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 Groucho » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:02 am

timjschong wrote:Despite what you think Groucho, I am not a bloodthirsty murderous nuke lover without sensitivities to the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Errm, what ???? Can´t we just refrain from taking this to a personal level and assuming motivations? I can´t remember having started it this that way.

Thorsten wrote:evidence...evidence...evidence


And because I kind of feel tired of the lack of information about how many people want or don't want nukes in FG, I am gonna start a poll.


I am wondering how many victims or decendants of victims from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in here to make this poll representative...
How often do I have to refer that there is a world outside FG?
_____________________________________
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 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:13 am

Sorry, but here is a wrong assertation once again. Quote me if I am wrong but I never said "all those people".


Sorry, that's a literal quote of you from this post.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:25 am

Thorsten wrote:
Sorry, but here is a wrong assertation once again. Quote me if I am wrong but I never said "all those people".


Sorry, that's a literal quote of you from this post.


Ah, thanks, corrected :)
_____________________________________
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 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:50 am

If somebody raped a woman and somebody else replays that raping for fun (be it virtual or simulated in the real world) this is offensive. If somebody plays "send the people into the chambers" this is offensive. Simulating criminal actions or actions which can be considered as war crimes for fun can be considered as offensive.


Yes, almost anything you can do is offensive to someone. That's not the question. The question is: To whom, and how justified is the offense taken.

To make a long story short- it is a pure theoretical approach to call for a majority evidence of some billion people affected by a potential nuclear extermination before accepting the evidence.


Sorry, but there is no issue of potential nuclear extermination by a virtual nuclear weapon - that's just a red herring. Asking for evidence of people being affected by what happens in a virtual environment is not a theoretical issue - that's the very question that needs to be addressed, and you make a lot of claim without bringing evidence here.

As I wrote earlier, empirical evidence for the connection between virtual environment and reality is hard to come by. While a lot of people believe that there is a causal connection between virtual and real violence, actual empirical research done could not support that.

However it is perfectly legal to imply that reenacting and trivialising sufferings of people is offensive in general- it dishonors the victims of suffering.
(...)
In the whole debate there is always forgotten one aspect- the pursuit of happiness. For victims this means that their suffering is not forgotten nor trivialised and that there is a chance to prevent from further trivialisation so that they can live a life in the pursuit of happiness.
As you talk about numbers, I believe we agree that there are hundreds of thousands of victims of weapons of mass destruction in the world. I believe we also agree that trivialising the act dishonors those. What we do not have is evidence whether they lack the pursuit of happiness if they knew about the trivialisation.


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. In what way is the suffering of someone being bombed by a B-52 less than the suffering of the survivor of a nuclear weapon? There are millions of victims of conventional weapons in the world - in what way is their pursuit of happiness less important? In what way is it less justified for someone to be offended because some people are happy to take the very plane which bombed his family and home for a joy ride? Why is this person not entitled to feel that this trivializes his suffering?

Btw., I am very cautious about arguments based on honour - because the notion what 'dishonouring someone' means is very dependent on culture, and arguing on not dishonouring people, your freedom of speech would be seriously curbed.

As far as past suffering goes, I don't feel that any past injustice gives me the right to demand from the rest of the world that I will never be reminded of it. I don't think it gives me the right to interfere with other people's freedom. And I agree with what has been said by Jason - it doesn't lead anywhere to define your future existence by being a victim. To find a thing tasteless and be disgusted is one thing. To conclude from that that you should have a right to ban it a different. I don't doubt that many survivors will find re-enactments of the Hiroshima bombing extremely tasteless. But I think a fair amount of them may be willing to leave it at expressing their distaste and tolerate even a distasteful thing.


This has never been the question of the debate. The point is to accept social standards which also mean to accept others opinion and feelings and act accordingly.


Yes - the interesting thing is that for you this can apparently only go one way. While Jack is supposed to accept other opinions (yours in particular) and feelings and act accordingly, somehow you don't feel compelled to accept Jack's opinion and act accordingly.

I'd be very happy if that really were an attempt for mutual tolerance and understanding - but it's going only one way.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby timjschong » Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:23 am

Quoting from me??
Seriously...
Please, I wrote that meaning for you to read the rest of my post.

Here's a quote
Groucho wrote: where you quote a sub section of mine (taking it out of context) without caring about the rest.


OK, well, I shall try to emphasize with you then.

Simulating nukes is bad. People hurt by Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be offended. After all, their relatives died in a very real incident and we are making fun of it.
We are having fun playing 'let's nuke Hiroshima!'.

