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 timjschong » Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:11 am

Yes, I know. So the sensible thing to do now is to start a poll, and do whatever the poll says.
Majority wins.
:D
Though one side is going to be disappointed whichever way.
Jack if he can't continue to develop, and Groucho if we get nukes in.

@Thorsten
But I recognize there is a different philosophy, based on trying to accomodate everyone's sensibilities.

and the biggest point was, you can't accomodate everyone.
I don't want to offend anyone here, people-issues are the last thing I want. I am just offering my sincere opinion, so please don't be offended.

BTW, if you're wondering why it's been edited, its cause I have a very small RAM (in my head) and think of things to post after I actually post :)
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 11:49 am

Thorsten wrote:
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.


Which brings us back to the infinite loop where you quote a sub section of mine (taking it out of context) without caring about the rest. By placing just another assumption about things I did not write. Next try.

timjschong wrote:Jack if he can't continue to develop, and Groucho if we get nukes in.


In case you have not followed the whole thread, it is not about myself and Jack. The point is: having fun in playing weapons of mass destruction is an offense to people in the world having suffered from the nuclear threat or real application of it the same way as reenacting civilian bombings in WW2 or reenacting the Holocaust is. This is a fact independently of being right or wrong.
Last edited by Groucho on Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:25 am, 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 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:27 pm

The point is: having fun in playing weapons of mass destruction is an offense to all those people in the world having suffered from the nuclear threat or real application of it the same way as reenacting civilian bombings in WW2 or reenacting the Holocaust is. This is a fact independently of being right or wrong.


*sigh*

No.

It's your assertion of a fact. That's different from a fact. Please try to keep that apart. It would be a fact if you could point to a large number of 'all those people in the world having suffered from the nuclear threat or real application of it' agreeing with you. As it stands, you just claim to speak for a large number of people. What we actually had in one of the threads is a person who lost someone in 9/11 stating that he would *not* be inclined to enforce a ban on 9/11 reenactments - so the only person in this forum who has raised his voice belonging to the class of people you claim to speak for has in fact made it clear that you don't speak for him.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11045
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:27 pm

Thorsten wrote:
The point is: having fun in playing weapons of mass destruction is an offense to all those people in the world having suffered from the nuclear threat or real application of it the same way as reenacting civilian bombings in WW2 or reenacting the Holocaust is. This is a fact independently of being right or wrong.


Still struggling with your temptations to argue?

It's your assertion of a fact.


So there is no evidence about the offensive character of holocaust glorification because we only assert that there is? Holocaust reenactments are illegal in various countries and there are obvious reasons for this.

Glorification of WoDs is offensive and there are plenty of statements from various sides (I did this before but I don´t have the feeling that you read everything):

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10404450-17.html
http://db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pu ... 631&txtstr
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 95473.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/kohls7.html
http://www.2020visioncampaign.org/pages ... ar_weapons
All inks to the non-proliferation-treaty
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=8749

And, btw. I was never relating or speaking up with regard to 9/11 which you brought up (once again lying things in my mouth).
_____________________________________
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 SkyWlf77 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:50 pm

Groucho wrote:And, btw. I was never relating or speaking up with regard to 9/11 which you brought up (once again lying things in my mouth).


No one said you were speaking with regards to 9/11. It was a statement of comparison as the 9/11 situation evokes many memories of terror and destruction and death much like the use of Nuclear Weapons.

Groucho wrote:So there is no evidence about the offensive character of holocaust glorification because we only assert that there is?


No one said there wasn't any evidence of this. What was stated is that you seem to be one of the very, very few in this community who has an issue with this and is intent on asserting your Point of View as the only valid one. A common problem with you, personally, as seen in other threads of this type.

Groucho wrote:Holocaust reenactments are illegal in various countries and there are obvious reasons for this.


They may be, however, they are not illegal in every country and no one has the authority to impose other countries' laws on those that don't have those laws. In fact, not only do we not have that rule in my country (the United States), but we have produced an entire movie depicting the holocaust in great detail called Schindler's List.


