7 ms·

Did you just compare Stallman and the FSF to the Abolitionist movement, and paid software to slavery?

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Would it help if they had rephrased it more generically? What is something that you find unethical? How does the example feel if you slot that in, instead of slavery?
- 83457 4y ago
  Analogies
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  Like a completely different argument. People choose to equivalate bad things to evils like slavery or the holocaust for a reason and all of those reasons are bad.
  - tjader 4y ago
    Sure, tell me the reasons I have for doing something I didn't even do and how they are bad.
tjader 4y ago
No. I made an analogy to another behavior that I hope everyone will agree is unethical. The point is that if you accept Stallman's position that closed source software is unethical his response is not unexpected.
- contrast 4y ago
  Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family? Using extreme ethical examples to justify a statement is how Godwin’s Law came about, way back in the 90s. It’s a well known tactic to make one’s own position sound reasonable, by implying that anyone is still arguing with you may as well be saying the Nazis weren’t so bad. It’s a good rule of thumb that rather than making a logical argument, you are in fact bringing a rational discussion to an end by invoking slavery, Hitler, or other incontrovertible evil. They are not in any meaningful sense useful analogies for most discussions. The guy wasn’t bringing up anything like slavery. Therefore Stallman’s response is quite likely unexpected to most people.
  - PBondurant 4y ago
    No, this isn't an example of Godwin's law being used as a tactic to end discussion; rather he was using hyperbole - a rhetorical device - to make a point. The slavery reference is not used to suggest that 'non-free software is morally equivalent to slavery/nazism' etc but rather is used as an example of a clear, strongly held moral position in order to emphasise the (possibly more subtle) original point. The point of hyperbole is to further elucidate, not close down. This misunderstanding tends to be caused by (1) treating the rhetorical device literally rather than as an (intentionally exaggerated) analogy, and (2) - as in this case - by assuming that the argument being made is trying to draw some moral equivalence between the analogy and the original example. It isn't.
  - tjader 4y ago
    I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior. I wasn't making any point about whether Stallman is right or wrong on that, I was just pointing out that people are attacking the wrong part of his argument. If you disagree with him you should attack his base belief that proprietary software is unethical. > Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family? When have you ever seen Stallman be pragmatic instead of idealist about anything regarding proprietary software?
    - Ensorceled 4y ago
      > I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior. Wow. There is a continuum from good behaviour to unethical behaviour to evil. To conflate and compare and equivalate unethical behaviours like theft with true evils like slavery or murder is beyond unhelpful. I don't see how proprietary has even been established as unethical let alone a evil equivalent to slavery. Please stop making this argument on Stallman's behalf.
Negitivefrags 4y ago
Why is it that people on the modern internet seem unable to grasp the concept of an analogy? Two things don't have to be exactly as bad as each other to be analogous circumstances. You are supposed to apply to same chain of logical reasoning to the two situations. Just expressing faux outrage with a "How dare you compare these two things" isn't actually defeating the argument in any way.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zach_garwood 4y ago
  Oh no, we all get what analogies are. This is just a shitty one.

Would it help if they had rephrased it more generically? What is something that you find unethical? How does the example feel if you slot that in, instead of slavery?

83457 4y ago
Analogies
Ensorceled 4y ago
Like a completely different argument. People choose to equivalate bad things to evils like slavery or the holocaust for a reason and all of those reasons are bad.
- tjader 4y ago
  Sure, tell me the reasons I have for doing something I didn't even do and how they are bad.

tjader 4y ago

No. I made an analogy to another behavior that I hope everyone will agree is unethical. The point is that if you accept Stallman's position that closed source software is unethical his response is not unexpected.

contrast 4y ago
Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family? Using extreme ethical examples to justify a statement is how Godwin’s Law came about, way back in the 90s. It’s a well known tactic to make one’s own position sound reasonable, by implying that anyone is still arguing with you may as well be saying the Nazis weren’t so bad. It’s a good rule of thumb that rather than making a logical argument, you are in fact bringing a rational discussion to an end by invoking slavery, Hitler, or other incontrovertible evil. They are not in any meaningful sense useful analogies for most discussions. The guy wasn’t bringing up anything like slavery. Therefore Stallman’s response is quite likely unexpected to most people.
- PBondurant 4y ago
  No, this isn't an example of Godwin's law being used as a tactic to end discussion; rather he was using hyperbole - a rhetorical device - to make a point. The slavery reference is not used to suggest that 'non-free software is morally equivalent to slavery/nazism' etc but rather is used as an example of a clear, strongly held moral position in order to emphasise the (possibly more subtle) original point. The point of hyperbole is to further elucidate, not close down. This misunderstanding tends to be caused by (1) treating the rhetorical device literally rather than as an (intentionally exaggerated) analogy, and (2) - as in this case - by assuming that the argument being made is trying to draw some moral equivalence between the analogy and the original example. It isn't.
- tjader 4y ago
  I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior. I wasn't making any point about whether Stallman is right or wrong on that, I was just pointing out that people are attacking the wrong part of his argument. If you disagree with him you should attack his base belief that proprietary software is unethical. > Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family? When have you ever seen Stallman be pragmatic instead of idealist about anything regarding proprietary software?
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    > I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior. Wow. There is a continuum from good behaviour to unethical behaviour to evil. To conflate and compare and equivalate unethical behaviours like theft with true evils like slavery or murder is beyond unhelpful. I don't see how proprietary has even been established as unethical let alone a evil equivalent to slavery. Please stop making this argument on Stallman's behalf.

Negitivefrags 4y ago

Why is it that people on the modern internet seem unable to grasp the concept of an analogy? Two things don't have to be exactly as bad as each other to be analogous circumstances. You are supposed to apply to same chain of logical reasoning to the two situations. Just expressing faux outrage with a "How dare you compare these two things" isn't actually defeating the argument in any way.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zach_garwood 4y ago
Oh no, we all get what analogies are. This is just a shitty one.