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 HHS » Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:59 am

Thorsten wrote: HHS has started out with irony. Perhaps not surprisingly, that has led to anger, confrontation and entrenched fronts.


Some times it needs some irony to get the real intentions of someone. His answer on my question was so clear, that I'm still shocked.
And no, this led not to anger, confrontation and entrenched fronts.

Instead it showed what is related to a nuclear bomb, and what it means to develope this.
If people here want to allow to simulate critical things- then it should be allowed to criticize this things as well. And just we have some military aircrafts does not mean we should shut up due to misunderstood freedom!

Untill the reanactment try of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a year ago and the current try to simulate a nuclear bomb with all things related to it, it was quite clear:

-Military aviation was accepted part of FlightGear- we can't deny that it is part of the real life. We can see them in real life a lot- myself currently directly above my head due to military exercise in my region. But they are there for defense. And as long noone attacks, there is no need for defense. :wink:
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
Retired
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby HHS » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:06 am

Again- to make it all clear:

-Military aviation is widely accepted though not all developers supports this!
-even Dog fighting until a certain limit is accepted!

-Nuclear bombs was not accepted yet! We had this dicussion already, and it was clear that the most people don't like the reanactement, simulated use of nuclear bombs or the simulation of itself.

I hope you all are aware of the fact that only some used nuclear bombs in RealLife can destroy the whole life on earth.
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
Retired
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby mischka » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:07 am

HHS wrote:Some times it needs some irony to get the real intentions of someone. His answer on my question was so clear, that I'm still shocked.
And no, this led not to anger, confrontation and entrenched fronts.Instead it showed what is related to a nuclear bomb, and what it means to develope this.

(..)

-Military aviation was accepted part of FlightGear- we can't deny that it is part of the real life. We can see them in real life a lot- myself currently directly above my head due to military exercise in my region. But they are there for defense. And as long noone attacks, there is no need for defense. :wink:


full ack! :mrgreen: (to both your posts)
Do you fly a lot in Europe? Have a look at European Virtual Airlines
Or do you fly all over the planet? Then have a look at Atlas Virtual Airlines
User avatar
mischka
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:49 am
Location: Ruzyne (LKPR)
Callsign: EUR001

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby jack » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:12 am

mischka wrote: the fact that there are people out there who don't know what else to do with this beautifull gift called life, than to sit and create virtual nukes... that makes me sad and a bit scared.


sigh, mischka, this would be the second time I've had to step away from the computer, walk outside, and wonder how someone could be so self centered. Why do you have to get involved? If you don't like the thread or what I'm developing, that doesn't give you the right to hijack it and start flame wars.
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 mischka » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:21 am

FYI: I have a right to post my opinion in this thread about you, your nukes, and any moral debate that comes out of that.

why don't you step outside to think about what other positive things to do with the time allotted? :roll:
Do you fly a lot in Europe? Have a look at European Virtual Airlines
Or do you fly all over the planet? Then have a look at Atlas Virtual Airlines
User avatar
mischka
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:49 am
Location: Ruzyne (LKPR)
Callsign: EUR001

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:27 am

@ mischka:

but to be honest, I noticed throughout this thread that your moral landscape seems to be very different from mine.


I don't think it's that different as such. I just constantly question that mine is the only relevant one - leading me to the conclusion that a position I don't share doesn't equal a position I should be against.

And my posts actually says the opposite: I don't subscribe to an UN ethics because that could have come very different. The source of my ethics has to come from somewhere else than a group winning a war or a consensus - these things are far too unreliable and changeable. It has to come from more general principles. I subscribe to what is called virtue ethics in philosophy (if you're interested, I can try to explain what that is). So I would not be glad if the Nazis had won - I'd probably be dead in that case because I can't keep my mouth shut.



@HHS:

Some times it needs some irony to get the real intentions of someone. His answer on my question was so clear, that I'm still shocked.
And no, this led not to anger, confrontation and entrenched fronts.


We had a similar discussion in the past. I don't think it 'needs' - there is nothing that compells you, you have a choice. You want to do it that way. I believe jackmermod is angry. mischka at some point was. I was. Maybe you were not, although 'if this becomes part of GIT, I'll go' doesn't exactly sound calm and relaxed :D I believe you could do different, and I believe it would be worth trying.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11469
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:41 am

Thorsten wrote:Well, out of touch for a few hours, and lots of development... So, let me try for a different angle.

Some here argue that virtual nuclear weapons are objectively morally wrong, i.e. that it is not their own moral standard which makes them wrong, but that there is some universality to it. Groucho has connected this to a consensus in society, backed by institutions like the UN.

Now, I'm hesitant to subscribe to a moral standard which depends on the outcome of a war. Suppose the Nazis had won WW-II - we'd probably not have the UN and the sort of standard enforced by a victorious Nazi regime on the rest of the world would be rather different. So I think what Groucho really has in mind is some notion of an objective, universal ethics. I think that is visible in statements like:

This is the reason why values and morality are immutable.


