[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:00:16 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <> [2020-02-22 23:46]:
> On 2020-02-22 12:31, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> > Andreas Enge, 22/02/20 21:48:
> > > If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.
> > 
> > Or maybe it shows there's a language barrier. Let's not rush to judge
> > non-native English speakers, especially after having admitted that the
> > meaning of their message is unclear.
> I'm a native-level English speaker.
> > I think their contribution can be rephrased as: what kind of message
> > do you think a document focused on matters like "Enforcement", "Ban",
> > "Correction", "Warning" gives? Is it the intended message? If not,
> > what could be done?
> No, my contribution cannot be rephrased like that. A better
> approximation of the semantics of my message that the document
> is the product of a mental sickness that underlies authoritarian
> personalities.
> What could be done? Printing it out and burning it, by my estimation.

Human mind is a perfect computer (reference to Dianetics, so it makes conclusions
based on the data it has. Example is a poor guy who is found in a
situation without food, and only data that person has is that food can
be stolen, so person steals it from the supermarket or the garden. The
mind depends on the data. It is a computer.

If one puts a lot of social policing data into the mind, like code of
conducts, banning, governing people, coercion of people into what
small group of people wants, various environments and contexts -- that
makes the person do or behave in different manner, but mind is
probably functioning perfectly.

Programmer's mind is functioning probably way better than average
people's mind.

Further, mental sickness does not exist. Reference to Szasz:

"Mental illness" is an expression, a metaphor that describes an
offending, disturbing, shocking, or vexing conduct, action, or pattern
of behavior, such as packaged under the wide-ranging term,
schizophrenia, as an "illness" or "disease". Szasz wrote: "If you talk
to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have
schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you
talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."[13]:85 He maintained that,
while people behave and think in disturbing ways, and those ways may
resemble a disease process (pain, deterioration, response to various
interventions), this does not mean they actually have a disease. To
Szasz, disease can only mean something people "have", while behavior
is what people "do". Diseases are "malfunctions of the human body, of
the heart, the liver, the kidney, the brain" while "no behavior or
misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease. That's not what diseases

So all I can think of it is that it is not nice to say "you are sick"
-- but I understand that there is something disturbing, shocking,
offending, and that is why one could classify somebody as "sick" in
the meaning of "mentally disturbed." -- yet I don't find it right to
classify people any how.

What we have to do here at hand, is to recognize the true intention of
the group of 5, like is their true intention maybe just to get rid of
the RMS for the sake of dividing the GNU project -- or they really
have the intention to do what they are claiming they want to do.

Myself, I am judging by their promotion of free software philosophy,
which is very poor and by their own upholding of the principles they
want to set for others.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]