"X is a furry" implies "X is a bad coder"?
Please. Sturgeon's Law and Revelation apply just as much to code furry programmers write as they do to art furries create (as you very well know) and code non-furry programmers write (also something you likely very well know).
Implies, yes. There are exceptions to the rule, though.
OK, maybe I didn't make my statement clear enough.
Pi's argument, from what I can discern: "A furry wrote some PHP code; therefore, it is insecure and bad code."
I rephrased it into the following bit of predicate logic: P(X)→Q(X), where P(X)≡"A furry wrote code X" and Q(X)≡"Code X is bad", or equivalently, P(X)≡"X is a furry" and Q(X)≡"X is a bad coder/programmer". This covers the literal interpretation of his statement.
My reply to this is the invocation of Sturgeon's Law and Revelation, which are, respectively, "Nothing is always absolutely so," and "90% of everything is crud," meaning that not only does there exist a furry who composes useful and secure website back-end modifications, which covers the formal case, but also that bad coders occur with about the same frequency in the population of non-furries as in the population of furries, which covers the informal case.
These are, of course, just assertions, but so are Pi's statements. I would
loooooooove to see hard evidence that furries suck significantly more than non-furries at the relevant skills, but all I have seen are anecdotes; and anecdotal evidence isn't. So:
"X is a furry" implies "X is a bad coder"?
Yes. Shut up, you inerudite clod.
Yeah, about that...
