[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

From: Arthur Miller
Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: repology.el
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 17:53:03 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>   > Since you like dictionaries a lot, maybe you should look up word
>   > "information" and word "promotion" in some. They are two different
>   > things.
> The two are not the same thing, but providing information about
> something often has the effect of promoting it.
I think personal judgement here is very important. Providing information
about attrocities of the WWII has informational value to prevent same
thing from hapening again. Yet I have also seen (and even met) people
how are actually symptazing with the nazis rather then the offers (I am
speaking of ultra-right neo-nazis). Nobody in their clear mind would
see information about concentraion camps as a promotion. Yet some idiots
treat it that way.

The point of that ugly illustration is that value of the information is
in the eyes of beholders; it is their judgement.

I think that people in majority have tendency to choose "the good thing"
when given enough information, knowledge and possibility of choice. When
we teach kids not to lie or steal we are usually giving them information
why it is not good to do so.

The possibility of choice is very important too. It is easy to be "good"
when one is not hungry and not living under a tree in -10 degree Celsius.

I personally don't smoke or drink alkohol. I don't need any religion or
law to prohibit me. I just don't think it goes well with the gym and my
health. Last year I had maybe three or four glases of wine and I think
three beers for the entire year (two of them while visiting Austria -
one can't go to Austria and ot drink a glass of good wine or a beer or
two). I also see lots of people in the gym that live similar lifes (with
very little alkohol, smoke- and drug free).

Thus I think that most of people will choose a better option (Free
software) when given enough information (education?) and an option. I
don't think we need to hide our heads in sand and pretend there is no
non-free option. We just need to provide a compelling reason(s) why Free
alternative is a better option.

Just as illustration, if we educate people that they can do most of
things they need with LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Office (which 90%
of people probably can), they will not wish to buy it or use it.

> The node References in the GNU Coding standards explains the relationship,
> including its subtleties.
>   > However dogmaticism and stigmaticism has never proven to be useful in
>   > the long run. On contrary it is unproductive and potentially harmful. It
>   > holds for every aspect of human life.
> Maybe so, but what the node References actually says is not dogmatic.
> It also does not criticize anyone.  It merely states our policy
> about how to handle such issues.
I think it depends on how people interprets it, like everything else in
the life. Some people will interpret it dogmatically, some will not. 
>   > So is neither ultra-radicalism, it has tendency to alienate people.
> I agree, but we are not as radical as you're saying.
>   > As a curiosa, I wonder what do you think, how much of medical software
>   > that powers life-holding machines in hospitals is *Free*? Should we
>   > erase all those chips and hardrives? What do you think about *that*
>   > unethical software?
> Does anyone here advocate that?  I don't.
Why not?

It is a tricky question to answer, but I think it is important to have
answer on that one. 

The question arises, if we wish to be consistent, are binary blobs
unethical or not?

In philosophy we have to be logically consistent. We can't have a rule that
applies only sometimes. A rule either apply or don't.

> I understand that you feel offended.
I am not offended. Maybe it is my way of arguing that sounds to harsh,
but personally I am not offended. Like everyone else here, I wish the
best for both Emacs, Free software and Free world. I am very pragmatic
person, and I believe that goals can be achieved in different
ways. There is not one single answer to every problem, i.e. it is
important to be flexible just as it is to stay with one's principles.

> But responding to that by
> fighting "back" will only increase hostility.  Someone else will fight
> "back" by attacking you.
It seems to be a problem of social media and today's internet. Any
critique is considered as an attack and people are just digging deeper
into trenches.

Sorry if I am too harsh on J-Louise. It was a response to J-Louise who
adviced and teached earlier how one should read a dictionary when
experiencing a trauma, so I thought he would appreciate the reference :-).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]