[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perha
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:01:46 -0300
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 09/22/2014 08:53 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
>> Murder is not a freedom, it's a crime. Freedom
>> amplifies possibilities, and does not restrict them.
> If freedom is that which amplifies possibilities, but does not restrict
> them, then why doesn't murder fit this description?
> If I am able to murder someone to use their flesh in cooking
*** then *they* cannot exercise their freedom, can they? Are you
trolling, or trying to be a psychopath? If "your" freedom is entirely
objective, then sure, you can think stuff like "I am free to raze the
mountain, frack the land, cut the rainforest, nuke your city, and
genocide the Yasuni to prospect oil". Well no, it's not objective, we
share a planet. Theory tends to reach hard limits when put in practice.
Psychopathy is a way to keep the world theoretical.
> Yes, but you haven't established why helping the authors make money in
> an artificial marketplace is more important than protecting my free speech.
*** If you consider parroting an exercise of free speech, you probably
don't need free speech in the first place. On the other hand, authors
today can make a living by giving away their work, for the reasons I
mentioned earlier. I repeat, that's not for everybody, but indeed, it's
more akin to symbiosis than to parasitism: if you like a creation,
you're more likely to provide for the creator, than if you don't. In a
society where people live together, and not only juxtaposed to each
other in their psychopathic world, it actually happens like this. Only
by ways of propaganda are we led to believe, by people who stole from
creators in the first place, that things work otherwise, and that only
protected works in a competitive environment prevail. If you look
closely at the music industry, to take an easy target, the drawers of
big companies are full of artists waiting to be discovered who, if they
were to "freely express themselves" without their contracted label, who
cast the shadow of their talent over stars that the companies spent
millions to market. This is also true of multinational corporations,
that buy competitors to "disappear" their products. In the land of free
speech, the freer one has the biggest megaphone.
> Opera does not allow distribution of the browser without restriction.
*** So, you agree with me.
> So, it seems that we have to choose between two freedoms: freedom of
> speech, and practical ability to study how (all) software works. I'd
> prefer the one that can be worked around legally.
*** You're still trying to turn freedom into a commodity. I don't see
how these two aspects, expression and inquiry, are opposed anyway.
> Hopefully we'll take less than 20000 years. :) Can you imagine a
> universe with no conscious beings? If you believe in the Big Bang
> Theory, then such a time must have existed.
*** I don't think the Big Bang is anymore satisfying an explanation than
the existence of god. And yes, a universe without conscious beings is
pretty much at our fingertips, given the stockpiles of nukes, anti-riot
police, terrorism laws, and all-out war on sustainability that the
"world leaders" are promoting and letting proliferate.
> Belief in the Judeo-Christian God requires belief in an approximately
> 6000 year old Earth, if we are to take the Bible literally.
*** Fortunately, only a lunatic fringe takes the Bible literally.
That's where Intelligent Design meets American Atheists. But I believe
a majority of people who read it actually knows how to read, and can
understand symbolism--or at least not take mere translations to the
letter. Beyond any authorship or actual contents, as the Italians say:
traduttore, traditore (translator, traitor).
> Anyone who cares enough about a moral issue to want to research it is
> going to want to see both sides. This does not mean you have to show
> them both sides, however. If I am reading an essay, I know that I am
> getting a biased view, and I take that into account.
*** Oh, thank you, you should have started with this!
> Maybe, if you put a FSF logo somewhere on the page, people would see the
> origin of the document, realise the bias of the guide, and read with
> this in mind. (This would be a good idea for the github-based one too,
> although github seems apolitical to most people.)
*** As apolitical as BP, Monsanto, Syngenta, Halliburton, or Coca Cola,
etc. Heh. Such as guide would probably be free itself, so if the
original contains the FSF logo, any further copy could likely contain
another, or none--that's to illustrate that your freedom of expression
(shipping it with a logo) does not impede my freedom of expression
(shipping it without one), and we can still both study the original work
and debate about the virtues of that modification--I mean, if we didn't
have anything more productive to do.
>> BTW, I don't think "man *did* come from a monkey" nor that evolution is
>> gradual. I think that human is the most complex animal humans know,
>> that it came about by a wide range of gradual and sudden mutations, and
>> is mostly an aggregate of bacteria and unicellular organisms that
>> entered a fruitful symbiosis, leading to more complex symbiosis,
>> mutations, and integration of the "human" organism.
> Do you have any evidence to back this up?
*** Look up "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species" by
Lynn Margulis, and especially the concept of symbiogenesis.
> Gaza is such a horrible situation. I wish that Israel and Palestine
> would just agree to make peace (although, to be fair, they are trying).
*** Who is trying? But honestly, I don't want to get into this, not on
this list at least.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----