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 Ainlina » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:53 am

Attitudes of military aircraft are generally more varied due to increased maneuverability... Sorry, that's not what we were talking about. :wink:
In all seriousness, as regards nukes, the virtual dropping of nuclear ordnance on Hiroshima or San Francisco, so long as it is not done on multiplayer, won't harm anyone, I think. The availability of said ordnance will not "corrupt the mind" of politicians nor will it help train terrorists as there is not much skill in dropping a nuke other than flying a plane, and if it would inspire politicians to order a nuclear attack, they're probably mad enough to do it anyway. As to less controversial aspects of military aviation, they should be modeled accurately as aspects of aviation. For military multiplayer events, I like the idea of engaging in virtual war games as it will not offend anyone, as these are non-political training exercises.
Ainlina
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 7:27 am
Location: EGKA
Callsign: Ainlina

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:48 am

Ainlina wrote:Attitudes of military aircraft are generally more varied due to increased maneuverability... Sorry, that's not what we were talking about. :wink:
In all seriousness, as regards nukes, the virtual dropping of nuclear ordnance on Hiroshima or San Francisco, so long as it is not done on multiplayer, won't harm anyone, I think. The availability of said ordnance will not "corrupt the mind" of politicians nor will it help train terrorists as there is not much skill in dropping a nuke other than flying a plane, and if it would inspire politicians to order a nuclear attack, they're probably mad enough to do it anyway. As to less controversial aspects of military aviation, they should be modeled accurately as aspects of aviation. For military multiplayer events, I like the idea of engaging in virtual war games as it will not offend anyone, as these are non-political training exercises.


People seem to like going in circles :)
Once again- you say that people who have suffered from the real thing, suffered from war crimes, still struggle with fear from the happenings, would not feel offended if people reenact and replay exactly the cause of this suffer for their own pleasure?
Every year there are various commemoration days at those locations (Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and others) in which we are told to learn from history and not to forget the victims to prevent such scenarios from happening again. Now you say it is ok to play for fun what should not happen again as dropping bombs and nukes on civilians is quite an experience (if you don´t have to care about the consequences). I would call that an offence against those commemoration days, the victims and their relatives as well as all attempts to condemn what is actually seen as war crimes.
And to stay on the more polemic side of life: According to this argumentation the simulation of stabbing and raping your girl friend, mother, whoever would then be ok as long as I don´t do the real thing. Because it would not offend or harm anybody. Did I get it right?
_____________________________________
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 Ainlina » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:55 pm

I said NOT on multiplayer, so no-one is offended.
Ainlina
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 7:27 am
Location: EGKA
Callsign: Ainlina

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:21 pm

Ainlina wrote:I said NOT on multiplayer, so no-one is offended.


So what you are now saying is a bad idea turns into a good one as long as nobody knows about it?
_____________________________________
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 Ainlina » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:31 pm

Yes, as that is the only harm. I'm a utilitarian.
Ainlina
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 7:27 am
Location: EGKA
Callsign: Ainlina

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Armchair Ace » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:50 pm

Bump.
Member of the FlightGear Flying Club

Current Projects :
Miscellaneous texture and sound work
User avatar
Armchair Ace
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 7:48 pm
Location: EGP?
Callsign: G-ATPF
IRC name: ArmchairAce
OS: Mac OSX

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:06 pm

Ainlina wrote:Yes, as that is the only harm. I'm a utilitarian.


I am not an expert in utilitarism but would you say doing things which might harm people if they knew about it is complying with the aim of maximum happiness?
Because if people happen to know one day the harm is already done, can´t be taken back and you would have to lie to still comply with that principle.
That is a bit like going to the graveyard by night, opening the fresh grave, taking out the body, closing the grave again, taking the corps home and cooking it for dinner. Nobody will ever notice. Hopefully.

Honestly I never understood utilitarism that way though as I said I am not an expert in that.
_____________________________________
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 » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:49 pm

Which only gets you back to the problem that your lifestyle is considered very offensive by <insert your favourite group of religious fanatics here>. So, do you want that they take action to correct the problem, or would you rather be in a situation where they don't know and hence leave you alone?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11045
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Ainlina » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:46 pm

Groucho wrote:
Ainlina wrote:Yes, as that is the only harm. I'm a utilitarian.


