their own arguments, and every argument has it's merits.

The thing is, every person has their own standard of morals. Some people feel it is okay to play Hiroshima in FG, after all, it's not real.

Someone else feels, this is not good. Hiroshima was a very real incident that killed many people, and a sensitive subject. It is NOT okay to play nuclear bomb, because this will hurt someone, maybe someone who lost a relative, or a friend.

In every argument so far, one person has tried to impose their point of view on another, be it either 1 or 2.

One thing that I do understand, and that is concrete, is that it is next to impossible to make someone else follow your POV.
In case anyone hasn't realised it yet, none but the most logical don't follow this one law.

A person believes what s/he wants to believe. When a person wants to believe something, s/he will make him/herself believe it.

And because of this, neither faction is going to budge.

So, the conclusion is, this is going nowhere.

And because of that, I feel that we shouldn't argue too hard, lest we drive someone from this forum.

If I don't put this part in, someone else will, so I'll do it.

I'm being fatalistic, and totally dumb about it.
Okay, fair enough. It's true after all.
timjschong
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Callsign: timothy
Version: 2
OS: Mac, sometimes Win 7

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:48 am

timjschong wrote:...


There is a drawback with the "leave it as it is as this is leading nowhere". If we assume that there are two sides of which one side wants to do something and the other does not want this to be done, then by leaving the issue alone the "do side" wins for 100% and the "don´t do" side looses for 100%. Meaning in this case the offense, which can be called severe, wins and will have fun in hurting others. Now the question arises whether gracefully refraining from this action would hurt in a similar way as it would hurt people affected (in the appropriate amount) if it is continued.

The right to do things does not automatically mean the right things are done.
_____________________________________
Callsign: D-HARP
Flight locations: TNCM, TKPK, EDNY, LOWI
Aircrafts
Helis: EC130, Bo105, UH-1, R22
Twins/Jets: Aerostar, CRJ-200
User avatar
Groucho
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Airborne Lake Constance/Germany
Callsign: D-HARP
Version: GIT
OS: Kubuntu

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:43 am

The right to do things does not automatically mean the right things are done.


Which gets us back to the question why you, rather than, say, Jack, gets to decide what the right things are. Been there, discussed that, repeat ad nauseam.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10252
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest