> I suspect that you are instead using the word "argument" to mean "an angry
quarrel or disagreement"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
No. I just think that insight is much more important than arguments. An
insight is a flash which happens when arguments stop and one looks at the
thing directly, freely, not through the clever tricks of thought. Maybe
during an argument you can get an insight but that is not because of the
process of argumentation itself but because a small detail in the
conversation can unlock the insight. But that's only maybe. We can write a
million pages and that may not happen. So arguments are very inefficient way.
The questions provided above were meant to make the reader look for oneself,
question for oneself, not to hurry up and answer (or argue).
> description comes straight from RMS's talks
Do you really need someone to tell you that a closed piece of software may be
malware? Can't you see for yourself that it is 50/50 - it can be or not, so
it is as much "maybe malware" as "maybe goodware". But the very choice of
words reveals a bias, especially given the surrounding context. That's why I
made that comment. In any case neither RMS knows, nor anyone else, in a
complex system. To find out you must test it or even reverse engineer it.
