5 ms·

“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.” — Richard Stallman https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%2

“I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.” — Richard Stallman https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%20...

seamyb88 7y ago
Christ, that's horrible. How can you be so right about complex issues, when you're so wrong about the widely held belief that under 18s are morons and it's exploitative to get your jollies from them, no matter how mature they appear to you.
- simonh 7y ago
  Why do you think it’s widely believed that under 18s are morons? Depth of experience and intelligence are different things and I think most people understand that very well. Under 18s can be extremely smart, but due to lack of experience can sometimes be exploited or manipulated.
  - seamyb88 7y ago
    I'm sorry to have offended you, but I actually used to be under 18. I think under 18s are inexperienced human beings who are undergoing some of the hardest years of anybody's life, their hormones are changing and their culture is often quite dangerous. I'm also frustrated that I couldn't have just left it at morons and for you to have got that.
    - darawk 7y ago
      While that's true, the idea that there is some magical line at 18 that divides the moral from the immoral is absurd, and Stallman is simply pointing that out. We do have to have a line of some kind for legal purposes, but we shouldn't confuse that statutory line with the nuanced reality when discussing the abstract morality of behavior.
      - seamyb88 7y ago
        The concrete line has to be drawn somewhere. It's quite low given that (and this is a daring conjecture by which I firmly stand) the majority of 18 - 21 year olds are completely out of bounds for anybody who wants a stable mature relationship. They are culturally wild. Discovering drink, drugs, sex... So, the question is: why would anybody want a relationship with somebody under 18 if not for sexual exploitation of their lack of experience? EDIT: I was a wild 14-21 year old, it's perfectly natural that they are bonkers. Fair play to them!
        twic 7y ago
        I had the only stable romantic relationship in my life so far between the ages of 18 and 21.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        Even around here, there are some overrides on the statutory line - allowed by judge or accepted by both families. They're not often used and cases that need them are carefully scrutinized, but they work. Some additional ones are drawn, allowing a minor (with unsuitable family or orphaned) to have extended civil powers. And employment is allowed, though highly scrutinized, allowing an out from certain terrible situations. (Typical rare example is parental alcoholism or abuse.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - eecc 7y ago
    TBH 18+1day aren't any better off, yet that'd be a get out of jail card. For what I remember Italy has a law governing sex between individuals across legal age (18)... anything involving < 13yo is pedo and statutory rape (fair enough) while anything else where the delta is no more than 4 years is not illegal (might be cause to deploy social workers but that's not the point.) That's fair enough IMHO, but I'm a savage Italian... not a woke puritan
- amelius 7y ago
  You don't understand how Stallman thinks. You should view his statement from the eyes of a researcher. He said he is skeptical, not that something is true or false. Obviously his formulation is pretty bad from a PR perspective, but it should be pretty clear by now that rms doesn't care much about that.
  - seamyb88 7y ago
    Given that I am a researcher, I reckon I have been. I'm also not a parent, so I don't have any sexy babies growing up. But given that the 'consensual child sex' argument has been used historically in courts against children as young as 6, statements like that in 2006 are distressing.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      I thought your previous comment was maybe sarcasm, but apparently not... Do you think that "children" are morons the day before they turn 18 and they cease to be morons (and getting your jollies from them is no longer exploitative) on the following day?
      - seamyb88 7y ago
        nope
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Age of consent varies by country and the response to sex with someone below the age of consent also varies by country. It's very cultural.
- yawaramin 7y ago
  Apparently he changed his mind https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20973792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20973792
bernierocks 7y ago
My question is why hasn't the open source community shunned him for these sorts of comments? Someone like the ex-Mozilla CEO was shunned and booted out of his position for much less.
- golemotron 7y ago
  Because we are becoming more mature.
- krapp 7y ago
  Much of the open source community doesn't know who RMS is. Much of the rest don't have a problem with these sorts of comments, and just assume RMS is a victim of an SJW witch-hunt. >Someone like the ex-Mozilla CEO was shunned and booted out of his position for much less. Entirely different factions within the community. The people who don't take issue with Stallman's comments also likely had no problem with Brendan Eich, and believe he was a victim of an SJW witch-hunt as well.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  Because his views on things like these do not matter when considering him as a figure in the open source community. There's no reason to believe that this would impact the quality of his software or his ability to communicate with people about software. FWIW, I feel the same way about Eich.
- twic 7y ago
  Well technically it would be the free software community who would shun him, since the open source community have already rejected his principles and leadership.
  - taylodl 7y ago
    I see what you did there! Well played sir!
- RedComet 7y ago
  Unfortunately, we all know the answer. It is currently more acceptable to most journalists and to the media mobs to be friends with a billionaire pedophile and sympathetic to pedophilia than it is for a person to give money to an organization that doesn't turn its website into a rainbow for 1/12th of the year.
itg 7y ago
So you decided to dig up something from an old archive and not present a more recent update to continue piling on? https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Since then, through personal conversations, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."
- rosser 7y ago
  I'm very glad to see Stallman can learn to appreciate the nuance of these questions and acknowledge that he had previously thought incorrectly, but the subject of this thread, and the subject of The Fine Article remain cases where he just shouldn't have opened his mouth in the first place. I am eternally grateful to rms for the contributions he's made, and many of the often unpopular, but amazingly principled stances he holds. For some of the things I think he's right about, I think he's one of the only voices out there saying that thing. But for fuck's sake, Richard, the notion of staying in your lane sometimes has merit. Like with your awful jab about Jobs' death, keep that shit to yourself. Sometimes, remaining silent is the right move. Sometimes, attempting to defend your position just weakens it further. Sometimes, it turns out, "technically correct" is actually the worst kind of correct.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    And sometimes shutting up means the unreasonable and emotional win. This is how we end up in this mess of stupid press and politics, by killing the middle the sides get radicalized and deafened to dialogue. Shouting is not dialogue. Someone has to try to reset this, if it takes 1000 martyrs then so be it.
    - rosser 7y ago
      I think the very fact that so many of us look at talking with people as something that can be "won" is the preponderance of the problem. It doesn't have to be a competition. Speaking as someone who has learned this the hard way, over and over and over again, please hear me when I say: "Correct" does not always entail "right", even leaving aside whether being right is even necessarily laudable. Getting all, "Well technically..." in the places where those things disagree is a battle — since it's something to be "won", remember — you'll want to consider carefully whether it's worth fighting, every time. At some point, I decided that it might be better for all of our well-being, not to have all the "incorrect" people in my life always annoyed with me. Based on the quality of the relationships I now have with them, I think it was worth it. Even better: now, when I do actually make the effort to make these kinds of distinctions, I tend significantly more often to be listened to. Your mileage, of course, may vary. EDIT: Phrasing

