On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 16:59 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I will make this very brief:
>
> It makes no sense to continue the discussion in a manner where you
> always pick the narrowest and stupidiest interpretation of what I say,
> without applying common sense, to then proceed to "disprove" me by
> chosing this narrow interpretation and leading it ad absurdum.
>
> That's just playing tricks, and I am not interested in playing tricks.
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.
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.
Fundamentally, however, the point that we disagree on appears to be
this:
You believe that it is proper behavior to lecture others on why
they should not use "immoral" devices (technical means) in order
to solve legitimate problems.
I believe that this behavior is merely invasive, rude, and foolish.
The obligation of the truly moral actor is to find or build a more
appropriate tool.
In other words: complaining is bullshit. Propose a solution. Advocate
that a solution be found. Participate, but don't tell people that they
have no need or right to make legitimate use of the best available tool
just because the tool is not perfect (or even actively dangerous).
There are two further points that require discussion:
1. Do there exist substantial legitimate uses of (true) confinement
that cannot be achieved by other means?
If so, then banning true confinement is inappropriate.
2. Does my use of true confinement cause harm to others?
If not, then banning true confinement is inappropriate.
I will re-ask these questions in a more appropriate thread. However, I
will add the following:
If the alternatives to confinement provide the same (or substantially
comparable) ability to hide things that confinement provides, we should
stick with confinement, because its properties are well known, and the
alternative would be no better.
shap
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
L4-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
