mor wrote:...or because it's me involved.
are you really that narcissistic?
Oh come on debiman, give a man at least the benefit of the doubt.
I mean, yes, one could have definitely read it that way and, had I phrased it differently, like speaking of my history of longwinded and argumentative discussions here instead of assuming one would figure it out, would have helped you not getting to that conclusion, however, as you said, how monumentally narcissistic would one need to be to mean it that way?
My point is: would me being the most narcissistic person be the likeliest of scenarios in the absence of any other indication pointing that way? Or did I give any reason to lean that way, have I ever said or done anything here or elsewhere to support the preconceived bias of me being so self centered rather than, ehm, any other possibility
In truth, I'm just self conscious about my proneness to let the flow of words go wild, and I figured you might have witnessed some of my forays here.
Yes, it is kinda narcissistic too to think anyone even registered me as a presence here, especially considering how poor my contribution to actual problem solving has been, however no, come on, just because my shit doesn't stink it doesn't mean that I think the world revolves around me.
First of all let me apologies for the general tone of my previous reply, in hindsight I recognize I was unnecessarily hostile and if anything I should have just tried to go over the point where I wasn't clear instead of focusing on the problem of fallacies.
A dear friend was so kind to give me a different perspective on the matter, and for that I was able to understand your point better and most importantly get a deeper understanding about the way I communicate with people. Without going into details, especially because I still have work to do on it, I tend to overemphasize certain concepts in a way that distracts and deviates the attention from the real issue.
The point is in fact that with my rhetoric expedient I made you focus on the notion that there is a moral equivalency between buying blood diamonds or exploiting cheap labor and the use of proprietary software, when I was thinking about another aspect in making that analogy (more on it in a second).
So, sorry for having been too hasty in judging your response as technically incorrect, which it wasn't.
I do however still stand by my original criticism of your statement, which I hope I will clear up now.
When I made the blood diamond/fair trade example, I was trying to point out that regardless of their respective moral weights
, in order to dismiss either of those as forms of zealotry, which I'm sure some people would even in the case of blood diamond/fair trade (think about anything in electronics and yes, there are blood
components in all of them), one would need something more objective than his own personal sense of how one matter is "worth the trouble" and the other isn't.
Making the analogy with something on a obvious higher moral ground than the use of proprietary software (even though it would be interesting to at least explore the thought in a new discussion) was exactly the reason I chose it.
Had I used the example of -say- only wearing pointy hats
wouldn't have been convincing enough, I believe, even though the point of not calling it zealotry would still be the same.
Unfortunately, it was so glaring with me that I wasn't meaning it as a moral equivalency, that I couldn't think one would misunderstand, and with it think I was making a case against proprietary software and those who use it, instead than just the improper use of the word zealotry.
The reason why I criticized your statement in the first place in fact, is simply because when you said that you don't avoid non-free for a sense of zealotry because you do real work with your computer, I inferred (and I think it was a pretty fair inference) that you meant that trying to respect software freedom is a vain endeavor at best, an excess and a form of zealotry indeed, one that only those who have no real stuff on their plate can afford to be devoting time to.
If this was a mistaken inference at first, I think you've made it abundantly clear in you subsequent message that it is indeed what you think, which is fine by me for you to say, however I had to respond to.
Because to call that kind of commitment zealotry is definitely unwarranted, just as it would be and it is in fact, to call it zealotry when it is a matter of diamonds or other materials that fund wars and genocide or exploit third world and child labor, or even just when it is a matter of committing to some silly idea unworthy of being compared to these serious issues, granted of course that it doesn't transcend into forcing others in committing to it too, which would be fanaticism, zealotry indeed.
I hope I've made myself clear, if not, well, I don't know.
Bye and take care.