But the historical and anthropological perspective shows that they are not immutable and haven't been immutable. Currently, we in 'the West' tend value the individual very highly. Asian societies tend to have a different emphasis - they value the community over the individual. Dependent on what a society judges higher, it becomes acceptable or not to sacrifice a limited number of persons for the benefit of the whole society. We would utterly reject that notion. Pursuit of happiness and freedom of the individual, a core value in the US, would be regarded as utterly selfish in some tribal societies. If you go into the history of ethics, you'll find that the standards have changed dramatically.


Thorsten, I am not denying this. Different cultures have different values of moral and ethics. However this is not an excuse to step back from our values and ethics.
As you mentioned "The West" it is obvious that we as the members of this "community" share a common set of ethics today to which we seem to be hardly complying ourselves for egocentric reasons- be it economic or just selfish. Often these values and ethics are given up in small (sometimes larger) steps and we have hard times defending those values and ethics through democratic instances. Look at the ruling of the german federal court who denied sacrificing aircraft passenger by shooting down potentially dangerous planes.
The word "potentially" is rather interesting here as most decisions to manipulate ethics is based on "potentially" or "might". Giving up ethics to 100% to reduce a risk with a propability which is very much lower than 100% is an interesting option. Add the risk of the side effects of such a decision which also "might" or "propably" occur and you come to a point where you can´t really elaborate the benefit of such a decision. Though it is taken.

So the consequences are obvious: If we can not live up to the premise of our own values, how can we convince others of the benefit our ethics and values have regading pursuit of happiness, freedom of the individual, etc.? How can we explain to a Sudanese that throwing stones at women is not an option if he can point us to cases where people are killed due to their support of abortion or where people from their countries are tortured?
Giving up ethics and values in small steps over and over again will lead to a scenario which I believe Benjamin Franklin said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

In other words:
They who can give up ethics and values to obtain selfisch benefit neither deserve nor will they have both
_____________________________________
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 HHS » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:42 am

@Thorsten: A lot of people here are angry- nethertheless, we missed the topic just right now.
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
Retired
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby stuart » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:48 am

mischka wrote:
stuart wrote:mischka and xiii have been banned for 24 hours for abusive posts and flaming.

-Stuart (the mod)


thats just sad.. it means that the freedom of certain people to do whatever they want prevails over freedom of speech. I saw this a lot when I still lived in the UK, where certain groups of immigrants (..) can do whatever they like, and if you say something against it to be labelled as a racist or what have you. Very sad indeed. I can see that I have written things that may be perceived offensive, but can't see that in the post of xiii. Be that as it may, the fact that I write things that are offensive is my right as part of the freedom of speech which, obviously, doesn't extend to this forum.


Correct. The forums are run for the benefit of the entire FG community. Personal abuse and flaming is not acceptable.

Your are mistaking your right to free speech for a right to be published. Just as a newspaper can be selective about what it prints, so we can be selective about what we allow to be posted on this forums. We choose only to allow discussion about FG, and choose not to allow flaming etc.

Your freedom of speech is not affected.

-Stuart (the mod)
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Vikthor » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:21 pm

Groucho wrote:Well the Hague convention is much older than WW2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conv ... nd_1907%29) and the rules and values are existing much longer.
Look at the first commandment- "You shall not kill". A value on which half of the world is based. Strictly obeyed there is no misinterpretation and it is never followed by a "but". However this "but" is introduced by fractions who see a benefit in this addendum. Therefore this morale statement is bent unless it fits.
Philosophers question: Is it legal that an empowered minority turns away from ethical values and morality to reach a certain goal ?
It is not. Because if you violate the ethics once for a certain reason there will come another, even better argument to do so. This is the reason why values and morality are immutable.

Looking at the article on Hague conventions I see they had provisions banning use of aerial bombardment, yet that is not in effect any more. I think that either the moral values presented in Conventions aren't as immutable as you are trying to make me believe(as Thorsten already pointed out) and/or that using legal documents as source of morals is completely wrong, especially when they are just rules how to wage a war, which were put in place by some states according to what they found fitting their interest.
Regarding the first commandment, are you sure even the parts that claim they are based on that really are? Looking at wikipedia's list of homicides per capita, I see that out of top ten countries only Trinidad and Tobago isn't regarded as predominantly Christian. May be even the commandments aren't as universal as we think they are.
Vikthor
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:16 am
Location: Prague,Czech republic
Callsign: OK-VIK/Vikthor

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby mischka » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:34 pm

stuart wrote:blablabla
-Stuart (the mod)


be that as it may, there is a thin line between a discussion (heated or not) and a flame war.

