From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id eFJeLKEgj2CYIwAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 23:58:57 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 0MsTKKEgj2AYDAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 21:58:57 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65CE916597 for ; Sun, 2 May 2021 23:58:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:50868 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldK76-0006Dy-Jv for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 17:58:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55714) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldK6y-0006Dh-DY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 May 2021 17:58:48 -0400 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:61243) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ldK6v-000346-0D; Sun, 02 May 2021 17:58:47 -0400 Received: from nijino.local (91-114-247-246.adsl.highway.telekom.at [91.114.247.246]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FYKk625vVz3wcQ; Sun, 2 May 2021 23:58:37 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1619992718; bh=EUAfXz2O7jzLeIaqyIZTFGfnzLBI+irsjtxrm7m4Utw=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=u9RJDGkLuZziaFricDXtZRkZbzwkA3WiioLAhpQg5j1uPe7J9g3TXNWW8XsuxnaJv 6NPNutCRmu7XB6t8x5+QEOb58BVKpPSyt1duzJb6AcA2daoeI/waMQq4RA237S1SGY NzYSloamgAFtiTQHQMWcql8HT9x8teTUkRmTEuRM= Message-ID: <9bf00ad883e920844e308d2c6c502c9eb986b003.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes) From: Leo Prikler To: Mark H Weaver , =?UTF-8?Q?=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6?= Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 23:58:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87h7jkq25n.fsf@netris.org> References: <87tunz11mf.fsf@netris.org> <87y2daz13x.fsf@netris.org> <87r1j2z079.fsf@netris.org> <87a6pqypf9.fsf@netris.org> <87wnsp7yo9.fsf@gnu.org> <87v986pdej.fsf@netris.org> <874kfm75fl.fsf@biscuolo.net> <1bbb100c34c660eaa697ae7ea9ea7ea3638c4c50.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87wnsije63.fsf@netris.org> <8df20a7d869d5bdca47aaf044ac9b229b020aea2.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87k0ohorww.fsf@netris.org> <87h7jkq25n.fsf@netris.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Guix Devel , GNU Guix maintainers Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619992737; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=EUAfXz2O7jzLeIaqyIZTFGfnzLBI+irsjtxrm7m4Utw=; b=hoXT4f6/cTFwhNPK/SFd+D4LL8pQsWHZIF3iCfab5WB+hxIB6DO2IYMujOAEaDmiG2hyFj Pi5uduU2FRHSgDAiLEtSoon+Gov/gXlZn3kqnbXNtc4q/90OtK7paIy0en2lJq9OcH7B+0 EQsYUB+XDpYwW+Sn+pVWzwPNOLXyINMsvnUZRfoswwkLiPOE4+efzQ6CNQd/TY7rq7ogYR rgdLmG18oT/H1KORZkKUbfMpXIGDMnAJix78etBwL514FoXxh3ijTlHMqowLTVpElP8Po3 jy4bW3yxpQPa1L/MGNxziZpLd3QIXnSc6mtYV33viLxVfKs3R62MHyCuF9VJfw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619992737; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=Hhc0SvWt1OlBKInKOQzvu/T7J6x/bSaUauygzraAXJmZ+Th0yOEO2EacOE0UH1BOvFvtG3 e/4J1DZGjCyL5klGlYAVTu/jc7rwvmvIohb1SgBFEjd9HYvORuBPdYgdmF7ynNiHyd6bS5 D79MxV3m7oi1d60O1KFnsKVryi9Gfrj6D+lEfwSQsuXOY/I+ZBCwdNEeuwHD7BrI5q/Ytw t6PPZnBOLpfpQkxDrXczuIKJ54FG9VWc93fO+27DALu3Sw62NM8vx09byHU54Gz8lWFPq1 NVM5eBvZh88dSM46E6q2vFoppa68Pi8xKijRHmoWI/FNoQbyMt2h0HinB8+qTQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=u9RJDGkL; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.36 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=u9RJDGkL; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=student.tugraz.at (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 65CE916597 X-Spam-Score: -1.36 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 1GmLiCMvDTlh Hi Mark, Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 17:02 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: > Hi Leo, > > Leo Prikler writes: > > > Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 15:29 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: > > > > Likewise, there's no middle ground on assuming evil > > intentions, you either assume they exist or you don't. > > That's true also, but this is a different dichotomy than the one you > presented above. In the sentence above, the dichotomy is between: > > (1) You assume bad faith > (2) You do not assume bad faith > > In your list of scenarios above, there's a (false) dichotomy between: > > (1) You assume bad faith > (2) You assume good faith > > It's a false dichotomy because neither of these is the logical > negation of the other. They cannot both be true, but they _can_ both > be false. > > In other words, I think that you have conflated "not assuming bad > faith" with "assuming good faith". Do you see the difference? > > This is not mere nitpicking. It's a very important distinction. > It's analogous to being forced to choose between "faith in god" and > "atheism", without allowing for the possibility of "agnosticism". > > Does that make sense? When it comes to interactions, "good faith" is defined as being "fair, open and honest". Negate any of these, and you arrive at some form of bad faith. I think more commonly "bad faith" means that the honesty is negated, while openness is contrasted with lack of transparency and fairness with unfairness. You could say "Well, technically, I don't know whether they're being honest", and that is correct, but it is also a form of casting doubt, which I would argue constitutes an assumption of bad faith. Of course, "you're not sure about it", but the other party is still guilty until proven innocent. I'm not sure what definitions of "good" and "bad" faith you're using, but please consider that I meant "acting in bad faith" to be the same as "not acting in good faith". > > > This is, in fact, the current scenario. I'm not making any > > > assumptions. That is truly the state of my mind on this > > > question, and I think it's the only rational position to take. > > Which one is the rational position now? Not assuming evil > > intentions or assuming them? > > I think the only rational position to take here is to not make > assumptions. You're always making an assumption, however. Even if it's not one governed by the situation at hand, you have a natural bias to trust or distrust others in their words. Claiming you don't is misleading yourself and others. Regards, Leo