[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Ray Jenson]

Richard M Stallman wrote:
> Playing "devil's advocate" within a political group is harmful because
> it creates dissention within the group.  Those responsible for
> debating with an enemy need to study the enemy's possible arguments
> and develop responses to them, but that is a specific tactical task.
> Playing "devil's advocate" does not help you do that.
>   
It's lengthy, it's wordy, but it's my thoughts on this subject so far.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point, rms: playing the 
"devil's advocate" (so long as it is known that this is what you're 
doing, and not simply a method of antagonism) is ultimately productive 
because the specific tactical tasks can benefit from the same processes 
that make open standards attractive: more minds focusing on the same task.

However, for everyone else, I have to agree with rms in that in this 
case it was merely confrontational and thus counterproductive. Claiming 
that this is what you were doing all along after the fact smacks of an 
excuse to look good when you change your opinion but you don't want to 
give someone else the satisfaction of being right... in some cases, this 
is necessary, but we're all friends here. There's no need for 
confrontation or antagonism. And once our collective egos get out of the 
way, we may find that we have more in common.

In the overall argument, I would have to say that both philosophy AND 
action are required. We must understand the philosophy and in this way 
we know what actions will be most effective. The actions then reinforce 
the philosophy when both are correct.

Notice I didn't say "right" anywhere in that last paragraph. The word 
"right" in English implies a judgment, while "correct" implies adherence 
to a standard. In this case, a philosophical standard is the one being 
discussed. This necessarily implies an ethical standard. Therefore, the 
ethics of piracy are precisely what are at stake, and changing the 
subject to imply that ethical arguments should be or are legal arguments 
is neither productive nor logical. We are therefore led back around in a 
circle to the difference between "justice" (what is "correct") versus 
"legality" (what is "right"). This is a long debate, and one which may 
ultimately be fruitless because in the history of mankind it has never 
been settled to everyone's satisfaction.

Just my two cents' worth of thought. The opinions expressed here are my 
own, and if you don't like it you can go straight to Hell. Norway's in 
the midst of winter at this time of year, so it's frozen over. And I 
hear that the train rates from Trondheim aren't that expensive for a 
round-trip ticket ("to Hell and back"). Sounds like a great place for a 
Pirate convention. Well, except the lack of a solid convention centre. 
Imagine: "They said the Pirates can go to Hell. And so we're going."

How's that for changing the subject?

--Ray Jenson
  PPUS