OK.
I cannot ever remember anyone who has had fun playing with that memory. When I think of Little Boy and Fat Man, I think of tragedy. I don't think it is right to bandy about the incident and treat it as a joke. But, I don't think that anyone should tell anyone else to follow their point of view, whether or not they might feel it is more ethical or more right.

So please, I admire you standing up for what you feel, but I don't think your should force this on anyone else.
timjschong
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Callsign: timothy
Version: 2
OS: Mac, sometimes Win 7

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:45 am

timjschong wrote:Quoting from me??
Seriously...
Please, I wrote that meaning for you to read the rest of my post.

Here's a quote
Groucho wrote: where you quote a sub section of mine (taking it out of context) without caring about the rest.




This was not that obvious. It sounded like you assumed that I held you for a blood-thirsty nuke-lover which I never said or thought anyway.

I cannot ever remember anyone who has had fun playing with that memory. When I think of Little Boy and Fat Man, I think of tragedy. I don't think it is right to bandy about the incident and treat it as a joke. But, I don't think that anyone should tell anyone else to follow their point of view, whether or not they might feel it is more ethical or more right.


This is what you think. However it does not appear, following the thread, that this "tragedy" and the whole consequences of applying nukes is in the mind of all involved. Instead we had statements like "Great, if we only had the Enola Gay" or white-washings of the incident in the debate ("it was a military target", "better they than we", etc.).
Plus some glorifications of nukes in general.

So please, I admire you standing up for what you feel, but I don't think your should force this on anyone else.


You again assume, as some others did, I am trying to enforce something. This is wrong. I am trying to argue, provide links, ask questions to follow the point of view. I am pointing this out for the nth time now.

Thorsten wrote:Sorry, but there is no issue of potential nuclear extermination by a virtual nuclear weapon - that's just a red herring. Asking for evidence of people being affected by what happens in a virtual environment is not a theoretical issue - that's the very question that needs to be addressed, and you make a lot of claim without bringing evidence here.


You still refuse to react on the point of trivialisation and glorification of the real thing. There is a connection, and I repeat myself here again, which lies in mocking about the victims of the real threat or crime by reenacting it for fun. Regardless whether it is raping, genocide, war crimes against civilians or nukes.
See the gas chambers example, see the raping example, etc.

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.

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?
The nuke is not a plane but ammunition or ordnance. To simulate ordnance you don´t need a pseudo realistic nuke.

Thorsten wrote:As far as past suffering goes, I don't feel that any past injustice gives me the right to demand from the rest of the world that I will never be reminded of it. I don't think it gives me the right to interfere with other people's freedom. And I agree with what has been said by Jason - it doesn't lead anywhere to define your future existence by being a victim. To find a thing tasteless and be disgusted is one thing. To conclude from that that you should have a right to ban it a different. I don't doubt that many survivors will find re-enactments of the Hiroshima bombing extremely tasteless. But I think a fair amount of them may be willing to leave it at expressing their distaste and tolerate even a distasteful thing.

Here you do not differentiate between "reminding" and "trivialising". And I also agree that defining an existence as victim is not helpful. However reminding must be supported in a way that leads to a learning aspect for the future. Trivialising and glorifying the causing act is not helpful and extremely contraproductive.
BTW the term "honoring victims" has nothing to do with honour in the sense of glory but more with respect. Maybe we can agree on "respecting" and "disrespecting".

Thorsten wrote:Yes - the interesting thing is that for you this can apparently only go one way. While Jack is supposed to accept other opinions (yours in particular) and feelings and act accordingly, somehow you don't feel compelled to accept Jack's opinion and act accordingly.


This point goes in both directions. 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. What you are implying is to accept the nuke and keep silent which means giving up my point of view. You are propably not denying this right, correct?
_____________________________________
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 jack » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:20 pm

Groucho wrote:The nuclear weapon is built to do exactly this: Kill somebodie´s parents.


Can you please provide sources for your "facts" ? Can you provide any proof that a single nuclear weapon has been built with the purpose of only killing civilians and not a single military target?(make sure to leave a source with your answer)
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 Groucho » Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:50 pm

jackmermod wrote:
Groucho wrote:The nuclear weapon is built to do exactly this: Kill somebodie´s parents.


