Re: A guide on setting up C/C++ development environment for Emacs

[Jai Dayal]

That argument doesn't make sense, at all. This technology doesn't just
automatically kill people; it's controlled by people to kill people. It's
like blaming a homicide induced by stabbing on knife technology.

So, let me ask again: how many people have been killed in the name of
science vs. killed in the name of religion? It's pretty clear: very few
people have murdered someone else because "the science dictates this should
happen", when many people have killed other people simply because of
religious dogma.


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 28, 2014 5:57:44 PM UTC+5:30, Jai Dayal wrote:
> > > In my experience the
> > scientific types are more bigoted than the religious ones.
>
> > Okay, how many people have been killed in the name of science vs. killed
> in
> > the name of religion?
>
> The argument can cut both ways:
> Consider that
> a. The wars of the 20th century have been more terrible than all the
> previous ones
> b. The human propensity to wish to kill another is the same across millenia
>
> We can only conclude that it is science and technology that is the
> multiplying factor for the escalation.
>
> Anyway this kind of blame game is becoming faintly ridiculous
> [and too OT to continue so should preferably stop with this post!]
>
> I'd just reiterate what I said: "In my experience the scientific types
> are more bigoted than the religious ones."
>
> To convert this into a universally quantified: "All scientific persons
> are more bigoted than religious ones" would be quite
> ridiculous. Anyone interested can find any number of counterexamples
> both ways.
>
> Even a more nuanced statistical "It is more likely that..." is untenable
> without massively more data than we have at our disposal.
>
> ---------
> And since this has now become too unrelated to emacs, I would like to
> drop out of this 'discussion'
>