But it's not . I agree that his computer has 100% free software, and that's a good thing. But he paid for that 100% free software by sacrificing good care of workers. And when he paints his laptop and computing as "more ethical" than others, he's the one saying he's morally superior to others. Read and listen to his speeches. He outright says he is a better person because he uses software that's 100% free.

But it's not just software that goes into a computer. And by ignoring the other ramifications in question, he's ignored a large part of morality. It'd be like me saying I'm an overall better person because my house has zero carbon footprint, while paying illegal aliens $1 a day to build it.

All that aside, we can handle that. This has been RMS's thing for decades. It's his other annoying issues that make him a liability to us now that we have bigger eyes watching linux.

What I tried to hint at is that you can play this infinitely. When you are equaling apples with oranges then you can an unlimited number of differences between those two to show that this apple is not really an orange. It makes no sense.

Blindly dismissing the benefits of free software just because some other aspect of computing hardware is also important is short-sighted and/or silly.

OH! Right :D Yes, I mean you can go on ad nauseum with it, definitely. But RMS is saying he's a better person because of this one singular thing. He's the one who makes the claim that he's better than me because he uses 100% free software.

I don't dismiss that using 100% free software is a moral good. But I do dismiss the "better than me as a person" claim because he's more ethical in just one area. (Or maybe more, but he only addresses that ONE area.)