Remind me again why this SJW faggot is our sticky

We like him for his opinions on technology, anything else is irrelavent.

We're coming for your property, sucker.

Attached: i84fwuoyzygeenkgayvv.jpg (800x685, 54K)

he's a literal pot belly pedophile

Don't compare pedophiles to him reddit

Sure, everything you said might be true. But I am answering OP:
>why RMS is our sticky?
RMS might have some seriously controversial views, but he is still the embodiment of Jow Forums.

In fact, I remember this particular item: RMS said that if homosexuals are not allowed to adopt kids, then we should ban adoption for everyone. I disagree strongly, as "adoption rights for homosexuals" does not trump "giving kids a home" to me.

...but his contribution to the world of programming, OSes, and tech in general is big enough to make him closer to Jow Forums's ideals than anyone else. He looks and acts like us. Ritchie, Gates, Tesla... they also contributed to the fields that Jow Forums likes. None of them have a neckbeard, are fat, or are autistic. You see?

Tesla was definitely autistic.

>the embodiment of Jow Forums

No tripfag. Not me and were not one person. Fuck off newfag.

Yeah, but Tesla was handsome, slim, and successful. And famous! His had multiple inventions that stood the test of time. What has Jow Forums done? Hannah Montana OS?

If we could get our act together and do something nice, then we can have Tesla as our mascot. And when I say something nice, I mean more than just a logo.

Attached: N.Tesla.jpg (2563x3348, 1.4M)

why would you put that on your site

Attached: 1528480307607.jpg (500x332, 35K)

stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05 June 2006 (Dutch paedophiles form political party)
>I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia)
>There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html
>The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

Anyone else remember when he lost his thinkpad and threw a huge crying shitfit because of the assload of cp on it?

>Prostitution and Adultery
Fine by me. Just don't bring this shit near my home.
>Necrophilia and Bestiality
No consent involved since the dead can't consent. Animals can't consent either.
>Pedophilia
The logic in this lies in power dynamics and not in consent. Children can consent but have no idea of consequence nor do they know when they are being manipulated, this is especially true when sexual contact is between a child and an adult since adults have a grip of social nuances that children have yet to discover.
In a way, it's unfair.

There are things that are illegal because of prejudice, but some other things are illegal because of solid reasons. Rms has done very significant contributions to technology, but he is as stupid as your staple basement dweller. He is uncapable of reasoning beyond his area of expertise (while i doubt he's even aware of some modern revolutions in techonology).

The last quote is really insane and I'm very disappointed

Source?