Can you please provide sources for your "facts" ? Can you provide any proof that a single nuclear weapon has been built with the purpose of only killing civilians and not a single military target?(make sure to leave a source with your answer)


I did not say "only civilians". In fact no state would admit that they produce a weapon of terror against civilian population as it would violate several standard conventions.
However nuclear strategy has always been to target and strike major (civilian) cities regardless their military importance as a mean of deterrence by both the US and the former SU. In fact it has been accepted by the driving forces that a nuclear strike can not be limited to military targets only but that one has to deal with a high collateral damage which outnumbers the military one by factors. Think of radioactive fallout, think of the blast, think of unprecise positioning of ballistic war heads. Nuclear weapons are the only weapons which change the proportions between military casualities and civilian losses. Strategical weapons more than tactical ones but it does not make much of a difference if we think of the fallout.

Additionally there are sources (like this one: http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=92) which claim Hiroshima and Nagasaki having primarily been an attack on the civilian population to enforce surrender of the Japanese forces which would then mean that Little Boy and Fat Man have been built as a weapon of terror only.

Nuclear warfare is explicitely targeted at civilian targets (besides military ones) and whether this war head is built to be launched against a ship and this one against a city or vice versa is irrelevant.

Here the links:
Quoting Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare):
The second, a full-scale nuclear war, consists of large numbers of weapons used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including military, economic and civilian targets


Or this one:
Today nuclear weapons are built in many sizes and shapes not available in the 1940s and 1950s, and are designed for use against many different types of military and civilian targets.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/4761/Nuc ... today.html

And more.

And something from the Hague Convention (just for completeness to round it up):
Code: Select all
(3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.
_____________________________________
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 SkyWlf77 » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:57 am

Groucho wrote:However it is perfectly legal to imply that reenacting and trivialising sufferings of people is offensive in general- it dishonors the victims of suffering.


Well, it's legal to imply it, but that doesn't make that implication correct. You cannot state that it is offensive in general because all you know is that it is offensive to you. I don't find it offensive and many others don't, either. I've sent e-mails out to many different family members of mine and while they may find it possibly inappropriate, they do not find it offensive personally. There are many here in this community itself that don't find it offensive. Therefore, the generalization that it is offensive is simply not true. It is offensive to some, that's for certain, but there is no proof that it is offensive to the majority or even to a significant minority and without a worldwide, massive polling of humankind, you cannot prove this generalization with any validity.

Groucho wrote:If somebody raped a woman and somebody else replays that raping for fun (be it virtual or simulated in the real world) this is offensive to me. If somebody plays "send the people into the chambers" this is offensive to me. Simulating criminal actions or actions which can be considered as war crimes for fun can be considered as offensive to me.


I have added in the terminology that you missed in these statements. As stated above, you cannot make this generalization with any accuracy, therefore, you can only speak for yourself in this matter and any others that you know on a personal level. To do otherwise is to do so without proof and to force your opinion onto others.

Groucho wrote:As Jason pointed out there is the possibility of an educational or scientific way of doing this but FlightGear is not even by far prepared to provide the frame to it.


Yes, the educational possibilities are there. However, without the first step being taken, we will never fully realize those educational opportunities. There is no doubt that FlightGear itself can be used as an educational tool. It is used in museums to show the history, physics and theoretics of flight, it is used in full-fledged simulators to train pilots in the use of aircraft before placing them in real ones and even NASA uses a flight simulator to train their astronauts and pilots. But, this educational aspect of FlightGear is incomplete and the WoMD is only one of the aspects that has been missing. While FlightGear is not presently capable of simulating the entire WoMD effect, without some development being started in this area, it will never reach the point where it will be possible. I, for one, am all for education - complete educational opportunities. As far as I'm concerned, this is only the beginning of the development phase of this aspect of it. FlightGear will continue to evolve, year after year, and eventually it will be possible to entirely simulate this aspect of history and it will then be a more complete educational tool.

Groucho wrote:He does not say "real" or distinguish. In fact trivialising nuclear weapons is like advertising them, making them a solution of choice without having to consider all aspects. The trivialisation therefore is a contradiction to the attempts of getting rid of them.


Trivializing nuclear weapons is not the goal here as I've stated before. You use that word entirely too much. It is only "trivializing" them until, as I stated above, a more complete modeling process is developed and implemented in FlightGear which will allow the entire WoMD process to be modeled. Calling it a "Trivialization" is a pretty serious accusation, especially when you have no idea of the personal goals of those developing since you are not them.

