New Linux Code of Conduct Revisions: CoC Committee Added Plus Interpretation & Mediator

[ZeroPointEnergy]

The SqLite project just added one as well and this is some class A trolling: https://www.sqlite.org/codeofconduct.html

[duby229]

The SqLite project just added one as well and this is some class A trolling: https://www.sqlite.org/codeofconduct.html

Haha! That's funny. It's made to artificially look like religious ideology.... But the real truth is that religious ideology looks a whole more like this.....

What about "openness", which includes tolerance towards intolerant, recalcitrant and straight males? (Intolerant men, however, should keep their well founded prejudice against falsely tolerant faggotic abominations) Faggots are illogical. Again, the "CoC" is a female pit, without force, constantly breached, chiefly by its proponents. This is of course as it should be for aren't LGBT++ *hermaphroditic* pedophiles*?

They say "Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith **may face temporary or permanent repercussions** as determined by other members of the project’s leadership" (CoC) but then, since they don't *cut* their CoC out (for reasons expounded in a previous post), they neither follow (on its way out) neither enforce (by kicking said CoC in its unballs) it, they must "face temporary or permanent repercussions" according to their CoC...

* Allow me to explain the matter with philosophical flourish: they spoke, wrote i.e., 0) *begat* the "CoC", which "CoC", being *their progeny*, reflects them, is a property or quality of theirs, witnesses or speaks about them, to summarize they *are* (taken in the sense of predication as in "this *is* a predication") the CoC. They transgress the CoC which they nonetheless aren't abolishing, the very CoC that says about itself that it is illegal. Thus it is that the LGBT's pedophilia and hermaphroditism reveal themselves also in this their *production*, confirming 0), namely that one is judged by his fruits, which is Jesus Christ's meritocracy and in direct opposition to the CoC: they, how shall we say, "breach" themselves in their CoC "child", it being so shallow as to permit even their impotent selves to "transgress" it. (The CoC collapses under its own *lightness*).

ie Batshit crazy....

[Sheshbazzar]

Haha! That's funny. It's made to artificially look like religious ideology.... But the real truth is that religious ideology looks a whole more like this.....

You asked for it, you lil' faggot.

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Abstract
Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

2 veils.
0: elementary fractions + lie
1: lie.

0: The homosexual is notoriously bad at math & logic, so you speak elementary fractions and introduce an inconsistency. He won't get what the fractions say and will be satisfied with This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children for, after all, it's the last sentence in the abstract even thought the one just preceding it is This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually... This veil will allow the paper to get past homosexual censorship.

1: The second veil serves the purpose of arousing the suspicion of the heterosexual who overcame the first veil. For, the present study, owing to the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1 and the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1, pretends that the ratio of homosexual pedophiles to homosexuals is but twice that of heterosexual pedophiles to heterosexuals.

Proof:
F: faggots
S: straights

S/F = 20/1 = 20

FP: faggot pederasts
SP: straight pederasts

FP/SP = 1/11

We want an x such that FP/F = x * SP/S
x = (FP/F)/(SP/S) = (FP/F)*(S/SP) = (FP/SP)*(S/F) = (1/11)*20 = 20/11 ~ 2
Thus FP/F ~ 2 * SP/S
QED.

But the previous study reports "just" twice as many girls stabbed as boys. This can only raise the attentive reader's eyebrow for there are 20 times as many straights as there are faggots.

Let us compare the faggots' voraciousness* for children with that of straights.

Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1

X: girls stabbed
Y: boys destroyed

Y/X = 1/2
We want an y such that Y/F = y * X/S
y = (Y/F)/(X/S) = (Y/F)*(S/X) = (Y/X)*(S/F) = (1/2)*20 = 10
Thus Y/F = 10 * X/S i.e., the faggots are 10 times more pederastous than straights!

This is alarming for a paper from 1992. How much worse is it now...

* I called it voraciousness for children of the respective classes. The harm caused against children isn't diminished, whether it be a recidivistic faggot or many faggots. They're both many and multirecidivistic. You egoistical faggot, look at the situation from the little ones' perspective.

