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.
Well, it seems to me that you talked yourself between a rock and a hard place. I assume that you don't advocate a non-dualistic philosophy (if you do, passing any sort of judgement about the nuke is meaningless - it is, and that is all there is to say).
In a non-dualistic framework, you logically have to take one and only one of the three following positions: In comparing your moral standards to mine, yours are 1) superior 2) equal/just different/don't know or 3) inferior.
If you take position 3), there is no reason for you to argue with me - you should adopt my view. Since you do argue, I think we can rule 3) out.
If you take position 2), you have no case criticizing Jack beyond a point. If our standards are equal, or we don't know which are better, then we can without a loss of moral high ground exchange one position against another (if you can't, they are not equal). So if I argue that a virtual nuke run on one's own computer is morally acceptable, you cannot reject this and claim that our standards are equal without a contradiction.
So, if you take position 1) (which I believe you do), then I can understand why you argue in this thread. But, in this case, I am offended because you claim my moral standards are inferior to yours, see above. You could easily avoid the offense by not performing the offensive action, i.e. you could adopt position 2) and I would not be offended any more - yet you don't.
It may well be that my assumption is wrong - if so, please tell me, which is your position - 1), 2) or 3)? (Short of non-dualistic philosophy, I don't think there is a 4) - one of two things can be larger, smaller or equal with respect to a quantity, but nothing else).
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.
The thought of talking reason and try to convince rather than to confront did not cross your mind? Jack did not post the nuke with the aim of starting a confrontation. So before going with guns blazing into the thread, trying to understand and to explain would have been an option.