Re: The gun analogy (Was: Design Principles)
Marcus Brinkmann <marcus.brinkmann <at> ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
2006-04-30 23:21:40 GMT
At Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:22:05 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap <at> eros-os.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:20 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > Neither am I. I was trying to make a legitimate point. Absolute
> > > positions in moral matters have the problem that they fail in real-world
> > > cases. Killing the injured horse is an example of a case where this
> > > occurs. When one person takes a dogmatic position, the opposing person
> > > only has to find *one* legitimate counterexample in order to demonstrate
> > > that the dogma is harmful.
> > You are insinuating that I have a dogmatic position. This is not the
> > case, as is demonstrable by looking at what I actually said. It is
> > also very easy to find out by asking me if I have a dogmatic position
> > (the answer is no). I said, explicitely and with no possibility of
> > misunderstanding, that a weapon may be a useful tool, under
> > extraordinary circumstances. This is not a dogmatic position, but
> > easily identified as a pragmatic position.
> But this was not the position that I am referring to. I am referring to
> the position on DRM.
My opposition to DRM is not a dogma, it is derived from my personal
experience and intellectual analysis of the history of freedom of
thought and culture. This analysis is based on fact, not opinion.
> > > I am not convinced that my example, which is a real-world example, was
> > > either narrow or stupid. If *you* think it is stupid, try looking at it
> > > from the horse's point of view.