Subject: Re: Engineering Envy [was: Re: CL and UML] From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 12:36:55 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Marcin Tustin > Just because you can use the fact that someone desires something to > persuade them to serve your purposes, does not mean that you are not > exploiting them [...] I am not addressing the issue of exploitation, but of use of force. People who buy lottery tickets are exploited for the sheer stupidity in their thrill-seeking. People who are affected by advertising to buy something they do not need are similarly exploited. People who _smoke_ are exploited. People who hold a religious belief and do the bidding of their religious leaders are exploited. If I were interested in fighting exploitation, I would _not_ start with a sweatshop somewhere abroad. > The fact is that one can always produce objections that people are not > free to not do something. So? This silly "fact" has no bearing on anything. Anyone can always produce any number of arguments for and objections against absolutely anything, but we take that for granted, a given. The interesting thing about arguments and objections is their validity. > Therefore you will have to take a stand and accept some fairly arbitrary > criteria. Not everyone will make the same choice. I am used to this kind of anti-logic in political campaigns. Are we having a political campaign with emotional agitation, or do we have a discussion among reasonably intelligent people who are able and willing to think? If you want to continue the political campaign, please let me know, such as by insisting that the validity of arguments is completely irrelevant because it is an arbitrary choice and an argument is only measured by how many people are affected by it. * Erik Naggum > Not really. This is all about why some people "prefer" C++. :) In case it did not come across successfully, this was intended as a joke. * Marcin Tustin > I have a friend who ridicules the idea of using Lisp "Because it's an > AI/Neural net/blah blah language" while Pascal (Or rather delphi) is > clearly fantastic - not that he offers any reason. [Etc.] You will have to take a stand and accept some fairly arbitrary criteria for what constitutes a "reason". Not everyone will make the same choice. Do you have a problem with this line of argument in programming languages? #:Erik -- Travel is a meat thing.