seamyb88 7y ago

Christ, that's horrible. How can you be so right about complex issues, when you're so wrong about the widely held belief that under 18s are morons and it's exploitative to get your jollies from them, no matter how mature they appear to you.

simonh 7y ago
Why do you think it’s widely believed that under 18s are morons? Depth of experience and intelligence are different things and I think most people understand that very well. Under 18s can be extremely smart, but due to lack of experience can sometimes be exploited or manipulated.
- seamyb88 7y ago
  I'm sorry to have offended you, but I actually used to be under 18. I think under 18s are inexperienced human beings who are undergoing some of the hardest years of anybody's life, their hormones are changing and their culture is often quite dangerous. I'm also frustrated that I couldn't have just left it at morons and for you to have got that.
  - darawk 7y ago
    While that's true, the idea that there is some magical line at 18 that divides the moral from the immoral is absurd, and Stallman is simply pointing that out. We do have to have a line of some kind for legal purposes, but we shouldn't confuse that statutory line with the nuanced reality when discussing the abstract morality of behavior.
    - seamyb88 7y ago
      The concrete line has to be drawn somewhere. It's quite low given that (and this is a daring conjecture by which I firmly stand) the majority of 18 - 21 year olds are completely out of bounds for anybody who wants a stable mature relationship. They are culturally wild. Discovering drink, drugs, sex... So, the question is: why would anybody want a relationship with somebody under 18 if not for sexual exploitation of their lack of experience? EDIT: I was a wild 14-21 year old, it's perfectly natural that they are bonkers. Fair play to them!
      - twic 7y ago
        I had the only stable romantic relationship in my life so far between the ages of 18 and 21.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      Even around here, there are some overrides on the statutory line - allowed by judge or accepted by both families. They're not often used and cases that need them are carefully scrutinized, but they work. Some additional ones are drawn, allowing a minor (with unsuitable family or orphaned) to have extended civil powers. And employment is allowed, though highly scrutinized, allowing an out from certain terrible situations. (Typical rare example is parental alcoholism or abuse.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- eecc 7y ago
  TBH 18+1day aren't any better off, yet that'd be a get out of jail card. For what I remember Italy has a law governing sex between individuals across legal age (18)... anything involving < 13yo is pedo and statutory rape (fair enough) while anything else where the delta is no more than 4 years is not illegal (might be cause to deploy social workers but that's not the point.) That's fair enough IMHO, but I'm a savage Italian... not a woke puritan
amelius 7y ago
You don't understand how Stallman thinks. You should view his statement from the eyes of a researcher. He said he is skeptical, not that something is true or false. Obviously his formulation is pretty bad from a PR perspective, but it should be pretty clear by now that rms doesn't care much about that.
- seamyb88 7y ago
  Given that I am a researcher, I reckon I have been. I'm also not a parent, so I don't have any sexy babies growing up. But given that the 'consensual child sex' argument has been used historically in courts against children as young as 6, statements like that in 2006 are distressing.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    I thought your previous comment was maybe sarcasm, but apparently not... Do you think that "children" are morons the day before they turn 18 and they cease to be morons (and getting your jollies from them is no longer exploitative) on the following day?
    - seamyb88 7y ago
      nope
mytailorisrich 7y ago
Age of consent varies by country and the response to sex with someone below the age of consent also varies by country. It's very cultural.
yawaramin 7y ago
Apparently he changed his mind https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20973792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20973792