I am, in fact, the person who lost a relative in the 9/11 terrorism attacks. It was a horrifying event and there are many support groups out there for those people who were affected in one way or another, much like those for the Nuclear Attacks. However, I am not going to let my loss interfere with the progression of a flight simulator and, just because I was affected by this, I'm not going to impose my Point of View on others to prevent a reenactment that isn't going to hurt anyone - and it won't. A reenactment of this event, especially using a Flight Simulator, is a VIRTUAL reality - NOT the real thing. There are no people who die or are injured and no property is damaged. So, there is no harm. It can be educational, it can be emotionally satisfying (in the event that someone uses this action to perform an action that they would not be able to in real life - much like flying a plane is something I can't do in real life and it's emotionally satisfying to be able to do so in a Flight Simulator as a replacement) or some people just might find it fun. I really don't care what their motivations are. It isn't hurting me. IT ISN'T KILLING MY RELATIVE ALL OVER AGAIN. So where the heck is the harm?

The only possible motivation that you have for going against this so hard is that you don't have the mental capability to deal with what happened. You haven't put it behind you - you've locked it up inside and you relive it over and over again. Join a support group, see a psychiatrist, or do whatever it takes to work through your sense of pain and loss. It took a while, but I worked through mine - and I made a heck of a lot of friends in the process. I'm not saying it doesn't still hurt - it does. But I've learned how to deal with it and you need to learn how to deal with yours. Dealing with yours does NOT mean forcing large groups of people to submit to your Point of View or demanding that your feelings be the Rule of Law. That's not the right way to deal with something like this and, on top of that, it'll never happen. I truly do hope that you work through this because I think you could be a very nice person to have as a friend once you do.

-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 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:33 pm

SkyWlf77 wrote:Join a support group, see a psychiatrist, or do whatever it takes to work through your sense of pain and loss.


This is the solution you are giving to the world?
"Well, folks, you have been tortured in concentration camps like million others and you have lost relatives, but hey, get over it. Join a psychiatrist, take a therapy and let others have fun replaying how it feels to let your daddy suffer".
I propose you send your message to the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Some folks have fun in replaying the destruction of your city, but hey, get over it. If it offends you, join a psychiatrist".
And you accuse me of imposing my point of view upon others? Well.

Just because some guys find it amusing to simplify and glorify WoMDs (while the remaining part of the world is trying to get rid of them except a few parts). There is nothing educational about this.
_____________________________________
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 SkyWlf77 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:58 pm

Groucho wrote:This is the solution you are giving to the world?


Yes, it is a solution. It's also a heck of a lot better than your "solution" of doing everything in your power to disrupt someone else's event as you have been known to do. I'm proposing a solution while you are simply proposing interference in others people's lives and condemnation of anyone who doesn't believe the way you do.

Groucho wrote:"Well, folks, you have been tortured in concentration camps like million others and you have lost relatives, but hey, get over it. Join a psychiatrist, take a therapy and let others have fun replaying how it feels to let your daddy suffer".


It's a fact of life - other people don't hold the same beliefs and convictions that you do. These events were over 60 years ago and, yes, they were a horrible, terrible, tragic series of events. But it's HISTORY. We have LEARNED from it - or at the very least we hope we have. That doesn't mean that you have run around hating everyone that doesn't take it personally every time a VIRTUAL nuke is dropped. Quite frankly, to do so is a rather pathetic existence. To live a life full of hate or fear isn't a life at all - just an existence.

I don't hate those that hijacked the planes on 9/11 - I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for their lack of self-control to realize they were being brainwashed and their choice not to do something about it -or- I feel sorry that they felt that something was so terribly missing in their life that they felt this was the only way -or- that their hate was so forceful for another set of human beings that they decided life was better ended by ending others' at the same time. War is a horrible fact of life, but it is unavoidable and you certainly can't run around ignoring it or hating others for it because to do so is to let it affect you anyway - just in a different way. The military forces, the weapons, the destruction will never completely end until all life on Earth ceases to exist. That doesn't mean we have to live lives full of hatred or despair. There are so many other good facets of life to concentrate on - friendships, love, laughter, family, skiing, parasailing, playing video games, etc. Learn from the experience, but don't relive it for the rest of your life - the self-destruction of doing so just isn't worth it.

Groucho wrote:I propose you send your message to the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Some folks have fun in replaying the destruction of your city, but hey, get over it. If it offends you, join a psychiatrist".


