[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Marcin Borkowski
Subject: Re: A guide on setting up C/C++ development environment for Emacs
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:15:58 +0200

Dnia 2014-08-28, o godz. 15:47:03
Jai Dayal <address@hidden> napisał(a):

> 1) Hitler was a Christian.

How *exactly* do you define "Christian" here?

> 2) What do you mean "false interpretations"? There's no canonical
> interpretation of these religions, hence large factions exist between
> almost all of them; killing under these "interpretations" is very much
> dogma.

Well, I know about at least one religion which actually has something
close to "canonical interpretation" (I'm neither an expert on
philosophy/theology, nor a native English speaker, but I suspect
that the word "doctrine" is more suitable here than "interpretation"
- hence my reservation.)  Consequently, "factions" existing within this
religion do indeed disagree on quite a lot of things (like: should
capital punishment be used nowadays, or: is free market the best idea
for economy, or: is Emacs better than Vim), but not the doctrine.

Also, could you please check the meaning of the word "dogma" in your

> > So for me, it's rather a 0:0 draw.  Of course, we *might* count in
> pseudo-religious causes, but then why don't we count in
> pseudo-science?  Both ways of counting are similarly dishonest.
> There is no such thing as pseudo-religion; it's all just religion.
> Pseudo-science isn't even close to science.

Well, sir, you are entitled to have your personal opinions.  I'm
afraid, though, that both above sentences are not correct.  First of
all, I didn't use the word "pseudoreligion" - I was writing about
"pseudo-religious causes", which I tried to explain in the previous
paragraph (though the term was probably badly chosen).  Also, *if*
pseudo-science weren't (in some its aspects at least) close to science,
nobody would fall for it.  And actually some contemporary parts of the
so-called "science" are dangerously close to pseudo-science.


Marcin Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]