3 ms·

That's a perfect reference - it illustrates how ludicrous it is that GPL advocates elevate the choice of license to the level of harming children.

by gress 11y ago

quadrangle 11y ago
You obviously have no clue how to understand reductio ad absurdem. Also, if I were in a better mood right now, I would more carefully avoid being condescending. I don't mean to attack you personally. I just want to clarify: when someone makes a claim, and another person uses an extreme example that has identical logic to the claim but is obviously ludicrous, it proves that the claim is based on faulty logic. In this case, if you say something that implies that you can't criticize someone for trying to make a living, this comic proves you wrong by bringing up an example worth criticizing. Your idea of "oh, this extreme example? it applies to those I disagree with" amounts to "I'm rubber, you're glue" sort of childish nonsense.
- gress 11y ago
  Sorry, you have no idea how reductio-ad-absurdism works. Reductio ad absurdum requires that the absurd conclusion is a consequence of the argument that you are trying to disprove when taken to extremes. You haven't done that. You've just posted a comic that is a flawed analogy to the point in question. If I was claiming that any behavior, however immoral, was justified by the need to make money, your argument would hold. But I don't claim that. I claim that the rational behavior of not selecting the GPL is supported by the argument that it might be against one's financial interest and the interests of a prosperous society to do so. Your reductio only works if you assert that the GPL is morally superior and not just pragmatically so. My comment about the comic stands - you are raising the choice of the GPL to the level of a moral choice. Why not just admit that?
  - quadrangle 11y ago
    Um, I wasn't saying the comic was text-book logic of reductio ad absurdem. It requires a little bit of thinking to understand the context. So, let's get to the bottom of this: GPL vs permissive isn't itself a moral issue, but making proprietary software is a moral issue. So, arguing against GPL in favor of permissive specifically because permissive software can help make proprietary software… that becomes a moral issue because you are advocating not just for permissive licenses but for the proprietary software they enable. For the record, I think in practice, the economic justification for proprietary software is acceptable if the proprietary publisher works especially hard to be honorable and not malicious in how they wield their proprietary power and it can be really shown that they couldn't get by without being proprietary. But just making money isn't an adequate excuse without those other qualifications.
    - gress 11y ago
      So you were flat out wrong about the reductio. I was correctly identifying that you were making the GPL debate into a moral issue. We could have avoided this if you'd just been honest about having a moral problem with most proprietary software.

That's a perfect reference - it illustrates how ludicrous it is that GPL advocates elevate the choice of license to the level of harming children.

by gress 11y ago

That's a perfect reference - it illustrates how ludicrous it is that GPL advocates elevate the choice of license to the level of harming children.

quadrangle 11y ago

You obviously have no clue how to understand reductio ad absurdem. Also, if I were in a better mood right now, I would more carefully avoid being condescending. I don't mean to attack you personally. I just want to clarify: when someone makes a claim, and another person uses an extreme example that has identical logic to the claim but is obviously ludicrous, it proves that the claim is based on faulty logic. In this case, if you say something that implies that you can't criticize someone for trying to make a living, this comic proves you wrong by bringing up an example worth criticizing. Your idea of "oh, this extreme example? it applies to those I disagree with" amounts to "I'm rubber, you're glue" sort of childish nonsense.

gress 11y ago
Sorry, you have no idea how reductio-ad-absurdism works. Reductio ad absurdum requires that the absurd conclusion is a consequence of the argument that you are trying to disprove when taken to extremes. You haven't done that. You've just posted a comic that is a flawed analogy to the point in question. If I was claiming that any behavior, however immoral, was justified by the need to make money, your argument would hold. But I don't claim that. I claim that the rational behavior of not selecting the GPL is supported by the argument that it might be against one's financial interest and the interests of a prosperous society to do so. Your reductio only works if you assert that the GPL is morally superior and not just pragmatically so. My comment about the comic stands - you are raising the choice of the GPL to the level of a moral choice. Why not just admit that?
- quadrangle 11y ago
  Um, I wasn't saying the comic was text-book logic of reductio ad absurdem. It requires a little bit of thinking to understand the context. So, let's get to the bottom of this: GPL vs permissive isn't itself a moral issue, but making proprietary software is a moral issue. So, arguing against GPL in favor of permissive specifically because permissive software can help make proprietary software… that becomes a moral issue because you are advocating not just for permissive licenses but for the proprietary software they enable. For the record, I think in practice, the economic justification for proprietary software is acceptable if the proprietary publisher works especially hard to be honorable and not malicious in how they wield their proprietary power and it can be really shown that they couldn't get by without being proprietary. But just making money isn't an adequate excuse without those other qualifications.
  - gress 11y ago
    So you were flat out wrong about the reductio. I was correctly identifying that you were making the GPL debate into a moral issue. We could have avoided this if you'd just been honest about having a moral problem with most proprietary software.