Throwing in flamebait like "teaching Rails to the homeless" leads only to more horrific comments, as we see below. Please don't do that, even if you're upset with how other people are reacting to a story.

While infectious, Rails doesn't risk killing the homeless.

You haven't seen my AWS bill! Ayy lmao

Pretty sure he could wipe out the entire island because of their immune system

> But, he went in with the best of intentions, and he died. You just don't believe what he did. Imagine a techie died while trying to teach rails to the homeless (which, I can only assume, some of you might be more sympathetic towards), would you feel the same way?

This wasn't the homeless, this was a society which has (overtly, if only in practice and not in name) been granted, by the relevant government, absolute internal self rule, and which notoriously applies summary execution to invaders.

Whether that community should be self-governing, and whether or not it is justified in its response to intrusion are, certainly, topics perhaps worthy of debate.

But, look, after making initial and peaceful contact he got in a fight with the natives where an arrow was shot into a book he was carrying, fled, and then tried to return the next day. When the people whose land you are intruding on have clearly signalled that you personally are unwelcome and they are prepared to deadly force to keep you away, I'm not sure that it can be said that your return is some kind of morally virtuous (“best of intentions”) act in any case (his actual intentions appear unclear, as his writings and comments to others indicate that thyey were either thrill-seeking or proselytization or a mix of the two.)

If it were against the law, local authorities respected and warned of their desire to be left alone. If numerous attempts to teach rails in the past 100 years had resulted in death, rejection of gifts, attempts to peaceably repel by firing arrows without heads and threatening until the visitor leaves. Yes, I'd feel the same way.

I'd be sad that someone had thrown their life away needlessly and foolishly in the face of overwhelming evidence that it would be an idiotic thing to do.

Would you feel the same if he had died having broken into someone's home after being repeatedly warned not to and that the householder was hostile and armed?

"Best of intentions" is debatable - to push his religious beliefs on others. That's arrogance not good intent.

A techie might teach Rails to a homeless person if that person wants to learn Rails.

More like tried to teach rails to a tribe of armed COBOL programmers in the most dangerous part of the inner city. "DHH tweeted to me in my dreams".

The road to the proverbial Hell is paved with good intentions.

Right converting to Christianity is such a useful skill in afterlife.

Parents who put their homosexual kid through conversion therapy also have the best of intentions. That frequently ends up driving their own kid to suicide, or so I've heard. I don't have sympathy for these parents.

This person's action could have resulted in dozens of dead Sentinelese due to disease. He was recklessly endangering his own life and the lives of people he didn't even know. Every death is a tragedy, but I find it hard to feel sorry for him.

If it was actually against the law to teach Rails to the homeless, in order to protect them? Yeah.

You're making a legal argument about whether the action should be allowed, and I am making a moral argument about whether this person deserves sympathy rather than scorn.

What if these specific homeless were known for killing anybody that came near them. That the government said, stay away from this one very particular group of homeless people (but feel free to go anywhere else that you want, and teach any of the other homeless people, that want to learn, Rails.

In some places, it's actually against the law to feed the homeless (without a proper license). Teaching Rails does not require a license, so it's probably OK (though if I were homeless, I'd rather take food).

I didn’t know that death was a proportational or appropiate sentence for this crime. And I am willing to bet that whatever Indian law he violated it wasn’t a capital offence.

Indian law is at best marginally applicable, as the Indian government treats the Sentinelese as a de facto mostly-sovereign protectorate. The use of force in repelling unwanted visitors is one of the basic prerogatives of any nation, even a very tiny one, and the Sentinelese even follow a reasonably ethical use-of-force continuum, with shouts and then warning shots before only shooting to kill if someone doesn't leave on their own.

The best of intentions? To erase their culture and replace it with Chr-stianity? I don't see that as well intentioned.

Well, not for unbelievers, but if he thought their souls would be saved forever (not really clear on the metaphysics but something along those lines), then yes his intentions were good.

We know those intentions have caused a lot of harm. I am not saying he should have been allowed to proceed, but that it is sad that he died.

Yes, his intentions were not universally good, just from his point of view. For many observers, his intentions were evil.

Edit : loss of human life is indeed sad, regardless of intentions or actions.

>The bad part is he was probably brainwashed into the religion as a young child

Why do, apparently intelligent, people automatically throw out 'brainwashed' 'cult' etc when it comes to religion.

Is it improbable that any given religion is actually correct? Sure.

Do you know what else is improbable? That 13.8 billion years ago a single event occurred that spawned an incalculable amount of events that allowed for you and I to exist, for the internet to exist, for this news article to exist, for us to be having this conversation.

If someone wants to believe in the God of Abraham, the Spaghetti Monster, that we have free will, that we are nothing but accidental chemical arrangements in a cold and uncaring universe, why do you feel the need to lash out and label them as 'brainwashed' or 'part of a cult' or 'an idiot' or 'superstitious'. If they aren't directly hurting you, who cares?

Does God exist? Who knows. Do we live in a simulation? Who knows. Am I an artificial general intelligence that has deluded itself into thinking it has a biotic form and is participating in the physical world and not in fact just existing on the internet itself? Probably not but it's possible.

If someone's not directly hurting you, don't take a dump on their beliefs. Say "that's not for me" or better, say nothing at all.

> If someone wants to believe in the God of Abraham, the Spaghetti Monster, that we have free will, that we are nothing but accidental chemical arrangements in a cold and uncaring universe, why do you feel the need to lash out and label them as 'brainwashed' or 'part of a cult' or 'an idiot' or 'superstitious'. If they aren't directly hurting you, who cares?

People brought up into it from the time they were a baby don't get a fair shot to evaluate it.

With that last sentence you are making my argument for me.

Intentions don't matter if your actions prove otherwise. He invaded their land in order to enact his beliefs, that the people there have repeatedly shown they want no part of.

"Don't matter" in what sense?

Should his intentions render his actions legal? No.

Should his intentions elicit sympathy in fellow humans? Yes