@Claus, indeed

> This is a wonderful example how a dogmatic belief system makes its beliefers
> accept any irrational rationalization as long as it helps “explaining” actions by
> other beliefers.

> [...]

> This just shows apologists will come up with any rationalization of their personal
> beliefs — not matter how irrational or unsound these are. This holds both for
> Christian and ‘Free’ Software apologists.

I guess I had that embodied with my “Impressive how far offtopic you’re willing to go”, but your reply explains it even better, yes.

Thanks!

This is a wonderful example how a dogmatic belief system makes its beliefers accept any irrational rationalization as long as it helps “explaining” actions by other beliefers.

Anybody capable of critical thinking, however, will just find it ridiculus. As if masturbation limits a man’s or a women’s ability to have children in any relevant way!

This just shows apologists will come up with any rationalization of their personal beliefs — not matter how irrational or unsound these are. This holds both for Christian and ‘Free’ Software apologists.

Your comparision was spot on.

I’ll also change your URL to your normal homepage (the one you used first, instead of that “get.fedoraproject.org redesign post-mortem”): my blog is’t a place to advertise your Fedora products nor specific blog articles. Thank you.

However, I don’t see the FSF as a progressive social movement. Rather, a group with extremist ideas and without any form of pragmatism. Luckily is it increasingly reducing itself to irrelevance (due to aforementioned extremism and lack of any pragmatism).

> No, it doesn’t, but it does mean moving forward, not backward, which was kind
> of my main point.

And “kind of my main point” is that you don’t know whether it moves us forward, instead of backward, while creating the impression that we’re moving forward. That people in general are too optimistic about “we can’t be anything but moving forward”. But you have to read an comprehend that of course, instead of being selectively blind.

In my perspective is the FSF only going backward at this moment. At a high velocity.

As for making jabs at people, you’re pretty good at it too I must say: it was you who wrote “far from a formidable intellectual feat”, you who endlessly off-topic ranted about religion during the Dark-Ages (again, I don’t see the relevance, but oh well), etc. And all that was before any of my replies to you. So yeah, since you wont reply, bye bye miss hypocrite Máirín Duffy.

I’m trying to spin your claim that I haven’t taken any history into anything but an insult but I am falling short unless you meant to make a joke of me. I suppose pointing out that wikipedia’s article on the Dark Ages supports my claims (which were based on two years’ secondary-level education on European and world history), especially in the “modern academic use” section, but we all know that wikipedia lies, right?

Even *if* my points on the Church and the Dark Ages were wrong, it would be hard to argue that for many of the years leading up to modern times human civilization as a whole was far more agrarian and farming yields sans genetic engineering and pesticides were far more modest, thus there was more of a need for families to have more children in order to aid production on the farms. The point here is not to argue about how backwards my knowledge of European and world history is, the point is the Catholic Church’s policy you’ve chosen to paint as nonsensical is a contemporary anachronism that within its historical context absolutely made more sense.

“Radical progressiveness also doesn’t mean that it necessarily makes very good sense.”

No, it doesn’t, but it does mean moving forward, not backward, which was kind of my main point. The FSF are pushing boundaries and convincing people think more deeply about where their software comes from, the same way that today’s slow food movement is convincing folks to consider where their food comes from. How is comparing a progressive social movement to a religion a useful exercise?

I won’t reply again, you seem to just want to argue and make jabs at people rather than have a proper discussion.

* Moderator changed URL of Máirín Duffy to her normal homepage.

> What’s really amusing here is your use of THAT anachronism to ridicule a policy that
> actually makes very good sense and is actually the exact opposite - quite radically
> progressive given the historical context around it.

Whether or not that policy does make very good sense is yet to be proven. You saying it, doesn’t make it a fact. Radical progressiveness also doesn’t mean that it necessarily makes very good sense. That’s rather a sign to be *very* alarmed, instead.

> Using backwards to criticize forwards! Very interesting!

Indeed, that’s the point. But using backward to criticize forward requires a sense of humor that very few people seem to grasp. Perhaps watch the Holy Grail by Monty Python a few times?

Who in the end knows for sure that FSF’s “forwards! policies” are pushing us forward, and not backward? Apparently you think that? Many people think many things, having many nuances. Which of them will be the best one? And will it be the best one that pushes us forward, anyway? Looking at religion, I’m not so sure.

I for one don’t think FSF’s extremist nuances are even good ones. Far from it. And I sure hope their extremism wont push us forward. That would be an extremist future that ain’t very nice for dissidents. We’ve seen the morality that the FSF creates among many of its fans: zealot madness and extremist nutcases with fascistic ideas on how to punish those who criticize their oh so great God (but go on ignoring all that).

Understand that principle/belief is over 2,000 years old, coming from a time when people did not live nearly as long lives as we do today and when many health conditions that are minor today were a death sentence. Having large families was important to keep communities together and enabled their survival, especially during the Dark Ages when there was no government and the Church was left to keep society in order.

You’ve basically ridiculed the Church with an obviously out-of-date policy sans the necessary historical context to inform it - far from a formidable intellectual feat. What’s really amusing here is your use of THAT anachronism to ridicule a policy that actually makes very good sense and is actually the exact opposite - quite radically progressive given the historical context around it.

Using backwards to criticize forwards! Very interesting!

- Translation to warfare

But good that it made you think about it :) (ultimately, that’s the only point)

The other point is that Bradley’s quote might have been speeched in a Catholic church by a men wearing clerical clothing, and you wouldn’t have noticed: it’s preaching a morality by a group of people who in my opinion don’t always know a lot about philosophy of ethics unless it’s about their own ethic. Which is exactly what religion also does.

@Xan: But then again, I’m not trying to be a hardline existentialist. And yes, that we ourselves are all responsible for our actions is what I too wrote in an earlier comment; it goes both ways (we’re responsible for our own moral justifications, and the claim that using proprietary software isn’t wrongdoing, is perfectly justifiable for me).

Comparing the usage of proprietary software to a natural impulse like masturbation is IMHO a fallacy, but ignoring that I don’t see how throwing Sartre at him makes any sense, since if anything he’s being a more hardliner Existentialist than you are.

Of course, essentially the same translation could be made about things that are _really_ wrong that people make the “I had to” excuses for such as drunk driving or invading Iraq