I've been on other forums,some of them for 7 years, without being banned. Topics ranged from politics through religion to which oil to put in the engine, And I can tell you that there were quite a few more opposing opinions than in this thread. :roll:

just banning people doesn't really incur any respect or order, at least not on a long-term. It just means that the people who have really something to say are made to leave in favor of those who go whining because they are offended, like a kid clinging to its' mothers shirt
Do you fly a lot in Europe? Have a look at European Virtual Airlines
Or do you fly all over the planet? Then have a look at Atlas Virtual Airlines
User avatar
mischka
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:49 am
Location: Ruzyne (LKPR)
Callsign: EUR001

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:42 pm

Thorsten, I am not denying this. Different cultures have different values of moral and ethics. However this is not an excuse to step back from our values and ethics.


But this isn't what I'm arguing 8)

There are tensions between different values and between rights derived from those. For example

Derived from the idea of not harming others:

* people have the right not to have to see their hometown virtually nuked
* jackmermod has the right not to be subject to abusive language in public and not to be ridiculed
* I have the right not to be insulted
* ...

Derived from freedom as a value:

* mischka has the right to the freedom express whatever he thinks about virtual nukes
* jackmermod has the freedom to develop what he wants
* ...

Clearly, not all these rights can be exercised or claimed at the same time without contradictions. The tension needs to be regulated - some rights trump others. For example, as Stuart stated, the right not to be abused trumps the freedom of expression in the forum.

There is also a tension between values. Some people think virtual nukes morally unacceptable, others don't. What I write is not about giving up values, what I write is about dealing with the tensions.

For my personal moral compass, jackmermod has the freedom to do something I find questionable as long as there is no evidence of actual harm. If I grant that freedom only to people who talk and do as I find proper, it doesn't mean much. Since I don't see harm in the mere existence of a virtual nuke (for reasons explained a few times), as opposed to a Hiroshima reenactment, but I do see harm done to a developer by the general way he is being treated, I feel compelled to speak up to defend his freedom to pursue happiness in the way he wants - even if he uses that freedom for something I don't like.

So, I'm not in any way giving ethics or my values or suggesting that you do - I would argue from basically the same values as you do. What is different is how we assign weight to arguments to regulate the tension - you argue that having no virtual nukes trumps jackmermod's freedom to do what he wants, presumably because you see harm done by the mere existence.

We still need a way to deal with these differences. You still need to deal with the Sudanese - and you probably need to either fight him or convince him to get him to drop the stone. And I'd rather see you try the convincing than the fighting. And convincing requires talking, and talking requires willingness to talk, and that requires suspending that you know you are right, otherwise you just talk down - you have to talk on eye level, and at least theoretically be ready to be convinced if the other has better arguments.

So, if you ask me, you always need to consider the theoretical probability that your set of values may not be superior to regulate tensions without fighting.

If you hold to your values, no matter what, it may be very gratifying, but it has a danger of being self-righteous and accomplishing nothing, simply because it is clear that everyone else is morally inferior, and people approached with that attitude usually don't listen very well.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11469
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby stuart » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:54 pm

mischka wrote:be that as it may, there is a thin line between a discussion (heated or not) and a flame war.

Correct. That line is crossed when instead of discussing the topic, participants are make personal attacks. As a moderator, it is my job to determine when that line is crossed and act accordingly.

mischka wrote:I've been on other forums,some of them for 7 years, without being banned. Topics ranged from politics through religion to which oil to put in the engine, And I can tell you that there were quite a few more opposing opinions than in this thread. :roll:

Opposing opinions are absolutely fine, personal abuse is not. it's entirely possible that other forums have different standards of behaviour.

mischka wrote:just banning people doesn't really incur any respect or order, at least not on a long-term. It just means that the people who have really something to say are made to leave in favor of those who go whining because they are offended, like a kid clinging to its' mothers shirt

Interestingly, the exact opposite point was made 6 months ago. Various valuable members of the community left because they felt there wasn't enough moderation, and flame-wars were allowed to get out of hand. It just goes to show that one can't please everyone all the time :) I can only do the best I can, and hope that on balance I get things right. If you feel strongly that my moderation is misguided and I should be replaced, please contact Curt.

However, it is certainly the case that if people know that moderators are active, they take care with what they write. It is entirely possible to have a vigorous conversation without dropping to personal abuse. Please ensure that you do so.

-Stuart (the mod)
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Avionyx » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:43 pm

mischka wrote:
you don't seem to understand the diference between a normal bomb and a nuke do you? contemporary nukes are many times more powerfull than the ones dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki.


There's no difference, one is just more effective at doing its job than the other!

mischka wrote:
oh dear, another one :roll:


A little bit condescending don't you think? If you intend on having a discussion with me I'd rather you keep a civil tongue.
Avionyx
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: EGKA
Callsign: G-AVYX
Version: GIT
OS: Arch

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Torsten » Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:20 pm

HHS wrote:I hope you all are aware of the fact that only some used nuclear bombs in RealLife can destroy the whole life on earth.

"One thermonuclear weapon can ruin your whole day."
Not new - but still true. Now even for FlightGear ;-)
flightgear.org - where development happens.
User avatar
Torsten
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: near Hamburg, Germany
Callsign: offline
Version: next
OS: Linux

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest