3 ms·

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 yea

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.)

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.)