If you were to object that women are pedophiles...

Pedophilia and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6512871

Freund K, Heasman G, Racansky IG, Glancy G.
Abstract
In the context of a search for testable etiological theories of pedophilia, the relationship of pedophilia to partner sex preference was investigated. The proportional prevalences of gynephilia and androphilia were compared with the proportional prevalences of sexual offenders victimizing female children and of such offenders against male children. Since pedophilia either does not exist at all in women, or is extremely rare, only men were included in the study. We derived the proportional prevalence of androphilia from a review of the main pertinent studies, including Gebhard's reassessment of the study by Kinsey et al. particularly of the section on gynephilia vs. androphilia. The numbers of heterosexual vs. homosexual offenders against children were derived from the studies by Mohr et al., by Gebhard et al., and from a group of 457 sex offenders against children seen in the course of several years at the Department of Behavioural Sexology of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. There was a large difference between the proportion of prevalences of heterosexual vs. homosexual offenders against children on the one hand and the proportional prevalences of gynephilia vs. androphilia, on the other. This difference suggests that the development of erotically preferred partner sex and partner age are not independent of each other and that in pedophilia, the development of heterosexuality or homosexuality is brought about by factors different from those operative in the development of androphilia or gynephilia.

[duby229]

You asked for it, you lil' faggot.

I'm straighter than a motherfucking arrow, dumbass. But I'm not homophobic either, or at least I try not to be in most circumstances.

Now how the fuck does your homophobia, which greatly resembles religious zealotry, have anything at all to do with a Linux CoC?

EDIT: I get it, you just pissed because the CoC means you can't call someone a faggot pedophile, and tell them you're not accepting their code because of it...... Of course I should have got that right away.....

[Sheshbazzar]

I'm straighter than a motherfucking arrow, dumbass. But I'm not homophobic either, or at least I try not to be in most circumstances.

Now how the fuck does your homophobia, which greatly resembles religious zealotry, have anything at all to do with a Linux CoC?

Of course I'm religious, shall I give my butt to vile tapeworms as Torvalds & his atheist followers did? Concerning their unCoC, a trivialissime loophole was exhibited on page 7 of this thread.

P.S.: I'm glad you're straight. But please don't be their tool aka useful idiot (145 right?), search query: "the overhauling of straight america: waging peace". Faggots are pederasts, in Russia they're still referred to by means of that word, indeed "homosexuality" is a novel invention, first to be found mentioned sometimes in the 19th century. By then the "Enlightenment" had engendered so many pederasts, that they had to whitewash their terminal selves by convincing talking heads, who owing to the Enlightenment's materialism were corrupted enough to give heed to their solicitations, that among pederasts there are also non-pedophiles "homosexuals".

Judging by the pr0n that is everywhere by now, it is not far fetched to hold that about 10% of straights are pederasts, and thus that 100% of the faggots are pederasts (cf. the studies above).

[ZeroPointEnergy]

Man, those people are really desperately trying to create some artificial reason for the CoC by trolling here this way.

[Shevchen]

@dubby229 You haven't made a single counter-argument aside from attacking my personal views as biased against SJW-behavior.
Here is the thing: Call it what you want. The logic behind my arguments doesn't change by whatever term you accuse me of. Exchange SJW with ill-willed, powerhungry people who want to control what other people do. For all I care, the current layout of the CoC is exactly that.

It wasn't an attack. I did'nt call any names or or make up bullshit aimed at you, all I did give you an honest assessment.

You can be prejudiced if you want and you can stereotype people amyway you want, but don't you see that's what makes you wrong.

You see, if you say that I'm wrong by stawman and not by countering my arguments, I call BS. Counter my arguments. If you think I'm biased, fine - you still have to counter my arguments. If you think I'm literally Hitler, you still have to counter my arguments.

If you can spit out SJW as much as you do at people who have no affiliation with them, then that is honestly reflective of your prejudice.

