<pabs3>river: what was Debian md_rand? <oriansj>muurkha: I don't feel discussions about Capitalism nor Communism are generally useful as no formal definitions exist in which actually includes any countries. And those definitions that do, are meaningless as the Definition of Communism would have to include modern America and the Definition of Captialism would have to include Stalin's Soviet Russia <oriansj>And to say greed is the natural state of man in society is much akin to saying the natural state of man is to cough in a coal mine; <oriansj>gbrlwck: clarifying questions and creating shared understanding instead of letting your emotions leap to anger would have made the interaction much more useful to you. Remember give people here the benefit of the doubt and if you disagree; perhaps they know something you don't or perhaps you have something useful to share with them. <oriansj>muurkha: I don't think gbrlwck was trolling so much as not being experienced with having discussions on IRC. Which is easy to get derailed on such poorly defined discussion topics. <oriansj>river: the list of software projects going extremely wrong is a massive list. One need only look at what made a tool a success to know exactly where it is going to fail very badly <muurkha>oriansj: while the categories are fuzzy, I don't agree that they are so fuzzy as to be nonexistent. I think Marx defined capitalism pretty clearly <muurkha>it's definitely possible to have useful discussions about the topic, but not with someone who doesn't care about the truth, or doesn't even believe that there is such a thing as "the truth", and not with someone who doesn't want to have a useful discussion <muurkha>btw, mea culpa, I mixed up my economics Nobelists: The Nature of the Firm is by Coase, not Arrow <muurkha>pabs3: md_rand was the Debian OpenSSL bug introduced by Kurt Roeckx and found by Luciano Bello <gbrlwck>oriansj: i don't think i "let my emotions leap to anger". where/how does that seem to be the case? i did get angry when i was called a troll, repeatedly called names, was told to shut up (to let the adults do their talk). i don't think these kinds of things should have a place in communities where we try to collaborate to achieve goals of common interest. <gbrlwck>but yeah, part of the misunderstandings were probably my fault. speaking of THE truth sounds like dogmatism to me -- imo truth is being /established/ between people, within communities. truth is not a given, it does not exist outside of a social context and it certainly does not inhabit any discussion before common ground is found. this is (if i understand that word correctly) far away from solipsism. and yeah, i get offended <gbrlwck>trying to engage in a discussion i'm told i'm not discussing in a "productive way" (without telling me what i do wrong/how i could improve). <gbrlwck>i am unwilling to expose myself to this level of hostility. whether on IRC or anywhere else. thanks for understanding <oriansj>gbrlwck: thank you for clarifying. I now better understand your reason for disagreement. <pabs3>gbrlwck left the channel already before your message <oriansj>muurkha: different base assumptions, mean a useful discussion isn't possible but it wouldn't be fair to say they don't care about the truth as it means something different to them. <oriansj>pabs3: yeah but I hope they see the IRC history and we can find common ground to get back to our core goal of bootstrapping. *pabs3 guesses they are gone for good considering the last message <oriansj>I hope not as they were working on MesCC to RISC-V ***qyliss_ is now known as qyliss
<muurkha>"imo truth is being /established/ between people, within communities. truth is not a given, it does not exist outside of a social context and it certainly does not inhabit any discussion before common ground is found." is a collective variant of metaphysical solipsism. it's a hopelessly confused philosophical doctrine which forecloses the possibility of any basis for agreement <muurkha>at first glance it would seem to foreclose only the possibility of any basis for agreement other than mere popularity, implying that, for example, geocentrism was actually true before Copernicus and Galileo made it unpopular, and heliocentrism was false, because the community of the Catholic Church had established the truth of geocentrism <muurkha>but in fact the problem goes deeper, because according to this radical form of relativism, it isn't even objectively true that the Catholic Church was preaching geocentrism, or that the Inquisition put Galileo under house arrest for teaching heliocentrism, or for that matter that our own community subscribes to heliocentrism. if saying that some proposition X is true means only that some <muurkha>community has accepted X as true, then it is equally valid to say that the Catholic Church was teaching heliocentrism and Galileo, who was never put under house arrest, was teaching geocentrism <muurkha>that is, it would be equally valid for that "truth" to "exist" in a different community or social context <muurkha>from my point of view that sort of willful blindness to objective reality, accepting popularity contests as superior to empirical evidence, is guaranteed to render disagreements unresolvable <muurkha>that said, it was wrong of me to let *my* emotions leap to anger and to insult gbrlwck by saying "shh. the adults are talking," and I'm sorry I did that <muurkha>and, as I said, I'm also sorry I fed the discussion about the nature of human action in the first place; it was doomed to be an unproductive discussion given that the other participant specifically said that it wasn't "their thing" to "engage in discussion in a productive way" ***ChanServ sets mode: +o janneke_
***jackhill is now known as KM4MBG
***KM4MBG is now known as jackhill