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.