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
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.