Show more

@jmw150 a large chunk of any software is undefined behavior, it's just what happens when you break an invariant. The reason c++ has a lot of it in it's spec is because it tries to convey the invariants of the underlying tech (be that the OS, the compiler or the hardware) in some generic fashion. Aside from some historical baggage, these things usually manifest themselves in one way or the other, even if you sweep them under the rug.

@kreyren Software freedom is called software freedom because it has nothing to do with any other type of freedom. If you acquire a distribution of free software then the 4 rules must apply to it. Achieving world piece, ending poverty or bending over to your political agenda are not on the list. There are no values on the free software is founded on, there are no founders of free software, it's a global movement based on a simple logical argument against copyright and abuse of IP. The notion that gnu project (even if they wanted to) can in any practical way restrict access to free software it released to any particular individual or group is nonsensical, and the only possible interpretation of it is to make new versions of gnu software entirely proprietary which can only have long term consequences (most likely achieving nothing but to diminish their relevance, in favor of a free software forks that will most definitely appear if such a decision is made).

@Eris there was no coat, I literally said the equivalent of "if it rains, you'll get wet" everything else you imagined to yourself


> if it rains, you'll get wet
> it's not raining, I didn't get wet
> wow you destroyed me

@Eris yes and is not a contradiction to the original statement

@Eris if it was my premise, which it wasn't, for the third time I repeat I made an argument like "if true, then", for no other purpose than to point out a logical mistake in the OPs narrative.

@Eris Yeah... here is how it went
you: I reject premise
me: ok
you: you can't be ok I destroyed your logic
me: *educates you on basic english and logic*
you: not everything is about logic
me now: ok

@Eris You elaborated on your rejection of the premise. That is not a logic argument. I'm ok with your rejection of the premise. It is irrelevant to the argument I presented.

@Eris expand that,
"an assertion which forms a basis of theory". You can not have a logical argument within the theory if you reject the premise. I'm presenting a logical argument within the theory of the OP. If you want to examine the premises of the OP, stop quoting me, go quote the OP and ask them about their premises. I don't care, I assumed them to be true for the purpose presenting and argument in the form of "if premise, then conclusion". But that as many other thing I presume is once again, incomprehensible to you.

@Eris so far you are asserting your beliefs and nothing more, at some point you even accepted it, but now you have changed your mind and are pretending that you have presented logical arguments.

@Eris no you are having a religious meta rant on how the OPs premise is wrong, nothing to do with logic presented in OP or my reply.

@Eris I'm pointing out a logical error in the OP, I have no clue what you are doing. Evangelizing or something.

@Eris I don't care if you agree with me, you are the only one who has a problem with that.

@Eris literally look up the definition of the word


>Basing "good" logic on false premises is how people are wrong 99% of the time.
>No one gives a shit how good your theorizing and reasoning is if it reaches a false conclusion.
> If you had done this instead of engaging in a meta-argument about how i'm not arguing the way you want, you would have saved yourself a lot of time, energy, and frustration.

When the logic is bad, you can't reach a conclusion, I can't help but point it out. The rest of your problems of finding the ultimate truth and god I don't care about, again.

> Why on earth do you think this? You can have logical discussions about whether the premise is false, and how that impacts your argument.

Because that's how logic works, if something is presented as a premise in a given context you can't logically argue with it in that context, that the meaning of the word premise. Don't thank me for another basic language lesson. Examining the premises is what meta discussion is and you are the only one doing that, and it's not even my premises yet you keep implying that they are mine, when all I did is hypothetically assume them to be true to present a logical argument, in the fashion of "if that's true, then".

@Eris A premise can't be a logical error. Just like an assertion is not a logical argument. You either accept them or you do not in a given context. I accept the premise of the OP for the purposes of logical discussion. If you do not accept the premise you can not have a logical discussion. If you would like to explore the context if which a given premise is a logical conclusion to be argues over, then feel free to write your own essay, and if it's interesting enough someone might respond.


@Eris I'm ok with not knowing things, unlike some who desire to be the all knowing.


@Eris I'm not trying to help the theorem points out a logical error in the OPs line of thinking, as they focus on the symptoms instead of causes.


Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.