Re: [security-discuss] Freedom 0: the utilitarian vs. the deontologist

[Brandon Invergo]

On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 06:18 +0500, Anonymous wrote:

> Your use of the word "apply" here is equivocal (a logical fallacy).

On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 19:06 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> We've seen heavy use of logical fallacy from you (false
> analogy, position statements with no attempt at supporting them, straw
> men without quotes, emotional appeals),

On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 07:06 -0500, Anonymous wrote:

> It's actually a fallacy (the false analogy variety),

On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 19:01 +0000, Anonymous wrote:

> Everytime you simply restate it you use the fallacy of repetition.

On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 02:16 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> This is a /begging the question/ fallacy.

On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 15:37 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> More precisely, you've just used a fallacy of composition.

> Your appeal to authority fallacy has been called out.


It appears you've fallen victim to the Wikipedia University fallacy (aka
the Strawman Around Every Corner fallacy): you've given memorization of
the Wikipedia List of Logical Fallacies more priority than active
thought and reflection, causing you to assume that a position must be
wrong if it was supported with a logical fallacy.

Many active members of GNU have explained the definition of freedom 0 as
it concerns GNU the organization.  If you want to have some other
fanciful definition of it, that is fine, but you will not successfully
debate your way into a redefinition of it by GNU or the FSF.

-brandon

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part