> My point is that there are some firm beliefs and some absolute truths that do not lead to atrocity. I agree, but I have some concerns. First of all I would c

> My point is that there are some firm beliefs and some absolute truths that do not lead to atrocity. I agree, but I have some concerns. First of all I would claim that the cruelty of your response to my wrong proof will depend on how much your life is affected by it. If your life depends on it you would pick any kind of cruelty in an act of self-defense. Then again, any such situation would be outside of the realm of mathematics, because for your life to be affected by mathematics it has to be applied to the real world. Mathematics doesn't tell you whether or not you can safely apply it to the real world. It just tells you: given a set of assumptions what you necessarily must conclude. In that sense I'm a bit hesitant to call what mathematics tells you 'absolute truths', because its statements are only true, given that the assumptions are true. Another truth I'm convinced of for example is that Snape killed Dumbledore and I'm also sure that believing in this truth won't lead to any atrocities, because it is clear that it doesn't relate to the real world. So, maybe I only have to update my statement to: Firm beliefs in absolute truths about the real world, lead to atrocities. Or would you have another counter example? I mean the examples for absolute truths about the real world which justify atrocities are practically endless (basically all religions, science, communism, capitalism ...). Still, of course there are versions of each one of these which wouldn't allow for atrocities, but they are mostly the less dogmatic ones.