Groucho wrote:In the whole debate there is always forgotten one aspect- the pursuit of happiness. For victims this means that their suffering is not forgotten nor trivialised and that there is a chance to prevent from further trivialisation so that they can live a life in the pursuit of happiness.
As you talk about numbers, I believe we agree that there are hundreds of thousands of victims of weapons of mass destruction in the world. I believe we also agree that trivialising the act dishonors those. What we do not have is evidence whether they lack the pursuit of happiness if they knew about the trivialisation. That however does not mean that degrading the act by a dozen of people for their own fun is justified.


Once again, you are using the accusation of "Trivializing" WoMD. That is paramount to accusing someone of raping someone else without proof as you are basically claiming we are "raping their minds" by dishonouring or disrespecting them when this is certainly not the case. No disrespect is meant, I'm quite sure, however, if they choose to be disrespected, then that is their choice, but we have no way of knowing that without asking each and every one of them - an impossible task. They also have avenues which they can use if they feel disrespected. Off the top of my head, they could contact Curt or they could choose to ignore FlightGear in general or even, in this day and age, creating a blog or website denouncing FlightGear for including it. As of yet, I don't personally know of any of these having happened, so it stands to reason that no one can speak for these people at this time - except for them themselves.

Groucho wrote:The point is to accept social standards which also mean to accept others opinion and feelings and act accordingly.


Exactly. What about my feelings that I don't want my Flight Simulator experience degraded because the decision is made not to incorporate certain aspects due to their controversiality? What about my feelings and opinions regarding the fact that I want a complete educational tool that can be used to teach my children and grandchildren? Where do we draw the line? Whose feelings and opinions are more important or have higher value? Yours because you are a developer? Or mine because I am just a user? Or some victim's just because they are a victim (or, in my personal opinion, are allowing themselves to remain a victim)? This is a very fine line to walk when you start valuing certain people more than others - you are creating victims and victimizers which may have the same arguments that you do.

The, admittedly simplistic, solution is to allow development to continue unimpeded and to ignore that which you don't want to see (which is quite easy at this current point in time as this particular development is hosted off-site as a 3rd-party add-on and you can't even see it unless you install it yourself). Your arguments have been noted (repeatedly) as have everyone else's on both sides of the table. At the present point, however, it is my personal opinion that freedom of development (which is what open-source is all about) trumps some unknown quantity of people's feelings of victimization - especially when the majority of those unknowns are not participating in this particular thread or argument.

-Jason
SkyWlf77
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:19 am
Location: Central Illinois
Callsign: SkyWlf77
Version: 2
OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:30 am

SkyWlf77 wrote:
Groucho wrote:However it is perfectly legal to imply that reenacting and trivialising sufferings of people is offensive in general- it dishonors the victims of suffering.


Well, it's legal to imply it, but that doesn't make that implication correct. You cannot state that it is offensive in general because all you know is that it is offensive to you. I don't find it offensive and many others don't, either. I've sent e-mails out to many different family members of mine and while they may find it possibly inappropriate, they do not find it offensive personally. There are many here in this community itself that don't find it offensive. Therefore, the generalization that it is offensive is simply not true. It is offensive to some, that's for certain, but there is no proof that it is offensive to the majority or even to a significant minority and without a worldwide, massive polling of humankind, you cannot prove this generalization with any validity.


Groucho wrote:If somebody raped a woman and somebody else replays that raping for fun (be it virtual or simulated in the real world) this is offensive to me. If somebody plays "send the people into the chambers" this is offensive to me. Simulating criminal actions or actions which can be considered as war crimes for fun can be considered as offensive to me.


I have added in the terminology that you missed in these statements. As stated above, you cannot make this generalization with any accuracy, therefore, you can only speak for yourself in this matter and any others that you know on a personal level. To do otherwise is to do so without proof and to force your opinion onto others.


Sorry Jason, but this is simply not true. Respect and fairness is not only a matter of mine- this is the right for human dignity we are talking about. Quoting eg. Amnesty International:
Victims have the right to truth, justice and reparation. They have the right to be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity

http://www.amnestyusa.org/international ... Rights.pdf

I can quote much more about victims of sexual abuse, their reenactments of traumas and their requirements for respect, just use your favorite search engine.
You are seeking a simple solution here by making the whole affair a matter of myself. Just because you have no problem with 9/11 any more and some others you know does not mean there still aren't feelings hurt. Look at the mosque building discussion at Ground Zero. If there weren't still ressentiments it would not become such a hot matter.

How about this one? Guidelines teaching the holocaust (http://www.hmh.org/ed_teaching_guidelines.shtml)?

It is best to draw upon numerous primary sources, provide survivor testimony and refrain from simulation games that lead to a trivialization of the subject matter.