I could, but what good would it do? If they have chosen to allow the events that occurred so many years ago to rule their lives, it'd take a lot more than just me to help them work through it. I can only hope that someday they will make the choice to work through their issues, choose to run their cities objectively, provide the help that others need to get through their issues and promote peace and cooperation during their time in office. If I thought for one minute that a message from me would make a difference to Tadatoshi Akiba or Tomihisa Taue, I would most certainly send one. However, as I am but a lowly citizen of the United States and not a psychiatrist or politician or anything they would view as important enough to even read the message, I just can't see the point.

Groucho wrote:And you accuse me of imposing my point of view upon others? Well.


I am not imposing my point of view. I am stating it and giving reasons and background that revolve around it. I am not demanding that Nukes be allowed in or banned from FlightGear. I am not demanding that others see my way - simply suggesting a possible solution to the matter. If WoMD are banned from FlightGear, so be it and I will follow the rules. If they aren't, then that is fine with me, too. I just hope that serious consideration is given to all sides of the issue and that my experiences are taken into account along with everyone else's when making the final decision. I also am hoping that maybe what I have said here will help someone else deal with their own tragedy rather than letting it run their lives, but it is their choice of what they do. I care about all humans and it pains me to see it when someone allows hate or fear to run their lives.

Groucho wrote:Just because some guys find it amusing to simplify and glorify WoMDs (while the remaining part of the world is trying to get rid of them except a few parts).


We can get rid of them, but we will never erase the history revolving around them. History is permanent and it cannot be rewritten - at least not yet. I am not trying to simplify or glorify their use in any way, nor do I believe that that is the basis behind their development. It is a system that is used to implement all aspects of flight as we know it. The fact remains that WoMD were used in history and that development of these is still underway in parts of the world whether we want to admit it or not.

Groucho wrote:There is nothing educational about this.


Take it or leave it, but I seriously beg to differ here. We learn things from history and reenactments of that history. We learn what to do and what not to do. We realize the mistakes of others and hope not to repeat those mistakes in the future. Many people have no idea of the power of a WoMD and seeing it modeled in a virtual environment with no risk of death or actual destruction can be very educational.

Yes, there are those that will use it inappropriately. There are people out there who would take a fork that we use to eat with and use it as a weapon. That doesn't mean that we should eat with our fingers to avoid building forks. I'm certainly not saying that we should continue to build WoMD because we shouldn't, but I personally don't believe that we should prevent its virtual creation and implementation as a 3rd-party add-on (in such a way that it's not "shoved in the faces" of those who don't care for it). Nor do I believe that we should prevent any military aspects from being implemented (including the swastikas that people threw such a fit about) just because some people don't care for it. But that is for the overall community to decide as a whole - not for me, you or any other single person.

I do, however, find it interesting that out of my entire posting, you singled out one sentence to respond to and ignored the rest of it. I guess I really shouldn't be surprised, though. I would suggest that you consider opening your mind a little to others opinions and statements rather than simply "homing in" on that which you don't agree with just for the sake of argument and trying to force your beliefs as Rule of Law.

-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 timjschong » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:09 am

Thorsten wrote:
Personally, I find playing Nazi concentration camp extremely tasteless.


I find the same thing of reenacting World Wars and national disasters, but there are different opinions, some people might not care, some people might be all for it, and some people might feel it is educational. I know I wince when I see bloody Roman torture in schoolbooks.
And to Jack it might just be another subject for developing.

And on the subject of WMDs, I still think the best thing to do is to start a poll. Two people may argue all they want, but in the end, both will assert that they speak for the majority, and it is not possible to know what the majority thinks unless you find out.

@Groucho
What I did try to do was to stop the endless loop and get a decision. I proposed a poll.
And yes, it is not just about yourself and Jack. I picked you two because you were the most against it, and Jack because he is developing the actual bomb itself.
And please, don't take things as a personal attack. This is a philosophical debate on moral and ethical standards that will probably never end.
And you seem to assume that I'm 'not on your side'. I have not gone for a nuclear bomb. I have not advocated re-enacting Hiroshima and Nagasaki (incidentally, why does everyone forget Nagasaki?) and all I have said was that I do not support forcing your Point Of View on everyone else.

@Jason
About the killing fork, I think there was a plane hijacked with a metal steak knife before. Or was it a butter knife?

@everybody and anybody who reads this
So, please answer, should I start a poll??
The only reason I haven't done it yet is because I feel it might have slightly negative consequences on community if this turns into a gigantic flamewar that the entire forum is involved in.


