5 ms·
> an uncompromising idealist That's what I respect most about him. His message has never changed. He's truly a man of his convictions. Like him or not.
by malbs 15y ago
> an uncompromising idealist
That's what I respect most about him. His message has never changed. He's truly a man of his convictions. Like him or not.
- shasta 15y agoThat's also what I respect most about Hitler. Like him or not.
- malbs 15y agoI'm not really sure how you can compare someone who promotes Free/Open Source software to a murderer of millions, but anyways... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
- alphakappa 15y agoGodwin aside, he makes a good point, which is that just being an uncompromising idealist is not always commendable. A person may stick with the same ideology or message for various reasons - maybe because the philosophy really is true/best, or maybe because the person is to egotistical to change, or for many other reasons. We shouldn't be respecting people solely because they are unwilling to change - instead respect should be based on the actual views and the merits thereof.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- shasta 15y agoI wasn't comparing the men. I was comparing the arguments. Which means that Godwin's law doesn't apply. And all of the folks down voting me are Nazis.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoNah, they're the ones who also respect Hitler - they're up voting you. ;-)
- femto 15y agoOne difference is that Stallman is a reasonable man. If you could put together a watertight argument that proprietary software is better than free software, I think Stallman would become a proprietary software advocate. Is Stallman being uncompromising by rejecting hand-waving arguments, or merely following a logical conclusion based on stronger evidence?