@LibertyPaulM @uoou I’m probably going to be yelled at too, but imho so long as someone has been made aware of the alternatives their choices afterwards are down to them.

They spent money on their computer, and they’re the one that’s going to be using it everyday. So it’s their choice.

@bobstechsite @LibertyPaulM And how far does this "just let people do what they want" philosophy extend?

Hyperbollically, I fancy doing some murders. Looks like fun. That cool?

If someone believes something is harmful - and that belief rests on a coherent and rational philosophy - then why shouldn't they seek to criticise and deter it?

Should climate lobbyists just shut the fuck up too?

@uoou @LibertyPaulM that’s a fine collection of straw men you just argued with there!

@bobstechsite @LibertyPaulM I acknowledged the hyperbole but there's no straw man.

In all cases there's a group of people behaving a certain way and another group who believe - rationally - that the behaviour is harmful.

Please explain where the straw man is.

@uoou @LibertyPaulM I was very tempted to say “no. LOL”. But I’ll indulge you.

I said: if someone buys a computer then they’re grown ups that can weigh the pros and cons for themselves.

You said: BUT WHAT IF WE ALL THOUGHT LIKE THAT AND DIDN’T FIGHT INJUSTICE AND HAD NO LAWS AND JUST LET CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPEN. YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!

@bobstechsite @LibertyPaulM

The point - which you've still not addressed - is that certain behaviours are harmful. FOSS people believe that proprietary software is harmful, just as climate change scientists believe that burning fossil fuels is harmful and... pretty much everyone believes that doing murders is harmful.

All of those beliefs are founded in rational, coherent philosophies.

That's not a straw man. It's not even really reductio ad absurdium. It's argument by analogy.

@uoou @LibertyPaulM that’s your point, but I’ll address it.

If free software went away, we’d *only* have expensive computer products that impose restrictions on us and profiteering monopolies to choose from. That would suck, but life would continue.

If the climate goes away, we all die. If the rule of law goes away, there’s anarchy and death.

Can you accept people may have different views on different issues, and prioritise some issues higher than others?

Follow

@bobstechsite @LibertyPaulM So there's (arguably) a quantitative difference, sure. That doesn't really advance any argument.

As to your question: I'm not arguing for the restriction of anyone's behaviour - you are. People should be free to use all the proprietary software they want. And people who believe that that is harmful should be free to say so.

And, ideally, people would discuss differences and maybe learn something. Rather than telling the other side they're not allowed to comment.

@uoou @LibertyPaulM if that’s the argument you thought either of us was making, I can see why you’ve been so angry.

In summary: there’s a difference between saying “that’s not the best solution imho, but I accept peoples’ right to choose” and “anyone who uses this is harming themselves and other people”.

Someone’s private use of OneDrive doesn’t impact you unless they try and share a document. In which case you can tell them to bog off or send it by email instead. 🤷‍♂️

Sign in to participate in the conversation
LinuxRocks.Online

Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..