Thorsten wrote:Thorsten wrote:
That's a completely different line of argument, and this argument applies as well to the B-52 (and other warplanes) as it applies to nuclear weapons.Groucho wrote:We have gone through this a few times and I have answered it a few times, even today. We as the FG community have commonly agreed on the use of military equipment (especially planes) against military targets as a part related to FlightGear, eg. to improve flight skills. And I have also pointed out the bombings of Dresden, London and Coventry. Shall we go through this again and again?
Well - am I not part of the Flightgear community? Who is that 'we' you claim to speak for?
Thorsten, I am not repeating myself over and over again. Reread the thread from the beginning where we discussed military equipment in general unless someone I am not going to name narrowed the focus and moved the nuke discussion from a different topic here.
True - but it applies equally well to the B-52. In what way does pretending that the B-52 (which in reality was designed for the purpose of killing people and has done so on countless occasions) is just a regular plane to fly from A to B not trivialize the suffering of civilians who have been fire-bombed by this plane? Do you want to explain that to anyone who spent his childhood searching the skies for approaching bombers?
Already gone over it even one day ago (plus more in the thread). See Dresden, London, Coventry.
Flightgear is not capable of emulating WoMDs. It can not simulate the aftermath and its global consequences for life forms even years after the application. All it can and will do is to show a fireball, fire and a mushroom cloud. Therefore it will remain a trivialised copy of the real thing.
Thorsten wrote:Flightgear isn't capable of simulating a real airplane either - a real plane has g forces, smells a certain way, has funny vibrations,... - all of which are strangely absent whenever I use Flightgear. So it remains a trivialized copy of the real thing. Doesn't keep us from using it though.
You are once again comparing ordnance with planes, of which most of the primary functionalities are simulated. Aftermath is an integral part of a nuke which will always be lacking in the simulation. At least for me it is not imaginable how you would emulate dying of people from cancer and diseases for years in FlightGear.
Your line of argument 2: Slippery slope - having virtual nuclear weapon leads to glorification and war crime reenactments and advertizes real nuclear weapons.
If so, then let's ban spoons from airplanes. If people get to eat with spoons, they may ask for forks, and once they have that, they may want knifes. Once someone has a knife, he might also argue for a dagger, because in past ages people have been used that for eating. But if one person gets a dagger, another may ask for a sword. And then somebody really needs his gun because he feels threatened. And we can't have that, so let's stop it at the beginning.
You very well know that you will never get a dagger, sword or anything else in an airplane even if you asked. But spoons, plstic forks and knives. The reason is: Forks, spoons and knives are not built to harm people but have a harmless purpose.
One of the first statements of Jack in this debate was that he was asked for a nuke to reenact Hiroshima (note, he never said he wanted to do this himself). Another statement was "If we now only had Enola Gay". To respond to your point: The signals are clear. As long as the nuke does not simulate (or show) all aspect, it is a gaming effect which advertise the "press the trigger, solve your problem" principle applied to nukes. There is a definite lack of critical views on the application.
Not an issue in practive, because knives are okay, daggers not, end of story. We are capable of drawing a line where actual harm is done, and this line cloud (potentially) be 'Virtual nucelar weapons yes, virtual warcrimes no.' There is no automatic equality leading from one to the next.
Not quite, because then you would not have understood the implication of applying a nuke. There is no chance in deploying nukes without committing a rather large and long lasting global collateral damage on innocent civilians which violates the Hague conventions as quoted above by me.
As soon as somebody would set up a realistic scenario (real background or not) in which he applies a nuke realism would demand that nearby cities and civilian installations are affected as well as global radiation would occur. In fact he would simulate such a war crime. This is the basic issue with nukes which make it hard to look for an easy solution- what do you expect, it is the most controversal weapon ever created and there is a reason major parts of the world want to get rid of it.
Your line of argument 3: It's not necessary for aviation simulation.
Fine - then let's ban Santa and his reindeer, along with movable jetways and pushback. These are all not part of the flight itself, but just part of the airplane operations - just like a bomb is not part of flying a bomber, but as part of its operation.
You can actually fly Santa, right?
A pushback or jetway makes airport and flight operations more realistic because we see it in real life.
A bomber can have various ordnance. You don´t need a nuke to make a bomber complete or realistic. In fact the FlightGear nuke makes bombing more unrealistic as it lacks basic features.
But making yourself the spokesman for 'the Flightgear community' or any anonymous groups and claim that you act in your name is not. Claiming that there is some intrinsic objective rightness, independent of different moral standards and cultural norms is not.
This once again is a repeated accusation which you still fail to put evidence on.
There is no doubt that Jack has the right to build whatever he wants and offend whoever he would like to. My right is to speak up against that (as some others already did, which I also pointed out) and spoil his nuke fun whenever I feel appropriate.
No, you're not entitled to spoil his fun wherever you feel appropriate. If you behave in a disruptive way in the forum, then the moderators will deal with you. The forum is not an 'anything goes' place.
At least I am not accusing or insulting people (at least not at will) like others did in my or others directions. As long as I speak out my right to critize the development I can and will do this.
It's like an anti abortion activist bombing a clinic and killing people to defend the unique value of life - sometimes the means corrupt the ends.
Be careful with such comparisons. We are talking and dicussing about simulations here, not religious or ideological fanatics killing people.
I strongly contradict being put in whatever relation you had in mind.
And by the way, it is not me who came up again with arguments we had been going through over and over again. The last confrontation was started by you by directly adressing myself in an answer to a post of mine directed to someone else. As well as Jason did. In a attempt to deliberately defend rights and free speech. So the origin of the confrontation is as clear as it can be.
Since you seem to like him - think of how Mr. Mandela would have solved the issue. When he came to power, he would have had the possibility to 'spoil the fun' of the white minority wherever he felt appropiate. But he didn't. He could tolerate people gathering and giving hate speeches, he did not send in the police to lock them up. He understood that he can achieve more in a different way.
Yes and before he came to power he spoke up and argued whenever he felt appropriate which brought him >30 years of imprisonment.