Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Software Alliance's FRAND proposes to have Free software outlawed in the EU?
Renegade:
I don't really knows whats happening with the political propaganda being spammed on DC recently.
-Eóin (February 29, 2012, 09:28 AM)
--- End quote ---
This is kind of off-topic, but I think it's an important point that you raise.
Many of us here make our living in the IT world, be that as software authors, network admins, or in some other capacity.
The practical upshot is that IT topics are central to our lives, and indeed, our abilities to feed ourselves even.
The fallout comes when there are attacks on core principles that we hold dear, such as freedom of speech, which in itself is fundamental to "information" technology.
Any attack on FOSS is ultimately going to be an attack on freedom of speech in one form or another. Any time you say, "You have freedom of speech, but...", that is a limitation of freedom of speech, which is NOT freedom.
Now, someone may point out various hate laws... and yes... I still do not believe that we should ban people from being idiots. You can't legislate intelligence. I'm somewhat radical in that way. Meh... I'm sure many disagree with me. That's fine.
Allow me to cite an example of utter, complete, pure evil that I cannot possibly express my disgust for, but that I do not believe should be censored or banned:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled
--- End quote ---
Yes. They advocate killing newborn babies. It's difficult to imagine anything more callous or evil.
Now, let's just examine a bit about what I've DONE above...
I've gone from a core IT issue, censorship/freedom of speech/freedom of information, to an example, to killing babies.
This is the core problem: The values we hold in the software/IT community are generic and held in other areas, so inevitably, these "webs of values" lead us into non-IT/software topics, which are invariably of a political/religious/principled nature (because the attacks are in themselves political/religious/principled).
I think we generally do a decent job of limiting ourselves to staying as close as possible to software/IT, but it is inevitable that we'll wander.
e.g. Patent insanity in software... insert slippery slope here... patent insanity elsewhere.
The recent frequency of attacks has skyrocketed, so when you say, "I don't really knows whats happening with the political propaganda being spammed on DC recently.", I think that it's really just that - increasing frequency of attacks on fundamental principles that many people at DC hold, e.g. freedom of information/speech, etc.
Quite honestly, I'm rather glad. For a very long time I've simply shut up about these things (saw them coming a long time ago), and it's refreshing to see that I'm not alone now and that other people out there actually care about things like not being thrown in prison because you happen to believe something different.
Guys and gals please take a deep breath.. especially long time members.. this is not the DC way -- we are supposed to go to extreme lengths to not insult and attack each other, and not to name call. Please for the benefit of setting a good example try to be kinder to one another. You can disagree without being personal.
-mouser (February 29, 2012, 11:21 AM)
--- End quote ---
+1
I know that I've flown off the handle before (I hope Phil doesn't hate me for that), and it can be tough not to sometimes.
It's easier to do when focusing on the ISSUES though, instead of looking at the person. Ad hominem and pro hominem attacks/arguments do have a place, but they are somewhat rare. Ad hominem has no place in any kind of forum like this, while pro hominem does have a place, e.g. "Try the ACME program. 40hz uses it and he knows what he's doing." etc. etc.
Now, let's all just be happy that I don't say what I really think~! :P ;D (Couldn't resist that one!)
IainB:
Allow me to cite an example of utter, complete, pure evil that I cannot possibly express my disgust for, but that I do not believe should be censored or banned:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
--- End quote ---
Yes. They advocate killing newborn babies. It's difficult to imagine anything more callous or evil.
-Renegade (February 29, 2012, 11:11 PM)
--- End quote ---
Sorry to chip in here, and I presume you weren't really requiring a response, but, even though it was an off-topic comment, I felt I should suggest that since the context of the paper you link to is:
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411
Law, ethics and medicine
Paper
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
--- End quote ---
- then it would seem eminently reasonable to present the argument in that paper, since it would seem to formalise a logical and structured conclusion that could be drawn from the apparent mess of contradictory/conflicting ethical and moral perspectives that collectively seem to currently allow killing a foetus.