And Jason's argument is perfectly true, this is not real. This isn't about actually killing people, this is about your ethical standards. And if you say that nukes in FG don't matter, it doesn't mean that you are a bloodthirsty and insensitive person. A person could derive enjoyment from developing it. And maybe create a bombable script that reenacts historical wars with the inclusion of modern technology. Another form of education.

There are good and bad things with this. I won't deny there's absolutely nothing wrong with creating a nuke in FG, but neither is it to enforce a certain point of view on everyone else.
Last edited by timjschong on Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 jack » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:08 am

timjschong wrote:And on the subject of WMDs, I still think the best thing to do is to start a poll. Two people may argue all they want, but in the end, both will assert that they speak for the majority, and it is not possible to know what the majority thinks unless you find out.


It doesn't matter what the majority thinks. If 5000 people were to tell me to stop developing simulations of Weapons for Flightgear, I by no means have to listen to them. I run my website, I decide what I publish and what I don't. In this case, I have every right to create and share simulations of weapons and plan on continuing to do so in full force and effect, as that is one of my rights as a U.S. Citizen.

I certainly do not intend to use my Nuclear Bomb for 'fun', but I can not and do not intend to stop people from using it for whatever they see fit, as that is not my obligation, nor is it any of my business what other people use their copy of flightgear for. I certainly never simulate using weapons of mass destruction for fun. There are weapons of mass destruction in real life. Flightgear is a simulator of real life, and to get it as close to real life as possible, I have brought in a variant of a Nuclear Weapon. I intend to use this simulation of a nuclear weapon in order to simulate the effects of a real bomb in real life, without causing any damage to the real world, which is truly the beauty of simulation software.

To further prove my thoughts, we will compare scenarios that are very similar when you look at the big picture.

Scenario:

Frankie is a family guy, has two kids, and a wife. He would seem like an ordinary guy, but there is one thing that makes him very different from the rest of us. His parents were passengers on American Airlines Flight 11, on September 11, 2001. They were both killed when terrorists deliberately crashed their Boeing 767 into one of the Twin Towers. Frankie is very sad about this event still, and one day he comes across Flightgear. He notices that Flightgear has a Boeing 767 available for download. The thought of a Boeing 767 reminds him of his parents tragic death, and he asks the Flightgear community to remove all traces of the Boeing 767 from the flightgear project, so he won't have to be reminded of his parents.

Tell me, what justifies the constant demands for my Nuclear Bomb to be removed any more than the removal of the Boeing 767? What makes your(I'm directing this at you, Groucho) moral beliefs any better than Frankies? Also, what would stop me from making concentration camps available as a scenery download? What would make your moral beliefs superior over mine?

Groucho, you have every right to believe what you want, but that does not make your beliefs superior to anybody else's. I don't intend to impose my beliefs on you at all, but only to give you an opportunity to understand, which is an option for you to decide on.
For Military Aircraft, Scenery, and more, visit http://alphashangar.co.nr/

'Retired' from FlightGear as of July 2011. You can contact me via my website if you'd like to pick up any old projects.
User avatar
jack
Retired
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:26 pm
Location: KLVK
Callsign: Alpha-J, Rescue1
Version: GIT
OS: Mac OS X

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby timjschong » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:10 am

Although Groucho may feel whatever he wants to feel, I don't think that what he thinks should be enforced in everyone. As I've said, many times before.
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 timjschong » Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:49 am

Now, I want you guys to stuff everything I've said before. While I still believe it's true, sitting at the crossroads of neutrality isn't going to do much here.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS IN A SIMULATION?????????

For goodness sake, look at what's already in FlightGear. Zeppelins, fighter aircraft, bombers. As of yet, there has not been anyone that I'm aware of who complains about them. If you're gonna argue against nukes, argue against them! Zeppelins were used to bomb London in WWII. Fighter aircraft are instruments of destruction. As are nukes. Nukes have killed and hurt millions of people. In all of history, in every war fought with F/A 18s and B-17 Fortresses, more have been killed by these than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Take all the casualties from primitive aircraft in WWI, all the plane strafings and bombings in WWII, and all the kills in the Middle East and whatever location the Western army is fighting in and you'll have tens the times nukes have killed.

So what is so special about nukes? If you don't like nukes, you might as well argue against people including F-16s, F-18s, B-2s, B-1s, ... ... ...