bernierocks 7y ago

My question is why hasn't the open source community shunned him for these sorts of comments? Someone like the ex-Mozilla CEO was shunned and booted out of his position for much less.

golemotron 7y ago
Because we are becoming more mature.
krapp 7y ago
Much of the open source community doesn't know who RMS is. Much of the rest don't have a problem with these sorts of comments, and just assume RMS is a victim of an SJW witch-hunt. >Someone like the ex-Mozilla CEO was shunned and booted out of his position for much less. Entirely different factions within the community. The people who don't take issue with Stallman's comments also likely had no problem with Brendan Eich, and believe he was a victim of an SJW witch-hunt as well.
Smithalicious 7y ago
Because his views on things like these do not matter when considering him as a figure in the open source community. There's no reason to believe that this would impact the quality of his software or his ability to communicate with people about software. FWIW, I feel the same way about Eich.
twic 7y ago
Well technically it would be the free software community who would shun him, since the open source community have already rejected his principles and leadership.
- taylodl 7y ago
  I see what you did there! Well played sir!
RedComet 7y ago
Unfortunately, we all know the answer. It is currently more acceptable to most journalists and to the media mobs to be friends with a billionaire pedophile and sympathetic to pedophilia than it is for a person to give money to an organization that doesn't turn its website into a rainbow for 1/12th of the year.

itg 7y ago

So you decided to dig up something from an old archive and not present a more recent update to continue piling on? https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September... "Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it. Since then, through personal conversations, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."

rosser 7y ago
I'm very glad to see Stallman can learn to appreciate the nuance of these questions and acknowledge that he had previously thought incorrectly, but the subject of this thread, and the subject of The Fine Article remain cases where he just shouldn't have opened his mouth in the first place. I am eternally grateful to rms for the contributions he's made, and many of the often unpopular, but amazingly principled stances he holds. For some of the things I think he's right about, I think he's one of the only voices out there saying that thing. But for fuck's sake, Richard, the notion of staying in your lane sometimes has merit. Like with your awful jab about Jobs' death, keep that shit to yourself. Sometimes, remaining silent is the right move. Sometimes, attempting to defend your position just weakens it further. Sometimes, it turns out, "technically correct" is actually the worst kind of correct.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  And sometimes shutting up means the unreasonable and emotional win. This is how we end up in this mess of stupid press and politics, by killing the middle the sides get radicalized and deafened to dialogue. Shouting is not dialogue. Someone has to try to reset this, if it takes 1000 martyrs then so be it.
  - rosser 7y ago
    I think the very fact that so many of us look at talking with people as something that can be "won" is the preponderance of the problem. It doesn't have to be a competition. Speaking as someone who has learned this the hard way, over and over and over again, please hear me when I say: "Correct" does not always entail "right", even leaving aside whether being right is even necessarily laudable. Getting all, "Well technically..." in the places where those things disagree is a battle — since it's something to be "won", remember — you'll want to consider carefully whether it's worth fighting, every time. At some point, I decided that it might be better for all of our well-being, not to have all the "incorrect" people in my life always annoyed with me. Based on the quality of the relationships I now have with them, I think it was worth it. Even better: now, when I do actually make the effort to make these kinds of distinctions, I tend significantly more often to be listened to. Your mileage, of course, may vary. EDIT: Phrasing