The argument being put forward is that:
...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion ...is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
--- End quote ---
There was nothing in the paper (that I could see, anyway) that specifically suggests that the authors of the paper:
...advocate killing newborn babies.
--- End quote ---
The author affiliations are given as:
Author Affiliations
1. Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2. Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3. Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
--- End quote ---
In the paper, just before the Conclusions, it says:
We are not suggesting that these are definitive reasons against adoption as a valid alternative to after-birth abortion. Much depends on circumstances and psychological reactions. What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.
--- End quote ---
- and the start of the Conclusions says:
Conclusions
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn...
--- End quote ---
The paper appears to be making a rational argument.
From it, it could be reasonably supposed that the paper might simply be a serious challenge to the status quo to sort out the arguably compromised ethics/morals that surround the act of so-called legalised abortion. The paper would seem to be smack-bang in the right context and forum for that, at any rate.
I would like to see what (if any) the outcomes of the paper are in the medical profession. It can't be easy being obliged by society to try and play God.
If we are being observed by space aliens - as some have suggested - then I hate to think what they might think of our "civilization".
For example, we do such strange things, including wholesale chopping up of living foetuses in women's wombs and vacuuming the bits out (QED). This could seem a somewhat strange and barbaric thing for a species to do to itself, whatever the given justification may be. But this could arguably seem no more strange than deliberately killing the foetus after birth - which we also do (QED) - whatever the given justification may be.
So, if you can justify as legal doing the first one, then why not the second?
Hmm...tricky.
Prior posts in DCF of potential relevance:
Top 10 most depressing quotes from Orwell's 1984:
(see attachment in previous post)
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler....
-zridling (March 14, 2008, 12:59 AM)
--- End quote ---
(see attachment in previous post)
-IainB (January 23, 2012, 04:47 AM)
--- End quote ---
40hz:
I want IainB to start a blog, that once a week dissects (as is his wont) some late breaking web issue. The mind boggles... ;D
P.S. I hope they never abolish orgasm. It's still the cheapest form of entertainment going. ;)
TaoPhoenix:
I want IainB to start a blog, that once a week dissects (as is his wont) some late breaking web issue. The mind boggles... ;D
P.S. I hope they never abolish orgasm. It's still the cheapest form of entertainment going. ;)
-40hz (March 01, 2012, 07:24 AM)
--- End quote ---
They're trying. From the next story over:
https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=30130.0
Summary: PayPal has forced its merchants that publish and distribute e-books to censor erotic literature.
Renegade:
I didn't mean for baby killing to really enter in here... It was merely meant as a radical example. Please forgive the diversion...
Killing babies
The argument being put forward is that:
...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion ...is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
--- End quote ---
There was nothing in the paper (that I could see, anyway) that specifically suggests that the authors of the paper:
...advocate killing newborn babies.
--- End quote ---
-IainB (March 01, 2012, 07:06 AM)
--- End quote ---
The ONLY thing relevant is:
‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible
--- End quote ---
Anything else is merely excuses.
I do not understand how:
killing a newborn should be permissible
--- End quote ---
Differs in any significant semantic way from:
advocate killing newborn babies
--- End quote ---
i.e. To advocate is to endorse or to say that something "should" be. (I make the same distinction between "is" and "ought" that C.S. Lewis makes in that there is an infinite divide and no method to logically get from one to the other.)
As such, "advocate killing newborn babies" is logically equivalent to "killing newborn babies should be permissible", and I do not believe that in context there is any significant difference in stating it in the plural or singular case.
That is to say:
advocate killing newborn babies == killing a newborn should be permissible
There, I mean "==" in the sense of being distinct from "===", where "===" is referential equivalence or "direct quotation" and "==" is logical equivalence or "indirectly quoted but semantically the same".
The paper appears to be making a rational argument.
-IainB (March 01, 2012, 07:06 AM)
--- End quote ---
In the same way that we can rationalize genocide or anything else. The question is do we want to argue for creation or destruction. It really is that simple.
And yes... I'm being all stubbornly Kantian about this, categorical imperative and all that jazz.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version