In fact, why not go sue MSFS for their missions. Tell them it hurts my friend 'cos his granddad died in the trenches in WWII.
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 Thorsten » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:54 am

Groucho wrote:

The point is: having fun in playing weapons of mass destruction is an offense to all those people in the world having suffered from the nuclear threat or real application of it the same way as reenacting civilian bombings in WW2 or reenacting the Holocaust is. This is a fact independently of being right or wrong.
(...)
So there is no evidence about the offensive character of holocaust glorification because we only assert that there is? Holocaust reenactments are illegal in various countries and there are obvious reasons for this.


Oh, there is evidence for the offensive character of holocaust glorification all right. But that doesn't make your first statement true, because in your first statement you claim that having fun in playing weapons of mass destruction is an offense to all those people in the world having suffered from the nuclear threat or real application of it (...) This is a fact independently of being right or wrong.. There is no transitivity of evidence - if you make statements A and B and believe that A and B are equivalent and can offer evidence for B, that still doesn't imply A. You have to either prove that A and B are really equivalent or produce evidence for A.

So, is there any evidence for public outrage at nuclear weapons in computer games like there is at holocaust reemactments? I know of many computer games which depict the use of nuclear weapons, yet I am not aware of a big public controversy. They are not illegal in any country I know. I doubt that a newspaper headline 'Mushroom clouds in computer games!' would cause a scandal or a public outrage. What is discussed to some degree in public are games with close-ups on personal violence like the Grand Theft Auto series or Counterstrike - yet they are not illegal in any country I have knowledge of, so they are manifestly not equivalent to holocaust reenactments, despite of what you may think.

Some precision in the analysis is needed. That you consider A equal to B doesn't mean that it is. That you think X a fact does not equal that X is a fact - that requires to produce evidence. That you think Y is universally accepted does not mean that it is universally accepted - again, that requires evidence. You use 'fact' and 'right' and 'wrong' and 'universally accepted' far too liberally, given the evidence you have actually been able to produce.

Take Mr. Mandela's speech:

We must face the fact that after countless initiatives and resolutions, we still do not have concrete and generally accepted proposals supported by a clear commitment by the nuclear-weapons States to the speedy, final and total elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities.(...)This is appropriately titled: "Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: The Need for a New Agenda".


That's Mr. Mandela arguing for a worled free of real nuclear weapons. He doesn't talk about banning virtual nuclear weapons from computer games. So, leaving aside your (unproven) assertion that they are somehow the same - what is the relevance? That's not supporting evidence. Several people (including myself) have told you that they are very much against real nuclear weapons but don't see virtual nuclear weapons as the same thing.

Take the Human rights group statement. There is an interesting comment at the end:

Now it's your turn. Should games depict violence that would be illegal in real life? Do human rights laws extend to video games? Let us know in the comments below.


In other words, the editor of the article does not think it obvious that human rights laws extend to video games. Neither do I.

But yes, I don't doubt that you can find evidence in terms of people speaking out against virtual nuclear weapons. The question is - how many, and how justified are they.

In more general terms - whatever action A you perform (insert for A e.g. 'develop a virtual nuke', 'do an abortion', 'be a religious Muslim', 'have a child with your partner without being married', ...) you will find a number of people n1 who are opposed to this action and would like to ban it, the number n2 who support it and oppose a ban and the number n3 who don't care. The question is not if you can find anyone. You may have some prejudice about how large n1 and n2 are, but that's really an empirical question. You can have a poll to get an answer.

The second question is, even if n1 is large, how justified the opposition is. That's not an empirical question, and it can not be solved by a poll. It's a deep and complicated philosophical question. In past times, there was a majority in parts of the US which was of the opinion that slavery is okay - yet I (and probably most of us) would argue that even a majority opinion can't justify slavery. There are clearly a large number of people who thinks abortion is not right and are very much offended by the existence of abortion clinics. Yet in many places it is felt that these people just have to put up with it and do not get the right to interfere with women who want to do abortion.

So even if you can produce evidence for n1 being large in the case of virtual nuclear weapons and n2 being small, i.e. a large number of people being offended and hurt by virtual nuclear weapons, and a small number arguing for the freedom to do what they want as long as no harm in the real world is done, it still doesn't mean that the offense they take would be justified - maybe (even probably), just as in the case of street violence in computer games, the society feels that they just have to put up with it.

