4 ms·

Are we talking legally or morally? Extending your argument, it is probably not possible to trick someone into murdering someone, because murder requires intent

Are we talking legally or morally? Extending your argument, it is probably not possible to trick someone into murdering someone, because murder requires intent. But it’s definitely possible to trick someone into killing someone. With rape, we don’t have two different words like that. And Stallman doesn’t seem to be limiting himself to a strictly legalistic interpretation of everything.

tzs 7y ago
I think Stallman was looking at a moralistic interpretation from Minsky's point of view. Minsky's sex with the Epstein girl was in 2001, several years before Epstein's legal trouble over his sexual practices. She was also over the age of consent at the time in the US Virgin Islands, which was 16 (it did not become 18 until the Child Protection Act of 2002). So Stallman's argument is that from Minsky's point of view it likely seemed to be a perfectly legal, consensual encounter. Presumably, Epstein was somewhat cautious over letting people know he kept sex slaves, and so would instruct the girls to not go around introducing themselves as his sex slaves to his guests. Thus, Stallman believes that we should not be tossing Minsky in with the people who had sex with Epstein girls knowing it was not consensual. I've now seen several different places report that Stallman said that the Epstein girls were "entirely willing". What he actually said was > We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. He's not saying they were willing. He's saying they probably said they were willing because Epstein would require them to say that. This is an important distinction. This should not be a controversial statement--if Epstein had sufficient power over someone to force them to have sex with third parties it is very hard to believe that he didn't also have sufficient power over them to tell them to claim they were acting on their own when they did so, or that he was stupid enough not to exercise that power.

tzs 7y ago

I think Stallman was looking at a moralistic interpretation from Minsky's point of view. Minsky's sex with the Epstein girl was in 2001, several years before Epstein's legal trouble over his sexual practices. She was also over the age of consent at the time in the US Virgin Islands, which was 16 (it did not become 18 until the Child Protection Act of 2002). So Stallman's argument is that from Minsky's point of view it likely seemed to be a perfectly legal, consensual encounter. Presumably, Epstein was somewhat cautious over letting people know he kept sex slaves, and so would instruct the girls to not go around introducing themselves as his sex slaves to his guests. Thus, Stallman believes that we should not be tossing Minsky in with the people who had sex with Epstein girls knowing it was not consensual. I've now seen several different places report that Stallman said that the Epstein girls were "entirely willing". What he actually said was > We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates. He's not saying they were willing. He's saying they probably said they were willing because Epstein would require them to say that. This is an important distinction. This should not be a controversial statement--if Epstein had sufficient power over someone to force them to have sex with third parties it is very hard to believe that he didn't also have sufficient power over them to tell them to claim they were acting on their own when they did so, or that he was stupid enough not to exercise that power.