I am not an expert in utilitarism but would you say doing things which might harm people if they knew about it is complying with the aim of maximum happiness?
Because if people happen to know one day the harm is already done, can´t be taken back and you would have to lie to still comply with that principle.
That is a bit like going to the graveyard by night, opening the fresh grave, taking out the body, closing the grave again, taking the corps home and cooking it for dinner. Nobody will ever notice. Hopefully.

Honestly I never understood utilitarism that way though as I said I am not an expert in that.

Lying is OK if it increases overall happiness. This is becoming a philosophical discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
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 » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:11 pm

This is becoming a philosophical discussion.


No, it was that from the start. 8)
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11045
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:42 am

Ainlina wrote:

Lying is OK if it increases overall happiness.[/quote]

Lying does not remove the fact that misbehavior has occured. If you once get caught with your lie the action can not be undone and then drastically violates the maximum-happiness principle for two reasons: People are unhappy because of the action you did and second because you have lied to hide it.
It also violates the principle of considering consequences of your action.

Thorsten wrote:Which only gets you back to the problem that your lifestyle is considered very offensive by <insert your favourite group of religious fanatics here>. So, do you want that they take action to correct the problem, or would you rather be in a situation where they don't know and hence leave you alone?


If I can easily avoid the offense by not performing the offensive action the answer is pretty simple.
Otherwise there still is the question of potential consequences, how to avoid that my lifestyle is looking offensive, etc.
Confrontation is the least effective solution (and it violates the maximum-happiness rule btw :) ) and hiding is rather risky and often dangerous.
_____________________________________
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 » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:23 am

Hm, I feel rather stupid to point it out - but don't you really see the following?

If I can easily avoid the offense by not performing the offensive action the answer is pretty simple.


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.

Now, mine clearly don't always - otherwise we would not need to discuss. So, consquentially in your view I am in violation of the universal ethical standard. This means, although you have been polite enough not to do it explicitly, that you call me either a stupid/uneducated person or an immoral person (basically, if I am not smart enough to see the universal standard I am stupid, if I do see it, but choose to ignore it, I am immoral).

Actually, it does offend me to be called (even by implication) stupid or immoral. So - is it really simple for you to avoid that offensive action (say, by agreeing that my ethical standards may be as valid as yours)? Or does it make a hidden difference if you are offended by someone or if someone is offended by you?

Confrontation is the least effective solution (and it violates the maximum-happiness rule btw ) and hiding is rather risky and often dangerous.


So - why do you go for confrontation with jackmermod over virtual nukes if it is the least effective solution (which I have written more than 2 weeks ago)?

And since it is in reply to my statement - I don't subscribe to a maximum happiness rule - that would be Ainlina. If anything, I am defending a concrete virtue ethics, though mostly meta-ethics / ethical relativism.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11045
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:48 pm

Thorsten wrote:Hm, I feel rather stupid to point it out - but don't you really see the following?

If I can easily avoid the offense by not performing the offensive action the answer is pretty simple.


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. These are different things. Offending people or culture is not valid just because they do not comply to ones own moral standards.

So, consquentially in your view I am in violation of the universal ethical standard. This means, although you have been polite enough not to do it explicitly, that you call me either a stupid/uneducated person or an immoral person (basically, if I am not smart enough to see the universal standard I am stupid, if I do see it, but choose to ignore it, I am immoral).


Your assumption of what I call or think about you (explicitely or implicitely) is wrong and therefore all conclusions you draw from them are invalid.

Confrontation is the least effective solution (and it violates the maximum-happiness rule btw ) and hiding is rather risky and often dangerous.


So - why do you go for confrontation with jackmermod over virtual nukes if it is the least effective solution (which I have written more than 2 weeks ago)?

You exchange cause and reaction. The confrontation and offense started by the creation of the nuke. The simple solution would have been not to do it, instead confrontation has been chosen by not caring about any consequence.
_____________________________________
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 » Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:44 pm

A confrontation needs two sides - always.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11045
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Sat Jul 24, 2010 2:23 pm

Thorsten wrote:A confrontation needs two sides - always.


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.
_____________________________________
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 2 guests