Re: The gun analogy (Was: Design Principles)

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

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.

You appear to be starting to organize your thoughts on this publicly, so
let us try to speak about them productively in that context, rather than
here.

> > 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.
> 
> I didn't say your example was narrow or stupid.  I said your
> interpretation of what I actually said is narrow and stupid.  This is
> one of your rhetorical tricks.  Another rhetorical trick is to
> misunderstand my criticism of the rhetorical trick.

I beg your pardon. Neither of those was a rhetorical "trick" in any
sense. Both were legitimate interpretations -- possibly legitimate
misinterpretations -- but legitimate. I am deeply insulted that you
believe me so dishonest.

Yes, I will argue to the best of my ability. No, I will not knowingly
"cheat" by playing tricks of this sort.

> > 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).
> 
> Please tell me which quote from me you interpret as complaint.

Actually, I am referring here to the anti-gun advocates in general, not
to you. However, you *did* say in one of your emails that while the
horse is dying you wanted to debate the merits of gun ownership and the
proper method of destroying the animal.

> Please show me what quote from me you interpret as me telling "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)."

It is possible that I am confusing your statements with statements that
Bas has made. However, I understand your position to be that true
confinement should be replaced by some non-confining policy (which you
have called "trivial confinement"). I have also understood that your
rationale for replacing a well-known and well-understood mechanism with
a less powerful and not-well-understood mechanism is a fundamental moral
objection to DRM.

You and I disagree about DRM, but that is not the point here. True
confinement is a generally useful tool. If you exclude it by policy you
are effectively making the type of statement that I claim.

And do not say "the user can add it". This is bullshit sophistry. If the
architecture is built in a compromised way because the wrong
foundational mechanism was used (and I believe that your "trivial
confinement" is probably the wrong foundational mechanism), then the
smallest addition possible is a complete rebuilding of a new system from
the ground up.

> > 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.
> 
> As nobody is talking about "banning" anything, the answer to these
> irrelevant questions is appropriately a floppy sandal over your head.

Please explain why my comments about architecture and bullshit sophistry
are a misinterpretation. This would be welcome. I do not believe that
true confinement can be added to the system later in any practical
sense. Architecting it out is, for all practical purposes, banning it.


shap