I hurts, right? If I call out SJWs as SJWs as fast as they spit out words like racist, white supremacy, misgony or whatever unfounded reflection of the "boy who called wolf" comes to mind. A fair discussion is based upon equal footing. If you disregard an argument because of the person who said it and not because of the content that is presented to you, the discussion is not a discussion anymore.

I'm not trying to call names or make up bullshit, just giving you an honest assessment. You spit SJW the same way white supremacists spit the N word.

What is a white supremacist? I'm sorry, but it sounds like a witch-hunt from the middle ages.

So every analogy you gave here is an example of "SJW's" preventing coders from getting their code upstream..... And um, I'm pretty certain the CoC is going to make certain that, that type of scenario doesn't happen.

"I'm pretty certain" is your entire counterargument. And I'm pretty certain that once a way to exploit power is created, it will be exploited. See all the history of human behavior.

First of all you are stereotyping some group of people as SJW

Okay, maybe not all of them are SJWs, maybe they are just naive, easily influenceable or just hopped on the train of feelz-over-realz. I don't know and honestly: I don't care. My arguments still stand.

, most of whom or even all of whom, are totally unaffiliated with the actual group that call themselves that. And that makes this entire stance founded on a prejudice of yours.

It doesn't matter what I call them. It matters what they want to try to achieve and my critique is pointed towards that.

[Sheshbazzar]

EDIT: I get it, you just pissed because the CoC means you can't call someone a faggot pedophile, and tell them you're not accepting their code because of it...... Of course I should have got that right away.....

You imbecile, that ALL faggots are pederasts is both a historical and a statistical truism. What you say is true, however, yes the CoC will suppress disturbing evidence, e.g., the one now discussed, and already strives to insinuate itself into the atheists' brainlets, making them feel bad for the few cogent thoughts that may ever dawn on their arid mind. Again, *ALL* faggots are pederasts (pedophiles), that's why they were (and still are in Russia) called that. In the West they tried to make their case look as that of the straights, namely by postulating that not all "homosexuals" (the newly coined term) are pedophiles. They succeeded, thanks to the corrupting effect of materialism on reason.

[duby229]

Man, those people are really desperately trying to create some artificial reason for the CoC by trolling here this way.

Well, I could tell what the point was and it was funny, so I countered knowing full well what I thought the response would be. One example being a parody and the other example being real. Real religion has the worst rhetoric you can possibly imagine.

[duby229]

@dubby229 You haven't made a single counter-argument aside from attacking my personal views as biased against SJW-behavior.
Here is the thing: Call it what you want. The logic behind my arguments doesn't change by whatever term you accuse me of. Exchange SJW with ill-willed, powerhungry people who want to control what other people do. For all I care, the current layout of the CoC is exactly that.






You see, if you say that I'm wrong by stawman and not by countering my arguments, I call BS. Counter my arguments. If you think I'm biased, fine - you still have to counter my arguments. If you think I'm literally Hitler, you still have to counter my arguments.


I hurts, right? If I call out SJWs as SJWs as fast as they spit out words like racist, white supremacy, misgony or whatever unfounded reflection of the "boy who called wolf" comes to mind. A fair discussion is based upon equal footing. If you disregard an argument because of the person who said it and not because of the content that is presented to you, the discussion is not a discussion anymore.



What is a white supremacist? I'm sorry, but it sounds like a witch-hunt from the middle ages.


"I'm pretty certain" is your entire counterargument. And I'm pretty certain that once a way to exploit power is created, it will be exploited. See all the history of human behavior.


Okay, maybe not all of them are SJWs, maybe they are just naive, easily influenceable or just hopped on the train of feelz-over-realz. I don't know and honestly: I don't care. My arguments still stand.



It doesn't matter what I call them. It matters what they want to try to achieve and my critique is pointed towards that.

I addressed to you what I felt needed to be addressed to you. I didn't think you were wrong on some technical level. But you are wrong on a social level for damn sure. Any policies implemented on a foundation of prejudice is bound to fail for social reasons and not really technical reasons.

And just as you said a discussion is not a discussion if you disregard the person who said it. You can call me an SJW and totally disregard what I say, but that's your prjudice and that's why it's gonna fail. Not technical, it's social.