4 ms·

I used the word politics, I was not talking about ideology or morality, I was referring to politics specifically. > My point was that ideologically and morally

by voidr 8y ago

I used the word politics, I was not talking about ideology or morality, I was referring to politics specifically. > My point was that ideologically and morally motivated software licenses are already well established in the software ecosystem. I don't recall saying that we never had ideologically or morally motivated licenses, best example is JSLint license, which prohibits you from using the software for "evil". > This is not new. You are refuting something I have never claimed. This was my main point: "Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy." If you want to debate it, I would appreciate if you could stick to what I actually wrote without changing its original meaning.

exogen 8y ago
Because if you read the post, the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds, that are only incidentally political to folks who choose to reduce it to that (like you did). Specific immoral actions are named, not political ideologies. The change is not to protest “ICE under conservative leadership.” It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other (and could you please not bring it up by the way because it’s rude to talk about politics).
- voidr 8y ago
  I think we can agree to disagree on this one: I read the article a second time and I still think it's a political move. > the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds To me it looks like he is trying to indirectly force the government to do something he wants. If it would be that clearly immoral, then surely one of the higher courts would have had an opinion on it, unless you are willing to make the argument that he is more qualified than a court. > It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion We can continue this thread forever, let's just agree to end it and move on.

by voidr 8y ago

exogen 8y ago

Because if you read the post, the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds, that are only incidentally political to folks who choose to reduce it to that (like you did). Specific immoral actions are named, not political ideologies. The change is not to protest “ICE under conservative leadership.” It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other (and could you please not bring it up by the way because it’s rude to talk about politics).

voidr 8y ago
I think we can agree to disagree on this one: I read the article a second time and I still think it's a political move. > the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds To me it looks like he is trying to indirectly force the government to do something he wants. If it would be that clearly immoral, then surely one of the higher courts would have had an opinion on it, unless you are willing to make the argument that he is more qualified than a court. > It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion We can continue this thread forever, let's just agree to end it and move on.