To deny a group of people freedom is a serious step in a democratical society, and if you look at the pattern, it's not done lightly. The usual solution is that a potentially offended group, even if it is the majority, has to tolerate things for the sake of the freedom of others (even a minority) unless there is evidence for actual harm. Yes - there are counterexamples - but they are relatively few. Holocaust glorifications being illegal in Germany is one - but (as has been mentioned), in the US it is not illegal. You may (if you like) worship the devil - that's protected by freedom of religion, although a huge number of people are offended and a tiny number of people gaining from devil-worship. You may also make a cartoon of a crazy pope and make fun of christianity - that's perhaps not too wise, hugely offensive to a significant number of catholics - and yet is it protected by freedom of expression.

I doubt that you could argue the case against virtual nuclear weapons to the point that the US or Europe would actually decide to make it illegal.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11045
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:16 am

SkyWlf77 wrote:
Groucho wrote:This is the solution you are giving to the world?

Yes, it is a solution. It's also a heck of a lot better than your "solution" of doing everything in your power to disrupt someone else's event as you have been known to do. I'm proposing a solution while you are simply proposing interference in others people's lives and condemnation of anyone who doesn't believe the way you do.


Would you please once and for all quote where I say "believe it my way" or "damn you"? Instead of debating the whole issue on a serious basis the only thing I keep hearing are personal attacks and assumptions on myself and my motivation. I am prodividing links and information, point out arguments and ask questions. Especially from your side we had various insults and assumptions as answers.
And no, you are not proposing something, you are demanding. "Get over it" is your demand and to keep silent.

Groucho wrote:"Well, folks, you have been tortured in concentration camps like million others and you have lost relatives, but hey, get over it. Join a psychiatrist, take a therapy and let others have fun replaying how it feels to let your daddy suffer".


It's a fact of life - other people don't hold the same beliefs and convictions that you do. These events were over 60 years ago and, yes, they were a horrible, terrible, tragic series of events. But it's HISTORY. We have LEARNED from it - or at the very least we hope we have. That doesn't mean that you have run around hating everyone that doesn't take it personally every time a VIRTUAL nuke is dropped. Quite frankly, to do so is a rather pathetic existence. To live a life full of hate or fear isn't a life at all - just an existence.


No, we haven´t learned anything from history, if we accept that people make fun of tragic events. This does not honor the victims, this is mocking about them. And once again, your accusations regarding hate and fear are substanceless.

I don't hate those that hijacked the planes on 9/11 - I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for their lack of self-control to realize they were being brainwashed and their choice not to do something about it -or- I feel sorry that they felt that something was so terribly missing in their life that they felt this was the only way -or- that their hate was so forceful for another set of human beings that they decided life was better ended by ending others' at the same time.


Total agreement here.

Groucho wrote:I propose you send your message to the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Some folks have fun in replaying the destruction of your city, but hey, get over it. If it offends you, join a psychiatrist".


I could, but what good would it do? If they have chosen to allow the events that occurred so many years ago to rule their lives, it'd take a lot more than just me to help them work through it. I can only hope that someday they will make the choice to work through their issues, choose to run their cities objectively, provide the help that others need to get through their issues and promote peace and cooperation during their time in office. If I thought for one minute that a message from me would make a difference to Tadatoshi Akiba or Tomihisa Taue, I would most certainly send one. However, as I am but a lowly citizen of the United States and not a psychiatrist or politician or anything they would view as important enough to even read the message, I just can't see the point.


Every year on August 6th and 9th there are memorial days organised by the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Memorial days to honor the victims, to learn from history and to plea for a ban on nuclear weapons. This has nothing to do with a lack of mental abilities to deal with the desaster of 1945 but to ensure that the world remembers the victims and what caused them, to prevent from glorification and trivialisation.
Trivialising nuclear weapons is like white-washing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Groucho wrote:And you accuse me of imposing my point of view upon others? Well.

I am not imposing my point of view.
[/quote]

Well, "get over it" is exactly this.

Groucho wrote:There is nothing educational about this.

Take it or leave it, but I seriously beg to differ here. We learn things from history and reenactments of that history. We learn what to do and what not to do. We realize the mistakes of others and hope not to repeat those mistakes in the future. Many people have no idea of the power of a WoMD and seeing it modeled in a virtual environment with no risk of death or actual destruction can be very educational.