Groucho wrote:As Jason pointed out there is the possibility of an educational or scientific way of doing this but FlightGear is not even by far prepared to provide the frame to it.


Yes, the educational possibilities are there. However, without the first step being taken, we will never fully realize those educational opportunities. There is no doubt that FlightGear itself can be used as an educational tool. It is used in museums to show the history, physics and theoretics of flight, it is used in full-fledged simulators to train pilots in the use of aircraft before placing them in real ones and even NASA uses a flight simulator to train their astronauts and pilots. But, this educational aspect of FlightGear is incomplete and the WoMD is only one of the aspects that has been missing. While FlightGear is not presently capable of simulating the entire WoMD effect, without some development being started in this area, it will never reach the point where it will be possible. I, for one, am all for education - complete educational opportunities. As far as I'm concerned, this is only the beginning of the development phase of this aspect of it. FlightGear will continue to evolve, year after year, and eventually it will be possible to entirely simulate this aspect of history and it will then be a more complete educational tool.


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.
Regarding the historical aspect, you would have to provide a different scenery. The current one is not reflecting the locations as they were in 1945.
So the educational aspect of such a nuke is rather limited unless some additional information material is provided (eg. as a tutorial or an instant popup).

Once again, you are using the accusation of "Trivializing" WoMD. That is paramount to accusing someone of raping someone else without proof as you are basically claiming we are "raping their minds" by dishonouring or disrespecting them when this is certainly not the case. No disrespect is meant, I'm quite sure, however, if they choose to be disrespected, then that is their choice, but we have no way of knowing that without asking each and every one of them - an impossible task.


Sorry, but this sounds to me as if you decide when somebody has to feel disrespected or not which would imply to put your will upon him. In a social environment some sensitivity can be expected and acted accordingly and not assuming things just because you don't have evidence.

At the present point, however, it is my personal opinion that freedom of development (which is what open-source is all about) trumps some unknown quantity of people's feelings of victimization - especially when the majority of those unknowns are not participating in this particular thread or argument.


Well, you turn the argument to fit your side. You don't have evidence about issues so you ignore that part until evidence comes by itself. A sensitive approach would be that you have been noticed about potential issues so better get evidence before starting or continuing instead of choosing the large hammer.
Which would be compatible with social standards.
_____________________________________
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 timjschong » Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:39 am

I do have to say one thing, this is a very depressing topic. At least, to me anyway.
timjschong
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Callsign: timothy
Version: 2
OS: Mac, sometimes Win 7

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby timjschong » Fri Oct 08, 2010 5:51 am

And there we go again. Evidence evidence evidence. Perhaps I shall do some research to see if this issue has come up in other areas.

Ooh. Wow. First hit. FlightGear forums.

Whoo hoo. Hey Groucho. I think this is probably worse than Jack's nuke.
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearexplosionsimulator/.
timjschong
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:30 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Callsign: timothy
Version: 2
OS: Mac, sometimes Win 7

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Thorsten » Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:10 am

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.


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?

Your line of argument 1: Virtual nuclear weapons trivialize the suffering caused by the real thing.

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?

If the Flightgear community (whoever that is) can agree that in this case the trivializing of suffering does not trump the right of a developer, then so can it for nuclear weapons. Doesn't prove anything either way, but shows that the argument of trivialization alone is insufficient, you need a second to argue why suffering caused by nuclear weapons is somehow more valuable to you.

Sideline to this argument:

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

What this boils down to that you don't feel it acceptable. Which is fine. 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 point goes in both directions.


Absolutely.

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.

What you are implying is to accept the nuke and keep silent which means giving up my point of view. You are propably not denying this right, correct?


No. I'm saying you should try to understand Jack (and he should try to understand you), and then act out of understanding. Confrontation may be your right, but if you claim to stand for a better and more peaceful world, you sell out that ideal if you try to achieve it by continuous confrontation. 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.

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.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Regarding attitudes towards military aviation in Flightgear

Postby Groucho » Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:21 am

timjschong wrote:And there we go again. Evidence evidence evidence. Perhaps I shall do some research to see if this issue has come up in other areas.

Ooh. Wow. First hit. FlightGear forums.

Whoo hoo. Hey Groucho. I think this is probably worse than Jack's nuke.
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearexplosionsimulator/.


