3 ms·

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

by 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.

by gress 11y ago

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.