I have stated it several times- to do this you need an appropriate framework which allows to cover all aspects. FlightGear does not provide this. There is no aftermath to be simulated, no instant suffering and no delayed suffering over years. It is nothing more than flying from A to B, pressing a trigger and seeing an impressive mushroom cloud.
A train approaching Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen is nothing but a neat train though in real life it transported humans into a concentration camp (which is only some nice buildings with a chimney) for extermination.
This is trivialisation.
FlightGear is educational for all aspects of flying and that is it.

I do, however, find it interesting that out of my entire posting, you singled out one sentence to respond to and ignored the rest of it. I guess I really shouldn't be surprised, though. I would suggest that you consider opening your mind a little to others opinions and statements rather than simply "homing in" on that which you don't agree with just for the sake of argument and trying to force your beliefs as Rule of Law.


I concentrated on the part where you once again went riding a personal attack. I intended to comment on the remaining part but decided to skip it due to my disappointment.

timjschong wrote:WHAT IS WRONG WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS IN A SIMULATION?????????


I am slowly getting used to repeat myself- it is a trvivialisation of a weapon of mass desctruction targeted agaisnt civilians which reduces all the consequences and aftermaths to a neat graphical effect.
If you argue with other military equipment like F16s, F18s, etc., these are aircrafts and have a direct relation with flightgear. If you read the thread from the beginning it was common sense that military equipment is widely accepted inside FlightGear as it targets military personal and trains flight skills.
A nuclear bomb like little man and fat boy targets civilians which falls in the category of violating international human rights standards, like the Geneve and Hague conventions. If you followed several threads inside the forum you might have also noticed that the reenacting of the Dresden bombings has raised strong opposing, also as would have the bombings of London or Coventry.
The common sense in the forum here is that military missions in general are accepted as long they stick with military targets. Otherwise opinions greatly differ.

jackmermod wrote:The thought of a Boeing 767 reminds him of his parents tragic death, and he asks the Flightgear community to remove all traces of the Boeing 767 from the flightgear project, so he won't have to be reminded of his parents.


You have brought this up some time ago and I answered this the same way: The civilian aircraft was not built with the intension to kill his parents. This happened due to a misuse ot the plane. The nuclear weapon is built to do exactly this: Kill somebodie´s parents.

Also, what would stop me from making concentration camps available as a scenery download? What would make your moral beliefs superior over mine?

In certain countries it would fall under the holocaust denial laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial) even if you don´t deny the happenings but trivialise it. In this case downloading and installing would propably be illegal. I guess it would focus the attention of certain jewish organisations on FlightGear which in turn would then propably enforce pressure on this matter.

Groucho, you have every right to believe what you want, but that does not make your beliefs superior to anybody else's.


I never said this. I heard this accusation a few times before but it came from sides which refused to deal with the points and questions I brought up (like the links I provided, etc.) or prefered to take it to a rather personal level.
And to emphasize once again: The fact, that I am argueing alone does not mean I am the only one offended by nukes in FlightGear:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=8749
Not to speak that there is an outside world. But I am repeating myself.
_____________________________________
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 timjschong » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:27 am

Despite what you think Groucho, I am not a bloodthirsty murderous nuke lover without sensitivities to the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I do not have 'fun' playing with nukes. I do not 'just love' to re-enact the holocaust, or WWII. In fact, I hate war. But a simulation is a simulation.
A person can have his point of view, of course. But that person has no right to force it on someone else.

Thorsten wrote:evidence...evidence...evidence


And because I kind of feel tired of the lack of information about how many people want or don't want nukes in FG, I am gonna start a poll.
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 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:58 am

Thorsten wrote:But that doesn't make your first statement true, because in your first statement you claim that having fun in playing weapons of mass destruction is an offense to all those people in the world having suffered from the nuclear threat or real application of it (...)


Sorry, but here is a wrong assertation once again. Quote me if I am wrong but I never said "all those people".

To make a long story short- it is a pure theoretical approach to call for a majority evidence of some billion people affected by a potential nuclear extermination before accepting the evidence. The same applies to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe you know this and I assume this is why you bring it up.
However it is perfectly legal to imply that reenacting and trivialising sufferings of people is offensive in general- it dishonors the victims of suffering. On an empiric basis A is true can imply that B is also true with a high propability.
If somebody raped a woman and somebody else replays that raping for fun (be it virtual or simulated in the real world) this is offensive. If somebody plays "send the people into the chambers" this is offensive. Simulating criminal actions or actions which can be considered as war crimes for fun can be considered as offensive. As Jason pointed out there is the possibility of an educational or scientific way of doing this but FlightGear is not even by far prepared to provide the frame to it.