I quote myself:
So the educational aspect of such a nuke is rather limited unless some additional information material is provided (eg. as a tutorial or an instant popup).
_____________________________________
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 SkyWlf77 » Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:31 am

Oh, Groucho, this is getting old. You can twist the facts around however you would like, but they are still going to be facts. The fact of the matter is that the massive majority of those who might be affected by this discussion aren't present - and they aren't raising a fit about it like you are. I believe in respect and fairness - for all. However, I don't think that it's necessary to stomp on the rights of those that would like to see this as part of the flight simulator just for a bunch of people that haven't dealt with the effects of what is being virtualized here when those people aren't here voicing their own opinions and demanding a stop to it. I don't see it as necessary to uproar an entire community like this discussion is simply because you think you speak for "all those people" when, in reality, you don't truly know that those people want you speaking for them and they aren't here speaking for themselves.

I'm going to ignore your reference to Amnesty International - not because it is incorrect or correct, but because I have absolutely no respect for Amnesty International personally and it would be unfair for me to involve myself in a discussion in reference to them.

Groucho wrote:How about this one? Guidelines teaching the holocaust (http://www.hmh.org/ed_teaching_guidelines.shtml)?


Of course it would probably be best to not base simulations on anything offensive to anyone. Unfortunately, that would result in basically no simulations at all as anything and everything can be found offensive by someone. Fortunately, we have something here in the US called "freedom" that allows us to continue to develop things of this type until such time as evidence is produced that the majority find it to be entirely inappropriate and laws are passed banning its use. Guidelines are exactly that - guidelines. They aren't laws, but suggestions regarding how to proceed. It's a "take it or leave it" type thing. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the way it is.

Groucho wrote: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.
Regarding the historical aspect, you would have to provide a different scenery. The current one is not reflecting the locations as they were in 1945.
So the educational aspect of such a nuke is rather limited unless some additional information material is provided (eg. as a tutorial or an instant popup).


Actually, there has already been a discussion regarding implementation of historical scenery in FlightGear in another thread. It is quite possible that this may become a future aspect. Doing so would just be another step towards the possibilities of furthering the educational role of FlightGear.

Links, tutorials and pop-ups are very much possible in FlightGear already. There is nothing preventing their creation, other than someone actually taking the time to do it. Therefore, it is not necessarily a "trivialization" of the subject matter, but simply the first step towards furthering the educational value as I stated once before.

Groucho wrote:Sorry, but this sounds to me as if you decide when somebody has to feel disrespected or not which would imply to put your will upon him. In a social environment some sensitivity can be expected and acted accordingly and not assuming things just because you don't have evidence.


No, I do not decide when/if they feel disrespected - they make that choice for themselves as I clearly stated. Sensitivity can be expected and has been shown thus far. The WoMD is not a part of the base FlightGear package, is not hosted on the Official Downloads Page and is only offered as a 3rd party add-on. If you don't install it, you can't even see it. If you ignore the thread about it (and now the ridiculously large number of debate threads based around it), then you don't have to face the situation at all. It's simple, really. You are the one trying to make it difficult by saying "that's not enough" and attempting to impose your will on others by stating that it shouldn't even be allowed to be developed. It's you who imposed your will on others by purposely interfering with others' use of the FlightGear Multiplayer system during a historical reenactment. That's insensitivity to the developer and those of us assisting/supporting him on it as well as those participating in said Multiplayer experience. That's a fact - like it or not.

Groucho wrote:Well, you turn the argument to fit your side. You don't have evidence about issues so you ignore that part until evidence comes by itself. A sensitive approach would be that you have been noticed about potential issues so better get evidence before starting or continuing instead of choosing the large hammer.
Which would be compatible with social standards.


I'm no more turning this argument to fit my side than you are yours. I don't need evidence as all the evidence I need to provide is that the people who are allegedly "victimized" by the inclusion of WoMD are not involved in this conversation with only a couple of exceptions. As stated before, there are no blogs, websites, facebook pages or anything else of the sort with large followings demanding the removal of WoMD from FlightGear, either. As an open-source program, I'm not even sure that development of this could be stopped even if the majority of our community wanted it that way - that goes against the core values of open-source software (at least as far as I see it).


Now, I'm getting a bit tired of this endless looping debate with you, so I'll let it go here and bow out. I've made my feelings known and provided the information necessary for anyone to understand where I am coming from, so I've done my part in this. I'm hoping you'll reconsider your position on doing everything you can to disrupt anyone's FlightGear experience that disagrees with you, but based on past actions, I don't see that happening. Such is life and the intricacies of its interactions.

-Jason
SkyWlf77
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:19 am
Location: Central Illinois
Callsign: SkyWlf77
Version: 2
OS: Windows 7 64-bit

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 5H1N0B1 and 1 guest