5 ms·

> He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slig

> He made a point about how statutory rape wouldn't be considered rape if it happened in a different location (e.g. Italy) or if the person's birthday were slightly adjusted. I understand what RMS is trying to say, but this strikes me as an incredibly weak argument. All laws are arbitrary, but pointing that out isn't a meaningful defense of someone who broke one. It's like contesting a parking ticket by saying "well if parking had been allowed on that street at that time then I wouldn't have done anything wrong."

lopmotr 7y ago
While I don't know about this case, a common problem with people arguing right/wrong and legal/illegal is that one side picks right/wrong and the other picks legal/illegal and they talk past each other. If the law happens to agree with somebody's opinion, they'll use that to justify that they're "right" and if it doesn't, they'll use some higher moral standard and disregard the law. Sometimes it's obvious which the sensible choice to make is. If you're arguing whether the GPL allows linking to a proprietary library or not, then it's the law that's more important. But if you're arguing if sex with children is OK then it's some higher moral standard that's important and appeals to the law are essentially appeals to popular opinion as support of some moral standard. Luckily, people usually agree on what the law means, so they just have to make sure they're arguing about the same point that their opponent is actually making.
boring_twenties 7y ago
That is a poor analogy, because if you can't park where you want that is a moderate inconvenience at the very worst. If you find yourself "in love" with a 17-and-a-half-year-old, it's not so easy as finding another spot.
- bad_user 7y ago
  That's what you think happened here? You think Epstein felt in love? With a child being trafficked for sex?
  - bscphil 7y ago
    Thank you for making this point. It's somehow been mostly lost in the noise of this thread that the main reason RMS's comments are so unacceptable is because he gave this defense (theoretical or not) of someone accused of having sex with a child trafficking victim. Not because he happens to have socially unacceptable opinions about certain corner cases in consent laws. Fortunately in this case, there's a very very bright line, and RMS was way over it.
    - kjeetgill 7y ago
      I mean, his defense was of Minsky, not Epstein. RMS believes that Minsky likely wasn't aware of of either her age nor the coercion so Minsky could hardly be blamed for not knowing. I haven't followed this too closely (except on HN) but I think that incident also predated Epstein's first trial (conviction?). I suspect (and really really hope) RMS wouldn't have such a defense for Epstein himself.
      - mtrower 7y ago
        RMS has in fact called Epstein a "serial rapist" and expressed that he should have received a much harsher sentence than he did.
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    No, of course not. That's why my comment didn't mention Epstein or sex trafficking, only the terrible comparison with parking regulations.
- fenomas 7y ago
  The point of an analogy is to be similar in some single illustrative way, not to be similar in all ways. If someone finds themselves "in love" then they could make some kind of argument based on that, but it wouldn't make the "but it would be legal somewhere else" argument any more compelling.

lopmotr 7y ago

While I don't know about this case, a common problem with people arguing right/wrong and legal/illegal is that one side picks right/wrong and the other picks legal/illegal and they talk past each other. If the law happens to agree with somebody's opinion, they'll use that to justify that they're "right" and if it doesn't, they'll use some higher moral standard and disregard the law. Sometimes it's obvious which the sensible choice to make is. If you're arguing whether the GPL allows linking to a proprietary library or not, then it's the law that's more important. But if you're arguing if sex with children is OK then it's some higher moral standard that's important and appeals to the law are essentially appeals to popular opinion as support of some moral standard. Luckily, people usually agree on what the law means, so they just have to make sure they're arguing about the same point that their opponent is actually making.

boring_twenties 7y ago

That is a poor analogy, because if you can't park where you want that is a moderate inconvenience at the very worst. If you find yourself "in love" with a 17-and-a-half-year-old, it's not so easy as finding another spot.

bad_user 7y ago
That's what you think happened here? You think Epstein felt in love? With a child being trafficked for sex?
- bscphil 7y ago
  Thank you for making this point. It's somehow been mostly lost in the noise of this thread that the main reason RMS's comments are so unacceptable is because he gave this defense (theoretical or not) of someone accused of having sex with a child trafficking victim. Not because he happens to have socially unacceptable opinions about certain corner cases in consent laws. Fortunately in this case, there's a very very bright line, and RMS was way over it.
  - kjeetgill 7y ago
    I mean, his defense was of Minsky, not Epstein. RMS believes that Minsky likely wasn't aware of of either her age nor the coercion so Minsky could hardly be blamed for not knowing. I haven't followed this too closely (except on HN) but I think that incident also predated Epstein's first trial (conviction?). I suspect (and really really hope) RMS wouldn't have such a defense for Epstein himself.
    - mtrower 7y ago
      RMS has in fact called Epstein a "serial rapist" and expressed that he should have received a much harsher sentence than he did.
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  No, of course not. That's why my comment didn't mention Epstein or sex trafficking, only the terrible comparison with parking regulations.
fenomas 7y ago
The point of an analogy is to be similar in some single illustrative way, not to be similar in all ways. If someone finds themselves "in love" then they could make some kind of argument based on that, but it wouldn't make the "but it would be legal somewhere else" argument any more compelling.