3 ms·

Did you actually read why professor Stallman was cruzified before writing your comment? There is, in my book, nothing to hold him accountable for.

DagAgren 7y ago
Maybe that is more a sign that you are long since overdue to update your book.
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  Instead of slinging borderline personal insults, would you mind pointing out what's wrong with my opinion?
  - DagAgren 7y ago
    Not really, since you have not stated an actual opinion, except to dismiss the whole issue from the start. That does not speak to a willingness to actually listen to any contrary opinion.
rkangel 7y ago
While I agree that a lot of this has got a bit blown out of proportion, there is one line by him that I find a bit disconcerting: > I think it is morally absurd to define rape in a way that depends on minor details such as what country it was in or whether the victim is 17 or 18 years old. [from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420... and I hope people will agree that this isn't misleading without context] Whatever your position on statutory rape ethically, it is nonetheless a crime in most countries with (as many laws have) an arbitrary cut off point. Which side of the road you drive on is an arbitrary choice, but I don't think most of us would defend someone who got into an accident because they forgot they were in the UK and drove on the left.
- lazylizard 7y ago
  Thus "morally". He's not really commenting on the legality of it?
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  I appreciate your honest response on a sensitive subject, thanks you. > I think it is morally absurd to define rape in a way that depends on minor details such as what country it was in or whether the victim is 17 or 18 years old. While I think it's a bit a matter of context the statement could as well be interpreted as: Rape is morally wrong! It doesn't matter the cultural context or the age of the victim (alas, it's certainly a valid argument that it's especially vile when minors are victims). I think the "morally" is really key here and while I can understand that you take offense with the statement I really feel it's a matter of interpretation. You can argue that as a leader he should have been more careful how he phrases such a statement. But it's a tall ask to engage in permanent self-censorship when you're even a slightly exposed public person.
  - DagAgren 7y ago
    It can be interpreted as "Rape is morally wrong", but the implied conclusion is "but this isn't rape so it's ok".

DagAgren 7y ago

Maybe that is more a sign that you are long since overdue to update your book.

CaptainZapp 7y ago
Instead of slinging borderline personal insults, would you mind pointing out what's wrong with my opinion?
- DagAgren 7y ago
  Not really, since you have not stated an actual opinion, except to dismiss the whole issue from the start. That does not speak to a willingness to actually listen to any contrary opinion.

rkangel 7y ago

While I agree that a lot of this has got a bit blown out of proportion, there is one line by him that I find a bit disconcerting: > I think it is morally absurd to define rape in a way that depends on minor details such as what country it was in or whether the victim is 17 or 18 years old. [from https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-09132019142056-0001.html#document/p1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420... and I hope people will agree that this isn't misleading without context] Whatever your position on statutory rape ethically, it is nonetheless a crime in most countries with (as many laws have) an arbitrary cut off point. Which side of the road you drive on is an arbitrary choice, but I don't think most of us would defend someone who got into an accident because they forgot they were in the UK and drove on the left.

lazylizard 7y ago
Thus "morally". He's not really commenting on the legality of it?
CaptainZapp 7y ago
I appreciate your honest response on a sensitive subject, thanks you. > I think it is morally absurd to define rape in a way that depends on minor details such as what country it was in or whether the victim is 17 or 18 years old. While I think it's a bit a matter of context the statement could as well be interpreted as: Rape is morally wrong! It doesn't matter the cultural context or the age of the victim (alas, it's certainly a valid argument that it's especially vile when minors are victims). I think the "morally" is really key here and while I can understand that you take offense with the statement I really feel it's a matter of interpretation. You can argue that as a leader he should have been more careful how he phrases such a statement. But it's a tall ask to engage in permanent self-censorship when you're even a slightly exposed public person.
- DagAgren 7y ago
  It can be interpreted as "Rape is morally wrong", but the implied conclusion is "but this isn't rape so it's ok".