5 ms·

Which ones were troubling? I don't see anything that stands out on the page linked.

ceejayoz 7y ago
2006: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... > 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. 2013: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_Janua... > There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Wading in with commentary on the Epstein case with those quotes on record is simply not a good look.
- geekone 7y ago
  Wow yeah I was not aware. Definitely not a good look and those older comments are completely reprehensible and nonsensical to me.
- marcinzm 7y ago
  Why are people down voting this? ceejayoz cited specific quotes with references. Seems sort of hypocritical to me that people who seem to be arguing for the freedom of intellectual debate do the exact opposite if facts don't line up in their favor.
  - ulucs 7y ago
    He changed his opinions regarding this, just because he keeps all of his posts online forever shouldn't mean he should be represented by those when people need to write a hit piece for clicks.
    - marcinzm 7y ago
      That is a valid counter-argument, intellectual debate would be posting it rather than silently down voting. As of my post no one has responded anywhere with it. They have however downvoted ceejayoz although the votes now seem to have become net positive again.
    - gdulli 7y ago
      Maybe people apply Occam's razor and decide that fearing losing one's status is a more likely explanation for an abrupt change in an unpopular opinion than an earnest change of mind. And that's before considering whether Stallman has a particular reputation for being open-minded vs. unyielding in his stances.
    - mantap 7y ago
      If you have a comment on your personal website expressing a certain view, then people will reasonably expect that you stand by it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- flukus 7y ago
  Is it troubling because it's wrong or troubling because you don't like the answer? Is there evidence that teens willingly engaging in sex with an adult causes harm? As a society it seems we already accept this, we often have different laws like statutory rape for consenting participants. The implication here seems to be that just because he thinks there is no harm he is endorsing it as ok, that is getting dangerously close to straw-man territory.
  - davinic 7y ago
    I would hope that intelligent people know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- vivekd 7y ago
  To be fair to Stallman though, he later recanted on those positions. I can't remember the exact post but he said something along the lines of how someone explained to him how much pedophilia harms children and so he has since recanted his position and now believes pedophilia is wrong and harmful. Also he was making the statements in the context of having read this article from the Guardian which says petty much the same thing: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-... From a scientific perspective, the level of harm caused by sex with minors and even the classification of pedophilia is something we are still gathering evidence on. Does that mean it doesn't harm children - absolutely not, of course it's harmful. However, it's still fair to make the point that we don't have a scientific case for it yet. There's a lot I don't agree with about Stallman, but I do appreciate his contributions to computing and freedom - and I certainly don't approve of this new trend towards social media mob justice. That injustice of this social media mob justice can be seen in the fact that all Stallman's historical statements from many years, even ones that he has recanted, can be taken out of context and used against him. Worse, it's completely without reason. I mean there were a group of US prosecutors that characterized Epstein's child victims as prostitutes to justify releasing him so that he could continue raping children. Why are we going after MIT scientists instead of those prosecutors and Epstien's associates. I think the reason is because there was a popular NY Times article that focused on MIT rather than the US prosecution service and Epstein's rich powerful friends like Trump and Clinton. These mob events aren't based on reflection, they're based on whim and whatever the media (consisting of companies some of which are owned by Epstein cohorts) and some random influencers on twitter are saying.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > To be fair to Stallman though, he later recanted on those positions. To be fair to his critics, he only said that two days ago, which is after the CSAIL mailing list postings were made public. > Why are we going after MIT scientists instead of those prosecutors and Epstien's associates. I'd hope we go after both.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  Unacceptable opinions, but a bit late to justify misquoting him in 2019. He was pretty much in line with e.g. the german Green party in the 70s....
fwip 7y ago
Here's one: "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."

2006: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20Jun... > 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. 2013: https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29 https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_Janua... > There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Wading in with commentary on the Epstein case with those quotes on record is simply not a good look.

geekone 7y ago
Wow yeah I was not aware. Definitely not a good look and those older comments are completely reprehensible and nonsensical to me.
marcinzm 7y ago
Why are people down voting this? ceejayoz cited specific quotes with references. Seems sort of hypocritical to me that people who seem to be arguing for the freedom of intellectual debate do the exact opposite if facts don't line up in their favor.
- ulucs 7y ago
  He changed his opinions regarding this, just because he keeps all of his posts online forever shouldn't mean he should be represented by those when people need to write a hit piece for clicks.
  - marcinzm 7y ago
    That is a valid counter-argument, intellectual debate would be posting it rather than silently down voting. As of my post no one has responded anywhere with it. They have however downvoted ceejayoz although the votes now seem to have become net positive again.
  - gdulli 7y ago
    Maybe people apply Occam's razor and decide that fearing losing one's status is a more likely explanation for an abrupt change in an unpopular opinion than an earnest change of mind. And that's before considering whether Stallman has a particular reputation for being open-minded vs. unyielding in his stances.
  - mantap 7y ago
    If you have a comment on your personal website expressing a certain view, then people will reasonably expect that you stand by it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
flukus 7y ago
Is it troubling because it's wrong or troubling because you don't like the answer? Is there evidence that teens willingly engaging in sex with an adult causes harm? As a society it seems we already accept this, we often have different laws like statutory rape for consenting participants. The implication here seems to be that just because he thinks there is no harm he is endorsing it as ok, that is getting dangerously close to straw-man territory.
- davinic 7y ago
  I would hope that intelligent people know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
vivekd 7y ago
To be fair to Stallman though, he later recanted on those positions. I can't remember the exact post but he said something along the lines of how someone explained to him how much pedophilia harms children and so he has since recanted his position and now believes pedophilia is wrong and harmful. Also he was making the statements in the context of having read this article from the Guardian which says petty much the same thing: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-... From a scientific perspective, the level of harm caused by sex with minors and even the classification of pedophilia is something we are still gathering evidence on. Does that mean it doesn't harm children - absolutely not, of course it's harmful. However, it's still fair to make the point that we don't have a scientific case for it yet. There's a lot I don't agree with about Stallman, but I do appreciate his contributions to computing and freedom - and I certainly don't approve of this new trend towards social media mob justice. That injustice of this social media mob justice can be seen in the fact that all Stallman's historical statements from many years, even ones that he has recanted, can be taken out of context and used against him. Worse, it's completely without reason. I mean there were a group of US prosecutors that characterized Epstein's child victims as prostitutes to justify releasing him so that he could continue raping children. Why are we going after MIT scientists instead of those prosecutors and Epstien's associates. I think the reason is because there was a popular NY Times article that focused on MIT rather than the US prosecution service and Epstein's rich powerful friends like Trump and Clinton. These mob events aren't based on reflection, they're based on whim and whatever the media (consisting of companies some of which are owned by Epstein cohorts) and some random influencers on twitter are saying.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > To be fair to Stallman though, he later recanted on those positions. To be fair to his critics, he only said that two days ago, which is after the CSAIL mailing list postings were made public. > Why are we going after MIT scientists instead of those prosecutors and Epstien's associates. I'd hope we go after both.
lazyjones 7y ago
Unacceptable opinions, but a bit late to justify misquoting him in 2019. He was pretty much in line with e.g. the german Green party in the 70s....

fwip 7y ago

Here's one: "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."