So, is there any evidence for public outrage at nuclear weapons in computer games like there is at holocaust reemactments? I know of many computer games which depict the use of nuclear weapons, yet I am not aware of a big public controversy. They are not illegal in any country I know. I doubt that a newspaper headline 'Mushroom clouds in computer games!' would cause a scandal or a public outrage. What is discussed to some degree in public are games with close-ups on personal violence like the Grand Theft Auto series or Counterstrike - yet they are [i]not illegal in any country I have knowledge of, so they are manifestly not equivalent to holocaust reenactments, despite of what you may think.


There are several steps of escalation here- first the mere existence of the nuclear weapons as a trivialisation of the real thing, a gaming effect, making it a funny fireball with cloud only as you mentioned being present in various computer games. However nobody would think of such games as a simulation or would expect realistic behavior though the trivialisation itself is an advertising of those.
None of these games allows to reenact historic scenarios which leads to the next step of escalation-using the weapon to simulate eg. Hiroshima.

Some precision in the analysis is needed. That you consider A equal to B doesn't mean that it is. That you think X a fact does not equal that X is a fact - that requires to produce evidence. That you think Y is universally accepted does not mean that it is universally accepted - again, that requires evidence. You use 'fact' and 'right' and 'wrong' and 'universally accepted' far too liberally, given the evidence you have actually been able to produce.


See above.

Take Mr. Mandela's speech:

We must face the fact that after countless initiatives and resolutions, we still do not have concrete and generally accepted proposals supported by a clear commitment by the nuclear-weapons States to the speedy, final and total elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities.(...)This is appropriately titled: "Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: The Need for a New Agenda".


That's Mr. Mandela arguing for a worled free of real nuclear weapons. He doesn't talk about banning virtual nuclear weapons from computer games. So, leaving aside your (unproven) assertion that they are somehow the same - what is the relevance? That's not supporting evidence. Several people (including myself) have told you that they are very much against real nuclear weapons but don't see virtual nuclear weapons as the same thing.


He does not say "real" or distinguish. In fact trivialising nuclear weapons is like advertising them, making them a solution of choice without having to consider all aspects. The trivialisation therefore is a contradiction to the attempts of getting rid of them.

Take the Human rights group statement. There is an interesting comment at the end:

Now it's your turn. Should games depict violence that would be illegal in real life? Do human rights laws extend to video games? Let us know in the comments below.

In other words, the editor of the article does not think it obvious that human rights laws extend to video games. Neither do I.
[...]


In the whole debate there is always forgotten one aspect- the pursuit of happiness. For victims this means that their suffering is not forgotten nor trivialised and that there is a chance to prevent from further trivialisation so that they can live a life in the pursuit of happiness.
As you talk about numbers, I believe we agree that there are hundreds of thousands of victims of weapons of mass destruction in the world. I believe we also agree that trivialising the act dishonors those. What we do not have is evidence whether they lack the pursuit of happiness if they knew about the trivialisation. That however does not mean that degrading the act by a dozen of people for their own fun is justified.

To deny a group of people freedom is a serious step in a democratical society, and if you look at the pattern, it's not done lightly. The usual solution is that a potentially offended group, even if it is the majority, has to tolerate things for the sake of the freedom of others (even a minority) unless there is evidence for actual harm. Yes - there are counterexamples - but they are relatively few. Holocaust glorifications being illegal in Germany is one - but (as has been mentioned), in the US it is not illegal. You may (if you like) worship the devil - that's protected by freedom of religion, although a huge number of people are offended and a tiny number of people gaining from devil-worship. You may also make a cartoon of a crazy pope and make fun of christianity - that's perhaps not too wise, hugely offensive to a significant number of catholics - and yet is it protected by freedom of expression.


Which once again brings me to the statement: Having the right to do and say things does not automatically mean it is the right thing to say and do.

I doubt that you could argue the case against virtual nuclear weapons to the point that the US or Europe would actually decide to make it illegal.


This has never been the question of the debate. The point is to accept social standards which also mean to accept others opinion and feelings and act accordingly.
_____________________________________
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

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest