From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Dijkstra's Methodology for Secure Systems Development Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:51:11 +0300 Message-ID: <834mw2yssw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87y4tetq7q.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <83ha02zb26.fsf@gnu.org> <87tx42tf42.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <8361giyy06.fsf@gnu.org> <87ppeqt8d6.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411242711 3167 80.91.229.3 (20 Sep 2014 19:51:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:51:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ian.a.n.grant@googlemail.com, guile-devel@gnu.org To: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 20 21:51:44 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XVQh5-0002yH-TC for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:51:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35854 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XVQh5-00044s-Ir for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:51:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58955) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XVQgy-00044V-FE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:51:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XVQgt-0004YE-5E for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:51:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:61089) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XVQgs-0004XG-UU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:51:31 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NC700600THBGO00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:51:24 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NC7006Y0TTNFW20@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:51:24 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87ppeqt8d6.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:17504 Archived-At: > From: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer > Cc: godek.maciek@gmail.com, ian.a.n.grant@googlemail.com, guile-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:11:33 +0200 > > > Use the words I suggested, and this problem disappears, even if others > > remain. > > Well, that's false. Many people think it's amoral to be homosexual. > And many countries' laws forbid it, too. Yes, and the Swiss think it's amoral to litter. So what? How is this related to the issues at hand? Are there countries that have laws that allow to freely kill, or break into other's houses, or summarily hold people in captivity and torture them? No, there aren't. So, for the purpose of this discussion, we all agree what is mormal and what is not. > >> (Except for laws, though I'm confused on how they're relevant at > >> all.) > > > > Perhaps you don't understand why we have laws, then. > > I said that because laws are just the written down form of what a group > of people think is right. Yes, but why do we bother to have laws at all? Think about this, and perhaps you will arrive at a much more useful explanation for why we have laws. > > Tell me: when someone shoots a burglar who broke into their house and > > threatened them with a weapon, what exactly happens to the "human > > well-being" of the burglar? > > It's traded off for the well-being of the home owner, and probably for > the well-being of future possible victims. "Ethics calculus." ;-) Right, and Stalin "traded off" well-being of his victims for that of himself and his satraps. And Hitler "traded off" the well-being of Jews for that of the Aryans. Your "well-being" methodology is a dead end: using it, you will never be able to decide whom to support and whom to condemn in a given conflict. > Anyway, I now suspect that the discussion might go on for dozens of > mails if we don't just abruptly stop; I had previously hoped that we > would instead quickly either agree or agree to disagree on clear points. > Or maybe we can just agree to disagree on the meaning and importance of > laws? The other points seem cleared up, I think. I'm desperately > looking for a way to end the discussion without requiring either side to > accept giving the other the "last word," so help me a little... OK, I will now stop.